This note belongs with the last post. At the same time as U.N. weapons inspection reports of March 7, 2003 were demolishing the U.S.-U.K. case for war given forcefully before the Security Council by Colin Powell four weeks earlier, a secret memo by the U.K. attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, to then Prime Minister Tony Blair communicated ill ease with the legality of attacking Iraq without a specific resolution permitting it.
The whole story of what advice became the basis for action by Parliament authorizing the attack is quite complicated, as is the full, "real" memo. The memo and a news story about it from the period of Blair's 2005 re-election campaign is HERE. I posted THIS at the time.
Below is Lord Goldsmith's final paragraph from the complex 13-page argument.
ProportionalityIn other words, according to official advice from the U.K.'s highest legal council as of March 7, 2003, the invasion of Iraq was illegal because it was done before proscribed weapons were shown to exist (and they did not exist), and the purpose of the attack solely was for regime change, not disarmament. Punishing the attackers, however, will be quite a trick.
36. Finally, I must stress that the lawfulness of military action depends not only on the existence of a legal basis, but also on the question of proportionality. Any force used pursuant to the authorisation in resolution 678 (whether or not there is a second resolution)
- must have as its objective the enforcement the terms of the cease-flre contained in resolution 687 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions;
- be limited to what is necessary to achieve that objective; and
- must be a proportionate response to that objective, ie securing compliance with Iraq?s disarmament obligations.
That is not to say that action may not be taken to remove Saddam Hussein from power if it can be demonstrated that such action is a necessary and proportionate measure to secure the disarmament of Iraq. But regime change cannot be the objective of military action. This should be borne in mind in considering the list of military targets and in making public statements about any campaign.
ATTORNEY GENERAL
7 March 2003
Comments