Previous page | Contents | Next page
5  |  Advice on the legal basis for military action, November 2002 to March 2003
321.  During the interview Mr Jeremy Paxman challenged Mr Blair on a number
of issues, including whether Mr Blair would “give an undertaking” that he would
“seek another UN resolution specifically authorising the use of force”.
322.  Explaining his position on a second resolution, Mr Blair stated that “the only
circumstances in which we would agree to use force” would be with a further resolution,
“except for one caveat”. That was:
“If the inspectors do report that they can’t do their work properly because Iraq is not
co-operating, there’s no doubt that under the terms of the existing United Nations
resolution that that’s a breach of the resolution. In those circumstances there should
be a further resolution.
“… If a country unreasonably in those circumstances put down a veto then I would
consider action outside of that.”
323.  Pressed whether he considered he was “absolutely free to defy the express will
of the Security Council”, Mr Blair responded that he could not “just do it with America”,
there would have to be “a majority in the Security Council”, and:
“… the issue of a veto doesn’t even arise unless you get a majority in the Security
Council. Secondly, the choice … is … If the will of the UN is the thing that is most
important and I agree that it is, if there is a breach of resolution 1441 … and we do
nothing then we have flouted the will of the UN.”
324.  Asked if he was saying that there was already an authorisation for war, Mr Blair
responded:
“No, what I am saying is … In the resolution [1441] … we said that Iraq … had …
a final opportunity to comply.
“The duty of compliance was defined as full co-operation with the UN inspectors.
The resolution … say[s] ‘any failure to co-operate fully is a breach of this resolution
and serious consequences i.e. action, would follow’ … [W]e then also put in that
resolution that there will be a further discussion in the Security Council. But the clear
understanding was that if the inspectors say that Iraq is not complying and there is
a breach … then we have to act.
“… [I]f someone … says … I accept there’s a breach … but I’m issuing a veto, I think
that would be unreasonable … I don’t think that’s what will happen. I think that … if
the inspectors do end up in a situation where they’re saying there is not compliance
by Iraq, then I think a second resolution will issue.”
325.  Asked whether he agreed it was “important to get France, Russia and Germany
on board”, Mr Blair replied, “Yes … That’s what I am trying to get.”
61
Previous page | Contents | Next page