WAS the US-British led invasion of Iraq illegal? For British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the issue is becoming both increasingly important and difficult.
In essence, until March 17, 2003, the British government’s top law officer, Attorney General Lord Goldsmith had been advising his boss that unless a second UN Security Council resolution was obtained specifically authorizing the use of force against Saddam’s regime, under international law, an invasion would be “a crime of aggression”. Ten days later he completely changed his mind and delivered Blair a legal opinion which averred that the invasion of Iraq would be acceptable under international law. What has always puzzled observers was what it was that could have changed between March 17 and March 27 that persuaded Goldsmith, a generally respected and admired lawyer, to reverse his opinion when the only actual change in events had been the realization that the Security Council was not about to authorize a US-led attack on Saddam.
International lawyers who have examined the circumstances minutely can detect no legal grounds for any review of Goldsmith’s legal advice to Blair. Indeed, the British Foreign Office, whose lawyers had warned about the illegality of an attack without a second UN resolution in no way changed its view. When Goldsmith made a 180-degree turn, the second most senior foreign office lawyer, Elizabeth Wilmshurst resigned in disgust.
It is her previously edited letter of resignation that has now reopened the issue, with the leaking of a missing paragraph confirming and deeply criticizing Goldsmith’s volte-face. From this it is clear that the attorney general’s original advice against invasion was a closely argued 13-page legal opinion, whereas his completely reversed opinion was little more than a single page.
Political opponents of the war are claiming that Blair leaned on his top law officer to provide him with the legal interpretation he wanted. Goldsmith has denied this but he has also contradicted a statement made by Blair last January that his second brief opinion was actually a resume of a far more detailed analysis of the legal niceties of invasion.
The British government is now under immense pressure to publish both pieces of legal advice, even though its chief law officer’s guidance, like that for a private individual, is normally treated as confidential. The administrator of the recently introduced Freedom of Information Act is currently examining both documents to see if their publication is in the public interest.
The matter, however, goes deeper than this. The British Parliament was persuaded to back the invasion both on the now discredited intelligence “evidence” of Saddam’s WMD and on the basis of Goldsmith’s legal advice. It was never told that the country’s most senior law officer had in fact changed his mind, nor yet why he had done so. All of this is bad news for Tony Blair as the UK prepares for a general election expected on May 5. Voter distrust of his leadership threatens to become a major electoral issue.
