This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/europe/8453305.stm

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Dutch say no mandate for Iraq war Dutch report: Iraq war not legal
(19 minutes later)
A Dutch inquiry into the Iraq war says that military action was not justified by UN resolutions on Iraq. An inquiry into the Netherlands' support for the invasion of Iraq says it was not justified by UN resolutions.
The Committee of Inquiry on Iraq said security council resolutions did not "constitute a mandate for... intervention in 2003". The Dutch Committee of Inquiry on Iraq said UN Security Council resolutions did not "constitute a mandate for... intervention in 2003".
The inquiry was launched after foreign ministry memos were leaked that cast doubt on the legal basis for the war.The inquiry was launched after foreign ministry memos were leaked that cast doubt on the legal basis for the war.
The Netherlands gave political support to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but has denied having any military role.The Netherlands gave political support to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but has denied having any military role.
The report could bitterly embarrass the Dutch government and reinforce the international case against the Iraq war, says the BBC's Europe correspondent Jonny Dymond. The report demolishes the Dutch case for supporting the invasion, says the BBC's Europe correspondent Jonny Dymond.
The Davids Commission - named after the retired senior judge who leads it - was established just under a year ago, following a political revolt against Prime Minister Jan-Peter Balkenende. It could also be taken to reinforce the international case against the Iraq war, he says.
It was Mr Balkenende who, back in 2003, lent political support to the invasion of Iraq. The report accuses ministers of a selective use of intelligence reports, and says Prime Minister Jan-Peter Balkenende was largely isolated from policy making, which was steered by the foreign minister at the time, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.
The justification was then made that UN resolutions had been flouted, but a memo from the time by Dutch foreign ministry lawyers, subsequently leaked, suggested that the war was in fact illegal under international law. Mr Balkenende formally thanked the committee for its report, but said he needed time to study it before responding.
The inquiry has looked into the legality of the war, the quality of Dutch intelligence, the government's decision-making process, and whether there was any Dutch military involvement. Political loyalty
While the government has always said its military was not involved in the invasion, questions have been raised because Dutch troops were taking part in exercises nearby at the time. Mr Balkenende decided to join the "coalition of the willing" assembled by US President George W Bush because, he said, Saddam Hussein had consistently flouted UN resolutions and possessed weapons of mass destruction.
The Dutch parliament opposed the decision to back the invasion.
Committee chairman, Willibrord Davids, said the Netherlands' loyalty to its alliance with the US and UK had taken precedence over the need to ensure the legality of the invasion.
The committee said there had been no UN mandate for the attack, putting the decision to join at odds with international law.
It said "the wording of [UN Security Council] Resolution 1441 cannot reasonably be interpreted as authorising individual member states to use military force".
Iraq's breach of Resolution 1441, which gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations", was used by the coalition, and the Netherlands, to justify its invasion.
However, a memo from the time by Dutch foreign ministry lawyers, subsequently leaked, suggested the war was in fact illegal under international law.
The Dutch parliament is likely now to consider whether the prime minister misled parliament, and whether to launch a formal parliamentary inquiry.