3.8 |
Development of UK strategy and options, 8 to 20 March
2003
effective
are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq … As so often in this
argument,
we look
at a profound ambiguity, which people interpret in different
ways.”335
955.
Addressing the
failure to secure a second resolution, Baroness Williams
added:
“Much of
the blame has been passed over to France. France has been
seriously
misinterpreted,
not least by our own tabloid newspapers … I am told by the
French
Embassy …
that France indicated it would veto a second resolution even if
there
were nine
members of the Security Council supporting it, but made absolutely
plain
this was a
judgement about timelines, not about Iraq failing to comply with
Security
Council
resolutions. In other words – surely, it is not too complex a
thought for us to
understand
– France believes that timelines for the inspectors were
unacceptably
short …
[and] would have supported the resolution if in its view the
inspectors
indicated
that there was no longer sufficient compliance with their work to
enable
them to
complete it in a satisfactory manner.
“Without
the second resolution the legitimacy of our actions will continue
to
be disputed.”
956.
In her
concluding remarks, Baroness Symons highlighted “the breadth
of
agreement
[during the debate] that the Iraqi regime is evil, cruel and has
palpably failed
to disarm
and meet a series of UN obligations placed on it”.336
957.
Baroness
Symons responded to a number of questions raised during the
debate,
including
on:
•
The threat
from WMD. Iraq had “thousands of chemical and biological
bombs”.
The 150
weapons inspectors “simply will not find the weapons of
mass
destruction
in a country the size of France”.
•
The
exhaustion of possibilities for a negotiated solution. France’s
position on the
second
resolution meant that negotiation was now “beyond our
reach”.
•
The
legality of military action. Divisions of legal opinion in
international law were
“nothing
new”. The Attorney General had had access to all information and
had
delivered a
clear view.
•
The legal
position of those engaged in conflict. Military action would take
full
account of
requirements and obligations of international law.
•
Whether
military action was the right response. The Iraqi people would
be
liberated
from a life of tyranny and repression and it was necessary for the
UN
to face up
to its responsibilities. It was the mission of the UK’s Armed
Forces
to “enforce
the will of the United Nations and the international
community”.
335
House of
Lords, Official
Report, 18 March
2003, column 147.
336
House of
Lords, Official
Report, 18 March
2003, columns 223-232.
571