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 …”
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