Previous page | Contents | Next page
11.1  |  De-Ba’athification
that the word “disestablished” should be replaced with “dissolved” or something with
the same meaning.
15.  Commenting on a subsequent draft of the text on 10 April, Mr Llewellyn explained:
“The paragraph dissolving the Ba’ath party is clearly important. But the word
‘disestablished’ does not really do the trick. That word is something to do with
removing an institution from the structure of the state, as I understand it. We should
say ‘dissolved’.”8
16.  On 11 April, during a video conference between UK, US and Australian legal
advisers, the US lawyers explained that they saw a need to disestablish the Ba’ath Party
and deprive it of all authority “in order for other things to happen as a result from the
legal and policy point of view”.9
17.  On 11 April, Mr Llewellyn circulated a first draft of guidelines for UK personnel,
in particular those seconded to ORHA, on the relevant provisions of International
Humanitarian Law (IHL).10 Under the heading “Removal of Officials”, it stated:
“Officials may be removed, although this should not be done arbitrarily. Clearly, the
Coalition will remove from office those who were members of Saddam Hussein’s
regime, and senior members of the Ba’ath Party if any remain. Other officials may
be removed where they represent an obstacle to administration by the Coalition, for
example because they pose a threat to security, are corrupt, unwilling to act under
Coalition administration, or will be intimidating for the population.”
18.  A senior MOD legal adviser to whom the draft guidelines were sent for comment
suggested that the guidelines should be more precise about what was meant by
“members of Saddam Hussein’s regime” and “senior members of the Ba’ath Party”.11
She asked whether it was likely there would be anyone who would fall into the first
category who did not also fall within the second.
19.  The Inquiry has not seen evidence that any discussion of the degree to which former
members of the Ba’ath Party might be entitled to participate in the Iraqi Interim Authority
(IIA) took place at the conference held in Nasiriyah on 15 April and attended for the UK
by Mr Edward Chaplin, FCO Director Middle East and North Africa.12
20.  There is a mention in one of the supporting papers, produced by the FCO’s
Research Analysts, of the need to establish whether members of Iraq’s popular councils
could be used in the selection of members for the IIA given that they had previously
8 Minute Llewellyn to Bristow, 10 April 2003, ‘Freedom Message to the Iraqi People’.
9 Minute [unattributed], [undated], ‘American Summary Points, Video Link: Friday 11 April’.
10 Minute Llewellyn to Rose, 11 April 2003, ‘Iraq: Guidelines on the Application of Laws of Occupation’.
11 Minute Rose to Llewellyn, 22 April 2003, ‘Iraq: Guidelines on the Application of Laws of Occupation’.
12 Letter Chaplin to Crocker, 17 April 2003, ‘Setting up the Iraqi Interim Authority: Issues for Discussion’
attaching Paper FCO, 2 April, ‘Post‑conflict Iraq: a “Baghdad Conference”’.
5
Previous page | Contents | Next page