Iraq - Misreporting Lord Goldsmith

Melanie Phiullips takes Simon Jenkins to task for misreporting Lord Goldsmith.

Now read what Lord Goldsmith actually said in his March 7 opinion. Having established that the UN Security council needed to discuss Saddam's alleged breaches, he then wrote:

'Whether a report comes to the Council under OP4 or OP11, the critical issue is what action the Council is required to take at that point. In other words, what does OP12 require. It is clear that the language of OP12 was a compromise by the US from their starting position that the Council should authorise in advance the use of all necessary means to enforce the cease-fire resolution in the event of continued violations by Iraq. It is equally clear, however, that the language does not expressly provide that a further Council decision is necessary to authorise the use of force.'' (My emphasis).

He also discussed the fact that other countries might not agree, that the language was ambiguous and that because therefore a court case might be held in which the UK might lose, a second resolution would be the safest course. However, he then said that provided there was strong factual evidence that Saddam had breached the UN resolutions:

'I accept that a reasonable case can be made that resolution 1441 is capable in principle of reviving the authorisation in 678 without a further resolution.' (My emphasis).

So he did not say the war would probably be illegal without a second resolution. He said that if there was evidence that Saddam was in breach (which there was, in spades) it would be legal. What Goldsmith actually wrote is therefore the direct opposite of what Jenkins claims he wrote.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------