Why is an inquiry happening now?
The Chilcot inquiry is the fifth inquiry into the Iraq war. There were two inquiries by parliamentary Select Committees in 2003 – the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee and the joint Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. There was also a judicial inquiry by a law lord, Lord Hutton, in January 2004, into the circumstances surrounding the apparent suicide of a scientific official and expert on weapons of mass destruction, Dr. David Kelly. It concluded that the Blair government could not be blamed for Dr. Kelly’s death, and that, contrary to allegations on the BBC, it had not knowingly exaggerated published assessments of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.
Then there was a five-member inquiry in July 2004, chaired by Lord Butler, a former Cabinet Secretary, and former Master of University College, Oxford, into the role of intelligence concerning Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, an issue which played a key part in the British government’s decision to join the American-led invasion. It concluded that, although British intelligence officials believed that Saddam possessed chemical and biological weapon capacity and was working towards a nuclear weapon, nevertheless, more weight was placed on the intelligence than it was able to bear’.
The Chilcot inquiry was set up by Gordon Brown in June 2009 following pressure from critics of the war. There was a similar inquiry after the Falklands war in 1982, chaired by Lord Franks, a former Ambassador to the United States and Provost of Worcester College, Oxford.
What is the inquiry’s remit?
Its remit is to establish as accurately as possible, what happened and to identify the lessons that can be learned. By contrast with previous inquiries into the Iraq war, Chilcot is intended to be comprehensive, and Sir John was allowed to write its broad terms of reference.
When will the report be published?
The inquiry will come to a temporary halt at the end of March to avoid interfering with the general election. It proposes to report at the end of the year though some have suggested that the report may be delayed until 2011.
What did Tony Blair’s testimony reveal ?
Tony Blair had to deal with the following charges:
First, that he deceived Parliament and his colleagues, by agreeing with President Bush at Crawford, Texas, in April 2002, to deal with Saddam one way or another. Blair replied that there was no commitment to war, and that Saddam could have avoided war by disarming.
Second, an issue considered by the Butler inquiry, Blair was accused of having have made the evidence as to weapons of mass destruction appear firmer than it actually was. He appeared to accept that the evidence was not as firm as he had suggested.
Third, he is accused of having ignored the widely held view held that the war was illegal in international law, unless a second UN resolution was achieved. He replied that the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, had given it as his opinion that the war was legal even without a second UN resolution.
Fourth – and this too was an issue examined by the Butler inquiry – he is accused of having subverted the principles and practice of Cabinet government, in order to secure support for the war. Blair denied this and said that the Cabinet had discussed the issues involved with a full and free exchange of views on a number of occasions.
Finally, Blair is accused of having failed fully to equip the troops and to have done insufficient planning for the post war situation in Iraq. This, some argue, is why post-war reconstruction has proved so difficult. Blair insisted that the difficulties of the occupation were due to terrorists from Iran and al-Qaeda, but he also implied that the Americans were in part responsible for the failure of post-war planning.
Could the inquiry result in any prosecutions?
No. The inquiry is in no sense a tribunal nor a court. Indeed, Sir John Chilcot was careful to insist before Tony Blair appeared for questioning on 29th January that the former prime minister was not on trial. None of the inquiry team are legally qualified, nor are witnesses provided with legal representation, nor are they under oath. Nevertheless, there is an undoubted public perception that the Blair government, and Blair, in particular, are in the dock.
Vernon Bogdanor is a Professor of Politics and Government at Brasenose.
