No case for Iraq attack say lawyers Michael White and Patrick Wintour Friday March 7, 2003 The Guardian
Tony Blair last night faced fresh pressure to abandon the threat of war against Iraq when 16 eminent academic lawyers warned him that the White House doctrine of "pre-emptive self-defence" has no justification under international law. Not only do all the UN security council's existing resolutions on Iraq - including 1441 passed unanimously in November to enforce disarmament on Saddam Hussein - fail to provide such authority, there are currently no grounds for passing a new one to give the "clearly expressed assent" to a war that Mr Blair still seeks, the lawyers declare. In a letter sent to Downing Street and published in today's Guardian, the signatories - specialists who include James Crawford, Whewell Professor of International Law at Cambridge, and Vaughan Lowe, Chichele Professor at Oxford - also take a sideswipe at the prime minister for saying that he and President Bush would ignore an "unreasonable veto" in the security council. Noting that Britain itself has exercised the veto 32 times since the UN was founded in 1945, the 16 say "the prime minister's assertion that in certain circumstances a veto becomes 'unreasonable' and may be disregarded has no basis in international law" either. The 16 do leave themselves some wriggle room by pronouncing their verdict "on the basis of information publicly available" so that a major disclosure of Iraqi non-compliance with the UN weapons inspection - or other subterfuge - might change their stance. But US-UK dossiers have so far failed to persuade wary voters. Not content with telling Mr Blair that a second resolution is legally necessary as well as politically vital if Downing Street is to stem growing dissent among Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs, the lawyers, mostly British-based but of many nationalities, add a further sting. "A decision to undertake military action in Iraq without proper security council authorisation will seriously undermine the international rule of law," they say. "Of course, even with that authorisation, serious questions would remain. A lawful war is not necessarily a just, prudent or humanitarian war." That amounts to a blanket thumbs-down. The letter's signatories include six leading international lawyers from Oxford, three from Cambridge and three from the London School of Economics. Also among them are Professor Phillipe Sands, a member of Cherie Blair QC's Matrix chambers who teaches at University College London, and Professor Pierre-Marie Dupuy of the Sorbonne. The substance of the letter, however, is certain to be disputed by other senior lawyers. Some argue that, if 1441 is not deemed strong enough, resolution 678, passed in 1990, will be deployed by the US and UK to justify an attack. Mr Blair, himself a lawyer, again insisted he will only act in a manner consistent with international law when cross-examined by European young voters in an MTV TV debate yesterday. Some senior ministers have been alarmed that legal opinions circulated within the cabinet challenge the legality of the looming scenario for war, not least the prospect of a US-led reconstruction of a post-Saddam Iraq. It would be illegal, Whitehall lawyers say, without direct UN authority. The warning from legal advisers shown to ministers, including foreign secretary Jack Straw and Clare Short, the international development secretary, makes it clear why Britain has been pushing a reluctant US to bring the UN into running a post-war regime as soon as possible. Ministers and officials are acutely aware of the problem which has led to informal talks with UN officials to draft options. But they fear that Mr Blair is not pressing Washington hard enough. This adds to pressure to delay military action, now expected in the second half of March. In the MTV debate, Mr Blair implicitly acknowledged the problem when he stressed that Iraqi oil supplies would be placed under UN supervision, though he pointedly drew attention to Iraq's "outstanding debts and contracts" to France and Russia. Some Blairites say the debts explain the two states' attitude to war. Equally significantly Mr Blair appeared to admit that either - or both - could veto the resolution now being redrafted to win wavering security council resolutions. "If there was a veto applied by one of the countries with a veto, or by countries that I thought were applying the veto unreasonably, in those circumstances we would (go ahead)," he said. Aides later stressed that Mr Blair still expects to win the second resolution. A further sign of planning jitters emerged yesterday from a secret session at Westminster, where a UN official told the Commons international development committee that its financial resources for a proper humanitarian operation in Iraq are totally inadequate. Ross Mountain, director of UN humanitarian affairs, told MPs that 470,000 tonnes of food were available, with most Iraqis probably storing between only four to six weeks stock of food. He predicted the oil for food programme on which 60% of the Iraqi population are dependent will collapse when fighting starts.
