Previous page | Contents | Next page
The Report of the Iraq Inquiry
293.  In relation to the policy the questions included:
Mr Peter Bradley (Labour) asked Mr Blair which was the lesser evil, allowing
more time for disarmament or dividing the international community “particularly
in view of the French President’s commitment to exercise his veto”. He also
asked for an assurance that he would resist US pressure while there was a
prospect of rebuilding the international coalition under the authority of the UN.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith, Leader of the Opposition, asked whether there would be
a vote in the UN and whether the US would go to war without the UK if there
was no second resolution.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Labour) asked Mr Blair to use all his efforts to tell President
Bush that we needed another UN resolution and that there was “no need for an
unseemly haste to war”.
294.  The points made by Mr Blair included:
He was doing “everything” he could “to make sure that the international
community stays united and that we achieve a second resolution”.
Although he had not complied for “many months”, there was still time for
Saddam Hussein to avert conflict.
The “worst thing that could happen” was for Saddam Hussein to defy the clearly
expressed will of the UN and for no action to follow.
It was the Government’s intention to seek a UN vote on a second resolution
“in a way that most upholds the authority of the UN”.
The UK “should not take military action unless it is in our interests to do so.
It is the British national interest that must be upheld at all times.”
In working “flat out” for a second resolution, Mr Blair said the UK was “looking
at whether we can set out a clear set of tests for Iraq … to demonstrate that it is
still in compliance – not partial compliance …”
“… not one Iraqi scientist has been interviewed outside Iraq”.
“Iraq should produce the unmanned aerial vehicles, which can spray chemical
and biological poison …”
“If we set out those conditions clearly, and back them with a will of a united UN,
we have a chance even now of averting conflict. What we must show, however,
is the determination to act if Saddam will not comply fully.”
Military action had been “delayed precisely in order to bring the international
community back round the position … set out in 1441”.
The “heart of the agreement” of the US “to take the multilateral path of the
United Nations” was that the “other partners inside the United Nations agreed
that, if Saddam did not fully comply and was in material breach, serious
consequences and actions would follow”.
It would “be a tragedy for the UN” if it failed “to meet the challenge”.
450
Previous page | Contents | Next page