Over six years ago, in a happier time when David Cameron’s face didn’t loom smugly over British politics, the Chilcot report was commissioned. The report concerned the ‘dodgy dossier’ and the subsequent Iraq war which began in 2003 under the premiership of Tony Blair, who has since been severely criticised for his decision to go to war with the Middle Eastern country, amid speculation that his claims regarding Saddam Hussain’s possession of weapons of mass destruction were completely unfounded. Sir John Chilcot was appointed to precede over the inquiry by Gordon Brown, with the intention of “identifying lessons that can be learned” from the lengthy – and potentially unnecessary – war.
In keeping with many remnants of Tony Blair’s premiership, the Chilcot report has been the subject of much controversy, largely because six years after the last British regiment withdrew from Iraq, the report still does not exist in a tangible, published format. The report was expected to be published within a year of it being comissioned when in fact, this report has been in the process of compilation for a longer period of time than that of Britain’s involvement in the Iraq war. Contentiously, Sir John has refused any offer of further help, drawing speculation that perhaps he is actively trying to delay the proceedings, rather than giving the families of the 179 British soldiers killed during the conflict the answers that they deserve.
In the midst of the Labour leadership contest, it appears increasingly imperative that the report should be published as soon as possible. Labour candidates are frequently judged on their voting record (namely whether they voted ‘yes’ to go to war in Iraq or not) and the results of the report could help them no matter what, either allowing them to clear their names or prompting an in-depth party-wide discussion on the future of left-wing foreign policy. Until the report is published, the Labour party will be haunted by the uncertainties surrounding the motivation for going to war, even under the leadership of an MP with no involvement in the war, the party as a whole cannot move on until it receives this necessary form of closure.
Undoubtedly there is a huge amount of information to collate: the findings of weapons inspectors, reams and reams of Blair’s conversations with Bush and his dealings with other members of his cabinet – to name a few. However, Chilcot’s refusal of extra help with the report and the £9m that has so far been spent on compiling it have roused a great deal of suspicion. Ostensibly, the report has taken so long to be published because it is currently undergoing the process of ‘Maxwellisation’ – which allows those who have been criticised to receive relevant draft pages and respond accordingly prior to the report’s publication. The complex legal process has undoubtedly delayed the report’s progress, with many speculating that the lawyers involved their means to deliberately stall its publication.
Ex-deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has pointedly stated that when the report is finally published, there is a danger of the public disregarding the findings of the report, due to the fact that it could potentially be ‘sexed down’ by those allowed to comment on its findings. The Maxwellisation process is vague and little-publicised, it is unclear how much it will directly impact the drafting and re-writing process, it is possible that it will pose a threat to the clarity and truthfulness of the report. Chilcot apparently has failed to grasp the gravity of his responsibility – he owes the British public an explanation, not simply as to why their taxes were spent on a potentially illegal war, but also (if the allegations attached to Blair turn out to be true) why up to 122,000 Iraqi citizens had to die to fulfil Tony Blair’s crooked political agenda.
Despite David Cameron making some vague remarks regarding the slow-moving nature of the report, as leader of the Conservative party he was one of the 139 Conservative MPs who voted in favour of going to war in Iraq in 2003 – if the suspected controversies surrounding the war turn out to be true, it won’t just be Blairite MPs whose actions will be brought into disrepute. If and when the report is published, it could potentially give the Liberal Democrats leeway to increase their moral standing after their disappointment following the general election result – the entire party opposed the decision to going to war and has fervently stuck by this decision ever since.
It’s still ambiguous as to when the report will actually be published and it’s speculated that some of it may have been ‘prettified’ to save those indicted. The British public has waited six years to be given concrete answers, rather than being patronised by sound-bites or vague political terminology and it looks like we’re going to be waiting quite a while longer. Let’s just hope that the findings are worth the £9 million of taxpayer’s money that has been spent on them.