On the peculiar but nevertheless damning nature of British confessions

Liberal Democrats (Britain), Leader Nick Clegg, stood up at the dispatch box of the House of Commons and pronounced that the invasion of Iraq was illegal. This is at odds with the position taken by coalition partner and now Prime Minister David Cameron at the time of the invasion and thereafter. Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister (and not some anarchist blogger, let us remember) now says that he was speaking in a personal capacity.

This has raised some interesting issues. First of all it is not only a public statement but one made when Clegg was standing for Cameron as Prime Minister. That’s serious. Downing Street maintains that Clegg was merely reiterating his personal position regarding legality and this was not the official position of the Coalition Government. What this means is that Downing Street is of the view that individual members of the Government including a person standing for the Prime Minister can shoot his/her mouth without being seen to representing official Government position.

Theoretically, then, David Cameron or any future British Prime Minister can disagree with any collective position on any issue, using the Nick Clegg option: ‘it is my personal opinion’. Cameron’s Government can declare war on Iran and the next moment, the Prime Minister can tell a drooling press that he believes the decision is illegal and add, ‘but hey, that’s just what I think.’

The British have a right to their idiosyncrasies and we can put it all down to some kind of cultural quirk, but the international community should take statements from a Deputy Prime Minister seriously. An international court cannot ignore such a statement. If invasion was illegal (this we knew all along, by the way) and there’s confession, then someone needs to be punished, someone needs to be compensated.

Downing Street is in Damage Control Street right now. The British Government is taking refuge in an inquiry chaired by Sir John Chilcot about the Iraq war. It is maintained that the inquiry is not mandated to determine legality or illegality but elicit lessons that can educate and help in future engagements of such nature. If the Brits want to be cute and hands-clean that’s their business of course, but Clegg’s assertion make things tough all around, not because he is who he is, but the increasing difficulty in hiding the truth.

For example, the then Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith is known to have written a note to then Prime Minister Tony Blair (on January 30, 2003) where he maintains that ‘the correct legal interpretation of [UN Security Council] resolution 1441 is that it does not authorise the use of military force without a further determination by the security council.’

Goldsmith was stumped by Sir Michael Boyce, the former Chief of Defence Staff, who demanded an undertaking that military action would be lawful, fearing that British Forces could face legal action unless there was proper cover on this front. On March 7, 2003, after visiting Washington, Goldsmith told Blair that he could go ahead and invade without a new UN resolution, but would open Britain to indictment before an international court. Goldsmith never gave written advice that the war was lawful.

The whole of Britain might wait with bated breath the report of the Chilcot inquiry, but that’s not the world’s concern. The world is not interested about the niceties of British Parliamentary traditions. The world is not interested whether Clegg expressed his own views or that of the Government.

The world, however, takes note of the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister British thinks the invasion was illegal and stated his opinion in public and while standing in for the Prime Minister. The world is only concerned with legality (and of course the ‘minor matter’ of death, dismemberment, displacement and destruction that all of Iraq has had to witness over the past seven years) and not so much the learning abilities of British Parliamentarians and indeed British political society.

[email protected]