Labour's "investigation" into its very own war crimes is unlikely to reveal what really happened, reports Mohamed Khan The Chilcot Inquiry into United Kingdom involvement in the United States-led invasion and occupation of Iraq began its work 15 June 2009. The inquiry is headed by Sir John Chilcot, a former civil servant appointed by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. To facilitate the inquiry, a committee was set up by Brown, comprised of Sir Lawrence Freedman, a military historian in the War Department at King's College, Sir Martin Gilbert, a historian known for supporting the invasion of Iraq, Sir Roderic Lyne, a former British ambassador to Russia and the United Nations, and Baroness Usha Prashar, member of the parliamentary Joint Committee for Human Rights. The inquiry's remit is to examine the UK's participation in Iraq from mid-2001 to July 2009, and will investigate the run up to the conflict, the subsequent military action and what followed. The objective is to affirm the manner in which decisions were made and executed, to determine what happened, to identify lessons to ensure that if a similar situation arises in the future, the UK government is better prepared to respond in the most effective manner to safeguard national interests. The inquiry is expected to interview a number of key players involved in the decision- making and planning process leading up to the Iraq war. So far, prominent individuals interviewed include Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the UK's permanent representative to the United Nations from 1998 to 2003, Sir David Manning, Tony Blair's former chief foreign policy advisor, and Sir Christopher Meyer, the UK's ambassador to the US from 1997 to 2003. Brown, to give the inquiry effectiveness, has announced that no one is off the radar, implying that Tony Blair or even himself, although not on the inquiry's list of possible evidence providers, could be called to give evidence to the select committee. Meyer told the committee about a private meeting between Blair and US president George G Bush in April 2002, after which Blair began to talk publicly about regime change in Iraq, affirming the claims made by critics of the war that the US had decided to remove Saddam Hussein by the end of 2002 and that the UK was aware of this intention and had offered its support. Manning seemed to contradict the evidence given by Meyer, by denying that Blair had agreed in March 2002 to join the US policy of regime change in Iraq; yet documents exist that support the claims by Meyer. A memo from Manning to Blair in March 2002 documents that Manning told US national security advisor Condoleezza Rice that Blair would not budge in his support for regime change, and a paper in the same month prepared by Manning's section in the Cabinet office stated that the government's policy on Iraq should be one of using overriding force in a military offensive. Such contradictory versions are likely to arise as the inquiry goes further into its investigation. The inquiry has already received criticism from opposition quarters. First the opposition argue that the committee is not as comprehensive as it needs to be, as there are no judges or legal experts on the panel, leading the opposition to question whether the committee has the knowledge or expertise to pass judgement on the legality of the war. Second, the opposition, believe that the legitimacy of the inquiry is in question, as the interviewed personnel are not obliged to take an oath, raising concern over the validity of the statements and accounts which are given. Third, the opposition want the findings of the inquiry to be released before the general elections scheduled for June 2010, but the inquiry refuses, as this deadline would not give them time to prepare a comprehensive report. The opposition fired back, demanding at the very least an interim report before the elections. The Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, has criticised Gordon Brown for "suffocating the inquiry", requiring the permission of the government for any document or information which it wants to make available to the public. The opposition argue that those testifying are being given an easy ride, as no reference is being made to controversial documentation which would embarrass some of the witnesses. For example, another revealing document from Manning refers to a meeting between Blair and Bush in January 2003 in which Blair promised support for the Iraqi invasion whatever the UN inspectors concluded at that time. This compromising document was not presented during Manning's sitting, raising the charge that the witnesses are being let off lightly. The inquiry has also been shadowed by controversy as a result of shocking statements made by Blair on BBC 13 December that he believed that it was morally right to remove Saddam Hussein, even if he had known that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction. He added that he would merely have used different arguments to justify the war, leading to criticism from the opposition quarters that he misled parliament and the British public. Conservative MP Richard Ottoway, a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, said Blair had misled parliament on more than one occasion and that the British public would be dismayed by Blair's latest comments, pointing to the fact that the Iraq invasion was Britain's most significant foreign policy commitment since WWII. He added that the British parliament would have made a different decision had it known the truth, something which was affirmed by Sir Menzies Campbell, the former Liberal Democratic Party leader, arguing that Blair certainly would have failed to gain the consent of the House of Commons if he had been truthful and accurate. Although still in its infancy, the inquiry has already revealed interesting information but it continues to be hindered by criticism and red tape, and it will be difficult for the inquiry to do its work in peace given outside interference, such as Blair's shocking statement on BBC. Nevertheless, the revelations and contradictions between the different accounts can only add weight to the widespread belief that the Blair government lied to parliament and the public leading up to the Iraq invasion in 2003.
