5 |
Advice on the legal basis for military action, November 2002 to
March 2003
consciously
and deliberately to focus on that question. I wanted it to be a
question
that he
would really apply his mind to. Forgive me for even suggesting that
he
wouldn’t
have done. That wasn’t the point. That he should have focused his
mind
on whether
there was, in fact, a failure, and that was the purpose of saying,
‘I want
this in
writing’, it was so there was a really conscious consideration of
that.”315
753.
Lord Goldsmith
later stated:
“I think
I’m saying two things. First of all, I wasn’t actually saying there
needed to be
a
declaration by him [Mr Blair]. I was saying ‘You need to be
satisfied. You need to
judge that
there really is a failure to take the final opportunity. You need
to judge that
on the
basis of the resources, the intelligence and the information that
you have got’
… This was
going to be a very controversial decision, whichever way it went.
There
would be a
lot of scrutiny. We had had sort of legal actions bubbling up
already.
So, ‘whereas
in the past a reasonable case was sufficient, you can expect a
degree
of scrutiny
on this occasion’.”316
754.
Lord Goldsmith
told the Inquiry that he had received Mr Blair’s view orally,
but
thought it
was important to have it in writing.317
755.
In his
statement, Lord Goldsmith wrote:
“I was
asking the Prime Minister to confirm that Iraq had submitted false
statements
or
omissions in its declarations submitted pursuant to the resolution
and had failed
to comply
with and co-operate fully in the implementation of resolution
[1441] so that
the
authority to use force under resolution 687
revived.”318
756.
In response to
the question whether Mr Blair could decide if Iraq was in
further
material
breach of resolution 1441, Lord Goldsmith wrote:
“No.”319
757.
Lord Goldsmith
added:
“Only the
Security Council could decide whether or not a particular failure
or set of
failures by
Iraq to meet an obligation imposed by the Security Council
resolution had
the quality
of being a ‘material breach’ of resolution 687.”320
315
Public
hearing, 27 January 2010, page 168.
316
Public
hearing, 27 January 2010, page 175.
317
Public
hearing, 27 January 2010, pages 210-211.
318
Statement,
4 January 2011, paragraph 5.1.
319
Statement,
4 January 2011, paragraph 5.2.
320
Statement,
4 January 2011, paragraph 5.3.
135