Pages

Saturday, 23 January 2010

"This part of Straw's evidence is therefore a huge lie."

"It is the most perverse of lies by Straw to argue that the fact that the Germans and French did not table their draft proved that 1441 authorised war, when we had told them not to table their draft because 1441 did not authorise war."
Like the title of this piece those are not my words but those of former Ambassador, Craig Murray, whose blog entry is a must read for anyone who cares about the truth and Jack Straw's alleged disconnect from it.

Here's a further extract, but do read the whole piece:
"Straw's biggest and most important lie goes right to the heart of the question of whether the war was legal. Did UN Security Council Resolution 1441 provide a legal basis for the invasion, or would a second resolution specifically authorising military action have been required? The UK certainly put a massive amount of diplomatic effort into obtaining a second resolution.

...

As Ambassador in an Islamic country, I was copied all or nearly all of the telegrams of instruction on the diplomatic efforts to secure a second resolution. I can tell you these facts as an eye-witness.

Straw argues that the proof that no second resolution was needed is that

I was not in any doubt about that and neither was Jeremy Greenstock, and for very good reasons, which is that there had been talk by the French and Germans of a draft which would have required a second resolution, but they never tabled it.


But they did not table it because we gave assurances to the French and Germans (and Russians and Chinese) that our draft of UNSCR 1441 did not authorise military action. The instructions were to inform those governments that UNSCR 1441 contained "no automatic trigger" which would lead to military action. I remember the phrase precisely "no automatic trigger". Rod Lyne on the committee must remember it too, because he was one of the people, as Ambassador in Moscow, instructed to give that message.

It is the most perverse of lies by Straw to argue that the fact that the Germans and French did not table their draft proved that 1441 authorised war, when we had told them not to table their draft because 1441 did not authorise war.

I read with enormous care and in real time every single word of the scores of telegrams on the effort to secure the second resolution. Not one word gave any hint at all that a second resolution might not be necessary to authorise war. There was absolutely no mention in telegrams to Embassies of the notion that UNSCR 1441 was a sufficient basis for war, and no second resolution needed, until many weeks after 1441 was passed, just before the invasion.

...

This part of Straw's evidence is therefore a huge lie. "
Maybe the main stream media could press Jack Straw on this matter, but somehow I doubt that they will.

2 comments:

  1. Is this the same Craig Murray who was sacked as Ambassador to Uzbekistan for selling visas for sex, being drunk at work and interfering in Uzbek politics ?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ah the expected ad hominem attack. Any comment on the substance of the allegations?

    ReplyDelete

By clicking "Publish your comment" you indemnify NotaSheepMaybeAGoat and accept full legal responsibility for your comments