Opinion | Columnists
Another toothless Iraq inquiry
It can only confirm what most people already know: this was a war deliberately waged under a string of false pretences
- By Linda S. Heard, Special to Gulf News
- Published: 00:00 December 1, 2009
- Image Credit: Ramachandra Babu/Gulf News
Britain's third inquiry into the 2003 invasion of Iraq is underway. The previous Hutton and Butler reports were written off as establishment whitewashes with main government players emerging as pristine as snow. However, the current review chaired by John Chilcot — a Privy Counsellor who has been described as "a Mandarin with a safe pair of hands" — is empowered to lay blame at the feet of government bodies and individuals. But that's as far as it goes.
The published outcome could embarrass the potentially culpable but they certainly won't have to peer out of their living room windows waiting for the police to come a-knocking.
Purely academic
It seems, therefore, that if someone were to be pinpointed as having helped cook up a case for war as a result of a previous done deal between George W. Bush and Tony Blair, that individual would get off scot-free. Never mind that up to a million Iraqis are dead as a result of that illegal invasion, along with thousands of coalition troops. Why hold an inquiry at all when all it's good for is academic interest or a sop to the angry families of fallen servicemen?
It's hardly surprising that the British public isn't exactly fired-up. It can only confirm what most people already know: this was a war deliberately waged under a string of false pretences with the aim of effecting illegal regime change in Iraq.
There is a general belief that Blair was so much in awe of his US counterpart that he could refuse him nothing, even if this meant having to con his own Cabinet members. People who hold that opinion were relieved when Blair was recently denied the EU presidency, but fail to understand why the Quartet is still entrusting him with the role of Middle East envoy. Why should he have been chosen to, in his own words, help "build a Palestinian state from the bottom up" when he is jointly responsible for the destruction of another?
Originally, the Brown government wanted to keep the inquiry behind closed doors, but later succumbed to parliamentary outrage by conceding that hearings that did not involve sensitive intelligence could be open to the public. But that did not satisfy the inquiry's critics, who rightly criticised the committee's make-up.
For one thing, Chilcot cannot take evidence under oath. For another, there isn't a single judge on the panel, which consists of two historians, a former ambassador and a baroness, besides the chairperson. Thirdly, none is skilled in interviewing/interrogation techniques and, lastly, a few on the committee have long been cozy with one another.
Nevertheless, those involved are taking their responsibilities seriously within the parameters of their mandate. They have received mountains of unclassified and highly classified material from government departments and are calling witnesses with first-hand experience of government policy in Iraq. Public hearings will continue until February next year when some private hearings will be held before the committee begins its analysis. Any conclusions will be made public only after the next general election.
It's early days yet, but oral witness statements, thus far, have been damning. Former political director of the Foreign Office Sir Peter Ricketts admitted that whereas Britain and the Clinton administration were on the same page as regards containing Iraq with sanctions, the incoming Republican administration injected the concept of regime change into its rhetoric, which was felt by Britain to have no basis in legality.
In early 2001, he says, voices in Washington were discussing arming Iraqi anti-government groups. Former policy director to the Ministry of Defence Simon Webb confirmed that he heard regime change mentioned during a visit to Washington to discuss the Iraqi No-Fly Zones in March, 2001. They both describe how American officials were far from anxious to see UN weapons inspectors return to Iraq, which might have facilitated sanctions being lifted.
No evidence
Rickets says there was no evidence of Iraq being linked to 9/11 which begs the question, why didn't he speak up when Cheney and Rumsfeld were doing their utmost to fabricate one? He admits that Whitehall had no appetite in 2002 to take down Saddam. It's clear that Britain wanted the weapons inspectors to return and so-called smart sanctions agreed upon by the UN Security Council. So what happened?
According to the testimony of British Ambassador to Washington Sir Christopher Meyer, everything changed when Blair visited Bush's Crawford ranch in 2002 and together they sealed a pact to invade Iraq that was "signed in blood". Now, a letter from Lord Goldsmith, then attorney general, has been unearthed by The Mail on Sunday, that suggests deposing Saddam would breach international law. Goldsmith was thereafter "gagged", barred from Cabinet meetings and "more or less pinned to the wall" by Blair's aides to rubber stamp the invasion, which he did under protest.
Word has it that Blair will be called before the committee in the new year. I would book my ringside seat, except Teflon Man will probably flash his boyish smile and convince the panel that before them sits an honourable man who was forced to take hard decisions for the wellbeing of his country.
Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She can be contacted at lheard@gulfnews.com Some of the comments may be considered for publication.
More from Columnists
More from Opinions
Opinion Editor's choice
-
Syrian crisis and rumblings of a cold war
By Patrick Seale, Special to Gulf News
With their vetoes, Russia and China are saying they too have interests in the Middle East, which they are bent on protecting
-
Motives for a new regional alignment
By Marwan Kabalan, Special to Gulf News
The relationship between Iraq and Syria strengthened following the breakout of the uprising and withdrawal of US troops
-
Learning Arabic must not be seen as a compulsion
By Rabia Alavi, Special to Gulf News
Expatriates must see its inclusion in school curriculum as an invitation to integrate into Emirati society and an opportunity to access markets presently reserved for Emiratis
Your turn
