Previous page | Contents | Next page
6.4  |  Planning and preparation for a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, mid-2001 to January 2003
as a work in progress, subject to the inclusion of an explicit reference to DFID’s lack of
financial resources to cover the humanitarian contingencies considered in the paper.367
733.  The substance of the paper was little changed from October, but a new introduction
made explicit reference to the need to consider the humanitarian consequences not just
of military action, but also of regime change without major military action and of Iraqi
compliance with UN resolutions.368 The paper stated:
“Most humanitarian planning is currently focused on the after-effects of conflict …
But UK ministers are clear that humanitarian planning should also consider other
contingencies and not assume conflict is the most likely, in line with current UK
policy objectives for Iraq which focus on disarmament rather than conflict or regime
change.”
734.  The paper also stated that DFID had begun informal contacts with UN agencies
and that wider contacts might follow the passage of a resolution, a UN decision to start
more active planning, or further UK Ministerial guidance.
735.  Ms Short told the Inquiry that she had spoken to Mr Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-
General, and Ms Louise Fréchette, UN Deputy Secretary-General, a number of times,
“sort of slightly breaching the No.10 ruling”.369 She believed that Mr Chakrabarti had
also done so. It was “very fraught” for the UN because of divisions within the Security
Council: “The UN prepared, but kept it quiet.”
736.  There is no indication that temporary restrictions on DFID’s contacts with
the UN and the US had a lasting impact on UK planning for post-conflict Iraq.
The Inquiry does not accept, however, that the political sensitivity of the UK
being seen to prepare for conflict while pursuing a negotiated solution to the Iraq
crisis should have interfered with discreet contingency planning for the possible
consequences of military action. It was necessary at all stages to consider and
prepare for the worst.
737.  At Ms Short’s meeting with officials on 21 October, Mr Fernie reported that the
FCO was not considering the possible humanitarian consequences of the use of WMD.
Ms Short identified that as an area of legitimate focus for DFID and commissioned a
paper for Mr Blair, to be produced, if possible, before 30 October.370
738.  On 29 October, OD Sec wrote to Mr Robert Lowson, DEFRA Director for
Environmental Protection Strategy, about oil-related environmental contingency
planning. The letter also asked whether there was “any official UK capacity, beyond
that of the MOD, to assist with CBW clear-up or in providing clean water in these
367  Manuscript comment Short, 4 November 2002, on Minute Fernie to Private Secretary/Secretary of
State [DFID], 4 November 2002, ‘Iraq: Contingency Planning: Humanitarian Paper’.
368  Paper UK Department for International Development, 5 November 2002, ‘Iraq: Potential Humanitarian
Implications’.
369  Public hearing, 2 February 2010, page 52.
370  Minute Bewes to Fernie, 22 October 2002, ‘Iraq’.
235
Previous page | Contents | Next page