The Report
of the Iraq Inquiry
“Lord
Goldsmith stressed the importance of the purpose for which force
was used.
Although
regime change could not be the objective, it could possibly be the
means
by which an
objective was achieved (if the only way to disarm Iraq of its WMD
was
to change
the regime …).
“Lord
Goldsmith confirmed that he was satisfied with [the] existing
arrangements
for the
exchange of information with FCO Legal Advisers. The Foreign
Secretary
stressed
that you [Mr Michael Wood, FCO Legal Adviser] had his full
authority to talk
to Lord
Goldsmith.”
247.
Lord
Goldsmith was asked for his advice on the draft US/UK
resolution
on
24 September. He offered oral views to Mr Wood and
Mr Grainger on
27 September.
248.
On 24
September, Mr Wood wrote to Ms Cathy Adams, Legal Counsellor
in the
Legal
Secretariat to the Law Officers, with a copy of the draft
resolution which had “now
been
largely agreed with the US Government”.80
He stated
that Lord Goldsmith would
be “aware
of the context and background”.
249.
Mr Wood
reviewed the provisions of the draft resolution, focusing on the
question
of whether,
if it were not possible to agree the current draft text authorising
the use of
“all
necessary means”, the resolution would provide a legal basis for
the use of force in
the event
of a breach which was sufficiently grave to undermine the basis or
effective
operation
of the cease‑fire agreed in resolution 687 (1991) “on the ground
that it revived
the
authorisation to use force contained in resolution
678”.
250.
Mr Wood
wrote that the Government had “last relied upon this legal basis”
in 1998;
and that
“The passage of time has not changed the principle”. In his view,
if a resolution
could be
achieved which contained “an amended version … with ‘serious
consequences’
language it
would be an adequate legal basis for the use of
force”.
251.
Mr Wood
qualified that view by reference to advice set out by
Mr Grainger in
an internal
FCO minute, which stated that the military action authorised would
be
such action
as was necessary and proportionate to remedy a particular breach
in
the circumstances
at the time.81
252.
Mr Wood
stated that he “would be grateful for any advice which the
Attorney
General
[might] wish to give on the resolution as currently drafted, or on
any of the
possible
outcomes mentioned”.82
80
Letter Wood
to Adams, 24 September 2002, ‘Iraq: Use of Force’.
81
Minute
Grainger to Pattison, 23 September 2002, ‘Iraq Resolution: Draft of
22 September’.
82
Letter Wood
to Adams, 24 September 2002, ‘Iraq: Use of Force’.
246