9.1 |
March to 22 May 2003
400.
The Special
Representative was also given a role in promoting the economy
and
human
rights, and encouraging reform of the police and criminal justice
system.
401.
Sir Jeremy
Greenstock told the Inquiry that resolution 1483:
“Made it
appear that the Special Representative of the Secretary-General was
going
to be at
the apex of a relationship which, in truth, on the ground he was
not. He was,
as I saw
it, one of an equal triangle of responsibility, and the UN and the
UK were
subordinate
to the United States in terms of the physical presence on the
ground
of resources
and capability.”266
The
Preambular Paragraphs (PPs) of resolution 1483 contained statements
about
the status
of the members of the Coalition, noting the letter of 8 May 2003
from the
Permanent
Representatives of the US and UK, and “recognising the specific
authorities,
responsibilities,
and obligations under international law of these states as
occupying
powers
under unified command (‘the Authority’)”. The following paragraph
noted further
“that other
States that are not Occupying Powers are working now or in the
future may
work under
the Authority”.
Sir Jeremy
Greenstock told the Inquiry that the use of the phrase “Occupying
Powers”
had been
deliberate:
“… there
were people in Washington and, indeed, I think in London, who
didn’t
want any
mention of Occupation or Occupying Powers … and also the image
of
an
Occupation, which was obviously in the context of the Middle East
going to be
compared
with the Israeli Occupation of Palestine and, indeed, was by Al
Jazeera
and the man
on the street in the Arab world. And I remember advising London
that
it was
sensible to have a mention of Occupying Powers because that made it
clear
under what
body of international legislation we would be acting, and without
that
clarity, we
might be confused ourselves and our fellow Security Council
members
might
resist agreeing to a resolution unless there was a clear mention of
what the
status was
of the people in charge of the territory. And London and
Washington
decided
that they would be the two that took the responsibility for that
status of our
Sir Jeremy
explained to the Inquiry that he:
“… wanted
clarity of status, and … an incentive for us to make this period
of
occupying
in Iraq as short as possible … [because] it might make the
Americans
realise
what they were taking on, because it was inevitable that it would
be thought
of as an
Occupation, and I thought it was better to be realistic about this
than to try
to cover
it up, because you wouldn’t cover it up.”268
266
Public
hearing, 15 December 2009, page 44.
267
Public
hearing, 15 December 2009, pages 37-38.
268
Private
hearing, 26 May 2010, pages 42-43.
203