The Chilcot Inquiry: Iraq uncovered?
The Chilcot Inquiry formally began its public hearings last week after being officially launched in July. So-called because it is being lead by Sir John Chilcot, a retired civil servant, this is the fourth inquiry into the Iraq conflict, following most notably the Butler Report of 2004 and the Hutton Report in 2003. The purpose of Chilcot is to “examine the United Kingdom’s involvement in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to establish as accurately and reliably as possible what happened, and to identify lessons that can be learned”. This means it has a wider remit than the previous inquiries. It is hoped that the inquiry will be able to conclude before the end of 2010 before publishing its findings in early 2011.
The previous inquiries into Iraq have been dismissed as being a whitewash, so what will prevent Chilcot from meeting a similar fate? Firstly, as mentioned previously, Chilcot’s remit is wider than previous inquiries. Hutton looked specifically at the death of Dr. David Kelly and the issue surrounding the 45 minute claim, whilst Butler examined matters relating to intelligence gathering.
Secondly, both the Hutton and Butler reports were conducted in the relative immediate aftermath of the war, when there was the mistaken possibility that Saddam Hussein had hidden potential weapons of mass destruction in the sands of Iraq, in order to undermine the reasons for war. Such a possibility might have influenced the findings of these reports. Chilcot has the advantage of having more fixed and established facts at its disposal than Hutton and Butler did.
Yet Iraq remains an emotive issue for many people, and Chilcot is unlikely to satisfy those who wish to see Tony Blair on trial for war crimes and nothing less. There are legitimate concerns surrounding Chilcot, namely that those who will be conducting the inquiry have been chosen by the Government, although admittedly after consultation with opposition parties. This may mean, in theory at least, that Chilcot has been loaded in the Government’s favour.
This accusation is perhaps unfair, as Sir John Chilcot has already gone against Gordon Brown’s wishes that the investigation be conducted in private by insisting that much of the inquiry, with the exception of issues relating to national security, be conducted in public. The arguably most worrying point was pointed out by Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, during last week’s Prime Minister’s Questions. At present, Whitehall departments could veto information with nine reasons given as to why the information could be suppressed - none of which have anything to do with national security.
Obviously the real test of Chilcot will be in its findings; however, this is not as simple as appears. This is mainly because a lot will depend on what is expected from Chilcot in the first place. For example, those who want justification for the view that Tony Blair is just a war criminal are likely to be disappointed, as it is expected to be a balanced and fair report. Ultimately, people’s pre-existing views on the Iraq War will end up informing their views on what the Chilcot report concludes.
Gareth Coventry
