The Report
of the Iraq Inquiry
928.
Other
Ministers whose responsibilities were directly engaged,
including
Mr Brown
and Ms Short, and their senior officials, did not see the
advice.
929.
At the
meeting on 11 March, Mr Blair stated that Lord Goldsmith’s
“advice
made it
clear that a reasonable case could be made” that resolution 1441
was
“capable of
reviving” the authorisation of resolution 678, “although of
course
a second
resolution would be preferable”. There was concern, however, that
the
advice did
not offer a clear indication that military action would be
lawful.
930.
Lord
Goldsmith was asked, after the meeting, by Adm Boyce on behalf of
the
Armed
Forces, and by the Treasury Solicitor, Ms Juliet Wheldon, in
respect of the
Civil
Service, to give a clear-cut answer on whether military action
would be lawful
rather than
unlawful.
931.
On 12
March, Mr Blair and Mr Straw reached the view that there
was no
chance of
securing a majority in the Security Council in support of the
draft
resolution
of 7 March and there was a risk of one or more vetoes if the
resolution
was put to
a vote.
932.
There is no
evidence to indicate that Lord Goldsmith was informed of
their
conclusion.
933.
Lord
Goldsmith concluded on 13 March that, on balance, the “better
view”
was that
the conditions for the operation of the revival argument were met
in this
case,
meaning that there was a lawful basis for the use of force without
a further
resolution
beyond resolution 1441.
934.
Mr Brummell
wrote to Mr Rycroft on 14 March:
“It is an
essential part of the legal basis for military action without a
further
resolution
of the Security Council that there is strong evidence that
Iraq
has failed
to comply with and co-operate fully in the implementation
of
resolution
1441 and has thus failed to take the final opportunity offered by
the
Security
Council in that resolution. The Attorney General understands
that
it is
unequivocally the Prime Minister’s view that Iraq has committed
further
material
breaches as specified in [operative] paragraph 4 of resolution
1441,
but as this
is a judgment for the Prime Minister, the Attorney would be
grateful
for
confirmation that this is the case.”
935.
Mr Rycroft
replied to Mr Brummell on 15 March:
“This is to
confirm that it is indeed the Prime Minister’s unequivocal view
that
Iraq is in
further material breach of its obligations, as in OP4 of UNSCR
1441,
166