Whatever happened to the Chilcot report?

January 27, 2014 8:44 am

The Iraq Inquiry, headed by Sir John Chilcot, held its final public session almost exactly three years ago. The report, all 1,000,000+ words of it, is written and ready to be published. It has been for some time. All that remains is for agreement between the Chilcot committee and the government on which sensitive documents – communication between President Bush and prime minsters Blair and Brown, which the committee has seen – can be shared with the public. Final publication of the report will occur once those criticised in the report have been sent relevant passages in advance of publication to give them a chance to respond – the so-called “Maxwellisation” process.

Sir John himself thought that publication might have been possible last summer, four years after the inquiry process was launched by Gordon Brown. The investigation has been thorough and painstaking, considering evidence and material dating back to 2000. So of course it has taken a long time. But publication is still some way off. Last week in his Evening Standard column the well-informed Matthew d’Ancona suggested that the report would not be published before the summer recess.

What is taking so long? The sensitivity of some of these documents is obvious. But the committee has seen them and is serious about its task. It is unlikely they are seeking the publication of anything that would damage national security. Delay causes suspicion – and cynicism – to grow.

Ask around Westminster and you will be offered a range of comments on the (eventual) publication of the Chilcot report. “What is it really going to tell us that we don’t already know?” is one weary response. Others are darker still. One quite senior civil servant told me, as far as Tony Blair’s actions are concerned: “This is what prime ministers do.” In other words, we should not be too squeamish about the idea of the executive, at the centre, being decisive and taking action. And if things occasionally go wrong, so be it.

blair.jpg

Blair himself is said to be rather anxious, understandably, over what Chilcot will say. There is a feeling in parts of Whitehall that Lord Butler’s 2004 report into the use of intelligence ahead of the second Iraq war pulled its punches, and that its conclusions, grasped fully only by those who are fluent in “mandarin”, went under-appreciated. At its launch Lord Butler expected at least one member of the press to ask whether he felt prime minister Blair should “consider his position” – code for resigning. The answer would have been a long yes. But not a single representative of Fleet Street’s finest asked that question. (Incidentally, Sir John Chilcot was a member of Lord Butler’s committee.)

To some extent the weary voices that say we won’t learn anything new from Chilcot may have a point. The debate over a possible limited military strike on Syria in the summer took place in the shadow of Iraq. Prime minister Cameron acknowledged that in his insistence on having a parliamentary debate and vote before any military action could take place. Maybe the lessons of Chilcot have already been learned. Sir John said that the purpose of his Iraq inquiry was:

“to establish, as accurately as possible, what happened and to identify the lessons that can be learned. Those lessons will help ensure that, if we face similar situations in future, the government of the day is best equipped to respond to those situations in the most effective manner in the best interests of the country.”

It was in precisely that spirit that the debate on Syria took place.

But even if we have to wait until the autumn to see the final text, it must finally come out. I understand the committee is determined that this once and for all account will be published, in full. It will be an uncomfortable moment for some. The political implications are uncertain. But this is one occasion where the public will have to be told, unflinchingly, what happened, no matter how awkward or unsettling that may be.

Ed Miliband has already been warned, by Peter Mandelson among others, that he will have to be careful in his response to Chilcot. I’m sure he will be. But he has little personally to fear from it. Indeed its publication will allow him to assert that the next Labour government will in crucial details operate differently from the last one. It will help Miliband detach himself from some of the more unfortunate aspects of the New Labour legacy. Labour stands to gain politically from Chilcot, not be damaged by it.

You don’t suppose that this explains the delay in its publication, do you?

  • swatnan

    Chillcott is in danger of becoming another dodgy dossier with lots of hedging and redactions and incomplete truths. The fact is Iraq was an absolute dogs breakfast, and will go down in history as one of the biggest balls up of all time, and the greatest disasters of all times. And theres no getting away from it. So EdM would be advised to admit it, and Labour to move on, and get over it. There have been countless other military disasters in the history of Great Britain; its just another to put in the cupboard along with the other skeltons. BTW it had nothing to do with new Labour; it could have happened under old Labour just as well.

