DOCSLIB.ORG

THE CBW CONVENTIONS BULLETIN News, Background and Comment on Chemical and Biological Weapons Issues

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
THE CBW CONVENTIONS BULLETIN News, Background and Comment on Chemical and Biological Weapons Issues THE CBW CONVENTIONS BULLETIN News, Background and Comment on Chemical and Biological Weapons Issues ISSUE NO. 86 FEBRUARY 2010 Quarterly Journal of the Harvard Sussex Program on Chemical and Biological Weapons A PERSONAL ASSESSMENT OF THE BWC PROTOCOL NEGOTIATIONS Ambassador (Ret.) Donald A. Mahley A number of articles – even books – have been written to (“Verex”) convened five times over two years and submitted analyze the negotiations toward a Protocol for the Biological a report whose adoption was the subject of the 1994 Weapons Convention (BWC) during the period from 1994 to Conference. The report mastered indecision: there was no 2001. The various works have researched extensively views consensus (and thus no recommendation) on how to of delegations, observers, and those responsible for managing accomplish verification of the BWC; nonetheless, each of and directing the negotiations. Their arguments, evidence, the 21 measures examined by the group was reported to and analysis provide some valuable insights into the kinds of have some characteristics that “could potentially strengthen problems that anyone contemplating pursuit of a legally- the BWC.” binding international instrument to control the actions of Such wording vexed the participants in the 1994 nations with regard to national security issues needs to take Conference. The issue was supposed to be whether the Verex fully into account. But some of the interactions and nuances Report formed a reasonable basis for initiating formal of those negotiations have either been ignored or downplayed negotiations on a legally-binding document to modify the because the observers believed their understanding of the BWC. (Whether this would be a Protocol, an Annex, or a motivations were too speculative. This short article will revision was a question that persisted into the negotiations.) attempt to raise some of those subjects, and perhaps to take The Conference was scheduled for two-weeks’ duration in a slightly different (some will argue more biased) look at Geneva. The ambiguous wording of the Report meant that some that inevitably are subjective and political. to reject the concept of negotiating a legally-binding document The last session of the Ad Hoc Group (AHG) was almost would require the participants in the 1994 Conference to reject ten years ago, and the international push to launch it focused the work done over two years by the technical group – and ten years before that. Twenty years is a generation or more the 1994 Conference participants (or at least the decision- in the career patterns of those holding responsibility for such makers) were drawn more from the political spectrum of security portfolios in governments, so perhaps recalling the their respective countries than from technical bodies. international context of the start of the negotiations is relevant, The United States faced a particularly difficult situation. at least to put the discussion in perspective. The US had long been the most skeptical country on the Formal negotiations began in 1995, following a special question of whether a formal verification mechanism could conference of States’ Parties in 1994 to establish the AHG. be devised for the BWC. (At the same time, the US was in But the impetus for a “verification protocol” to the BWC the forefront of charging various countries with violating their began earlier. In the aftermath of the 1979 anthrax event at obligations under the BWC by operating, or at least developing Sverdlovsk in the then-USSR and assorted intelligence the capabilities for, illicit covert offensive BW programs.) concerns about “rogue state” BW programs as alternatives The Clinton Administration, in a policy review prior to the to nuclear or chemical programs for “cheap” weapons of 1994 Conference, had subtly but significantly altered the mass destruction, a number of states decried the absence of overall US policy approach to international instruments on any “compliance or enforcement mechanism” in the BWC. WMD by declaring that it would be an objective of the Admin- As the NonProliferation Treaty (NPT) modified its safeguards istration to strengthen the BWC. This policy document did protocol to increase surveillance of nuclear facilities and the not propose a verification mechanism for the BWC – but it Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) negotiations made real progress toward agreement to include an extensive Invited Article by Don Mahley ............................... 1-5 verification mechanism, international clamor for a parallel BWC mechanism intensified as the 1991 BWC Review Invited Article by John Walker ............................ 6-11 Conference approached. Report from Geneva ......................................... 12-39 In 1991 the United States resisted the pressure for a straightforward agreement to commence verification News Chronology August - December 2009 ........ 40-73 negotiations outright, but agreed to the establishment of a set Forthcoming Events ............................................. 74 of international technical discussions to examine the feasibility Recent Publications ......................................... 