The Report of the Iraq Inquiry

836. Mr Straw told the House of Commons that the proposals submitted by France,

Germany and Russia for “more time and more inspections” sought to “rewrite” resolution

1441. They “would have allowed Saddam to continue stringing out inspections

indefinitely, and he would rightly have drawn the lesson that the Security Council was

simply not prepared to enforce the ultimatum … at the heart of resolution 1441”.

837. Mr Straw pointed out that “in the event of non-compliance” Iraq should, as OP13

of resolution 1441 spelled out, expect “serious consequences”. Mr Straw stated:

“As a result of Saddam Hussein’s persistent refusal to meet the UN’s demands,

and the inability of the Security Council to adopt a further resolution, the Cabinet

has decided to ask the House to support the United Kingdom’s participation in

military operations, should they be necessary, with the objective of ensuring the

disarmament of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and thereby the maintenance

of the authority of the United Nations.”

838. Mr Straw confirmed that Parliament “would have an opportunity to debate our

involvement in military action prior to hostilities” the following day; and that the debate

would be on a substantive motion “proposed by the Prime Minister and Cabinet

colleagues”. He also drew the attention of the House to Lord Goldsmith’s Written

Answer, which “set out the legal basis for the use of force against Iraq” and the

documents provided earlier that day.

839. Mr Straw concluded:

“Some say that Iraq can be disarmed without an ultimatum, without the threat or the

use of force, but simply by more time and more inspections. That approach is defied

by all our experience over 12 weary years. It cannot produce the disarmament of

Iraq; it cannot rid the world of the danger of the Iraq regime. It can only bring comfort

to tyrants and emasculate the authority of the United Nations …”

840. Mr Ancram responded that diplomacy was “at an end” and there was the “grim

prospect of war … because Saddam Hussein has contemptuously failed to take the final

opportunity … offered him”. There had been “a chance that a clear, unequivocal and

united voice from the international community might … have persuaded him to disarm

or to go. France put paid to that. I hope that in Paris they will reflect tonight on what they

have achieved.”293

841. Mr Ancram stated: “Saddam Hussein, in possession of weapons of mass

destruction, is a threat to international peace and security… including ourselves.

That is why we believe that action to disarm him can no longer be delayed.”

293 House of Commons, Official Report, 17 March 2003, columns 705-706.

546