British Invasion of Iraq Was Illegal: Ex-govt Lawyer�������� : Information Clearing House -� ICH
By Alice Ritchie
January 26, 2010 -- LONDON (AFP) – The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was illegal, a former top British government lawyer told a public inquiry into the war Tuesday, three days before ex-prime minister Tony Blair appears.
"I considered that the use of force against Iraq in March 2003 was contrary to international law," Michael Wood, chief legal advisor to the Foreign Office between 1999 and 2006, told the Chilcot inquiry in London.
"In my opinion, that use of force had not been authorised by the Security Council, and had no other legal basis in international law."
Wood said he told ministers of his concerns but was brushed aside, and in the end the government's top lawyer, attorney general Peter Goldsmith, gave the green light for military action.
...
Goldsmith gave his approval just days before war, saying UN resolution 1441 passed in November 2002 provided a legal base for military action.
Some critics charge that he was pressured into this view, that the conflict was in fact illegal and Blair should be prosecuted accordingly.
Two weeks before the invasion, Goldsmith said a case could be made for war under 1441 but it would be "safest" to get a second UN resolution explicitly authorising force.
When attempts to achieve this collapsed, he gave the go-ahead.
But Wood said that 1441 made clear it was up to the UN Security Council to decide whether Saddam had complied with their demands -- not individual states -- and no such decision had been made.
Wood said he challenged the government's view in January 2003 after then foreign secretary Jack Straw told the US vice president Dick Cheney that it would be "ok" if no second UN resolution were obtained.
He wrote to Straw saying there was "no doubt" that without further Security Council action or any major developments, "the UK cannot lawfully use force against Iraq".
Wood said the minister brushed his concerns aside.
"He (Straw) took the view that I was being very dogmatic and that international law was pretty vague and that he wasn't used to people taking such a firm position," he said.
Wood's testimony supports that of his former deputy, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, who resigned before the invasion because she believed it was illegal.
At the inquiry Tuesday, Wilmshurst said all the Foreign Office lawyers had been "entirely of one view" and she believed Goldsmith was with them until he delivered his legal opinion on March 7, 2003. ...
Iraq war was illegal, top lawyer will tell Chilcot inquiry | UK news | The Observer
Foreign Office official's evidence the day before attorney general Lord Goldsmith appears will increase pressure on Tony Blair
Tony Blair's decision to take Britain to war in Iraq was illegal, the Foreign Office's former chief legal adviser will tell the Chilcot inquiry this week.
The Observer has been told that Sir Michael Wood, who was the FO's most senior lawyer, is ready to reveal that, in the run-up to war, he was of the opinion that the conflict would have been unlawful without a second UN resolution. This will provide an explosive backdrop to the former prime minister's appearance before the inquiry on Friday.
...A senior legal figure close to the discussions at the time told the Observer: "The advice that was given consistently in the Foreign Office [by Wood] was that war would be unlawful without a second resolution. The important thing is that Foreign Office advice was given consistently in one way, and then the attorney general, right at the end, gave advice to the contrary. That is what will come out."
...
But the question of the legality of war threatens to be the most damaging. Goldsmith is likely to be pressed on whether he was pushed into changing his mind by Blair and senior US officials. At the time, arguments raged on whether UN resolution 1441, which related to Iraq's ceasefire obligations from the first Gulf war, gave legal cover for military action. Because the consensus among lawyers was that it did not, desperate – and ultimately fruitless – attempts, led by Britain and the US, were mounted to win support for a second resolution that would have made the case watertight.
Whitehall sources have revealed that Goldsmith and Wood had worked closely on the issue of the legality of war. But in the days before invasion, Goldsmith abruptly changed his position, declaring that it would in fact be legal. "There was agreement. [Goldsmith] then went to talk to the Americans, the US State Department. And the Americans were very clear what they wanted and what they thought, and that is what changed his mind," said an FO source.
Wood's deputy at the time, former Foreign Office lawyer Elizabeth Wilmshurst, who resigned two days before the war because she believed the invasion was a "crime of aggression", will appear at the inquiry after Wood on Tuesday.
�Dutch Inquiry Finds Iraq War Illegal��� : Information Clearing House -� ICH
By Ann Talbot
January 23, 2010 "WSWS" - -A Dutch commission of inquiry has concluded that the US-led 2003 Iraq war was illegal under international law. The conclusion has far-reaching implications. Potentially, it could open up leading politicians and military figures in the US and Britain to prosecution for war crimes.
Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende of the Netherlands set up the Davids Commission in order to avoid a full parliamentary inquiry into the Dutch role in the invasion of Iraq. He headed the caretaker government at the time of the invasion and has rejected the report’s findings. The fact that a commission which was set up with the intention of producing a whitewash has had to come to such damning conclusions points to the weight of evidence that exists for the illegality of the war.
The attempt to maintain the lie that the war was legal is becoming increasingly difficult. The Dutch report entirely rejects the central argument used to justify the actions of the British government and claim that there was a legal basis for the invasion.
“The [UN] Security Council Resolutions on Iraq passed during the 1990s did not constitute a mandate for the US-British military intervention in 2003,” the report concludes. “Despite the existence of certain ambiguities, the wording of Resolution 1441 cannot reasonably be interpreted (as the government did) as authorizing individual Member States to use military force to compel Iraq to comply with the Security Council’s resolutions, without authorization from the Security Council.”
The report goes on: “The Dutch government’s often repeated view that a second resolution was ‘politically desirable, but not legally indispensable’ is not easy to uphold. The wording and scope of Resolution 1441 cannot be interpreted as such a second resolution. Hence, the military action had no sound mandate under international law.”
Unlike the ongoing Chilcot inquiry in Britain on the war, the Dutch team included legal experts. As Professor Philippe Sands QC, an expert on international law, has pointed out, their conclusion is significant for that reason:
“There has been no other independent assessment on the legality of the war in Iraq and the findings of this inquiry are unambiguous. It concludes that the case argued by the Dutch and British governments, including the then-attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, could not reasonably be argued.
“This is the authoritative view of seven commissioners, including the former president of the Dutch Supreme Court, a former judge of the European Court of justice, and two legal academics.”
The Dutch report will inevitably raise once again the question of the advice that Lord Goldsmith gave to the British government. Elizabeth Wilmshurst, deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Office, resigned in March 2003, claiming that Goldsmith had told lawyers at the Foreign Office that war against Iraq would be illegal. According to leaked documents, Goldsmith told Blair in July 2002 that regime-change was “not a legal basis for military action.”
In March 2003, Goldsmith warned Blair that he could be indicted under international law if he invaded Iraq without a second resolution. But days later, just before the invasion began, he made a statement in the House of Lords in which he claimed that the war was legal. ...
