UK

Rain (AM and PM) 8° London Hi 9°C / Lo 3°C

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

By Michael Savage, Political Correspondent

Regime change – by force

GETTY

Regime change ? by force: a US tank passes a portrait of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad, 2003

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.

Post a Comment

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.

Comments

We've known this for years
[info]kc1920 wrote:
Monday, 1 February 2010 at 04:16 am (UTC)
I don't even know why you're even having this enquiry. blair will never admit to his war crimes. The facts speak for themselves.EVERYTHING any critic of the Iraq war has ever said about george bush and tony blair is true.


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
Re: We've known this for years
[info]quietzapple wrote:
Monday, 1 February 2010 at 08:12 pm (UTC)
Like people like you knew there were evil spirits focussed on witches?

Yep, like that.
BLIAR,BROWN, LIES, DECEIT AND WAR:
[info]bgarvie wrote:
Monday, 1 February 2010 at 04:24 am (UTC)
This demonstrates what a complete lunatic Bliar really is. This mad man planned for war for years with his dangerous cabal and simultaneously destroyed our economy,.. aided and abetted by henchman Brown. What a complete disaster. How on earth have they got away with these lies, deceit and madness for so long???????
This country really needs an urgent change of Government.
Re: BLIAR,BROWN, LIES, DECEIT AND WAR:
[info]largejack wrote:
Tuesday, 2 February 2010 at 10:56 am (UTC)
An urgent change of government won't help as the Illuminati will just stick their new puppets in power, hence Cameron. We need a new constitution based on truth, freedom and independence from the World Government.
Well, it confirms the incompetence theory.
[info]iankemmish wrote:
Monday, 1 February 2010 at 08:18 am (UTC)
I seem to recall that in 1999-2001, the general opinion was that, while everyone knew this was the State Department's favoured outcome, they had completely blown their chances of any Iraqi sticking their head above the parapet after hung the marsh Arabs out to dry earlier in the decade.

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 plan was drawn up earlier than that!
[info]hodgeey wrote:
Monday, 1 February 2010 at 09:05 am (UTC)
After the First Gulf War, the Iraqis were promised support if they rose up to oust Saddam. They did so, and were not supported and Saddam slaughtered them, primarily in the South.

The way was then clear for further demonisation of Saddam, to give the likes of Genghis Blair an excuse to invade.
Re: The plan was drawn up earlier than that!
[info]southerncannuck wrote:
Monday, 1 February 2010 at 05:52 pm (UTC)
Actually Sadam was a demon.
oil
[info]brinksman wrote:
Monday, 1 February 2010 at 09:49 am (UTC)
One word: oil. That's what it was all about.
www.millarcrime.com
Re: oil
[info]cossack1 wrote:
Monday, 1 February 2010 at 12:47 pm (UTC)
It has never occurred to you it could be about making Israel safer. Iraq, Iran and Syria are the targets for regime change. What will that tell you?
Re: oil
[info]littleglimmer wrote:
Monday, 1 February 2010 at 05:33 pm (UTC)
Ah. The old 'Axis of Evil'. And the 'war on terr'.
Who has the nukes?
Re: oil
[info]southerncannuck wrote:
Monday, 1 February 2010 at 05:52 pm (UTC)
You mean who has the nukes and isn't using them. I take it you trust Iran with nukes. I don't.
Re: oil
[info]littleglimmer wrote:
Monday, 1 February 2010 at 08:10 pm (UTC)
OK, so who is allowed to judge who has nukes and who isn't?
Re: oil
[info]southerncannuck wrote:
Monday, 1 February 2010 at 08:44 pm (UTC)
The good guys.
Re: oil
[info]littleglimmer wrote:
Monday, 1 February 2010 at 08:55 pm (UTC)
:-)
I thought so!
Re: oil
[info]migueljonas wrote:
Tuesday, 2 February 2010 at 12:22 am (UTC)
Regime change in the arab world - 22 countries, two in Palestine (Judenrein Gaza and Jordan) all bloody dictatorships and medieval kingdoms - well, it would make Israel safer, the world safer and........ The arab people safer. But apparently they don't value democracy and freedom, they need a dicator. Iraquis should thank the US, Britain and the other 40 coalition forces that freed them from that monster, a thief and murderer. But instead...
Re: oil
[info]migueljonas wrote:
Tuesday, 2 February 2010 at 01:05 am (UTC)
Oh, what will that tell me? That Iranians, Iraquis and Syrians would be very lucky to be free from their dictators, their oppressors. It would be a blessing. Can you imagigne, living without a thief / torturer / killer like Saddam (good riddance), Assad and the Ayatollas? Don't they deserve to live like us in the west, with democracy and freedom? Hope regime change will come to the whole muslim world!
Well surprise, surprise
[info]had_it wrote:
Monday, 1 February 2010 at 11:09 am (UTC)
I didn't think Bush/Blair were competent enough to have done advance planning. If this is true, the plan was either a really bad one or it was not followed competently, given the mess that resulted. I trust there are similar contingency plans for other targets - hope they are better plans that the Iraq ones.


