LONDON, Nov 27, The 2003 invasion of Iraq was “of questionable legitimacy”, Britain's then ambassador to the UN said Friday, adding he had wanted another six months of diplomacy before military action was launched.
Jeremy Greenstock said the United States seemed to be “preparing for conflict” despite British efforts to secure consensus following a UN resolution in November 2002 giving Saddam Hussein a last warning to disarm.
Greenstock was speaking on day four of public hearings at a wide-ranging inquiry into the US-led, British-backed Iraq war covering the period from 2001 to 2009, when most British troops pulled out.
Then British prime minister Tony Blair is likely to be the most-high profile witness and will appear in January. Current premier Gordon Brown could also be called, along with senior civil servants and military figures.
Greenstock's evidence hinged on the UN Security Council's stance on the war. Its resolution 1441 in late 2002 gave Iraq a “final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations” but the council did not ultimately agree a second resolution clearly authorising the March 2003 invasion.
This meant the invasion was “legal but of questionable legitimacy, in that it didn't have the democratically observable backing of the great majority of member states,” Greenstock said in spoken evidence to the Chilcot inquiry.
Asked if he had wanted another six months of diplomacy before military action was launched, Greenstock responded: “Yes, of course,” but highlighted that military concerns drove the invasion date closer. |
E-mail