Plan to oust Saddam drawn up two years before the invasion
Secret document signalled support for Iraqi dissidents and promised aid, oil and trade deals in return for regime change
A secret plan to foster an internal coup against Saddam Hussein was drawn up by the Government two years before the invasion of Iraq, The Independent can reveal.
Whitehall officials drafted the "contract with the Iraqi people" as a way of signalling to dissenters in Iraq that an overthrow of Saddam would be supported by Britain. It promised aid, oil contracts, debt cancellations and trade deals once the dictator had been removed. Tony Blair's team saw it as a way of creating regime change in Iraq even before the 9/11 attack on New York.
The document, headed "confidential UK/US eyes", was finalised on 11 June 2001 and approved by ministers. It has not been published by the Iraq inquiry but a copy has been obtained by The Independent and can be revealed for the first time today. It states: "We want to work with an Iraq which respects the rights of its people, lives at peace with its neighbours and which observes international law.
"The Iraqi people have the right to live in a society based on the rule of law, free from repression, torture and arbitrary arrest; to enjoy respect for human rights, economic freedom and prosperity," the contract reads. "The record of the current regime in Iraq suggests that its priorities remain elsewhere.
"Those who wish to promote change in Iraq deserve our support," it concludes. "We look forward to the day when Iraq rejoins the international community." A new regime was to be offered "debt rescheduling" through the Paris Club, an informal group of the richest 19 economies, given help from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund and handed an EU aid and trade deal. Companies were to be invited to invest in its oil fields. A "comprehensive retraining programme" was to be offered to Iraqi professionals.
During his evidence to the inquiry last week, Mr Blair said it was only after 9/11 that serious attention was given to removing Saddam as the attack changed the "calculus of risk". However, another classified document released by the Iraq inquiry on Friday night showed that No 10 explicitly saw the Contract with the Iraqi People as an early tool to remove the former Iraqi dictator. A memo issued in March 2001 by Sir John Sawers, then Mr Blair's foreign policy adviser, cited the document under the heading "regime change".
"Regime change. The US and UK would re-make the case against Saddam Hussein. We would issue a Contract with the Iraqi People, setting out our goal of a peaceful, law-abiding Iraq," the memo states. "The Contract would make clear that the Iraqi regime's record and behaviour made it impossible for Iraq to meet the criteria for rejoining the international community without fundamental change."
Officials planned to release the contract alongside tougher sanctions against Saddam's regime being negotiated in 2001. When no agreement was reached and the US began to seek more active measures to remove the Baghdad administration after 9/11, the contract was dropped.
The document was not released by the Iraq inquiry, despite being cited as significant by Foreign Office officials. Sir William Patey, the Government's head of Middle East policy at the time it was drafted, said it was "our way in the Foreign Office of trying to signal that we didn't think Saddam was a good thing and it would be great if he went". He said it was used in place of an "explicit policy of trying to get rid of him".
"It was a way of signalling to the Iraqi people that because we don't have a policy of regime change, it doesn't mean to say we're happy with Saddam Hussein, and there is life after Saddam with Iraq being reintegrated into the international community," he said.
Ed Davey, the Foreign Affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said the document called into question Mr Blair's evidence and should have been made public before his hearing on Friday. "A plan to back Iraqis seeking to oust Saddam may have been far less damaging and certainly more legal than what happened. Yet it shows that Blair's intent was always for regime change from an early stage and before 9/11," he said. "Yet again, it seems that critical documents have not been declassified, hampering the questioning of Blair and others."
* Tony Blair is to be recalled by the Chilcot Inquiry to give further evidence, according to The Guardian. It claims that Mr Blair will be questioned in both public and in private after the panel raised concerns that his evidence relating to the legality of the invasion conflicted with that given by the former Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited


Comments
bush planned this before he was even elected. Saddam Hussein did not have WMD, he had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and bush and blair knew it. Saddam was not plotting against the US and/ or the UK - quite to the contrary, he could care less about either. He knew our leaders would do more against our countries than any outsider/ terrorist ever could - and he was right. bush roped tony blair to cook up fake evidence to start the war and exceedingly stupid blair was only too happy to obey his master
Just follow the money. bush invaded Iraq simply to return favors to some of the companies that helped get them elected. The $$$$ political donors (BP, Shell, Halliburton,The Carlyle Group, Exxon, Blackwater, KBR, etc) were rewarded with $$$$$$$ contracts to rebuild Iraq and rape and pillage Iraq's natural resources. Just in Iraq alone, Halliburton is rakes in more than $7 Billion dollars a month just in Iraq alone
Yep, like that.
This country really needs an urgent change of Government.
The fact that they were still exchanging memos about it that late in the day simply shows that everyone involved was even stupider than we thought.
The way was then clear for further demonisation of Saddam, to give the likes of Genghis Blair an excuse to invade.
www.millarcrime.com
Who has the nukes?
I thought so!
PS: for those still whining on about the Iraq war being about oil: Unless you can tell me how the war gained a single drop of oil that was not ready to be sold willingly and more cheaply for the asking, you have not a scintilla of evidence for your misguided superstition.
The Iraq invasion and occupation is all about oil. The territory and oilfields are under control - mission accomplished.
Afghanistan is work in progress.
Next invasion will be Iran.
Then the rest.
