The recent report by Lord Butler was very 'British' in that it rather extraordinarily arrived at the conclusion that everybody was beyond reproach and nobody made any mistakes, what if there was failure of intelligence. Blair could only take comfort in the Butler exculpation. Yet that is not what the more perspicacious see in the doings of the British Prime Minister. Concern arises when one sees powerful countries riding roughshod on international norms and sentiments in pursuing their selfish national interest, as was done by the Americans and the British in Iraq.

Does the contention of the 'group of forty' that the motivations for approaching the secretary general of the UN, to seek clarification from the highest international judicial body, about the legitimacy of the war in Iraq, reflect the sentiments of the majority world opinion? Yes, it does, in a way.

This, we feel, bodes well for balance in international order. Although the world court can only offer verdicts that are non-binding, the moral force behind their verdict cannot but have some effect on international dealings of states. We wait eagerly for the Court's verdict, in particular on the legality of the much-misused "pre-emptive wars".

What we fail to understand, however, is why the MPs have fallen back on the office of the UN secretary general at this point in time when the damage has already been done. One can only wonder whether they could not have brought their power to generate opinion at home as well as in their parliament to dissuade the Blair government from going into Iraq in the first place.

No body can deny that this was a war that, by all counts, was illegal, World Court or not.