74-78 of technological capability to strengthen the BWC. This group February 2010 page 1 CBWCB 86 did propose to strengthen the Convention, and that was what the globe where those chemicals either constituting chemical the wording in the Verex report had argued: that the proposed weapons or immediate precursors of chemical weapons are measures had the potentialto strengthen the Convention. manufactured. And, before the advent of microreactor So the question at the Conference quickly ceased being technology and when the target was national chemical whether there would be formal negotiations, and focused on weapons capability rather than terrorist chemical weapons what the mandate of those negotiations would be. Discussion capability (which can be both much smaller and less efficient), surfaced a fundamental difference among groups of states at batch production of enough CW or precursors was both the Conference, a fundamental difference that would remain expensive and created at least elements of a recognizable unresolved even in the final draft of a Protocol considered by footprint. All of this meant a reasonably affordable number the AHG in 2001. of reasonably competent CW inspectors could deter a One group of states, principally but not entirely Western proliferator, or at least make a successful clandestine program states, believed the negotiation was about a security extremely expensive and subject to penetration by interested enhancement to the BWC. There were significant differences national intelligence operations. among those states about what the content of any security- Contrast that picture to biology. There are no large-scale enhancing document should include, but all agreed the basic reactions or significant stockpile accumulations required for aim was to make the BWC a stronger instrument against the even a national BW program. Prophylaxis against infecting threat of biological weapons. The other group of states, the work force or the surrounding community can be primarily but not exclusively members of the Non-Aligned approached multiple ways with a low profile. There are no Movement, saw the negotiation primarily as one about potential catastrophic accidents of the magnitude of a Bhopal technology transfer: how advanced biological and (which was certainly not a chemical weapons accident, but pharmaceutical knowledge and technology could be pried away rather an indication of what can happen with those kinds of from those more developed states that were, in the eyes of chemical reactions even for peaceful and legitimate purposes), these developing states, monopolizing capabilities needed in or even necessarily like that of Sverdlovsk. Given the nature developing areas. The principle that disarmament instruments of both research and production, along with the explosive should not be perverted into a rationale for suppressing growth of legitimate civilian research, the number of facilities legitimate, peaceful development in the technology associated capable of handling BW-relevant materials is in the multiple with the document (e.g. nuclear, chemical, biological) had been thousands and expanding almost daily. Even assuming some enshrined in the basic Conventions, but the proponents of way to identify all such locations, to staff an international putting extensive means to “facilitate” technology sharing in organization with enough even reasonably competent the Protocol argued that the principles in the basic Convention inspectors to create an inspection probability able to function text were being too narrowly interpreted by those states as a deterrent would require a budget well beyond what any possessing advanced technology. nation or group of nations would (or even could) pay. If there had been no other significant stumbling blocks to The inherent ambiguity between natural disease and be overcome in the negotiations (and, in fact, there were a offensive BW creates another anomaly when compared with number of other obstacles), this schism, enshrined in the very the CWC. If one discovers Sarin, it is reasonable to conclude mandate of the AHG, would have made successful outcome there is a CW program there. If one discovers anthrax, is it of the negotiations nearly impossible. There was no way to BW or a prophylaxis effort against endemic animal disease? try to strike a consensus-based compromise between the two Probably
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Russia's Vision for the Middle East and North Africa
    Transcript Russia’s Vision for the Middle East and North Africa Mikhail Margelov Chairman, Committee for Foreign Affairs, Federation Council, Russia; Special Representative of the Russian Federation and President on Cooperation with African Countries Chair: Rt Hon Sir Roderic Lyne Deputy Chairman, Chatham House; British Ambassador to Russia (2000-2004) 10 December 2013 The views expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of Chatham House, its staff, associates or Council. Chatham House is independent and owes no allegiance to any government or to any political body. It does not take institutional positions on policy issues. This document is issued on the understanding that if any extract is used, the author(s)/ speaker(s) and Chatham House should be credited, preferably with the date of the publication or details of the event. Where this document refers to or reports statements made by speakers at an event every effort has been made to provide a fair representation of their views and opinions, but the ultimate responsibility for accuracy lies with this document’s author(s). The published text of speeches and presentations may differ from delivery. Transcript: Russia’s Vision for the Middle East and North Africa RUSSIA’S VISION FOR THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA Rt Hon Sir Roderic Lyne: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for coming in such numbers. I’m Roderic Lyne, I’m the deputy chairman here at Chatham House. This meeting, as I think you know, is being held on the record.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    INTRODUCTION Contents Establishing the Inquiry .................................................................................................... 2 Purpose of the Inquiry ................................................................................................ 