[Media-watch] Aide quits over 'illegal' war - Sunday Times - 17/10/2004

Julie-ann Davies jadavies2004 at yahoo.co.uk
Sun Oct 17 09:09:22 BST 2004


 October 17, 2004

Aide quits over 'illegal' war
Richard Woods

A SENIOR official who helped draw up Tony Blair's dossier on weapons of mass 
destruction has quit in disgust over what he regards as the illegal war in 

Carne Ross, who was Britain's Iraq expert at the United Nations before the 
war, said he has resigned in "total disillusionment" with the government's 
behaviour over the conflict.

Ross, first secretary in Britain's delegation to the United Nations, was 
responsible for negotiating policy and drawing up resolutions as Blair and 
George W Bush began to prepare the case for war. He was involved in the 
initial preparation of Blair's dossier on weapons.

The resignation is likely to prompt new demands for Lord Goldsmith, the 
attorney-general, to reveal his advice to Blair over the legality of the 

Ross is understood to believe the evidence was "unambiguous" that Iraq posed 
little or no threat so the legal case for war was flawed. He and other 
officials are believed to have raised their concerns with ministers. Ross 
said yesterday: "I am happy to confirm that I resigned because of the war, 
but I cannot comment further."

He is the second senior Foreign Office official to quit over the war 
following the resignation of Elizabeth Wilmhurst, a deputy head in the 
Foreign Office legal department, in March 2003 because she felt the war was 

Blair claimed the war was legally justified because there was clear evidence 
Saddam had not disarmed and posed a serious threat. This argument has now 
been undermined by the official post-war report of the Iraq Survey Group 
which found Saddam had no such weapons.

Last week Ross declined to expand on why he resigned, saying he had been 
advised he might face legal action if he did so. He quit only recently 
because he was due to return to the Foreign Office from the UN as head of 
conflict resolution.

The government has refused to publish Goldsmith's advice in full, claiming 
legal confidentiality. Westminster insiders say the real reason is that 
grave doubts about the legality of the war persisted at the highest levels 
right up to the invasion.

"It is a major scandal," said one senior figure familiar with the details. 
"It has to do with the attorney-general's view, which was that the war was 
illegal. It's all been hushed up."

According to two sources, concerns first arose in 2002 when the Foreign 
Office legal department advised the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, that a 
legal case for war had not been made. When Straw disagreed, senior 
officials, believed to include Sir Michael Wood, head of the Foreign 
Office's legal department, as well as Wilmhurst, went to Goldsmith to ask 
him to intervene. Wood declined to comment last week.

Goldsmith was reluctant because, said more than one source, the 
attorney-general believed a war would be illegal. "But he didn't write it 
down," said one source. "He knew that the prime minister didn't want him to 
give a formal opinion at that stage."

Goldsmith continued to think there was no good legal basis for war, said one 
source, "until the beginning of March 2003 . . . when the guns were 
practically ready to fire".

Finally, on March 7, 2003 he sent a formal minute to Blair giving his 
opinion. The government later published a precis of his advice arguing war 
would be legal. However, sources said his full minute runs to up to 20 pages 
and contains "serious qualifications" that have never been revealed.

More information about the Media-watch mailing list