Gold9472
11-29-2009, 11:26 AM
Iraq invasion of 'questionable legitimacy': British diplomat
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jA6p8Y-VezcKOiJsIJoHmbEEWXhg
By Katherine Haddon (AFP) – 2 days ago
LONDON — The 2003 invasion of Iraq was "of questionable legitimacy", Britain's then ambassador to the UN said Friday, adding he had wanted another six months of diplomacy before military action was launched.
Jeremy Greenstock said the United States seemed to be "preparing for conflict" despite British efforts to secure consensus following a UN resolution in November 2002 giving Saddam Hussein a last warning to disarm.
Greenstock was speaking on day four of public hearings at a wide-ranging inquiry into the US-led, British-backed Iraq war covering the period from 2001 to 2009, when most British troops pulled out.
Then British prime minister Tony Blair is likely to be the most-high profile witness and will appear in January. Current premier Gordon Brown could also be called, along with senior civil servants and military figures.
Greenstock's evidence hinged on the UN Security Council's stance on the war.
Its resolution 1441 in late 2002 gave Iraq a "final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" but the council did not ultimately agree a second resolution clearly authorising the March 2003 invasion.
This meant the invasion was "legal but of questionable legitimacy, in that it didn't have the democratically observable backing of the great majority of member states," Greenstock said in spoken evidence to the Chilcot inquiry.
Asked if he had wanted another six months of diplomacy before military action was launched, Greenstock responded: "Yes, of course," but highlighted that military concerns drove the invasion date closer.
"It seemed to be a factor in the military preparation that the US at least did not want to start a military operation in the summer months," he said.
"You didn't easily start military operations in the summer months because your soldiers are not conditioned to that."
Leaving military action longer may have made it "more possible" that a vital "smoking gun" of weapons of mass destruction could be found in Iraq, he said.
But he judged there was "more than a 50 percent chance" that inspectors would not have "found a satisfactory solution" in the extra six months.
Given more time, an "undisputed" legal basis for a war could have been found, Greenstock said, adding that extra time could also "possibly" have prevented military action.
Although Greenstock said that the "whole saga" was, for Britain, "about (Iraq's) possession of weapons of mass destruction and nothing else", these were never found in Iraq.
The first UN resolution, 1441, was "equivocal" on what should happen if Iraq did not comply with international demands and, although Britain tried to resolve some of its ambiguities, this was hindered by the US, Greenstock said.
"The UK's attempt to reconstitute a consensus had only a slim prospect of success, made slimmer by the recognition by everyone else following events closely that the US was not proactively supportive of the UK's efforts and seemed to be preparing for conflict whatever the UK decided to do," Greenstock said in a written statement also submitted to the inquiry.
"These 'noises off' were decidedly unhelpful to what I was trying to do in New York."
His written statement also revealed Greenstock, Britain's ambassador to the UN between 1998 and 2003, considered resigning if there was no resolution clearly backing military action.
"I myself warned the Foreign Office in October that I might have to consider my own position if that was the way things went," he said.
The inquiry, Britain's third related to the conflict, is looking at its role in Iraq between 2001 and 2009, when nearly all its troops withdrew.
The committee will report by the end of 2010.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jA6p8Y-VezcKOiJsIJoHmbEEWXhg
By Katherine Haddon (AFP) – 2 days ago
LONDON — The 2003 invasion of Iraq was "of questionable legitimacy", Britain's then ambassador to the UN said Friday, adding he had wanted another six months of diplomacy before military action was launched.
Jeremy Greenstock said the United States seemed to be "preparing for conflict" despite British efforts to secure consensus following a UN resolution in November 2002 giving Saddam Hussein a last warning to disarm.
Greenstock was speaking on day four of public hearings at a wide-ranging inquiry into the US-led, British-backed Iraq war covering the period from 2001 to 2009, when most British troops pulled out.
Then British prime minister Tony Blair is likely to be the most-high profile witness and will appear in January. Current premier Gordon Brown could also be called, along with senior civil servants and military figures.
Greenstock's evidence hinged on the UN Security Council's stance on the war.
Its resolution 1441 in late 2002 gave Iraq a "final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" but the council did not ultimately agree a second resolution clearly authorising the March 2003 invasion.
This meant the invasion was "legal but of questionable legitimacy, in that it didn't have the democratically observable backing of the great majority of member states," Greenstock said in spoken evidence to the Chilcot inquiry.
Asked if he had wanted another six months of diplomacy before military action was launched, Greenstock responded: "Yes, of course," but highlighted that military concerns drove the invasion date closer.
"It seemed to be a factor in the military preparation that the US at least did not want to start a military operation in the summer months," he said.
"You didn't easily start military operations in the summer months because your soldiers are not conditioned to that."
Leaving military action longer may have made it "more possible" that a vital "smoking gun" of weapons of mass destruction could be found in Iraq, he said.
But he judged there was "more than a 50 percent chance" that inspectors would not have "found a satisfactory solution" in the extra six months.
Given more time, an "undisputed" legal basis for a war could have been found, Greenstock said, adding that extra time could also "possibly" have prevented military action.
Although Greenstock said that the "whole saga" was, for Britain, "about (Iraq's) possession of weapons of mass destruction and nothing else", these were never found in Iraq.
The first UN resolution, 1441, was "equivocal" on what should happen if Iraq did not comply with international demands and, although Britain tried to resolve some of its ambiguities, this was hindered by the US, Greenstock said.
"The UK's attempt to reconstitute a consensus had only a slim prospect of success, made slimmer by the recognition by everyone else following events closely that the US was not proactively supportive of the UK's efforts and seemed to be preparing for conflict whatever the UK decided to do," Greenstock said in a written statement also submitted to the inquiry.
"These 'noises off' were decidedly unhelpful to what I was trying to do in New York."
His written statement also revealed Greenstock, Britain's ambassador to the UN between 1998 and 2003, considered resigning if there was no resolution clearly backing military action.
"I myself warned the Foreign Office in October that I might have to consider my own position if that was the way things went," he said.
The inquiry, Britain's third related to the conflict, is looking at its role in Iraq between 2001 and 2009, when nearly all its troops withdrew.
The committee will report by the end of 2010.