5 |
Advice on the legal basis for military action, November 2002 to
March 2003
358.
Mr Straw
responded on 20 February to Lord Goldsmith’s letter of 3
February,
acknowledging
that the substantive issue – Iraq – was being dealt with
separately,
and stating:
“For the
record, I want to make it completely clear that I fully respect the
integrity
of Michael
Wood and his colleague legal advisers. I believe that officials
always
offer their
best advice. At the same time Ministers must be able to raise
legitimate
questions
about the advice they receive. As far as the implementation of
Iraq
UNSCRs is
concerned, this is an uncertain area of law. The US, Netherlands
and
Australian
Government legal advisers all, I understand, take the view that SCR
1441
provides
legal sanction for military operations. The full range of views
ought to be
reflected
in the advice offered by our Legal Advisers.”137
359.
Mr Straw,
Lord Goldsmith and Sir Michael Wood all conceded that
this
correspondence
was unusual.
360.
Sir Michael
Wood told the Inquiry why he had felt it necessary to send his note
of
24
January:
“It is
something I didn’t normally have to do, but I did it quite
frequently during this
period. It
was because of the statement that he was recorded as saying to
the
[US] Vice
President [about Kosovo]. That was so completely wrong, from a
legal
point of
view, that I felt it was important to draw that to his attention …
[W]e had a
bilateral
meeting at which he took the view that I was being very dogmatic
and that
international
law was pretty vague and that he wasn’t used to people taking
such
361.
Sir Michael
emphasised that the meeting had been very amicable and
that
although it
was quite unusual to receive a minute like the one from
Mr Straw, he had not
taken it
amiss.
362.
Ms Wilmshurst
told the Inquiry that Sir Michael’s view that 1441 did not
authorise
the use of
force and that a second resolution was required was shared by all
the FCO
Legal
Advisers dealing with the matter.139
363.
Lord Goldsmith
told the Inquiry:
“I was
unhappy when I saw that [Mr Straw’s minute of 29 January], not
because
I thought
it followed that Sir Michael was right and Mr Straw was wrong
about the
legal issue
… but I didn’t like, to be honest, the sort of tone of what
appeared to
be a rebuke
to a senior legal adviser for expressing his or her view. I have
always
137
Minute
Straw to Attorney General, 20 February 2003,
[untitled].
138
Public
hearing, 26 January 2010, pages 30-32.
139
Public
hearing, 26 January 2010, pages 5-6.
67