3.8 |
Development of UK strategy and options, 8 to 20 March
2003
“I repeat
what British Ministers have made clear: any action which the
United
Kingdom has
to take in this matter will be in accordance with international law
and
based on
relevant resolutions of the Security Council.”
1019.
Sir Jeremy
stated that the UN had a central role to play “on Iraq and on
the
wider
issues associated with it” and he hoped that “with the active
contribution of the
Secretary-General”,
rapid progress could be made “on this crucial area”. Ms Short
was
in New York
to discuss humanitarian issues.
1020.
Sir Jeremy
concluded that the UK continued “to see an important role”
for
UNMOVIC and
the IAEA “in verifying the disarmament of Iraq and in carrying out
longer
term
monitoring”. He commended the inspectors for their “professional
work” and noted
the work
programmes and key tasks, but: “Equally” he noted that “without a
co-operating
Iraqi
government … it would never be possible to be confident of the key
tasks or of
making
progress against them”. The programmes should be kept under review
but a
“more
definitive” programme would be “possible when there is an
administration in Iraq
which is
prepared to co-operate fully, actively and unconditionally and when
there is
a secure
situation on the ground”.
1021.
Mr François
Lounceny Fall, President of the Security Council and the
Guinean
Foreign
Minister, deeply regretted that the Security Council had not been
able to
arrive at a
common position. Guinea believed “in the possibility of
safeguarding peace
and
attaining our common objective: the complete disarmament of Iraq”.
If armed
conflict
was “inevitable”, “appropriate steps … to spare the civilian
population and limit
the
destruction of the economic and social infrastructure” were
“desirable”. He was
determined
“to work together with other members to continue dialogue” which
was
“the only
way to restore unity”. That was “the very basis of the credibility
of the Security
Council”
and was “more than ever necessary in order to enable it effectively
to carry
out its
mission of preserving international peace and
security”.
1022.
Mr Aldouri
expressed his “appreciation” for the efforts made by Council
members
to find a
peaceful solution to the “current crisis”, which had been “created
by the United
States, the
United Kingdom and Spain, with the intention of launching a hostile
war
against
Iraq and occupying it under the pretext of the presence in Iraq of
weapons of
mass
destruction”. There had been “three or four discordant voices
calling for war”.
Many other
voices “responding to the international community and human
conscience,
as well as
to the principles of truth, justice and the Charter of the United
Nations” had
called for
peace.
1023.
Mr Aldouri
continued:
“For the
record, and for the sake of historical accuracy, as well as to
reassure every
State that
has recently made active efforts to maintain peace and to prevent
war, we
would like
to reiterate that Iraq no longer possesses weapons of mass
destruction.
The
presence of such weapons has been relegated to the past. Iraq
decided in 1991
to destroy
the weapons it had produced. That action stemmed from the
conviction
583