March 5, 2003	Wednesday	Muharram 1, 1424

LONDON, March 4: War on Iraq, even with a new UN resolution, would be a clear violation of international law, say two colleagues of the lawyer wife of Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Even if a resolution overcomes French, German and Russian opposition and clears the UN Security Council, it would not sanction war, said lawyers Rabinder Singh and Charlotte Kilroy of Matrix Chambers in London.

A draft resolution — submitted to the United Nations by Britain, the United States and Spain — asserts that Iraq has “failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in resolution 1441” adopted last November.

It could be put to a vote after chief UN arms inspector Hans Blix’s next report to the Security Council later this week.

But a legal opinion by Singh and Kilroy on behalf of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) and other anti-war groups said that this wording “would not authorize the United States and the United Kingdom to use force against Iraq if (the resolution) were adopted”.

“In the present circumstances as known to us, if there is no further resolution clearly authorising force, the US and the UK would be acting in violation of international law if they were to attack Iraq,” they added.

Matrix Chambers’ partners include Blair’s wife Cherie Booth, who as a barrister argues human rights cases in court — most recently an unsuccessful discrimination suit lodged by Nepalese veterans of the British army.

Singh and Kilroy’s legal opinion will form part of an international campaign by lawyers and non-governmental organizations to hold Washington and London accountable in law for any conflict.

Lawyers in the United States, Canada, Australia, Ireland, and other countries will be using their argument to pressure their governments to act in accordance with the law.

Phil Shiner, of Public Interest Lawyers, a campaigning group specialising in international law, said: “This opinion leaves no room for doubt. Without a specific Security Council authorisation war will be illegal. This draft does not give that authorization.”

CND chairman Carol Naughton said Blair’s government “wants it both ways.”

“It is fully aware that all this talk about a ‘second resolution’ is just a smokescreen for illegality and is trying to pull the wool over the public’s eyes,” she said.

The Foreign Office on Tuesday declined to comment, saying it had yet to see the legal opinion. But a government source said that the legal authority for war was contained in resolution 1441, which warned Iraq to disarm or face “serious consequences”.

“If it is not explicit in the draft it is implicit because it refers back to 1441 in which the authority for war is explicit,” the source said.

EU: Most European Union citizens believe the United States is a negative force for world peace but back its drive against terrorism, according to a twice-yearly survey published Tuesday.

The “Eurobarometer” survey, a comprehensive analysis of EU citizens’ attitudes, was carried out at the end of last year before the recent mass protests against a US-led war on Iraq.

The survey, conducted each year during spring and autumn, found that 46 per cent of EU residents think the United States plays a negative role in world peace, against 32 per cent who said its contribution was positive.

But 54 per cent said Washington’s role in the fight against terrorism was positive, against 28 per cent who said it was negative.

On other questions, the survey found hostility to the US global role.

A total of 57 per cent said the United States was negative for the environment, against only 16 per cent who said positive. A majority also believed Washington was an obstacle to the fight against global poverty.

Presented with a list of 10 threats to the world, 82 per cent of EU respondents said they were most afraid of international terrorism.—AFP