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/uk_politics/8503398.stm

The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 5 Version 6
Straw 'did not ignore war advice' Straw 'did not ignore war advice'
(about 2 hours later)
Former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has rejected claims he ignored legal advice that Britain could not lawfully invade Iraq without further UN support.Former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has rejected claims he ignored legal advice that Britain could not lawfully invade Iraq without further UN support.
Sir Michael Wood - who was Mr Straw's senior legal adviser at the time of the Iraq war - had advised him it would amount to a "crime of aggression".Sir Michael Wood - who was Mr Straw's senior legal adviser at the time of the Iraq war - had advised him it would amount to a "crime of aggression".
Mr Straw said he had given it "the serious attention it deserved".Mr Straw said he had given it "the serious attention it deserved".
But he said he disagreed with Sir Michael's claim there was "no doubt" it would be illegal.But he said he disagreed with Sir Michael's claim there was "no doubt" it would be illegal.
In a statement given to the inquiry, Mr Straw said it would be a "fundamentally flawed" system if ministers had to accept all legal advice. In a statement given to the inquiry, Mr Straw said it would be a "fundamentally flawed" system if ministers had to accept all legal advice offered "if there were reasonable grounds for taking a contrary view".
He wrote: "Far from 'ignoring' this advice, as has been suggested publicly, I read Sir Michael's minute with great care and gave it the serious attention it deserved. 'No doubt'
"So much so that I thought I owed him a formal and personal written response rather than simply having a conversation with him." He wrote: "Far from 'ignoring' this advice, as has been suggested publicly, I read Sir Michael's minute with great care and gave it the serious attention it deserved."
Mr Straw is giving evidence before the inquiry into the Iraq war for a second time. But he said he took issue with Sir Michael's claim there was "no doubt" the UK could not legally use force without a further Security Council decision, when he had outlined "two differing views" in an earlier memo.
Questioning began with the legal issues in the run-up to the conflict when Mr Straw, now Justice Secretary, was Foreign Secretary. Mr Straw said he had had "intense knowledge of the negotiating history" of the UN Security Resolution 1441 - which the UK and US argued gave them the right to invade - and believed "there was an overwhelming argument that 1441 required a second stage but not a second resolution".
Mr Straw was a key figure consulted by Lord Goldsmith before the then Attorney General changed his advice about the invasion's legality. My view... was that there was an overwhelming argument that 1441 required a second stage but not a second resolution Jack Straw
Previously, Mr Straw told the inquiry supporting the invasion had been the "most difficult decision" of his life. He said it was clear to everyone involved in the negotiations that the resolution was "self standing" - it did not need a second resolution.
'Indelible impression' Asked why the government had continued to push for a second resolution in the weeks before the conflict began, Mr Straw said if one had been gained he believed Saddam's regime would have collapsed "like a pack of cards" - without the need for military action.
By his own account, Mr Straw played a pivotal role in the war - if he had objected, the UK would not have invaded Iraq. Mr Straw rejected suggestions that cabinet ministers were not fully aware of the finely balanced arguments around the legality of war, when they met ahead of the March 2003 invasion.
When Mr Straw's own legal adviser told him an invasion without a second UN resolution would amount to a crime of aggression, he rejected the advice. 'Wilting violets'
"It was impossible to open a newspaper without being fully aware of the balance of the arguments," he said.
No cabinet ministers were "wilting violets" he said and any could have asked Attorney General Lord Goldsmith questions about this advice that the war was legal.
But they came to the view that they did not need to know the process he had gone through, just the decision he had reached.
On Clare Short's suggestion she was "jeered" at when she tried to question Lord Goldsmith's advice, Mr Straw said: "That was not my recollection."
He was also asked about claims ministers were told to "blame the French" after the failure to get a second resolution.
Rug 'pulled out'
Inquiry member Sir Roderic Lyne asked if that was fair, when the UK and US never had the requisite nine votes on the Security Council - they only had four - the UK, US, Spain and Bulgaria.
Mr Straw said he was confident they could have got them, but when then French President Jacques Chirac had told journalists he would veto the move, it had effectively "pulled the rug out" from negotiations.
He also said remarks by US "neo cons" - including Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz - had made negotiations difficult.
"If a way had been found of inviting the neocons in the US to take a long holiday without a telephone, negotiations would have been easier," he added.
Former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has told the BBC's Hardtalk programme that he was "puzzled" by Mr Straw's earlier evidence to the inquiry.Former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has told the BBC's Hardtalk programme that he was "puzzled" by Mr Straw's earlier evidence to the inquiry.
Mr Straw had told the panel that a report drawn up by Mr Blix on the eve of the war had "made an indelible impression" on him and that it "convinced me that Iraq's non-compliance with Security Council requirements going back to 1991 was profound".Mr Straw had told the panel that a report drawn up by Mr Blix on the eve of the war had "made an indelible impression" on him and that it "convinced me that Iraq's non-compliance with Security Council requirements going back to 1991 was profound".
But Mr Blix said he found such a reaction "amazing" as "there was nothing sensationally new in that document".But Mr Blix said he found such a reaction "amazing" as "there was nothing sensationally new in that document".
Lord Goldsmith has admitted to the inquiry that he changed his legal view of the Iraq war but said it was "complete nonsense" to claim he did so because of political pressure.Lord Goldsmith has admitted to the inquiry that he changed his legal view of the Iraq war but said it was "complete nonsense" to claim he did so because of political pressure.
Until a month before the 2003 invasion, the ex-attorney general had believed it was "safer" to get a fresh UN resolution.Until a month before the 2003 invasion, the ex-attorney general had believed it was "safer" to get a fresh UN resolution.
But he gave the "green light" after deciding force was justified by UN accords on Iraq dating back to 1991.But he gave the "green light" after deciding force was justified by UN accords on Iraq dating back to 1991.
Resources warning
On Monday morning, General Sir John McColl warned against the UK taking part in too many military operations as resources were limited.
Gen McColl, the senior British military representative in Iraq from April to October 2004, said the armed forces had been stretched by simultaneous conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"That is important from the point of view of prosecuting a successful campaign. It's also important from the point of view of supporting those that we have deployed.
"As far as Iraq was concerned, clearly as Iraq was developing, Afghanistan was also developing.
"There was a tension there, which affected the resourcing of those two theatres. I won't say any more than that, but I do think that we should be prioritising and sequencing rather than conducting perhaps too many operations."
He also called for a single agency to bring together different departments of the government in future conflicts.
"If we are to get these deployments properly co-ordinated on the ground, it requires a far more muscular central co-ordinating authority in order to be able to deliver that," he said.
The full Hans Blix interview on Hardtalk can be seen on the BBC News Channel at 2330 GMT and on BBC World at 0430, 0930, 1530 and 2130 GMT on 8 February 2010.The full Hans Blix interview on Hardtalk can be seen on the BBC News Channel at 2330 GMT and on BBC World at 0430, 0930, 1530 and 2130 GMT on 8 February 2010.