Straw rejected Iraq legal advice
Jack Straw rejected advice in the run up to war that invading Iraq
without UN backing would break international law, the Iraq inquiry
heard.
Mr Straw's chief legal
adviser at the time, Sir Michael Wood, told the then foreign secretary
it would "amount to the crime of aggression".
But Mr Straw told him he was being "dogmatic" and that "international law was pretty vague", Sir Michael said.
Ministers used the attorney general's advice on the war's legality instead.
Lord Goldsmith, who is due to appear before the inquiry on Wednesday,
advised the government that force could be used legally without a
second UN resolution.
'Not authorised'
But the Iraq inquiry heard there were serious concerns about the way in
which the decision was reached among the Foreign Office's senior legal
advisers.
Elizabeth Wilmshurst, who resigned in protest days
before the invasion of Iraq, described the process as "lamentable" and
lacking in transparency.
She said it was "extraordinary" that Attorney General
Lord Goldsmith had only been asked for his opinion about the war just
days before British troops went into action.
Sir Michael - chief legal adviser to the Foreign Office
between 2001 and 2006 - said he believed the invasion did not have a
legal basis as the UN Security Council neither met to agree Iraq was in
"material breach" of existing disarmament resolutions nor explicitly
approved the use of force.
"I considered that the use of force against Iraq in March 2003 was contrary to international law," he said
Newly declassified letters published by the inquiry show Sir Michael
raised his concerns directly with the foreign secretary.
On 24 January 2003, Sir Michael wrote to Mr Straw
telling him the "UK cannot lawfully use force in Iraq in ensuring
compliance" on the basis of existing UN resolutions, including
resolution 1441 which gave Saddam a "final opportunity" to comply in
November 2002.
"To use force without Security Council authority would amount to the crime of aggression," he wrote.
In his reply, also published by the inquiry on Tuesday, Mr Straw said
he "noted" Sir Michael's advice but did "not accept it".
Assessing what would constitute a legal basis for war,
he said: "I am as committed as anyone to international law and its
obligations but it is an uncertain field. In this case, the issue is an
arguable one, capable of honestly and reasonably held differences of
view."
Mr Straw said he hoped to secure a further UN
resolution "for political reasons" but there was a "strong case" that
existing resolutions and subsequent Iraqi non-compliance "provide a
sufficient basis in international law to justify military action".
Asked about Mr Straw's reaction to his letter voicing
concerns, Sir Michael said the foreign secretary had told him he was
being "dogmatic and international law was pretty vague".
INQUIRY TIMETABLE
Tuesday: Ex-Foreign Office legal advisers Sir Michael Wood and
Elizabeth Wilmshurst will appear, as will former Foreign Secretary
Margaret Beckett
Wednesday: Former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, who advised ministers the invasion was lawful, will give evidence
Friday: Former Prime Minister Tony Blair will make his long-awaited appearance
He said Mr Straw also told him at their meeting that he had "often been
advised things were unlawful and gone ahead anyway and won in the
courts" when he was home secretary.
Asked by the inquiry about Mr Straw's analysis of the
legal position regarding the invasion of Iraq, Sir Michael told the
inquiry: "Obviously there are some areas of international law that can
be quite uncertain. This, however, turned exclusively on the
interpretation of a specific text and it is one on which I think that
international law was pretty clear."
He told the inquiry his advice had never been rejected by a minister before or since.
Mr Straw told the inquiry last week that his decision to back the war
was the "most difficult" of his career, describing it as a "profoundly
difficult political and moral dilemma".
The Lib Dems said Tony Blair and Gordon Brown must be
asked whether they were aware of the advice on the war's legality when
they appear before the inquiry.
"Michael Wood's statement is the final nail in the
coffin of the case for a legal war," said the party's foreign affairs
spokesman Ed Davey.
"We need to know just who saw this advice. Did it reach Tony Blair and Gordon Brown? And if not, why not?"
Attorney's advice
But Sir Michael said he had always made it clear that it was ultimately
up to Lord Goldsmith to advise ministers on whether war was lawful.
Just before the conflict began, Lord Goldsmith said in
a statement that authority to use force came from the combined effect
of existing UN resolutions dating back to the ceasefire after the Gulf
War.
Yet 10 days earlier he had told the prime minister "the
safest legal course" would be the adoption of a new UN resolution.
Sir Michael said there was a reluctance among ministers
to seek legal advice early on as the Iraq crisis escalated and that
Lord Goldsmith's ultimate conclusion "came in very late in the day as I
see it".
"It was unfortunate advice was not given at an earlier stage."
But former Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett defended Lord Goldsmith's
role, telling the inquiry she believed he had properly weighed up all
the legal arguments before coming to a final decision.
"I can't image any pressure he could be subject to that
could make him give advice that was anything other than what he
thought," she said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8479996.stm
Related Archive:
Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal, 1950