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.
Re: Well surprise, surprise
[info]hodgeey wrote:
Monday, 1 February 2010 at 11:54 am (UTC)
Whining?

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.
Re: Well surprise, surprise
[info]ash1168 wrote:
Monday, 1 February 2010 at 12:14 pm (UTC)
SURPRISE SURPRISE, erm.. the american's don't control or own the oilfields, erm, nor does the UK (in fact the latter have only 1% stake in any of the involved consostiums..) in fact why don't you just admit it, you HAVE NO IDEA to whom the oil contracts were awarded, do you?

You just like your hippy idea that its an evil western conspricay. Talking out of your botty
Re: Well surprise, surprise
[info]hodgeey wrote:
Monday, 1 February 2010 at 12:51 pm (UTC)
The USA controls the oilfields through its puppet government. The oil contracts are designed to increase production by paying foreign oil companies to do it - mission accomplished.
Re: Well surprise, surprise
[info]ash1168 wrote:
Monday, 1 February 2010 at 05:25 pm (UTC)
Then you must mean, in the main, China. But they're the ones who've got the US by the balls. Well, flippin' heck, when you got your basic facts wrong, you end up with a dog's breakfast of an argument.
Re: Well surprise, surprise
[info]southerncannuck wrote:
Monday, 1 February 2010 at 05:50 pm (UTC)
Ah yes, you mean China and France.
Oil in Iraq
[info]had_it wrote:
Monday, 1 February 2010 at 12:46 pm (UTC)
Secured? How?
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.
Re: Oil in Iraq
[info]hodgeey wrote:
Monday, 1 February 2010 at 03:03 pm (UTC)
True. Saddam was willing to sell every drop sanctions would allow him to, but he wanted paying in Euros. That was another reason why he had to be murdered.
Re: Oil in Iraq
[info]had_it wrote:
Monday, 1 February 2010 at 05:41 pm (UTC)
Well, fair enough. No-one in the world wanted to pay with an over-valued currency, when they could pay with much cheaper dollars. (This includes Europe, China, India, Brazil and Japan.) For the US, it still would have been cheaper to pay in Euros and add a 10% premium than to invade. I think the pay-back period for the invasion and subsequent support won't be reached until after all Iraq oil is exhausted.

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.
Blair
[info]questionmarks1 wrote:
Monday, 1 February 2010 at 11:42 am (UTC)
Sir,

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
BLiar and his firends
[info]rcarlos1 wrote:
Monday, 1 February 2010 at 01:13 pm (UTC)
As a Spaniard who lost a relative in the 11M Madrid bombing, an attack which was a direct consequence of Aznar's decision to support the war against Irak, and also as a UK resident, I feel sorry for the thousands of English persons who, like me, were never asked wether Irak, one of the oldest civilisations on our planet, and a country which had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with 11S, should be attacked. I feel sorry for them having a prime minister like this bliar guy, the sort of guy we had in Spain, a miserly person just looking for his and his familiar interests, an individual who doesn't care at all for the people, nor in Irak, nor on his own country.

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!
Re: BLiar and his firends
[info]gerry3273 wrote:
Monday, 1 February 2010 at 02:46 pm (UTC)
Very well said. This is why the Labour and Conservative parties are no longer an option for me and many of the people I know.
Re: BLiar and his firends
[info]migueljonas wrote:
Tuesday, 2 February 2010 at 12:34 am (UTC)
Hey, Español: ..."one of the oldest civilizations on our planet". Maybe you are mistaking arabs (who invaded, coming from Arabia) with the Assirians, Babylonians.... People speak arabic in Iraq, not "Assirian" or "Babylonian". You know, they are the same people that invaded your Spain (and Portugal) and that you, spanish Catholics kicked out of Iberia after nearly 800 long years of occupation. Not one arab, not one inch of Iberia for them. "La Reconquista", what a beautiful, poetic name. Bu Mr. bin Laden, that nice arab, has already mentioned the Al Andaluz. So, vaccate Spain please, Give it to them, hypocrite.
WE CAN STOP BLiars like this.
[info]rcarlos1 wrote:
Monday, 1 February 2010 at 01:14 pm (UTC)
As a Spaniard who lost a relative in the 11M Madrid bombing, an attack which was a direct consequence of Aznar's decision to support the war against Irak, and also as a UK resident, I feel sorry for the thousands of English persons who, like me, were never asked wether Irak, one of the oldest civilisations on our planet, and a country which had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with 11S, should be attacked. I feel sorry for them having a prime minister like this bliar guy, the sort of guy we had in Spain, a miserly person just looking for his and his familiar interests, an individual who doesn't care at all for the people, nor in Irak, nor on his own country.

