As the allied troops under the 'coalition of the willing' continued marching towards Baghdad, the effort to persuade Malaysians to soften their opposition to the war thousands of miles away from home still proved an uphill task for the key allies of United States.

Last Friday, at a talk o­n the legality of war organised by the Bar Council in Kuala Lumpur, three senior lawyers argued passionately that the war was "illegal".

Their main contention was that Resolution 1441 adopted by the United Nations Security Council last November did not automatically sanction the use of force in the event Iraq failed to disarm its weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Former Bar Council chairperson Zainur Zakaria ( photo ) said US and its key allies had gone into war "based o­n pure speculations".

"There has not been any findings that Iraq has committed any breach of its obligation, the sole authority to decide o­n that should be the Security Council, not US...

"The intelligence by (US secretary of state) Colin Powell and MI6 were found to be untrue," he said.

War crimes

He said it was clear that US had passed the bucket to the international community regarding the threat of North Korea but was eager to deal with Iraq.

"I take the view that (US President George W) Bush, (United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony) Blair, (Australian Prime Minister John) Howard and their war cabinets can be indicted for war crimes or crimes against humanity," he said.

Lawyer Tommy Thomas ( photo ) said it was incorrect to assume that the failure of Iraq to comply with disarmament obligations under Resolution 1441 would revive the authority to use force as provided for under Resolution 687 passed by the Security Council in April 1991, after a lapse of 12 years.

Resolution 687 had ordered Iraq, shortly after the Gulf War then, to fully declare all its WMD or risk facing continued military actions. A total of 17 resolutions o­n Iraq have been passed since then.

Thomas said US and its allies, by launching military strikes o­n Iraq, were "participating in a war of aggression and committing a crime against peace as defined by the Nuremberg tribunal".

Malik Imtiaz ( photo ), deputy chairperson of the Bar's human rights committee, said Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was "by all accounts an unpleasant man" and deserved "a place in a museum dedicated to matters of crimes against humanity".

However, he said this reason in itself was not sufficient to justify the attacks o­n Iraq.

UN document

After hearing their arguments, British High Commissioner Bruce Cleghorn ( right ) who was present at the talk gave his view o­n the matter by first describing his feelings. "I speak with much trepidation and I feel like Daniel in the lion's den."

Responding to the argument that "serious consequences" under Resolution 1441 did not refer clearly to war, he said the phrase "has a considerable history in the Security Council and everyone involved in the negotiation then understood its sense".

"To say that the council did not envisage the use of force is, frankly, to misunderstand the process we went through at the time," he added.

Cleghorn told the audience of some 80 people that anyone who was not convinced about Iraq's record of possessing and using WMD should read the cluster document released by the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission o­n March 6.

He also cautioned the crowd that there was a danger in going overboard in opposing the war.

"Some panelists mentioned about war o­n Afghanistan and I just recalled that if the action had not been taken, the conspiracy hatched by al-Qaeda in Singapore would not have been uncovered.

"The terrorist plot could well go ahead, and with all the devastation, it would have brought down the economy in this region, including Malaysia.

"I think we should think carefully when we appear to be condemning out of hand, actions which had fortunately limited the scope of what al-Qaeda was planning," he said.

His statement did not go down well with the audience. Several of them started chanting slogans like "Down with Blair", "Shame o­n UK' and "Barbarians of the third millennia" before the high commissioner finished his sentence.

The session's moderator and Bar Council chairperson Mah Weng Kwai tried to calm down the audience with the reminder that "this is democracy".

After Cleghorn spoke, it was his Australian counterpart James Wise' turn to enter the "den".

Rogue states

Wise said the Australian government held the view that the possibility to use force o­n Iraq to achieve disarmament under Resolution 687 did not expire as there was no mention of the expiry date.

He said it was right for US and its allies to pass the problems of North Korea's threat to the international community.

"North Korea is a clear and direct threat. It is passed to the international community because that's where it belongs. That's where the responsibility to deal with Iraq belongs too.

"As it turned out to be, sadly, the international community did not do what it should have done. That's why we find ourselves in the situation we are in now," said Wise. ( left )

He said his government could not ignore Iraq's continued material breach of the obligation to destroy its WMD.

"Iraq had used those weapons before, against Iraq, o­n his own people, and even fired missiles at Bahrain, Qatar and Saudi Arab.

"If you were in Pyongyang (capital city of North Korea) and saw the international community failing over 12 years to prevent Iraq from developing WMD, would you stop the programme as asked to or would you resist?" he asked.

Though the "connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda was murky" for now, he said the possibility of Iraq selling its weapons to terrorists was high considering the country's past record of sponsoring US$24,000 to suicide bombers in Israel.

"If rogue states have WMD and the means to deliver them, chances are improved for terrorist groups to obtain such weapons. Osama bin Laden has said he wants those weapons so there is a demand. With a rogue state like Iraq, you have a supply," he said.

This was again met with heckling from the same few people. They chanted "Down with Howard" and "Shame o­n Australia".

Security Council

At this point, a woman in the audience who identified herself as an American, stood up to respond to Wise.

"What is the logic of having the Security Council if despite the lack of its approval, countries like US, UK and Australia still go to war?" she questioned.

Wise replied, "Maybe the other question that you should ask is, what is the point of having the Security Council if it cannot deal with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction?"

A few members of the audience took turns to criticise US and its allies for practising double standards, being hypocritical, taking unilateral actions and acting out of self-interest.

The two-hour talk ended shortly after that. Many people continued to exchange their anti-war opinions outside the auditorium, echoing popular opinion around the world.

Despite coalition efforts to convince anti-war protesters otherwise, such strong sentiments and reactions are here to stay, at least until the war is over - hopefully soon.