Has Nick Clegg helped the case for a war crimes tribunal?

Clegg’s gaffe over the “illegal” war could strengthen case for involvement of the international cour

Nick Clegg raised more than a few eyebrows yesterday when he called the Iraq war "illegal" while standing in for David Cameron at PMQs.

Clegg might have made a habit of condemning the war while in opposition, but appeared to forget that his partners in government now include neocons such as George Osborne and Iain Duncan Smith, who voted in favour of the conflict. During a heated exchange with Jack Straw, he said:

Maybe [Straw] one day -- perhaps we will have to wait for his memoirs -- could account for his role in the most disastrous decision of all, which is the illegal invasion of Iraq.

The obvious issue is that he has highlighted a division in the coalition, but has Clegg also strengthened the case for legal action?

The Guardian today quotes senior lawyers wondering whether his statement is legally significant because it was made while speaking in the Commons:

Philippe Sands, professor of law at University College London, said: "A public statement by a government minister in parliament as to the legal situation would be a statement that an international court would be interested in, in forming a view as to whether or not the war was lawful."

The No 10 press office has done some hasty damage limitation. A spokesman said that Clegg had been speaking in his capacity as leader of the Liberal Democrats, rather than Deputy Prime Minister -- slightly odd, perhaps, given that he was standing at the despatch box, answering questions on behalf of the government at PMQs.

The coalition government has not expressed a view on the legality or otherwise of the Iraq conflict. But that does not mean that individual members of the government should not express their individual views. These are long-held views of the Deputy Prime Minister.

The issue of the war's legality has rumbled quietly on since 2003. My colleague Mehdi Hasan wrote in January that:

The New Statesman has learned from a senior legal source that not one member of Britain's new 12-justice Supreme Court believes that the war was lawful. One former law lord, Johan Steyn, has called on the Iraq inquiry to publish an interim report before the general election declaring the war illegal.

A recent Sunday Times poll showed that a quarter of the public wants to see Blair stand trial. The International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor even said in 2007 that he could "envisage" a scenario where this took place.

In theory, a senior minister negating the war's legal basis could add force to the argument for a tribunal, should the international court consider the case. But somehow -- particularly as it does not signify a change in the government's official position, and the Chilcot inquiry is not seeking to apportion blame on this point -- that seems distinctly unlikely.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

The problems with ending encryption to fight terrorism

Forcing tech firms to create a "backdoor" to access messages would be a gift to cyber-hackers.

The UK has endured its worst terrorist atrocity since 7 July 2005 and the threat level has been raised to "critical" for the first time in a decade. Though election campaigning has been suspended, the debate over potential new powers has already begun.

Today's Sun reports that the Conservatives will seek to force technology companies to hand over encrypted messages to the police and security services. The new Technical Capability Notices were proposed by Amber Rudd following the Westminster terrorist attack and a month-long consultation closed last week. A Tory minister told the Sun: "We will do this as soon as we can after the election, as long as we get back in. The level of threat clearly proves there is no more time to waste now. The social media companies have been laughing in our faces for too long."

Put that way, the plan sounds reasonable (orders would be approved by the home secretary and a senior judge). But there are irrefutable problems. Encryption means tech firms such as WhatsApp and Apple can't simply "hand over" suspect messages - they can't access them at all. The technology is designed precisely so that conversations are genuinely private (unless a suspect's device is obtained or hacked into). Were companies to create an encryption "backdoor", as the government proposes, they would also create new opportunities for criminals and cyberhackers (as in the case of the recent NHS attack).

Ian Levy, the technical director of the National Cyber Security, told the New Statesman's Will Dunn earlier this year: "Nobody in this organisation or our parent organisation will ever ask for a 'back door' in a large-scale encryption system, because it's dumb."

But there is a more profound problem: once created, a technology cannot be uninvented. Should large tech firms end encryption, terrorists will merely turn to other, lesser-known platforms. The only means of barring UK citizens from using the service would be a Chinese-style "great firewall", cutting Britain off from the rest of the internet. In 2015, before entering the cabinet, Brexit Secretary David Davis warned of ending encryption: "Such a move would have had devastating consequences for all financial transactions and online commerce, not to mention the security of all personal data. Its consequences for the City do not bear thinking about."

Labour's manifesto pledged to "provide our security agencies with the resources and the powers they need to protect our country and keep us all safe." But added: "We will also ensure that such powers do not weaken our individual rights or civil liberties". The Liberal Democrats have vowed to "oppose Conservative attempts to undermine encryption."

But with a large Conservative majority inevitable, according to polls, ministers will be confident of winning parliamentary support for the plan. Only a rebellion led by Davis-esque liberals is likely to stop them.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

0800 7318496