2 Support to the Inquiry Committee .............................................................................. 3 Avoiding conflicts of interest ...................................................................................... 4 The Inquiry’s approach ..................................................................................................... 5 Initial meetings ........................................................................................................... 5 Issues not addressed by the Inquiry .......................................................................... 6 Hearings .................................................................................................................... 8 Written evidence ........................................................................................................ 9 Publication of the most sensitive documents .................................................... 10 Minutes of Cabinet meetings ............................................................................. 11 Communication between the UK Prime Minister and US President .................. 12 Legal Professional Privilege and the Law Officers’ Convention ........................ 13 Open source material .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Russian Hybrid Warfare: How to Confront a New Challenge to the West
    Russian Hybrid Warfare: How to Confront a New Challenge to the West Pasi Eronen June 2016 FOUNDATION FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES FOUNDATION Russian Hybrid Warfare: How to Confront a New Challenge to the West Pasi Eronen June 2016 FDD PRESS A division of the FOUNDATION FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES Washington, DC Russian Hybrid Warfare: How to Confront a New Challenge to the West Table of Contents Executive Summary � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �3 An End to a Largely Peaceful Post-Soviet Period � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �3 What Is Hybrid Warfare? � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �5 Understanding Russia’s View of Cyberwarfare � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �7 The Layers of Cyberspace � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �9 Other Components of Russia’s Hybrid War with the West � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �14 Policy Recommendations � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �15 Bibliography � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �18 Acknowledgements � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �25 Russian Hybrid Warfare: How to Confront a New Challenge to the West Technically, he was right
    [Show full text]
  • Tesis Gallina Versión Final Creative Commons.Pdf (1.500Mb)
    UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE CÓRDOBA FACULTAD DE LENGUAS MAESTRÍA EN INGLÉS CON ORIENTACIÓN EN LINGÜÍSTICA APLICADA THE DISCURSIVE CONSTRUCTION OF RESPONSIBILITY: STRATEGIES USED BY POLITICAL AND MILITARY WITNESSES IN PUBLIC HEARINGS TRABAJO DE TESIS PRESENTADO POR NATALIA GALLINA DIRECTORA Dra. ISOLDA E. CARRANZA CÓRDOBA MARZO, 2012 Esta obra está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 2.5 Argentina. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to my director and mentor, Isolda E. Carranza PhD., whose expertise, guidance and generosity added considerably to this study. My gratitude, too, to the Secretary of Science and Technology (SECyT) who provided financial assistance for this work. Finally, I a special thank-you to my colleagues, family and friends for the support they provided me at all times. I am indebted to all of them for their unconditional love, patience and encouragement. ABSTRACT From the perspective of current situated discourse analysis and the associated disciplinary strands of conversational analysis, narrative studies and critical discourse analysis, this study examines how political and military elite witnesses construct versions of reality in the context of the public hearing and argues for the contestable nature of such versions. This study draws upon a multimodal approach which views discourse as an inherently complex process and product involving various semiotic layers, particularly, language and gesture which are intricately interwoven. The examination of the data reveals the
    [Show full text]
  • The Durham Union
    the Durham Union Michaelmas Term 2016 President’s Welcome A warm welcome to Durham for both new and returning students alike. For freshers, this term will represent the opening of a new chapter in your lives. I remember well the mix of emotions that accompany your first few weeks at university. Just remember that everyone is in the same boat and there are far more daunting cities than Durham! Many freshers coming to Durham for the first time will have heard of the Union, others will have not. Whatever your subject and whatever your inter- ests we are your indispensable accompaniment to Durham life. Unique to Oxford, Cambridge and Durham, the Union Society fulfils several different functions. First and foremost we provide students with the opportunity to meet, listen to and engage with a diverse range of public figures. In the past we have hosted speakers from sportsman Jonathan Edwards to scientist Robert Winston to actress Imelda Staunton. We also host debates every Friday night, with celebrity speakers coming up to Durham to debate the pressing issues of the day. In addition we represent the university in competitive student debating and provide the chance for students to hone their skills in the art of debating and public speaking in our weekly debate training sessions. Finally we provide an important university wide social environment, independent of the colleges. We have our very own bar and clubhouse 24 North Bailey, conveniently located next to the cathedral in the centre of Durham. We host regular balls and socials, widely regarded as amongst the best in Durham.
