Over the last few days the Twittersphere has been filled
with #labourpurge and an overall sense that the Labour Parliamentary Party, the
establishment, are attempting to hold on to power. The threat of a prospective
new wave, a re-entry of Labour ideologues seems to scare the powers that be,
enough to override any principles of democracy. And, thus the cries of #labourpurge
cry out into the Twittersphere. Now, considering this, and the fact that Sir
John Chilcot has announced further delays to his enquiry’s reporting, is it
possible that the mysterious powers that be are blocking publishing of the
enquiry, due
now in 2016?
The delays have been attributed to the, so called, maxwellisation
process, which allows any party likely to face criticism the right to consult
with legal counsel, and respond. The enquiry suggests that it is this lengthy
process that has held up proceedings. In large part this is true, as additional
material for consideration, and fresh lines of enquiry, have been brought to
light through the process. The rabbit hole I’m sure goes very deep.
However, 2016 is not an acceptable date for publishing for
many families of those that served in Iraq. In fact, a collective of 29
families are currently pushing for judicial review, claiming that Chilcot will
have breached a legally acceptable period for publication, by failing to
identify a date for publication. Chilcot merely paid reference to a ‘reasonable
time’ period, he expected the maxwellisation process to take, and refused to
state the number of people that needed to be consulted.
The law on the matter of public inquiries is a rather perverse
animal. In 2005 the Inquiry Act was enacted, under which all future inquiries,
regarding matters of public concern, were to be conducted. However, under the
legislation, there is no definite presumption that a public enquiry will be
conducted under the Act, and therefore adhere to the legislation, which ensures
a report is delivered within a certain time and maxwellisation doesn’t carry on
for ever.
Under the IA, it is most likely the report would be
concluded by now. It hasn’t, as it is not a statutory enquiry by technicality.
The Inquiry Act 2005 allows a minister of the government rather a great deal of
control over proceedings. He can fire and appoint panel members, frame terms of
reference and restrict public access to the inquiry. So, perhaps the aggrieved
families, awaiting the result of the report, should be glad of its independence
from the Inquiry Act after all.
By all accounts they aren’t. In fact, their collective wish
for, not only swift closure but a sense of justice, has been made clear. One
family member, Reg
Keys, stood against Tony Blair on an anti-war ticket in 2005 and his actively
campaigned against the Iraq and Afghan Wars throughout the US-UK occupation. “Those families will
want to know why their loved ones have ended up in that state,” he told the BBC
in August.
They believe this justice falls at the doorsteps of Blair
and Bush, personally. So do others. Under sections 33 and 51 of the UN Charter,
it is prohibited to plan, prepare or initiate acts of aggression against
another member state that may lead to war, unless these are in defence of one’s
own national security. Lord Goldsmith warned Blair of a potential breach in
2002, and these concerns surrounding the legality of invasion were bolstered by
Blair’s Cabinet Office around the same time. Blair knew of the illegality of
the invasion. In
2002, a memo from Sir Richard Dearlove, ex Director of MI6, told Blair that
“military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam
through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But
the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”. It is rather understandable
that the families require justice, given this evidence already in the public
domain.
The policy of forceful regime change is not something that
would have offended the Blair ethos at the time, as John Kampfner notes in his
book, Blair Wars. According to Kampfner, in 1999 Blair invited Sir Lawrence
Freedman, who now sits on the Chilcot enquiry (convenient), to help shape Blair’s
‘philosophy’ on foreign policy. This ‘philosophy’ involved regime change by
military means whenever, and wherever, humanitarian crises arose globally.
These humanitarian crises, these trigger events, that would initiate a
willingness to intervene and effect regime change overseas, were of course articulated
from the perspective of neo liberal, western capitalism, Blair’s ethos.
Blair, not surprisingly, is connected to every member of the
panel: He ensured Sir John, was knighted to the order of the bath in 1997, and
made Baroness Prashar a life peer in 99. His connection to Sir Roderic Lyre and
Sir Martin Gilbert, are less straight forward. Sir Roderic was the Ambassador
to the Russian Federation from 2000-2004, but was known to be one of Alastair
Campbell’s friends; upon meeting, journalists have noted that, they would
compete in impromptu footraces across parts of London and Moscow. As for Sir
Gilbert, he famously wrote in the
Observer, in 2004 that, "Although it
can easily be argued that Bush and Blair face a far lesser challenge than
Roosevelt and Churchill did, that the war on terror is not a third world war,
they may well, with the passage of time and the opening of the archives, join
the ranks of Roosevelt and Churchill." It was clear that Sir
Gilbert publicly admired Blair’s foreign policy ‘philosophy’. Subsequently, but
prior to the Inquiry’s beginnings, it was rumoured that Sir Gilbert had been
asked to write Blair’s biography.
Despite the Inquiry being
inconclusive, many believe the evidence in the public domain is strong enough
to prosecute Tony Blair for war crimes under the UN Charter. It is imperative
that the families hear the Inquiry’s findings in full and that justice of some
form is reached. After all, it seems that closure isn’t enough in this instance,
at least not for the 29 families threatening judicial review. Sadly, I’m not
sure the Inquiry’s findings will ever see the light of day. Because, just as
the Parliamentary Labour Party, the establishment, wish to subdue Corbynites
through the #labourpurge, the powers that be, Blair’s anointed panel members
and those surrounding them, cannot be seen to undermine international law by
letting an ex- Prime Minister off the hook for a crime he so clearly committed.
So, perhaps it’s better to forget Iraq ever happened than take responsibility
for it. Well, personal responsibility at least, under the UN Charter.