3.5 |
Development of UK strategy and options, September to November 2002
–
the
negotiation of resolution 1441
225.
Mr Straw
told the Foreign Affairs Committee on 25 September that a
new
Security
Council resolution was desirable but not essential.
226.
During his
appearance before the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC)
on
25 September,
Mr Straw was asked if existing Security Council resolutions
provided
a sufficient
legal basis for military action without a further
resolution.64
227.
Mr Straw
referred to his speech the previous day, adding:
“It has
never been the case that the only basis of international law [for
the use of
force] is
an extant resolution. Sometimes some people think it is and it is
actually
clear from
within the United Nations Charter itself that this is not the
case.
…
“… there
are various points in the Charter, which is one of the key bases
of
international
law, where the Charter itself refers to the inherent right of
individual
members. So
as far as this is concerned, the direct answer to your question is
no,
we do not
regard it as absolutely essential that there should be another
Security
Council
resolution. We do regard it as desirable. As to what legal advice
we
receive if
there is not a Security Council resolution, that frankly depends on
the
circumstances
at the time …”
228.
Mr Straw
added that the UK did “not regard it [existing resolutions] as
an
inadequate
basis” for action, but “a clear, new resolution” was “desirable,
not least
politically”.
But there was “ample power” in the existing resolutions and “ample
evidence
of a
material breach”.
229.
Mr Straw
emphasised the extent to which Saddam Hussein’s actions “in the
last
20 years”
posed a unique threat to peace and security.65
The UK
approach in relation
to other
proliferators was to pursue progress through diplomatic channels
for as long
as possible,
even if progress was slow, but it was impossible to do that with
Iraq.
230.
When
Mr Michael Wood saw the evidence, he reminded Mr Straw
that the use
of force
required express authorisation by the Security Council, which in
turn required
a further
decision from the Council, such as a finding of material
breach.66
64
Minutes,
Foreign Affairs Committee (House of Commons), 25 September 2002,
[Evidence Session],
Qs 21‑24.
65
Minutes,
Foreign Affairs Committee (House of Commons), 25 September 2002,
[Evidence Session],
Qs 34‑35.
66
Minute Wood
to PS [FCO], 4 October 2002, ‘FAC: Iraq: International
Law’.
241