    [Show full text]
  • The Eastern Question Russia, the West, and Europe’S Grey Zone
    The Eastern Question Russia, the West, and Europe’s Grey Zone Daniel S. Hamilton and Stefan Meister Editors Center for Transatlantic Relations Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies Johns Hopkins University German Council on Foreign Relations/ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik Daniel S. Hamilton and Stefan Meister, eds., The Eastern Question: Russia, the West, and Europe’s Grey Zone Washington, DC: Center for Transatlantic Relations, 2016. © Center for Transatlantic Relations, 2016 Center for Transatlantic Relations The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies The Johns Hopkins University 1717 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 525 Washington, DC 20036 Tel: (202) 663-5880 Fax: (202) 663-5879 Email: [email protected] http://transatlanticrelations.org Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik DGAP German Council on Foreign Relations Rauchstraße 17-18, D-10787 Berlin Tel: +49 (0)30 25 42 31-0 Fax: +49 (0)30 25 42 31-16 Email: [email protected] Funded by the ISBN 13: 978-0-9907720-9-5 Cover image: The Monument to the Founders of Kyiv, Fotolia.com Table of Contents Preface and Acknowledgements . .v Headline Summary The Eastern Question: Recommendations for Western Policy . .vii Daniel S. Hamilton and Stefan Meister Section I East and West in a New Era Introduction . .3 The New Era Daniel S. Hamilton and Stefan Meister Chapter 1 . .9 Eastern Challenges Daniel S. Hamilton and Stefan Meister Chapter 2 . .33 Western Dilemmas Daniel S. Hamilton and Stefan Meister Section II What the West Must Do 1. What the West Must Do with Russia . .41 2. What the West Must Do with the Common Neighborhood .
    [Show full text]
  • The Stationery Office Monthly Catalogue July 2016 Ii
    The Stationery Office monthly catalogue July 2016 ii The publications in this catalogue are available from: Online www.tsoshop.co.uk Mail, telephone and fax & email TSO PO Box 29, Norwich NR3 1GN Telephone orders/General enquiries: 0870 600 5522 Orders through the Parliamentary Hotline Lo-call 0845 7 023474 Fax orders: 0870 600 553 Email: [email protected] Textphone: 0870 240 3701 TSO@Blackwell and other accredited agents House of Commons bills - Session 2016-17 1 PARLIAMENTARY PUBLICATIONS HOUSE OF COMMONS PAPERS House of Commons papers - Session 2016-17 33 Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner: July 2016: review of directions given under section 94 of the Telecommunications Act 1984. - Interception of Communications Commissioner - Sir Stanley Burnton (Interception of Communications Commissioner). - Scottish Government papers 2016 67. - [4], 55p.: 30 cm. - Dated July 2016. A TSO version of a title previously published by HM Government. - 978-0-10-298979-3 £16.00 264 The report of the Iraq Inquiry: report of a Committee of Privy Counsellors: executive summary. - Iraq Inquiry - Sir John Chilcot (chair). - [3], 145p., col. ill., tables: 30 cm. - On cover: Return to an Address of the Honourable the House of Commons dated 6 July 2016. The Inquiry committee members were Sir John Chilcot (chairman), Sir Lawrence Freedman, Sir Martin Gilbert (to April 2012), Sir Roderic Lyne and Baroness Usha Prashar. A TSO version of a title previously published by HM Government. - 978-0-10-298961-8 £30.00 265 I-XII The report of the Iraq Inquiry: report of a Committee of Privy Counsellors.