You just like your hippy idea that its an evil western conspricay. Talking out of your botty
Oil was secure under Saddam. He was willing to sell the west every drop they would buy and if any of his citizens looked at oil sideways, he would shoot them or kill them with poison gas. If it was about secure oil, Saddam would still be in power.
If it was just about oil, Saddam would still be in power. The Iranian clerics are, as is Chavez. You think they may be next, but you wont find any nation willing to pay the price of removing them, despite the evil oppression they visit on their own people. And neither made any American President's dad look like a chump.
While a great number of people -I included- were monitoring Tony Blair's cross examination for titbits that would prove their pre-determined view of the invasion of Iraq -for or against- I ended with a frightening sensation of the worst to come to the ME and perhaps the world. The trigger was Blair's assertion that Iran ought to be dealt with in the same way as Iraq. Blair knows, or ought to at least- the difference between Iraq and Iran in terms of the strategic position of both states, and the ability of Tehran to wreak havoc if the intimidation process embarked upon by the 'West' and some in the 'East' was to be escalated to military action; direct or indirect (via Israel).
My worry, indeed my nightmare scenario is that Tony Blair knows all this, and still he persists; why?
If I were to answer my own question I would say, with a great measure of horror, that Tony Blair is an individual obsessed by an apocalyptic vision that pits him as a messiah ushering in the second coming. There is a world influential minority that advocates the nurturing of a major war in the ME as a precursor to Armageddon.
Regards
Blair worked after leaving Westmisnter for US Bank JPMorgan, one of those banks repsonsibles for this world economic crisis, and also one of those whose profits soared after the Iraki war. I know Aznar himself worked/s for Rupert Murdoch, Bush's close friend; Aznar's son in law has societies working in the construction (or reconstruction) in Irak right now. This is the people that rule our countries, and yes, this are the people who time after time get the vote of millions of citizens who do not benefit at all for supporting tese persons.
It is in our hands to change this. I have his morning alone seen at least three huge hoardings advertising politicians. It costs several thousand pounds to use just one. It costs millions to pay for the many they use. But they count with recovering that money because they cout with people voting for them. And I think tha's what we should change. It is literally in our hands. Do not vote these liars, none of them, not again!
Blair worked after leaving Westmisnter for US Bank JPMorgan, one of those banks repsonsibles for this world economic crisis, and also one of those whose profits soared after the Iraki war. I know Aznar himself worked/s for Rupert Murdoch, Bush's close friend; Aznar's son in law has societies working in the construction (or reconstruction) in Irak right now. This is the people that rule our countries, and yes, this are the people who time after time get the vote of millions of citizens who do not benefit at all for supporting tese persons.
It is in our hands to change this. I have his morning alone seen at least three huge hoardings advertising politicians. It costs several thousand pounds to use just one. It costs millions to pay for the many they use. But they count with recovering that money because they cout with people voting for them. And I think tha's what we should change. It is literally in our hands. Do not vote these liars, none of them, not again!
That should read 'even before the 9/11 false flag operation'.
Concrete and steel buildings do not fall down at free-fall speed (and in their own footprint) as a coinsequence of short-ived, low temperature fires.
The real question is: Was Tony B Liar party to the scam that the Bush administration set up, or was he just the village idiot who went along with it all for the ego trip?
If the n=buildings had fallen as a result of aircraft collision/fire they would have fallen asymetrically.
As it was, the demolition charges were clearly seen and heard by eye witnesses and are visible as puffs of WHITE smoke on video of the event (aviation fuel burns with black smoke and gets nowhere near the softening point of steel when starved of air).
The cost of removing the asbestos would have been prohibitive for teh building owner (Larry Silvertein) ... along with lost rental income. Far 'better' to take out double indemnity insurance against the 'unlikely' event of a plane crash just a few months before 9/11, then organise the 'unlikely plane crash. Notice building 7 was demolished even though no plane hit it and the fiure only burned for a shport time.
Everything official connected with 9/11 is a lie.
You'd think people would have woken up by now. But no, they still believe the lies that governments tell.
The simplest solution was to remove Saddam. Having made that decision, the next task was to think up a justification for doing it, and the US government achieved that by staging 9/11.
The US doesn't care who gets Iraq's oil, just as long as they pay for it in USD.
By the way, the decision by Churchill to take out Hitler was being talked about within the Churchill Adminstration RIGHT after they assumed power...
terrible isn't it...
Search for oil draws a blank.
I wonder if you all would be calling FDR or Churchill war criminals for freeing the Jews being persecuted in Europe. Or how about calling them war criminals for not wanting to accept the displaced Jews after the war. Get over it already! What's done is done and we are down one less lunatic dictator in the world. Now if we could just get rid of Ahmadinejad and Chavez.
It's easy to criticise our leaders when it has been four years in UK and nine years in the US since a major terrorist attack. I think you would be saying they didn't do enough if we had another 9/11 tomorrow.
With the right to rule, the US opens the
door for Monsanto and subtile imperialism:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KHA50
http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulation
Like in India, Mexico, the USA and elsewhere, Monsanto will still be there,
even if US troups someday should leave. And it will destroy local nature,
farmers and peoples health.
It's a shame. And I bet the troups will stay as long, as Monsanto has
full power, including an experianced Agriculture Minister from the mighty
Monsanto.