The Chilcot inquiry
David Blackburn 5:04pm
The general opinion is that Sir John Chilcot’s terms of reference imply that his Iraq inquiry will be more open than its predecessors and that this is bad news for Brown. Former Defence committee chairman Michael Mates said that, unlike the two inquiries he sat on, Chilcot’s will have “much more independence than the Prime Minister or the government wanted him to have”, estimating that “70% to 80% (of hearings) will be (held) in public.”
William Hague lent his support and believes that the inquiry’s terms are not what the government wanted – as, according to the Standard’s Joe Murphy, Brown and Blair are to be grilled live on television I can well believe that (perhaps we will be treated to a reminder of why Brown decided against televised election debates). Hague is wary that “sessions can be held in private if there is a need for candour – I hope his won’t become an excuse for ministers and former ministers to give evidence in private”. Hague’s worries on this last point are valid but Sir John’s terms, if they are ruthlessly enforced, should go someway to allaying them. He vows to recall any witness that abused private hearings and “make them testify publically”. That warning should deter would be dissemblers.
The major news though is that the government’s attempt to keep this under wraps has failed. There was a revealing moment during Chilcot’s press conference when the BBC’s Carol Walker asked Chilcot about procedure and then if Brown had asked Chilcot to keep the affair private. Chilcot answered the first question and then said: ‘You asked another question, I forget what about’. She reiterated it. After a long pause he answered: ‘It’s a fair question,’ He paused again before continuing: ‘I am quite committed for this inquiry to have confidence; it needs the maximum amount of openness. That has been my position from the start.” As circumlocution goes, that is first class. The contrast between Blair’s management of Iraq inquiries, under enormous personal pressure, and Brown’s are obvious.
Previous
pete-s
July 30th, 2009 5:20pm Report this commentMy prediction, toothless white wash, as per usual.
Chuck Unsworth
July 30th, 2009 5:27pm Report this commentSelf-evidently the Inquiry is not what Brown would have wanted. The real question is whether it's what the public would have wanted. For my money the answer is No.
The very fact that there are to be limitations as to what will be made public is sufficient to raise suspicions. We have had enough of this all purpose clause, 'the national security', and its gross misapplication by this Government. This hybrid will be condemned from all sides, and thus will be a failure. It will not exonerate, nor will it properly cast blame. Worse, it will have no impact at all on the guilty nor will it effect real change.
Now, any bets as to how much all this will cost the taxpayer, and how long it will last? There are lawyers feverishly stabbing calculators even as I write.
Ed P
July 30th, 2009 5:59pm Report this commentI trust any evidence extracted from Blair will not undermine or prejudice the Hague court's expected future charges of war crimes? It would be a shame to provide a loophole for the ghastly one.
Michael Booth
July 30th, 2009 6:40pm Report this commentLet's not get excited: the Inquiry will no doubt be a classic example of the sort of thing we have seen before. No one will be blamed for anything and Sir John will get a peerage. National Security will be cited again and again - the National Interest (by which I mean what really is in the best interest of this country, like openness and honesty) will be sidelined. Are there any ordinary members of the public on Sir John's committee? Of course not. Are committee members tried and tested establishment figures? You bet. Of course it serves their interests to give a bit of pre-Inquiry hype, spread it around that things will be open and above board. Once that has been repeated enough to sink into the public conciousness we will accept any rubbish they choose to publish.
mitch
July 30th, 2009 7:52pm Report this commentI can almost hear the very expensive,tax payer funded, bespoke whitewash brushes being hand crafted by the Whitehall machine.
I will bet money that
a, no person can be blamed.
b, the system is at fault.
c, lessons will be learned.
See!! I can do it for free, their version will cost millions and say exactly the same thing.
David Ossitt
July 30th, 2009 7:56pm Report this comment"He vows to recall any witness that abused private hearings and “make them testify publically"
Nothing less than a fully open hearing with every witness on oath will produce a whitewash.
RobC
July 30th, 2009 11:29pm Report this commentWe have been here before.I distinctly remember the run up to the Hutton Enquiry to the effect that Hutton was a pillar of probity,independent and was an honourable decent man who would get to the truth.The result was the biggest whitewash in history with Gilligan,The BBC and Kelly(The victims) respectively sacked,neutered and driven to suicide for telling the truth FFS and destroying any credibilty in Hutton as an honest broker.
I will not be surprised if the outcome of this enquiry blames no one in the establishment but points the finger at yet another row of hapless victims as the Chairman slinks off into the sunset to claim his mess of pottage for a job well done?
chris
July 31st, 2009 12:11am Report this commentDon't know if anyone has flagged it but there is a great article in August's Vanity Fair by Christopher Hitchens on how useless Brown has been as PM. THe word is spreading beyond the shores of blighty!
Rainer Unsinn
July 31st, 2009 8:55am Report this comment"It started in America"
This will be a typical Labour inquiry - the result is laid down in the remit - no-one in Labour has done anything wrong.
Rainer Unsinn
July 31st, 2009 9:07am Report this commentchris, excellent piece.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/08/hitchens200908
logdon
July 31st, 2009 12:24pm Report this commentAs soon as the 'dodgy dossier' was outed as a US university student's thesis lifted wholesale off the internet we knew that any further 'reason for war' would be a tissue of concocted lies.
Any MP claiming to then believe Blair's subsequent WMD and Forty Five claim is either lying or a total fool.
It's as if the Blair cabal thought, we'll give that a punt and if it doesn't work we'll hatch a 'Plan B' and so they did.
And it passed that our rancid political classes dragged us into a phoney war against a phoney target for phoney reasons.
Had Blair, instead focussed his efforts at that point against the rising tide of British Islamist demands for preferential status and separation we'd all, including them, be in a better place right now.
And if, as reported, Maliki is intent on forging shi'ite ties with Iran we'll have created a huge anti western superpower where there was previous fragmentation.
Remember after the US Embassy hostage crisis America armed Saddam and aided him in the Iran/Iraq War. That move shifted the baleful gaze of the Ayatolla's and enabled a deal to free the Embassy unfortunates.
Ever since then it's been downhill.
And furthermore, under Obama's watch that down hill is descending to a vertical drop into an endless pit of appeasement.
As for an Inquiry? Why bother with yet another toothless farrago when the worst is yet to come?
Trumpeter Lanfried
July 31st, 2009 5:30pm Report this commentChilcot has decided that the enquiry will not employ counsel to question the witnesses. The members will question the witnesses themselves.
This is a fatal error. The effective questioning of hostile or evasive witnesses is a skill which takes years to learn and which most politicians and civil servants have never acquired.
Back to top