What can the Chilcot Inquiry achieve?

Alex Smith

ChilcotBy Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982

The Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war got underway today, with little consensus as to how much truth it will realistically be able to deliver. This is the fifth inquiry into the Iraq war, and some have doubts that it will be a “whitewash”.

There are, of course, legitimate concerns. Mehdi Hasan of the New Statesman sets out his five main doubts, including that Sir John Chilcot, who is heading the inquiry, is himself an “establishment” figure. While Chilcot has stressed that all committee members are now completely independent, irrespective of their pasts, doubts will inevitably and rightly remain as to the objectivity of both the evidence presented and the manner and direction of the investigation as a whole.

Other political insiders believe the inquiry will be credible and fair: 54% of PoliticsHome panellists of journalists and MPs agree that Chilcot’s panel is “sufficiently independent”, while only 38% disagree.

Some years ago, I did a study into the Saville Inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday, and what that inquiry might achieve in light of the time that had passed, the agendas of the people involved in giving evidence, and the philosophical difficulty in establishing “truth”. My thoughts then, as they are now with this inquiry, were that transparency is key to understanding, education and reconciliation; that if the process is fair and seen to be fair, and if it is properly conducted and seen to be properly conducted, then the outcomes and reccomendations should be accepted as just.

So far, I have seen little to suggest that that might not be the case.

So while specticism and doubt may bring added and beneficial scrutiny, we mustn’t write the process off before it has had the chance to do its job. We do not yet know exactly who will and won’t be called to speak, and those announcements should form part of the deliberative process. But with press gathering on this first day of public hearings, I can’t help but worry that they sense blood: they should remember that if this is to be a valid exercise, it will have to be a meticulous process; we shouldn’t expect or seek any instant gratification.

Today’s evidence, for example, dates back to 2001 and so far, officials have said that although Britain thought at the time that Iraq’s WMD programme was a threat, it was not seen as the most serious threat to the country.

While a deep dig into the conversations that took place before 9/11, immediately after that day and also in 2002-3 seems to me a reasonable place to start and must be a key part of the investigation, an inquiry of this scope can never fully get to grips with the subtleties of foreign policy making. In fact, considering all the long-lasting historical agents and the most private and personal thoughts of all the many people involved over the years in the decision-making process, it is virtually impossible to establish “truth” in its purest sense through an investigation such as this in any case. Ultimately, there are flaws in any such process.

Does that make it an invalid exercise or a waste of time and money? Of course not. We cannot even begin to understand the mistakes of the last few years – or to apply those lessons for the future – unless we take the time to make that thorough appraisal. While we are unlikely to find redemption or, conversely, be able to apportion the fullest blame, we should remember that this is not a criminal trial and will not be productive if it is primarily punative.

I will watch the proceedings of the Chilcot inquiry with a keen eye over the coming months to see if that fairness of scuritny can be the upheld here as in the Saville inquiry. In the meantime, I will not be writing off the outcomes.




More from LabourList

DONATE HERE

We provide our content free, but providing daily Labour news, comment and analysis costs money. Small monthly donations from readers like you keep us going. To those already donating: thank you.

If you can afford it, can you join our supporters giving £10 a month?

And if you’re not already reading the best daily round-up of Labour news, analysis and comment…

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR DAILY EMAIL