Previous page | Contents | Next page
The Report of the Iraq Inquiry
application of force has been excluded; that would not be acceptable for the majority
of the Council’s members.”
492.  Argentina, Egypt, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan and Peru all asked to
participate in the discussion. With the exception of Kuwait, the statements focused on
the peaceful resolution of disputes as opposed to the use of force and their concerns
about the adverse consequences of military action for the people of Iraq, and for peace
and security in the region.
493.  Kuwait welcomed Mr Annan’s achievements but asked the Security Council to attach
the same importance to Kuwaiti issues, including the destiny of the detainees and prisoners
taken by Iraq in 1990-1991 who constituted one percent of the population of Iraq, as it had
attached to saving others in the region from the threat from weapons of mass destruction.
494.  On 5 March, UNSCOM inspectors returned to Iraq and successfully carried out a
number of site inspections.195 A baseline survey of the eight Presidential sites by a team
including senior diplomats was successfully carried out between 25 March and 4 April.
495.  During a visit by Mr Blair to Paris on 24 March, Mr Campbell recorded that, on
Iraq, Mr Blair and President Jacques Chirac were “in very different places, TB claiming
a success for diplomacy backed by force, Chirac basically saying we were killing
children through sanctions”.196
496.  In his report of 3 April, Mr Butler set out UNSCOM’s responsibility for reporting
whether Iraq had met the requirements set out in paragraphs 8 to 10 of resolution 687,
and that those reports were the “sole criteria” for assessing Iraq’s actions to provide
the basis for a Council decision on lifting the provisions of paragraph 22 prohibiting the
imports of commodities and products originating in Iraq.197
497.  Describing them as the “indispensible context” for the Council’s consideration
of Iraq’s compliance, Mr Butler set out:
“Iraq’s claim that it has no more prohibited weapons ‘in the control of the
Government of Iraq, in the territory of Iraq’”; and that it had “made available
… all that is necessary to enable the Commission to verify that claim and that
nothing further, of substance, will be made available by Iraq.
Iraq’s claim, which it had not been possible for the Commission to verify, did not
“satisfy the three step system the Council established in order to enable Iraq to
fulfil its obligations”. Those steps, which were “not separable” were:
{{full declaration by Iraq;
195  UN Security Council, 16 April 1998, ‘Report of the Executive Chairman on the activities of the Special
Commission established by the Secretary-General pursuant to paragraph 9 (b) (i) of resolution 687 (1991)’
(S/1998/332).
196  Campbell A & Stott R. The Blair Years: Extracts from the Alastair Campbell Diaries. Hutchinson, 2007.
197  UN Security Council, 16 April 1998, ‘Report of the Executive Chairman on the activities of the Special
Commission established by the Secretary-General pursuant to paragraph 9 (b) (i) of resolution 687 (1991)’
(S/1998/332).
112
Previous page | Contents | Next page