[THS] Chilcot inquiry: Iraq expert: civil servants are withholding vital docs

[The Harder Stuff in news and commentary]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/25/chilcot-iraq-carne-ross


Chilcot inquiry: Iraq expert Carne Ross claims civil servants are withholding vital
documents

Britain's 'deep state' of secretive bureaucrats is denying witnesses to the Chilcot
inquiry crucial files

    * Carne Ross
    * The Observer, Sunday 25 July 2010
    * Article history

Carne Ross UK’s Iraq expert Carne Ross, the UK’s Iraq expert at the UN from
1997-2002, says all the invasion documents should now be made public. Photograph:
Sarah Lee for the Guardian

I testified last week to the Chilcot inquiry. My experience demonstrates an emerging
and dangerous problem with the process. This is not so much a problem with Sir
John Chilcot and his panel, but rather with the government bureaucracy – Britain's
own "deep state" – that is covering up its mistakes and denying access to critical
documents.

There is only one solution to this problem, and it requires decisive action.

After I was invited to testify, I was contacted by the Foreign Office, from which I had
resigned after giving testimony to the Butler inquiry in 2004, to offer its support for
my appearance. I asked for access to all the documents I had worked on as Britain's
Iraq "expert" at the UN Security Council, including intelligence assessments, records
of discussions with the US, and the long paper trail on the WMD dossier.

Large files were sent to me to peruse at the UK mission to the UN. However, long
hours spent reviewing the files revealed that most of the key documents I had asked
for were not there.

In my testimony I had planned to detail how the UK government failed to consider,
let alone implement, available alternatives to military action. To support this I had
asked for specific records relating to the UK's failure to deal with the so-called Syrian
pipeline, through which Iraq illegally exported oil, thereby sustaining the Saddam
regime. I was told that specific documents, such as the records of prime minister
Tony Blair's visit to Syria, could not be found. This is simply not plausible.

I had also asked for all the Joint Intelligence Committee assessments on Iraq, some
of which I helped prepare. Of dozens of these documents, only three were provided
to me – 40 minutes before I was due to appear before the Chilcot panel.

Playing by the rules, I had submitted my written testimony to Chilcot before my
appearance. In the hours before my appearance, invited to visit the Foreign Office to
see further documents (mostly irrelevant), an official repeatedly sought to persuade
me to delete references to certain documents in my testimony.

He told me that the Cabinet Office wanted the removal of a critical reference in my
evidence to a memo from a senior Foreign Office official to the foreign secretary's
special adviser, in which the official pointed out, with mandarin understatement, that
the paper sent that week to the Parliamentary Labour Party dramatically – and
inaccurately – altered the UK's assessment of Iraq's nuclear threat.

In a clear example of the exaggeration of Iraq's military capabilities, that paper
claimed that if Iraq's programmes remained unchecked, it could develop a nuclear
device within five years.

The official's memo pointed out that this was not, in fact, the UK assessment: the UK
believed that Iraq's nuclear programme had been checked by sanctions.

The paper to the PLP was instead sent by the foreign secretary to "brief" the wider
cabinet. This paper was pure overstated propaganda, filled with ludicrous statements
like "one teaspoon of anthrax can kill a million people". The paper was soon made
public, as part of the campaign to create public hysteria.

The official's memo about the PLP paper contained nothing secret. It relates to a
public document, the PLP paper. Yet, of all the references in my testimony, this was
the one that the Cabinet Office most wanted removed. I refused. Strikingly, this
memo has never been mentioned to the inquiry, including by its author, who testified
earlier this year. Neither has the author of the PLP paper been questioned, or the
paper itself discussed.

I was repeatedly warned by inquiry staff not to mention any classified material during
my testimony. The only problem is that almost every document I ever wrote or read
in my work was classified. It was made clear to me, and to journalists attending the
hearing, that if I mentioned specific documents the broadcast of my testimony would
be cut off. Other forms of retribution (Official Secrets Act prosecution?) hung in the
air. It was a form of subtle intimidation.

Meanwhile, my requests to see documents about the infamous Number 10 WMD
dossier were ignored, including requests for letters I had written.

This experience and the inquiry's record so far is cause for concern. It is clear from
testimonies so far that most witnesses, most of whom went along with the war at the
time, are offering a very one-sided account to the panel. A story is being peddled
that sanctions on Iraq were collapsing and the allied policy of containment was
failing. Thus, the military alternative to deal with the Iraqi threat was more or less
unavoidable.

Though there is some truth to this argument, it was not what the Foreign Office, or
the government as a whole, believed at the time. The true story is there to be seen in
the documents. In memos, submissions to ministers and telegrams, the official view is
very clear: while there was concern at the erosion of sanctions, containment had
prevented Iraq from rearmament.

When invasion was promoted by Washington, the available alternative – to squeeze
Saddam financially by stopping oil exports or seizing the regime's assets, which I and
some colleagues had repeatedlyadvocated, was ignored. Here the documents tell a
different but equally clear and appalling story: there is not a single mention of any
formal discussion, by ministers or officials, of alternatives to military action. It is hard
to pinpoint a graver indictment of the government's failure.

The oral testimonies delivered to the inquiry have not given an accurate picture of
what the government really thought. Unfortunately, the panel is neither equipped,
nor apparently inclined, to challenge witnesses on the contradictions of their
testimonies with this documentary record. This may not be the panel's fault: how can
they know which pertinent documents exist?

In these circumstances, it is very worrying that the government machine is still trying
to withhold key documents, and silence those of us with detailed knowledge of the
policy history – and documents. I have been told too, from secondary sources, that
members of the panel have been refused documents they have specifically
requested.

There is a clear solution to these problems: break down the continued obstruction by
the bureaucracy by releasing the documents – all of them. Only the most secret
documents deserve continued protection, and there are very few of these. The vast
majority of relevant documents relate to policy discussion inside the government
before the war. Though profoundly embarrassing, there is little here that damages
national security, except in the hysterical assessment of officials protecting their own
reputation. Nick Clegg said a few weeks ago that almost all documents must now be
released. He is right.

Carne Ross was the UK's Iraq expert at the UN from 1997 to 2002. He now heads
Independent Diplomat, a non-profit diplomatic advisory group.