Chilcot-en Gains? Have Lessons Been Learned Over Iraq?

In early 2003, as the march to war in Iraq began to accelerate, I can remember reading an excellent report in The Guardian’s G2 supplement by someone formerly in the military’s top brass, whose name now escapes me. The reason the article has stayed with me seven years on is that, at a time when the commentary in the media churned out claim and counter-claim about Iraq’s presumed stockpile of WMDs, this lone voice was urging the west to consider something that was all but ignored at the time: Iraq’s domestic politics.

Iraq was disarmed after the first Gulf War in 1991 and, the argument ran, if we are to go to war over the country’s weapons of mass destruction, the burden of proving their existence falls upon the invading powers. Granted, Iraq had failed to comply with UN weapons inspections, but one should consider the unenviable position Saddam Hussein found himself in through the late 1990s and early 2000s. His outward shows of defiance not only masked his weakening hold of power in Iraq, but were actually the only thing keeping the dictator from losing popular support, itself the only thing propping up his regime. UN incursions into Iraq not only undermined Saddam’s authority, but also placed pressure on him to sate the anti-western sentiment held by many Iraqis.

Fast-forward to 2010, and what has struck me most about the latest bout of hand-wringing at the Chilcot inquiry is the extent to which the terms of the debate are still grounded in these pre-war assumptions. Gordon Brown asserted in his evidence that Saddam ‘did not disclose, far less dismantle any of his weapons’, a claim that was not questioned by a single member of the Chilcot panel. Even where mistakes have been admitted, politicians have begged exoneration on the basis that their decisions were made in good faith. Take Tony Blair, for example, claiming that ‘What I actually said in the foreword [to the September 2002 Iraq dossier] was that I believed it beyond doubt [that Iraq possessed WMDs] and I did believe it’

Politicians, of course, are not exactly known for their heart-felt apologies. However what worries me most about the ongoing Chilcot inquiry is that I’ve seen very little evidence that lessons have been learned from the whole debacle. David Miliband, for example, claimed in his evidence yesterday that ‘It was no good the UN passing strong resolutions if it was then feeble in its follow-up.’ But how could Iraq have complied with the demands of the resolution referred to by Mili senior – Security Resolution 1441, the final request made by the UN for Iraq to disarm – if the intelligence that suggested that Iraq was ‘armed’ in the first place was at fault? If this inquiry has revealed anything, it is that the burden of proof should have fallen on the US and the UK to substantiate the claims they made in the build up to war. Judging from what I have seen, I can’t see that the present Government would react any differently if it were presented by a similar scenario in the future.

Does The Green Party Really Want AMS?

There's an interesting piece that's just been published over at the New Statesman, retrofitting the 2005 election result with various reforms to the voting system. With the Alternative Vote (AV) system currently en vogue with the Prime Minister, much of the attention given to the NS article will undoubtedly highlight the strengthening of Labour's position under this system.

From the Green Party's perspective however, I found myself wondering whether events have overtaken its long-term support for the Additional Member System (AMS). The Party has justified its position on electoral reform by highlighting the many merits of the system, which dovetails nicely with its policies on localism and engagement. These are all good reasons to support AMS, but I'm sure political expedience was also a key factor in the Party's reform agenda: it could justifiably expect to win more seats in Wesminster under AMS than under FPTP.

And superficially at least, this is a conclusion that is upheld by the Statesman's report, in which AMS is the only system through which the Green Party would have won representation in the Commons in 2005. However with Caroline Lucas now favourite to take Brighton Pavillion at the next election under FPTP, I wonder whether there isn't more to consider here. It's worth noting that under AMS in 2005, the Green Party would only have won 2 seats, the same number as the BNP and 8 fewer than UKIP. This could be damaging for the Party's image: it doesn't want to be seen as an 'extremist' party operating on the fringes of society in the same way that the BNP does. In contrast, if Lucas is able to win the Greens' first seat in the spring, they can again claim to be the fourth largest party (excluding nationalists) in the country, as they will have achieved something that not even UKIP have done (UKIP's only current MP - Bob Spink - is a Tory turncoat). It might not mirror the Party's egalitarian ideal, but being part of a more exclusive legislative body might give the Greens more political weight than being one of a number of 'minor' parties to hold more than one seat.

The caveat here, of course, is that the NS research doesn't account for how a change in the voting system might affect a change in people's voting intentions. Greens might justifiably point out that their party may attract a larger share of the vote if the electorate thought that a Green vote carried more weight under AMS than under FPTP. Reason suggests that the Party may well have suffered from tactical voting and 'wasted-vote syndrome' in the past. But unless Labour backbenchers can force a stunning change of direction in the Commons this afternoon, it seems likely that the terms of such debates as these will continue to be grounded in little more than conjecture.