    [Show full text]
  • About the Authors 525
    About the Authors 525 About the Authors Anatoly Adamishin is Honorary President of the Association for Euro-Atlan- tic Cooperation. He served as Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR from 1986-1990, as Soviet/Russian Ambassador to Italy from 1990-1992, as First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation from 1992- 1994, Russian Ambassador to Great Britain from 1994-1997, and Minister of the Russian Federation for CIS Countries Cooperation from 1997-1998. He was Vice President, International Affairs for “SISTEMA” Joint-Stock Fi- nancial Corporation, Moscow, Russia from 1998-2005. He served as a Guest Scholar of the Jennings Randolph Fellowship Program at the U.S. Institute of Peace in Washington, DC in 2006-2007. John-Michael Arnold is a Visiting Professor of International Relations at the George Washington University. He was a DAAD Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) during the 2018-2019 academic year. He holds a Ph.D from Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and his research interests include U.S. foreign policy, strategic studies, transatlantic relations, and NATO. During his doctorate, he was a graduate fellow at Princeton’s Cen- ter for International Security Studies (CISS) and he completed a pre-doctoral fellowship at the George Washington University’s Institute for Security and Conflict Studies (ISCS). Prior to enrolling at Princeton, he worked as special assistant to the president of the Brookings Institution. He also has a master’s degree in International Relations from Yale University and a BA in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE) from the University of Oxford.
    [Show full text]
  • GLOBAL STRATEGY FORUM Lecture Series 2015 - 2016
    GLOBAL STRATEGY FORUM Lecture Series 2015 - 2016 www.globalstrategyforum.org Professor Margaret MacMillan and Lord Lothian General Sir Peter Wall and Lord Lothian Sir Jeremy Greenstock and Lord Lothian Stephen Grey and Sir Malcolm Rifkind Rob Wainwright and Lord West of Spithead The 10th Anniversary Lecture: Lord Lothian and Lord Stirrup www.globalstrategyforum.org GLOBAL STRATEGY FORUM Lecture Series 2015 - 2016 3 www.globalstrategyforum.org 4 www.globalstrategyforum.org GLOBAL STRATEGY FORUM President Johan Eliasch is the President of Global Strategy Forum. He is Chairman and CEO of HEAD (the global sporting goods group), Chairman of Aman Resorts, Equity Partners, London Films and Co- Chairman of Cool Earth. He is an advisory board member of Brasilinvest, Societe du Louvre, Capstar, the Centre for Social Justice, Stockholm Resilience Centre, Foundation for Renewable Energy and Environment and a member of the Mayor of Rome’s and Jerusalem’s International Business Advisory Councils. He is a Patron of Stockholm University and a trustee of the Kew Foundation. He is the Founder of the Rainforest Trust which is conserving 400,000 acres of rainforest in the Amazonas. He was part of the Conservative Shadow Foreign Office team as Special Advisor on European Affairs (1999-2003) and responsible for foreign relations (2003-2005). He was Conservative Party Deputy Treasurer (2003-2007). He is the former Special Representative of the Prime Minister of the UK for Deforestation and Clean Energy (2007-2010). Chairman The Most Hon the Marquess of Lothian PC QC DL is the Chairman of Global Strategy Forum. He was first elected to Parliament as Michael Ancram in 1974.
