The Report
of the Iraq Inquiry
150.
Sir David had
also confirmed that the “basic assumption” was that Dr Blix
would
report any
evidence of breaches to the Security Council and:
“The SC
would then debate whether the reported breaches were serious or
trivial.
It would
then be for the Security Council, in the light of that debate, to
decide what
action
should be taken. It was noted that this would suggest that it was
expected
that the SC
would have to express its view.”
151.
Mr Brummell
recorded that Lord Goldsmith had agreed that the adoption
of
resolution
1441:
“… which
represented a ‘complex compromise’ had been a
considerable
achievement.
He thought that a key question arose in relation to the
interpretation
of OP4 …
What could the phrase ‘for assessment’ mean if it did not mean
an
assessment
as to whether the breach was sufficiently material to justify
resort to use
of
force?”
152.
Mr Brummell
also recorded that there would be “a full Cabinet discussion on
Iraq
some time
in the middle of January, i.e. before the Security Council met at
the end of
January”.
It had been agreed that:
•
Lord
Goldsmith would be invited to attend Cabinet “for this
purpose”;
•
it would be
useful for him to speak to Sir Jeremy Greenstock “to get a
fuller
picture of
the history of the negotiation of resolution 1441”;
•
Lord
Goldsmith “was not being called on to give advice at this stage.
But he
would be
giving further consideration to all these issues”; and
•
it “might
be helpful” if Lord Goldsmith “were to discuss a legal advice paper
in
draft with
the Prime Minister”.
153.
There is no
No.10 record of the meeting.
154.
Lord Goldsmith
told the Inquiry that he was concerned about what was meant
by
the
expression “for assessment” in OP 4, which seemed “to be an
essential issue”.55
155.
Lord Goldsmith
said:
“I wanted
to understand principally what was meant by ‘for assessment’, and I
also
wanted to
know what were the – what the answers to a number of other
textual
points that
I raised as giving rise to questions about what was meant by
1441.”56
55
Public
hearing, 27 January 2010, page 65.
56
Public
hearing, 27 January 2010, pages 65-66.
34