The Report of the Iraq Inquiry

1062. Mr Pattison added that he was “reasonably confident that both Iain Macleod and

Jeremy Greenstock would have understood that to be the Legal Adviser’s opinion”.

1063. Asked if it was “strange” that the UK Mission in New York was finalising the

negotiation in ignorance of Lord Goldsmith’s position and thought that they had achieved

something which Lord Goldsmith said that they had not, Mr Pattison agreed.403

1064. Sir Michael Wood told the Inquiry that it was not clear to him that

Mr Macleod took a different view from himself; and that the differences between

their positions only crystallised when it became clear that a second resolution

would not be forthcoming.

1065. Mr Straw told the Inquiry that Mr Macleod took a different view to Mr Wood about

the effect of resolution 1441.404

1066. Asked whether Mr Macleod and Sir Jeremy Greenstock were aware during

the course of the negotiation of resolution 1441 of his view that the various drafts

did not authorise the use of force without a further resolution, and whether it was

recognised that there was a discrepancy between their respective positions, Sir Michael

Wood responded that he did not think that during the negotiation of resolution 1441

Mr Macleod had a radically different view of the essential legal position from that of the

lawyers in London.405 They were both clear that resolution 1441 in itself did not authorise

the use of force and that a second stage was needed.

1067. Sir Michael added:

“The only question was what precisely was needed at that second stage, which only

crystallised as a major issue following the adoption of the resolution.”

1068. Asked whether a difference of view had been recognised at the time, Sir Michael

wrote:

“… I do not believe that there was a significant discrepancy between the legal views

in London and New York during the negotiation of the resolution. Such differences

as there may have been seem to have arisen when it came to interpreting the

resolution as adopted, in the light of the preparatory work … and of the surrounding

circumstances.”406

1069. Asked to identify the consequences of failing to resolve the differences of view

during the negotiation, Sir Michael responded:

“Given (i) the limited nature of such differences as there may have been, (ii) the

fact that what mattered at the end of the day was the Attorney General’s opinion,

403 Public hearing, 31 January 2011, page 34.

404 Public hearing, 2 February 2011, page 66.

405 Statement, 15 March 2011, pages 8‑9.

406 Statement, 15 March 2011, page 10.

384