5 |
Advice on the legal basis for military action, November 2002 to
March 2003
•
the views
of Mr Straw as expressed in his letter of 6 February 2003;
and
•
meetings in
the US on 10 February.
470.
Lord Goldsmith
described the purpose of his meeting with Sir Jeremy
as:
“… to get
first-hand from our principal negotiator at the United Nations
his
observations
on the negotiating history and on the text which had been agreed
and
his
understanding of what it meant, particularly to get his comments on
the textual
arguments
we had raised.
“ … It
doesn’t mean I follow it, but it is helpful to me … because if you
understand
what
somebody is trying to achieve, you can then often look at the
document with
that in
mind, and then the words which are used become clearer to
you.”186
471.
Lord Goldsmith
also told the Inquiry that Sir Jeremy:
“… was very
clear in saying the French, Russians lost and they knew they had
lost
… and his
argument was – that’s why the resolution is worded the way that it
is.
…
“… It was a
compromise, but compromise in this sense: that the United States
had
conceded a
Council discussion but no more.”187
472.
Lord Goldsmith
told the Inquiry:
“Sir Jeremy
had made some good points and he had made some headway with
me,
but,
frankly there was still work for me to do and he hadn’t got me
there, if you like,
473.
Mr Straw
told the Inquiry that his letter of 6 February to Lord Goldsmith,
was “really
the sum” of
what he had said.189
474.
Following his
meetings in the US on 10 February, Lord Goldsmith was
impressed
by the fact
that, in negotiating 1441, the US had a single red line which was
not to lose
the freedom
of action to use force that they believed they had before 1441, and
their
certainty
that they had not done so.
475.
Asked to
explain how the US belief that it had preserved its “red line”
had
influenced
his considerations, Lord Goldsmith told the Inquiry that all his US
interlocutors
had spoken
with one voice on the issue of the interpretation of
1441:
“The
discussion involved some detailed textual questions … On one point
they were
absolutely
speaking with one voice, which is they were very clear that what
mattered
186
Public
hearing, 27 January 2010, pages 75-76.
187
Public
hearing, 27 January 2010, page 77.
188
Public
hearing, 27 January 2010, page 89.
189
Public
hearing, 8 February 2010, page 30.
85