Messy Questions of Legality

John Howard told the UN Monday there should be no further talk about whether or not the pre-emptive strike on Iraq was legal.

Mr Howard also rejected suggestions that Australia supported the war to position itself as a key member of a new "Anglosphere" of power in world politics.

The debate over post-war arrangements, such as the role of the UN in Iraq, should not become "an arena to debate again old arguments", he said.

"As long as there is not an attempt to redebate the whole issue and the rights and wrongs of it, I think everyone can move forward in a very practical and sensible way."


Key nations at the UN, including Security Council members Russia and France, strongly disagree with that view. Those countries that opposed the war have indicated they will not support the removal of UN sanctions on Iraq unless the issue of whether the action was supported under international law is resolved.

The Security Council resolutions imposed on Iraq say that the sanctions regime can only be removed when UN weapons inspectors have verified that the country has no more weapons of mass destruction.

The US is planning to put a new resolution amending that stand to allow the lifting of sanctions if it and its coalition partners in the war can supply that verification.

The UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, whom Mr Howard met in New York on Monday, has supported the return of the UN weapons inspectors to continue their work.

Mr Howard said it was up to the Security Council to decide whether the inspectors should return and "the rationale, the raison d'etre for the sanctions has disappeared".

Australia had no say in the final decision on the UN inspectors because it was not on the Security Council, he said.

However, the US, a permanent member, strongly opposes the inspectors' return.