PMQs Post-Mortem

So, a return to the ring for Brown and Cameron after their respective sojourns in Brighton and Manchester. However after the plots and drama of the last few days, the expenses hot potato is something of an elephant in the room, being conspicuous by its absense. I suppose its not really an issue either party see as a major point-scoring opportunity, and both will be wary of exposing discontent in their own ranks.

Infact the normally theatrical PMQs are distinctly sombre from the outset, despite a packed house. The mood can't have been helped by the long list read out by Brown detailing the names and rank of those killed over recess. Cameron opens up with some salvos on troop provisions and training, but they are hardly stinging. GB gives his customary 'I will write to you' response on any issue wherein he's lacking in statistics and initiatives to counter. You also get the impression that he's holding his cards close to his chest on the issue until he gives his statement after PMQs. Both Brown and Cameron seem to be trying to out-statesman the other on the issue of Afghanistan. Only Clegg fails to get in on the act by trying to extract a pre-emptive condemnation of the Afghan government's legitimacy from the PM. GB wisely states that he is reserving judgement until after the results have been analysed. Clegg also gets loudly booed by certain members, presumably because of his brave/foolish stance on expanding Sir Thomas Legg's remit in relation to the expenses audit articulated in this morning's Telegraph. Bad start for the Lib Dems, then.

Similarly absent from the main exchanges is the issue of public spending which dominated the party conference season. Brown cleverly waits until after Cameron and Clegg have exhausted their questions to launch an attack on Opposition cuts by attacking Tory proposals on child tax credits and Sure Start in response to a question from Labour backbencher Julie Morgan. Cameron must be fuming about that.

A final caveat about John Bercow. He certainly is a different kettle of fish to Micky Martin (or Lord Martin of Springburn as we now must call him). Having debuted as Speaker by laying down the law on excessive decibel levels, he is rather brisk with poor old Alasdair McDonnell of the SDLP, who looks bemused and is reluctant to sit down after being curtailed mid-sentence and told that the PM has 'the gist' of his admittedly long-winded question. The Lib Dem's Mark Williams recieves similar treatment. Is Bercow trying to recapture Tory hearts and minds with an efficiency drive of his own?

Self-flagellation and self-righteousness: politicians, the media and the expenses 'scandal'

Obviously the story that has dominated politics since the return from recess has been the further fallout from the expenses scandal in the wake of Sir Thomas Legg's recommendations. Ever the contrarian, I thought I'd add a word of caution to all the indignant headlines (the Standard today is particularly inflammatory: 'MPs Plot To Veto Expenses Payback').

The general consensus amongst the party leaders seems to be that politicians must prostrate themselves before the public over their expenses in order to 'win back their trust'. Gordon Brown has said as much himself, and David Cameron has even gone as far as to threaten deselection to any Tory brave enough to question Legg's demands. However if Nick Robinson is to be believed, there is widespread anger amongst MPs at the retrospective measures being taken. And let's be honest, there is some justification for this anger - if the victims of these measures were anyone other than MPs, you might expect a great deal of sympathy from the mainstream media.

Hardly any of these MPs, however, have gone on the record with these objections. The BBC piece carries quotes from politicians speaking on condition of anonymity, whilst The Guardian cites a 'Labour source' in its story. Absolutely no-one seems to be suggesting that standing up for what you believe in as an MP might be a better means of gaining public trust than pandering to a bloodthirsty media. And herein lies the problem: when the dust has settled on the expenses saga, I think what will be illuminated is the fact that for politicians, 'public trust' and 'positive headlines' are virtually indistinguishable.

Guardian Gag Enigma

Fascinating front page to this morning's Guardian, in which the paper claims that it has been barred from reporting on a mystery ministerial question to be anwered later this week. According to The Grauniad, the whos, wheres and whys cannot be reported either, and the only tid-bit of information offered is that the story somehow involves Carter-Ruck solicitors.

But surely it would be too much of a coincidence for this not to involve the Trafigura debacle, and the paper's accusations last month that Carter-Ruck attempted to supress The Guardian's reports on the alleged dumping of toxic oil waste off the coast of West Africa? And with this in mind, could the question in question perhaps be Paul Farrelly's to Jack Straw, due to be lodged tomorrow, which asks the Justice Secretary:

"what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect...
press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by...
Trafigura and Carter Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication
of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory
Coast, commissioned by Trafigura."?

I suppose we can infer from the uproar created by Carter-Ruck that the contents of the Minton Report are fairly incendiary, and that The Guardian was probably on or near the money with its exposes.

*Update* It seems Guido Fawkes and half of twitter have jumped to similar conclusions - so much for Carter-Ruck's cover-up! Its also worth noting that the part of Farrelly's question that I ommitted in my original post (included by Guido) relates to another investigative story The Guardian has been running on Barclay's alleged use of off-shore tax havens. I think we can all guess which paper flops through the Farrellys' letterbox each morning!

*Update 2* The gagging order has apparently been lifted by Carter-Ruck, and myself and the rest of the blogosphere pointed our fingers in the right direction. Well done us.