I am of two minds about the Chilcote Enquiry. On one hand, it has brought many of the key (British) players to the table to be questioned for their actions; everyone can remember with joy John Prescott squirming and talking about his doubts about the intelligence etc etc. On the other, the enquiries terms of reference are limited to ‘as accurately as possible, what happened and to identify the lessons that can be learned’. Chilcote himself defends his enquiry from this accusation:
"Our terms of reference are very broad, but the essential points, as set out by the Prime Minister and agreed by the House of Commons, are that this is an Inquiry by a committee of Privy Counsellors. It will consider the period from the summer of 2001 to the end of July 2009, embracing the run-up to the conflict in Iraq, the military action and its aftermath. We will therefore be considering the UK's involvement in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, 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."
However, given the level of questioning so far – which has only appeared to be robust, and has made limited reference to the documents published on the enquiry website – it does seem as if nothing new will come out of the enquiry that isn’t already y known. Indeed, Chris Aimes of the Guardian says the enquiry is in danger of becoming a ‘sideshow’.
There is no doubt the Chilcote has raised many valid questions. The upcoming round of witnesses, the last I believe, set to appear will therefore be the litmus test for the final report and the credability of the whole enquiry. Since the appearance of Tony Blair much has been said to raise doubt and concern over his evidence. If Chilcote makes the bold move to call back the former Prime Minister then things may just work out OK – if Chilcote fails to do so, then it is fair to suggest that the enquiry will be a side show.
But I have a little insider information to offer - that I unfortunately can offer no proof for. Chilcote was involved in the Butler Enquiry which contained a few cutting paragraphs. I am reliably informed that it was Chilcote who wrote these paragraphs giving us an insight into his mindset. At face value it does appear that Chilcote will look to critique the politicians as well as the process involved. Such a move would be groundbreaking; an official enquiry openly critiquing the mindset of a Prime Minster and would be a devastating torpedo into the side of a party who all now appear to no longer support their decision to go to war. Indeed, at face value, it would appear that Chilcote could plausibly launch such an attack without leaving his terms of reference.
Nevertheless, the terms of reference stop him from drawing the key conclusion that many –including the current Deputy Prime Minister - wish to see: was the war illegal of not? Need we be too surprised; the enquiry was set up by a Government that had nothing to gain and potentially a lot to lose from this enquiry.
No comments:
Post a Comment