Iraq invasion 'legal but not legitimate'
Updated on 27 November 2009
Britain's former ambassador to the United Nations tells the official inquiry into the UK's involvement in Iraq between 2001 and 2009 that although it complied with international law, the Iraq invasion failed to get majority support at home and around the world.
Once again a top diplomat has pointed the finger at Tony Blair over the Iraq war.
Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the British ambassador to the UN ambassador in the run-up to the Iraq war, told Sir John Chilcot's inquiry today that he was among those excluded from the talks between Blair and Bush in April 2002.
He revealed that he had threatened to resign over the possibility of going to war without a UN resolution, but said by March 2003 Washington was unstoppable.
Sir Jeremy told the official inquiry into the conflict that although it complied with international law, the invasion of Iraq failed to get majority support - at home, and around the world.
In his evidence, Sir Jeremy said he regarded the invasion of Iraq as "questionable legitimacy".
He said that in the run-up to war, while he was negotiating in the UN there were "noises off" – parallel discussions in Washington about military action.
Bill Bowring, a barrister and professor of international law at Birkbeck University, told Channel 4 News: "The legality of the war most certainly was not established within the security council.
"What is absolutely clear is that Resolution 1441 did not authorise the use of military force and everyone knew that perfectly well.
"On the issue of legality, most of the academic and professional experts are of the view that the war was not lawful.
"The fact that Elizabeth Wilmshurst, who was the deputy head of the foreign office legal advisors resigned with a very forceful letter and the preponderance of the view within the foreign office was that this was illegal.
"What changed was that the United States was putting on all kinds of pressure and there was, as we now hear, a private arrangement between Blair and Bush and the train became unstoppable despite the fact that there was so much advice that one simply could not do this.
"The issue of the commission of war crimes is still there in the background, so not simply the legality of the invasion and occupation as such but also the legality of what then took place.
"I think this is a classic situation where one has members of the great and good, and when one looks at their biographies on the website of the inquiry, that is who they are.
"There are two interesting sentences on the 'frequently asked questions' section of the website.
"They say 'Will the inquiry say whether anybody involved in the conflict should face criminal charges, will it be able to apportion blame?'
"The answer is 'It is not a court of law, the members of the committee are not judges, nobody is on trial. But if the committee finds that mistakes were made, that there were issues that could have been dealt with better, it will say so'
"I would say they are asking questions in a very gentle manner. What we have heard from Sir Jeremy today is nothing unexpected and in a way it is what we already knew.
"I would be quite surprised if people involved at that level, apart from Elizabeth Wilmshurst, and say 'actually we went into an illegal armed conflict'.
"I wouldn't write it off. Let's see what comes out and let's hope they go in a bit harder."
