"I regard our participation in the military action in Iraq in March 2003 as legal but of questionable legitimacy in that it did not have the democratically observable backing of the great majority of member states, or even perhaps of the majority of people inside the UK," he said. Sir Jeremy said he warned the Foreign Office that he was prepared to resign as ambassador to the UN in New York unless there was at least one new Security Council resolution justifying military action. He said that he did not believe that Britain and the United States could simply say that Iraq was in breach of old resolutions dating back to the 1991 Gulf War requiring Saddam Hussein to give up his weapons of mass destruction. "I regarded it as necessary politically and legally to have a new resolution - or at least one new resolution. There had to be a new declaration by the Security Council that Iraq was in material breach," he said. "Because there were different views in Washington as to what they were trying to do with this draft resolution, I wanted to make it clear that if this was just a Potemkin (artificial) exercise in going to the United Nations, I didn't want to be a part of it. "Therefore, I said I might not be able to continue as ambassador in New York if there was no further updated basis for Iraq as being in material breach."
"I regard our participation in the military action in Iraq in March 2003 as legal but of questionable legitimacy in that it did not have the democratically observable backing of the great majority of member states, or even perhaps of the majority of people inside the UK," he said.
Sir Jeremy said he warned the Foreign Office that he was prepared to resign as ambassador to the UN in New York unless there was at least one new Security Council resolution justifying military action.
He said that he did not believe that Britain and the United States could simply say that Iraq was in breach of old resolutions dating back to the 1991 Gulf War requiring Saddam Hussein to give up his weapons of mass destruction.
"I regarded it as necessary politically and legally to have a new resolution - or at least one new resolution. There had to be a new declaration by the Security Council that Iraq was in material breach," he said.
"Because there were different views in Washington as to what they were trying to do with this draft resolution, I wanted to make it clear that if this was just a Potemkin (artificial) exercise in going to the United Nations, I didn't want to be a part of it.
"Therefore, I said I might not be able to continue as ambassador in New York if there was no further updated basis for Iraq as being in material breach."
Iraq invasion was of questionable legitimacy, ...
We're the US of A, defender of the free world, mom, apple pie, everything wonderful. We SINGLE - HANDEDLY won WWII at great personal sacrifice. Ask Dick Cheney. ALL US invasions are legitimate because we say they are. Wait till Palin's in the White House if you want to see invasions. In the end, might makes right. Nothing has changed since the caveman.
