Reuters , Keith Weir
The United States followed its own military timetable for the 2003 invasion of Iraq rather than allowing diplomacy to run its full course, the former British ambassador to the United Nations said on Friday.
Jeremy Greenstock told the Iraq war inquiry he did not think U.N. inspectors had been given enough time before the March 2003 invasion to search for weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
No such weapons were found after the U.S.-led invasion and overthrow of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, but Greenstock said he remained convinced Iraq was hiding something.
"There was a concealment committee established by Iraq and they were very good at it," he added.
He said he believed war would probably still have followed if the United States had agreed to delay use of force until October, but that the campaign would have had greater legitimacy.
He said military planners wanted to launch the campaign early enough to avoid fighting during the hot summer months.
In an opening written statement, Greenstock said only U.S. President George W. Bush was in a position to "switch off" the planning ahead of the invasion.
"The US and the UK had, well before then, decided that the threat from Iraq, which was genuinely perceived as including the potential threat of the use of WMD, could only be terminated either if Saddam Hussein conceded absolutely everything the resolutions demanded or if his regime fell."
"If this was to be achieved through a UN route, that had to happen on a U.S.-ordained timing," he added.
Greenstock, British ambassador at the UN from 1998 to 2003, was appearing on the fourth day of a public inquiry into the invasion and subsequent war in which 179 British soldiers were killed.
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair is expected to appear before the inquiry early in the new year.
Many Labour supporters were angered by his backing for Bush and the invasion and his appearance risks reopening old wounds ahead of a general election due by June, at which opinion polls suggest Labour will lose the grip on power it has had since 1997.
Much of Greenstock's testimony focussed on failed efforts to secure a UN resolution explicitly backing the use of force against Iraq.
Greenstock said the campaign was not illegal but was of "questionable legitimacy" because it did not have support of the majority of UN members nor the majority of Britons.
Greenstock said his Iraqi counterpart Mohammed al-Douri told him on September 20 2002 that his country did not possess WMD.
"He told me that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. That was his view. We were not in a position in any part of the UK government to ascertain for certain whether or not that statement was true," he added.
A five-member inquiry team, headed by former civil servant John Chilcot is examining the reasons for British participation in Iraq, promising a thorough and rigorous probe of events.
Their report is expected late next year.
The United States followed its own military timetable for the 2003 invasion of Iraq rather than allowing diplomacy to run its full course, the former British ambassador to the United Nations said on Friday.
Jeremy Greenstock told the Iraq war inquiry he did not think U.N. inspectors had been given enough time before the March 2003 invasion to search for weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
No such weapons were found after the U.S.-led invasion and overthrow of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, but Greenstock said he remained convinced Iraq was hiding something.
"There was a concealment committee established by Iraq and they were very good at it," he added.
He said he believed war would probably still have followed if the United States had agreed to delay use of force until October, but that the campaign would have had greater legitimacy.
He said military planners wanted to launch the campaign early enough to avoid fighting during the hot summer months.
In an opening written statement, Greenstock said only U.S. President George W. Bush was in a position to "switch off" the planning ahead of the invasion.
"The US and the UK had, well before then, decided that the threat from Iraq, which was genuinely perceived as including the potential threat of the use of WMD, could only be terminated either if Saddam Hussein conceded absolutely everything the resolutions demanded or if his regime fell."
"If this was to be achieved through a UN route, that had to happen on a U.S.-ordained timing," he added.
Greenstock, British ambassador at the UN from 1998 to 2003, was appearing on the fourth day of a public inquiry into the invasion and subsequent war in which 179 British soldiers were killed.
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair is expected to appear before the inquiry early in the new year.
Many Labour supporters were angered by his backing for Bush and the invasion and his appearance risks reopening old wounds ahead of a general election due by June, at which opinion polls suggest Labour will lose the grip on power it has had since 1997.
Much of Greenstock's testimony focussed on failed efforts to secure a UN resolution explicitly backing the use of force against Iraq.
Greenstock said the campaign was not illegal but was of "questionable legitimacy" because it did not have support of the majority of UN members nor the majority of Britons.
Greenstock said his Iraqi counterpart Mohammed al-Douri told him on September 20 2002 that his country did not possess WMD.
"He told me that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. That was his view. We were not in a position in any part of the UK government to ascertain for certain whether or not that statement was true," he added.
A five-member inquiry team, headed by former civil servant John Chilcot is examining the reasons for British participation in Iraq, promising a thorough and rigorous probe of events.
Their report is expected late next year.
Comment