Previous page | Contents | Next page
The Report of the Iraq Inquiry
Responding to points raised during the debate, Baroness Symons set out the
Government’s position, including by reference to previous occasions since 1991 when
force had been used in Iraq.305 She stated that resolution 1441:
“… provided for any failure by Iraq to be ‘considered’ by the Security Council under
paragraph 12. That consideration has taken place regularly since the adoption of
resolution 1441. It is plain from UNMOVIC statements … that Iraq has not complied,
as required, with its disarmament obligations. Whatever other differences there
may be on the Security Council, no member of the Council has questioned that
conclusion. It follows that Iraq has not taken the final opportunity offered and remains
in material breach …”
MR COOK’S RESIGNATION STATEMENT, 17 MARCH 2003
852.  In a statement later that evening, Mr Cook set out his doubts about the
degree to which Saddam Hussein posed a “clear and present danger” and his
concerns that the UK was being “pushed too quickly into conflict” by the US
without the support of the UN and in the face of hostility from many of the UK’s
traditional allies.
853.  Mr Cook set out the reasons why he could not “support a war without international
agreement or domestic support” and why, in order to vote against military action in the
House of Commons the following day, he had resigned from the Government.306
854.  Mr Cook applauded the “heroic efforts” of Mr Blair and those of Mr Straw in seeking
to secure a second resolution, but pointed out:
“… the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it was to succeed.
Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a second
resolution was of no importance.
“France has been at the receiving end of bucket-loads of commentary in recent
days. It is not France alone that wants more time for inspections … We delude
ourselves if we think that the degree of international hostility is all the result
of President Chirac. The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on
a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are
a leading partner …
“To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse. Only a year ago, we
and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism that was wider and
more diverse than I would ever have imagined possible. History will be astonished at
the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful
coalition. The US can afford to go it alone … Our interests are best protected not by
305  House of Lords, Official Report, 17 March 2003, columns 117-121.
306  House of Commons, Official Report, 17 March 2003, columns 726-728.
550
Previous page | Contents | Next page