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!
Re: WE CAN STOP BLiars like this.
[info]southerncannuck wrote:
Monday, 1 February 2010 at 05:57 pm (UTC)
Your relatives were killed by Muslim extremist. The religion of peace followers. The ones that will inherit Europe and force Islam and Sharia law on you. The blame goes to the murderers, and not their "motives".
Re: WE CAN STOP BLiars like this.
[info]migueljonas wrote:
Tuesday, 2 February 2010 at 12:55 am (UTC)
..."This is the people that rule our countries". At least in Europe you can change the "rulers". The poor arabs, in their countries, can't. Twenty two countries, all bloody dictatorships or medieval kingdoms. No voting, sorry.
Ending the story
[info]lasvegasrich wrote:
Monday, 1 February 2010 at 04:54 pm (UTC)
Supporters of the Iraq War here in the States still claim that Saddam was dangerous, but that discussions to remove him happened after 9/11. This document shows that not to be the case. That Blair/Bush were planning this war before that terrible attack, and then built a scenario of how dangerous Saddam was so as to garner public support for the invasion.Shame on Blair/Bush and anyone who still supports their arguments.
9/11 false flag operation'
[info]someofusknow wrote:
Monday, 1 February 2010 at 05:01 pm (UTC)
'even before the 9/11 attack on New York. '

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?
Re: 9/11 false flag operation'
[info]southerncannuck wrote:
Monday, 1 February 2010 at 06:47 pm (UTC)
Since you seem to know, what temperature would have sufficed to weaken the steel supports in the buildings? How fast should they have fallen? Where, in you knowledgable opinion should the buildings have fallen?
Re: 9/11 false flag operation'
[info]someofusknow wrote:
Tuesday, 2 February 2010 at 01:09 am (UTC)
Fire ABOVE steel frames would have had no heating effect to speak of on the main support columns (and the girders were fcoated with asbestos -the real reason for the requirement for a demolition job)).

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.
It was all about petro-dollars
[info]saxonhawthorn wrote:
Monday, 1 February 2010 at 08:15 pm (UTC)
Saddam had started invoicing for Iraqi oil in Euros. This put the US into a flat spin; if he had been allowed to continue, and even more so if other oil states had followed him, banks around the world would have to dump Dollars and buy Euros, the Fed would have had to raise US interest rates to protect the dollar, and that would have pushed the US deeply into depression.

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.
Re: It was all about petro-dollars
[info]banjobailey wrote:
Monday, 1 February 2010 at 09:28 pm (UTC)
The decision to take out Saddam was being talked about within the Bush Adminstration RIGHT after they assumed power. Read Paul O'Nells book, "The Price of Loyalty", which, this man of good conscience published as soon as he could after he was fired by Bush. The main reason this all happened was because of OIL. Our political leaders are entirely beholden to those who "brung 'em" and that is big business, and in particular, big Oil. As Michael Jackson wrote a song about, "THEY DON't REALLY CARE ABOUT US". And, they don't. The GREAT WAR for CIVILIZATION continues. Robert Fisk is right most of the time about most things.
Re: It was all about petro-dollars
[info]ash1168 wrote:
Tuesday, 2 February 2010 at 09:59 am (UTC)
Well who does Wacko Jacko acre about? certainly not the emotional damage he caused to the kids he abused, after giving them 'Jesus juice" and showing them how to masturbate.

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...
Villains of a feather flock together
[info]sicnarfe wrote:
Monday, 1 February 2010 at 08:43 pm (UTC)
Superpower villains answerable to no one but their own consciences, except that sociopaths like Blair, Bush, and Cheney are devoid of what makes a human, human. They've deviously hauled their nations into illegal wars of aggression, ostensibly for reasons so patently false, yet those with a modicum of awareness understood that these criminals were sacrificing lives for natural resources - OIL.
Oil Contracts?
[info]bob_idle wrote:
Tuesday, 2 February 2010 at 12:37 am (UTC)
Contrary to what is stated in the article Oil Contracts aren't mentioned in this document.

Search for oil draws a blank.

Idiotic People
[info]graceneededhere wrote:
Tuesday, 2 February 2010 at 06:52 am (UTC)
Not sure that you all understand the nature of war of the American presidency. But Bush could not have planned any such thing before he became the president which wasn't until January of 2001. If anything, this proves that Bill Clinton knew during his presidency the dangers of Sadam and Iraq.

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.
Everything well planned!
[info]ubsyk wrote:
Tuesday, 2 February 2010 at 12:13 pm (UTC)
Not only because of oil!

With the right to rule, the US opens the
door for Monsanto and subtile imperialism:

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KHA501A.html
http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/20040426_CPAORD_81_Patents_Law.pdf


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.

Most popular in UK News



Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date