Nigel Morris: How Mr Blair and Mr Straw abandoned law for politics...
A picture emerged of warnings being brushed aside at the highest levels
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The three former ministers feeling the most intense heat over the legality of the Iraq war – Tony Blair, Jack Straw and Peter Goldsmith – are qualified lawyers. Mr Blair and Mr Straw abandoned the law for politics, while Lord Goldsmith combined both careers in his role as Attorney General.
The politicians' apparent determination to override the unanimous opinion of Foreign Office lawyers is the most dramatic disclosure so far at the Chilcot hearings, and Elizabeth Wilmshurst made no effort yesterday to disguise her opinion of her former political master's expertise.
Asked whether she believed Mr Straw's view had been influenced by his legal qualifications, she replied acidly: "He is not an international lawyer."
On the 31st day of hearings, a picture emerged of warnings that the invasion had no basis in international law being brushed aside at the government's highest levels.
Sir Michael Wood, the senior legal adviser at the Foreign Office, said his arguments were rejected out of hand when he advised Mr Straw that war could not be justified without a fresh UN resolution.
He told him in a memo two months before the war: "To use force without Security Council authority would amount to a crime of aggression." Mr Straw wrote back: "I note your advice but I do not accept it." Sir Michael said yesterday: "He took the view that I was being very dogmatic and that international law was pretty vague and that he wasn't used to people taking such a firm position."
His version of events provided a striking contrast to Mr Straw's portrayal last week of his "reluctance" to go to war and fears over its illegality. Documents released to the inquiry yesterday also made plain that Downing Street was left in no doubt over its lawyers' worries. Lord Goldsmith initially told Mr Blair's chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, that he was "pessimistic" that the legal basis existed for military action. But Mr Straw argued for a legal interpretation "which coincides with our policy intention".
Lord Goldsmith eventually reversed his legal advice just three days before tanks crossed into Iraq. Today he will face intense pressure to explain the factors that led him to change his mind. Without his legal approval, it would have been politically impossible for Mr Blair to win backing from the Commons for the invasion.
The former prime minister will be asked by the Chilcot team on Friday whether Downing Street bullied his Attorney General into line – or deliberately delayed seeking his advice. He will be challenged over Ms Wilmshurst's accusation that Number 10 treated winning legal backing for the war as secondary to pressing ahead with military preparations.
As for Mr Straw, who returns to the Chilcot inquiry next month, he will face questions over whether – despite his protestations to the contrary – he took the key role in removing the legal barriers to war.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments