| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| Adviser quits Foreign Office over legality of war |
| 2003-03-22 |
| A senior legal adviser to the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, has quit the Foreign Office because of a difference over the legal advice sanctioning the war against Iraq, it emerged last night. Elizabeth Wilmhurst, 54, deputy legal adviser, is understood to be Ta-ta, Lizzie. Her resignation will be "They're holding a going-away party for Liz the day after she leaves. You can ask them about it then." After a week of reported unease within the government about the legality of going to war without a second UN resolution, Lord Goldsmith on Monday published a condensed version of his advice to Mr Blair. But anti-war MPs and many lawyers suspect the full version may be more evenly balanced. He's a lawyer: of course it's going to be evenly balanced. Concern about the legal advice was expressed this week by two former Foreign Office legal advisers. In a letter to the Times, Sir Franklin Berman, legal adviser from 1991-99, and Sir Arthur Watts, legal adviser from 1987-91, expressed regret that the search for a second resolution had been abandoned. They said the onus was on the government to account "for their actions to the international community in whose name they claim to act". Tony did that nicely in the House of Commons. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #9 Paul, I have to believe that you are right. Even if it were all about oiiil.. those signs say it all! If I were Russia, I'd quick stab France in the back in exchange for some lucrative deals/contracts and a good long term relationship with the US. France has little to offer and has just proven (again) she's a worthless ally. The US makes a mighty one. Even if Russia does it for reasons of self-interest, rather than because "it's right", the world will be a better place. |
| Posted by: becky 2003-03-22 16:11:03 |
| #8 Becky---Your 12:09 post is well taken. What we need here is a change of consciousness. So the question is: if we stay the course and the US/UK et al (read: the willing and able) are reasonably successful at rebuilding Iraq, both physically and governmentally, can we build on this success? Will AOW and Russia finally quit whining and start changing their ways, even a little bit? I can't help but think that by setting a good example by deeds that we will slowly make things better. I keep thinking of those people in the Ivory Coast with their signs saying "US is better." |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-03-22 14:37:30 |
| #7 oops..meant to say you will hear the words "illegal war" |
| Posted by: becky 2003-03-22 12:12:44 |
| #6 Paul, you are right, but it's a game they will keep playing, because it keeps them in the game. you will "illegal war" or words to that effect in every statement from those who oppose us. If the war is "illegal" - then they Russia, France and Turkey can claim their contacts with Iraq are still valid. That's why they refuse to kick out their "Iraqi Ambassadors" as Ivanov made clear earlier. |
| Posted by: becky 2003-03-22 12:09:39 |
| #5 The UNSC unanimously voted for 1441 because the "serious consequences" did not actually say war or military force, though everyone knew it meant that. In typical UN fashion, they felt that it would go away. The facts discovered in the inspections showed a material breach kept forcing the issue and nobody wanted to take the heat except the US, the UK, Spain and a bunch of smaller countries with more cojones than the AOW. They are still playing games but it just amounts to smoke blowing out their collective asses. Now it is show time and they lose, and it is ironic, but the AOW and friends are beginning to see another version of "serious consequences"---for them. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-03-22 11:14:52 |
| #4 I really think ChIraq and his cohorts thought this legal wrangling was their ace in the hole. It wasn't until March 16th that the ruling "Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, said Britain is within its legal rights to launch an attack without a second resolution." Seconds after they received it, Britian made it clear they would join us for war. http://www.rantburg.com/?d=3/16/2003#11341 ) The very next day, Bush said he would not seek the UN vote on the war, Robin Cook quit his position and the UN started to behave in a somewhat strange manner, with Blix's bizarre decision to give his to-do list for weapons inspectors to UN (on the eve of war). Then, Mr Putin said a war without UN approval "would be fraught with the gravest consequences, will result in casualties and destabilise the international situation in general...The Kremlin's foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, said: "The use of force against Iraq, especially with reference to previous resolutions of the UN security council, has no legal grounds." Then that term, "gravest consequences" (ominously like "serious consequences") was bantered about for a few days as a threat. I really think that France, Turkey, Russia et al believed that between Turkey's eventual (and treacherous) refusal to accomodate us, and their belief that they could get legal rulings in both the US and British governments determining that the term in 1441, "serious consequences" did not mean "war".... they felt certain that the US would not be able to go it without Britian or the use of Turkey for a northern front. Thus, we would be forced to back down, without that second UN resolution which France would veto, even if we did get the votes. Thinking we would be forced to go home with our tails between our legs, ChIraq was certain he would be victorious with this ploy. He was wrong, and now he stands alone. And I bet Turkey and Russia are mad at France now that they didn't get the great aid packages they could have have if they hadn't been suckered into this little scheme. Now, from this article, it looks like they still intend to pursue this "doubts about the legal basis of the war" course of action. Either that, or they are resigning in mass because they gambled and lost. |
| Posted by: becky 2003-03-22 09:40:58 |
| #3 Yes, Hiryu, your advice would apply universally wouldn't it. The more-radical protestors in San Francisco and the French ambassador to the U.S. come to mind at the moment. |
| Posted by: Tom 2003-03-22 08:51:19 |
| #2 Better to quit than to hang around making a nuisance of yourself. If your convictions bother you that badly by all means leave, there is a certain honor in that. |
| Posted by: Hiryu 2003-03-22 08:27:09 |
| #1 Good riddance. |
| Posted by: RW 2003-03-22 06:05:44 |