Iraq war based on "questionable legitimacy," says former UN envoy

Nov 27, 2009, 14:16 GMT

   London - The 2003 invasion of Iraq was of 'questionable legitimacy' but the momentum for action from the US was 'much too strong' for Britain to counter, London's former ambassador to the United Nations said Friday.

   Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's representative at the UN discussions in the run-up to the war, said he had considered resigning over the failure of the US and Britain to win support for a second UN resolution that would have authorized military action.

   The ex-diplomat told Britain' Iraq War Inquiry that although he believed the military action was legal under international law, it did not have majority backing from member states, or from the British public.

   '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.

   'If you do something internationally that the majority of UN member states think is wrong, illegitimate or politically unjustifiable, you are taking a risk in my view,' said Greenstock.

   If military action had been delayed for another six months to October 2003 it would have had greater legitimacy by giving weapons inspectors more time.

   His evidence to the inquiry came at the end of the first week of public hearings during which senior government officials criticized US pressure for military action and revealed that former prime minister Tony Blair was told days before the invasion that Iraq held no weapons of mass destruction.