Blair's Attorney General warned war was illegal

Ever since the leadup to the Iraq war in 2003 there have been persistent rumors the UK Attorney General first advised Tony Blair such a war would be illegal under international law. While a 'summary' of AG Lord Goldsmith's legal opinion was made public and appeared to give the war a green light, the Blair government have consistently refused to release the full 13-page document given to Cabinet ministers on the 7th of March. It is now clear why.

According to the Mail on Sunday, Goldsmith's original advice included six grounds in which the proposed war with Iraq could be challenged under international law. These caveats were excised from the summary when it was published 10 days later.

• In law, there was a strong argument that it was the job of the United Nations - not Mr Blair - to rule whether Iraq had defied the UN's order to disarm;
• Goldsmith stated UN resolution 1441 ("serious consequences") might not be enough to justify war because it did not include the phrase "all necessary", the UN's usual wording for war;
• It would be much 'safer' and desirable to go to war armed with a second specific UN resolution.
• He warned Mr Blair it could be difficult to revive UN Resolution 678 to justify war, as this resolution focused on removing Saddam from Kuwait and did not permit an invasion of Iraq itself.
• Goldsmith drew attention to the continuing work of UN weapons inspector Hans Blix and his team. On the same day the advice was written Blix said Iraq was being more helpful generally and no weapons of mass destruction had been found.
• The Attorney General explained that US President George Bush faced fewer legal constraints, as Congress had voted Bush special war-making powers. The US government's opinion on the legality of the war did not apply to Britain.
  

When Blair claimed that the advice was identical to the 'summary' which declared the war legal it is now clear he was not telling the truth. The AG changed his views, a suggestion given further credence by the uncensored resignation letter of Elizabeth Wilmshurt, who resigned her post as deputy chief legal adviser at the Foreign Office over the Iraq war. US National Security Council legal chief John Bellinger even went as far as to boast "We had a problem with your Attorney General who was telling us it was legally doubtful under international law. We straightened him out."

Demonstrating the folly of attempting to keep such potentially explosive advice under wraps, serving only fuel speculation of its contents, it has now come out a mere 11 days before a general election. Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy is right when he says the issue will "not go away" until Lord Goldsmith's legal advice is published in full. At the very least, this would allow an accurate assessment of Goldsmith's concerns over legality in their proper context of the entire 13-page opinion.

In response, Tony Blair is warning that attempts to "send me a message" at the ballot box may cause Labour to lose marginal constituencies and lead to a Tory Government by the back door. Perhaps Blair should have thought of that before he adopted a Thatcherite economic policy, involved Britain in a war of dubious legality, and then told porkies to cover his tracks. While I regard the Liberal Democrats as a right wing party with some left wing policies (such as on education), their presence in a balance of power type arrangement could be a positive influence on Labour in the next term.

PS: I attempted to post this yesterday, only to have blogger clear the post before I could upload it :(

Did an Indian seismologist predict the latest Indonesian earthquake?

Nias island in Indonesia faced a series of large aftershocks today following the devastating 8.7 magnitude earthquake that hit the region on Monday. One of the aftershocks reached 6.3 on the Richter scale.

Last week I blogged on the findings of an Indian seismologist, Dr Vineet Gahlart who predicted on March 17 there could be another large quake in the region, as the January 26 earthquake had increased stress on the fault system separating India and Indonesia. Sadly, it appears Gahlart's prediction came true, and far sooner than most people expected.

The latest earthquakes are feared to have cost 2,000 lives, with the UN predicting this number will rise. The most disturbing thing about such predictions is that we heard similar things in the days following the boxing day disaster, as the number of dead rose from the tens of thousands to the hundreds of thousands.

UN-CERD finds against Seabed and Foreshore Legislation

The United Nations has dammed the controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act as being discriminatory against Maori. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination released its decision this weekend, as part of its sixty sixth session, with comment on issues in other countries. I include all comments relevant to New Zealand below (not sure if its the full text of the decision, but its a full text of what they gave the media). The committee found the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 discriminated against Maori by extinguishing the possibility of establishing Maori customary title, and by the failure of the legislation to provide a guaranteed right of redress.

Decision on the Situation in New Zealand
In a decision on New Zealand, the Committee noted its review of the compatibility of the New Zealand Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 with the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in the light of information received both from the Government of New Zealand and a number of Māori non-governmental organizations and taking into account its General Recommendation No. XXIII on indigenous peoples. The Committee expressed its appreciation at having had the opportunity to engage in a constructive dialogue with the State party and the State party’s written and oral responses to its requests for information related to the legislation, including those submitted on 17 February and 9 March 2005. Bearing in mind the complexity of the issues involved, the legislation appeared to the Committee, on balance, to contain discriminatory aspects against the Māori, in particular in its extinguishment of the possibility of establishing Māori customary title over the foreshore and seabed and its failure to provide a guaranteed right of redress, notwithstanding the State party’s obligations under articles 5 and 6 of the Convention.

The Committee acknowledged with appreciation the State party’s tradition of negotiation with the Māori on all matters concerning them and urged the State party, in a spirit of goodwill and in accordance with the ideals of the Waitangi Treaty, to resume a dialogue with the Māori community with regard to the legislation in order to seek ways of lessening its discriminatory effects, including where necessary through legislative amendment. Moreover, the Committee requested the State party to monitor closely the implementation of the Foreshore and Seabed Act, its impact on the Māori population and the developing state of race relations in New Zealand and to take steps to minimize any negative effects, especially by way of a flexible application of the legislation and by broadening the scope of redress available to the Māori.

On hearing Tariana Turia's comments on the decision on 3 News tonight, I note her call for dialogue closely followed the wording of the decision above.

The sheer rush of the Government to get the bill passed was one of greatest tragedies of the whole debate. Discussion and negotiations between Maori and the Crown could have continued while the issue worked its way through the courts, with the hope a solution could be found by consensus prior to judges having make a further ruling. Instead, Labour overestimated public fears Maori would restrict access to the foreshore, and when it found these fears were politically convenient to getting the bill passed, it fueled those fears when it claimed to have fixed the non-problem.

The deliberations of the UN committee follow a submission by the country's third-largest iwi organisation, Te Runanga a Ngai Tahu to the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues last year. It is interesting this action has been led by a South Island iwi organisation, as it has been my impression that support for the Maori party is currently concentrated in the North. If I could indulge in some pure speculation, does this indicate tactical differences in Maoridom on the best way to fight the legislation?

That said, the action was supported by the Treaty Tribes Coalition which includes Ngati Kahungunu, Ngai Tamanuhiri and Hauraki iwi. Also, Rawiri Taonui of the School of Maori and Indigenous Studies at Canterbury University was very positive about the potential of the Maori party to wrestle the Maori seats off Labour, as she crowned Tariana Turia her Maori politician of the year in February. Taonui's article 'Ups and Downs of the Maori Year' is well worth a read.

As Rawiri Taonui says, the requirement to prove uninterrupted connection since 1840 is one of the worst features of the Seabed and Foreshore Act, especially as the majority of Maori have lost this connection through colonisation.

I was discussing the F&S issue with some fellow Alliance types at the conference in November. In attempting to explain to someone what was wrong with the S&F bill, and the 'uninterrupted connection' issue in particular, I felt a flash of inspiration as I asked them to imagine a grandfather clock that had been in their family for generations. You identified the clock with the history of your family, yet you lacked a very old receipt or any other proof of ownership. If you were suddenly asked to prove 'uninterrupted connection' or 'uninterrupted possession' of the grandfather clock since 1840, this would be a very difficult thing to do.