    [Show full text]
  • 3 SIR RICHARD DALTON 4 SIR GEOFFREY ADAMS 5 the CHAIRMAN: Good Morning An
    1 Wednesday, 7 July 2010 2 (10.00 am) 3 SIR RICHARD DALTON 4 SIR GEOFFREY ADAMS 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Good morning and welcome to everyone and to 6 our witnesses. This morning we are hearing from 7 Sir Richard Dalton and Sir Geoffrey Adams, who were 8 successively Britain's Ambassadors in Iran between late 9 2002 and 2009. 10 I say on each occasion that we recognise that 11 witnesses are giving evidence based on their 12 recollection of events and we, of course, check what we 13 hear against the papers to which we have access and 14 which are we are still receiving. 15 I remind each witness on each occasion that they 16 will later be asked to sign a transcript of the evidence 17 to the effect that the evidence given is truthful, fair 18 and accurate. 19 With those preliminaries, I wonder if I could ask 20 each of you to give us a thumbnail sketch, if you like, 21 of the make-up of Iran's government and power structures 22 knowing that they are complex, but it would be helpful 23 to us to learn a bit about them. 24 Sir Richard, do you want to start? 25 SIR RICHARD DALTON: I think it is easiest to think about 1 1 the power structure in Iran as a series of concentric 2 circles. In the middle you have the hard core, the 3 source of authority, which is the Supreme Leader, and he 4 derives his authority from the theory that somebody has 5 to stand in for the hidden Imam of the Shi'ites.
    [Show full text]
  • The United Kingdom's Relations with Russia
    House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee The United Kingdom’s relations with Russia Seventh Report of Session 2016–17 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 21 February 2017 HC 120 Published on 2 March 2017 by authority of the House of Commons The Foreign Affairs Committee The Foreign Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its associated public bodies. Current membership Crispin Blunt MP (Conservative, Reigate) (Chair) Mr John Baron MP (Conservative, Basildon and Billericay) Ann Clwyd MP (Labour, Cynon Valley) Mike Gapes MP (Labour (Co-op), Ilford South) Stephen Gethins MP (Scottish National Party, North East Fife) Mr Mark Hendrick MP (Labour (Co-op), Preston) Adam Holloway MP (Conservative, Gravesham) Daniel Kawczynski MP (Conservative, Shrewsbury and Atcham) Ian Murray MP (Labour, Edinburgh South) Andrew Rosindell MP (Conservative, Romford) Nadhim Zahawi MP (Conservative, Stratford-on-Avon) The following Member was also a member of the Committee during the Parliament: Yasmin Qureshi MP (Labour, Bolton South East) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication Committee reports are published on the Committee’s website at www.parliament.uk/facom and in print by Order of the House. Evidence relating to this report is published on the inquiry page of the Committee’s website.
    [Show full text]
  • The Report of the Iraq Inquiry
    Return to an Address of the Honourable the House of Commons dated 6 July 2016 for The Report of the Iraq Inquiry Report of a Committee of Privy Counsellors Volume III Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 6 July 2016 HC 265-III 46561_10b Viking_Volume III Title Page.indd 1 21/06/2016 12:56 © Crown copyright 2016 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. Where we have identifi ed any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected] Print ISBN 9781474110136 Web ISBN 9781474110143 ID 23051601 46561 07/16 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fi bre content minimum Printed in the UK by the Williams Lea Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Offi ce 46561_10b Viking_Volume III Title Page.indd 2 21/06/2016 12:56 Volume III CONTENTS 3.6 Development of UK strategy and options, November 2002 to January 2003 1 3.7 Development of UK strategy and options, 1 February to 7 March 2003 177 3.8 Development of UK strategy and options, 8 to 20 March 2003 399 46561_10b Viking_Volume III Title Page.indd 3 21/06/2016 12:56 46561_10b Viking_Volume III Title Page.indd 4 21/06/2016 12:56 SECTION 3.6 DEVELOPMENT OF UK STRATEGY AND OPTIONS, NOVEMBER 2002 TO JANUARY 2003 Contents Introduction and key findings ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]