    • treborc1

      Chilcot came in one day and saw this dark figure bent over a shredder, and now it’s all gone, he has to start again, another three years.

  • treborc1

    One dark night three people one with big ears were seen sneaking into the building sneaked into the office and pinched it.

    It has to be, they seek him here, they seek him there, they seek Tony Blair everywhere.

    Either that or he has threatened to take Chilcot to court if he damages his money making racket. Maybe it’s been shredded with a lot of other evidence from labour top socialist….

  • ColinAdkins

    Maybe one for Scully and Mulder.

    • treborc1

      The X files, sounds about right.

  • Daniel Speight

    I fear Chilcot may be the last opportunity to bring Blair to account over the actions that led to Britain’s involvement in the Iraq war. The last chance to understand what this presidential style of leadership opened the door to. It’s becoming fairly obvious that politicians and the top end of the civil service would be happy for this report to be swept under the carpet.

    • Doug Smith

      Blair’s supporters in the media will also be very much in favour of the ‘under the carpet’ option.

      Let’s not forget Nuremberg precedent: those who support an aggressive war through acts of propaganda are deemed to be as culpable as those who draw up the battle plans.

      • treborc1

        I suspect Blair will point his little finger at America or Campbell and say they made me do it honestly.

  • reformist lickspittle

    It has been. So get off your deeply tedious and self-righteous high horse.

  • http://www.pearshapedcomedy.com Anthony Miller

    I doubt we will see it till 2016 http://www.pearshapedcomedy.com/TimTyler.html

Latest

  • Comment Britain needs to renegotiate its relationship with the real world

    Britain needs to renegotiate its relationship with the real world

    British politics is peculiarly dominated by the relationship between this country and the rest of the world. Margaret Thatcher’s politics were led by the effort to restore Britain’s global prestige. Since then the EU and foreign wars have divided opinion, and hastened the downfall of two Prime Ministers. They may very well undermine third. The political storm of our day comes from the rise of a party interested– it seems –in little other than severing our relationship to Europe. Every […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Europe McFadden’s appointment comes at a time of big opportunity for Labour on Europe

    McFadden’s appointment comes at a time of big opportunity for Labour on Europe

    Pat McFadden is taking over the Europe brief just at the time when the issue can work in Labour’s favour. Provided we hold to Ed Miliband’s decision not to cave in to the calls to offer an in-out referendum. Europe is again becoming toxic for the Tories. How Cameron must be looking back wistfully to that time when he told his party to stop banging on about Europe. That’s exactly what it is now doing. And it’s largely his own […]

    Read more →
  • Comment The Next Portillo Moment

    The Next Portillo Moment

    Undoubtedly the highlight of election night ‘97 was seeing Labour record the unlikeliest of victories where I live in Enfield Southgate. We did it through hard work, at the time all three Enfield seats were blue and though the Labour swing meant that Edmonton and Enfield North were going red regardless it took a special campaign lead by an extraordinarily good candidate in Stephen Twigg to record what was an iconic victory in the Party’s history. We held the seat […]

    Read more →
  • Comment The business backlash against Tory EU exit plans 

    The business backlash against Tory EU exit plans 

    It’s not just José Manuel Barroso who has warned David Cameron that his party is taking the wrong approach when it comes to talk of an EU exit. There is a clear sense of concern and anger from the UK and international business community in respect of the Tory plans for an in/out referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU in 2017. This has led to a serious business backlash against the Tories. Standard & Poor’s, the international rating […]

    Read more →
  • Featured Miliband sets out 5 point immigration reform plan (but won’t join “Operation Pander”)

    Miliband sets out 5 point immigration reform plan (but won’t join “Operation Pander”)

    Ed Miliband is in Rochester today, where he’s campaigning for the party’s by-election candidate Naushabah Khan against what he called the “two Tory opponents” of UKIP and the Tories in the Rochester and Strood by-election. But the main purpose of Miliband’s speech was to set out what Labour’s approach to immigration will be – specifically an Immigration Reform Bill in the first Queen’s Speech of the new Parliament. Miliband announced it’d be based around five key principles (most of which […]

    Read more →