Previous page | Contents | Next page
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
Joint Occupying Powers
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
presence in Iraq.”267
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
Previous page | Contents | Next page