July 08, 2016•Update: July 09, 2016
By Michael Sercan Daventry
LONDON
It takes more than 24 hours to digest a 2.6-million-word report.
After a wait of more than seven years, Wednesday saw the release of the costliest, longest-lasting inquiry in British history: John Chilcot’s probe of the Iraq war.
Its findings have reignited longstanding debates over a conflict that sharply divided the U.K. in 2003.
It has also renewed questions about the liability of Tony Blair, the then-prime minister who took the decision to join the U.S.-led coalition that invaded Iraq.
The decision was supported by most senior ministers in Blair’s governing Labour Party and much of the opposition Conservative Party.
But many individual lawmakers and smaller political parties were bitterly against the conflict, and at least one million people marched in London in February 2003 to try and convince Blair to change his mind.
Yet the war began the following month on the pretext of disarming the Saddam Hussein regime of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction it was said to possess.
A total of 179 British soldiers died during the subsequent six-year occupation. No weapons of mass destruction were ever found.
Calls for a trial
In their report, Chilcot – a retired civil servant – and his team concluded that Britain took part in the war on the basis of flawed intelligence and before peaceful options for disarming Saddam's regime had been exhausted.
The inquiry would not say whether the war was legal, but Chilcot did conclude “that the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for military action were far from satisfactory.”
Chilcot also criticized the Blair government’s decision-making processes.
Blair appeared to accept some of Chilcot’s criticisms when he said on Wednesday: “I know there are those who can never forget or forgive me for having taken this decision and who think that I took it dishonestly.
“As the report makes clear, there were no lies. Parliament and Cabinet were not misled. There was no secret commitment to war. Intelligence was not falsified. And the decision was made in good faith.
“However, I accept the report makes serious criticisms of the way decisions were taken and again I accept full responsibility for these points of criticism even where I do not fully agree with them.”
For some, Chilcot’s findings were sufficient reason to call for Blair and Jack Straw, his foreign secretary, to be tried on war crimes charges at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague.
“Friends, I believe that Tony Blair is a war criminal,” Caroline Lucas, Britain’s only Green Party lawmaker, told an anti-war rally in London on Wednesday.
She continued: “Because everything that I have seen in that Chilcot report lays clear that this war was an illegal war. Chilcot says very clearly the war was not a last resort, the diplomatic means had not been pursued.”
But the ICC route appears closed for Blair’s critics because the court does not currently have the legal jurisdiction to try him.
The court is already well established in prosecuting individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, but it cannot yet do the same for crimes of aggression – namely, crimes planned and initiated by a person who controls a state’s political or military actions.
Calls for impeachment
Other figures, like left-wing activist and former lawmaker George Galloway, believe Blair could instead be held accountable within the U.K. by being impeached in Parliament.
He said in a video posted to Facebook this week: “On behalf of the British state as a whole it seems to me that Mr. Blair must be dragged, along with Mr. Straw and Alastair Campbell [Blair’s press secretary], before the bar of the House in impeachment proceedings.
“This has already been alluded to by some senior parliamentarians, and I believe that nothing Sir John Chilcot said this morning will dissuade them from that course of action.”
Impeachment in the U.K. Parliament is a centuries-old procedure for accusing senior politicians of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” It was last used – unsuccessfully – in 1806 against Lord Melville, the secretary of state for war, on charges of misappropriating public money.
Former Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond and several Labour Party lawmakers are rumored to be considering the same procedure to hold Blair accountable when Parliament convenes for a two-day debate on the Chilcot report next week.
But the U.K. Parliament website says the power of impeachment is now “obsolete” and Chris Grayling, the leader of the House of Commons, appeared to confirm the position.
He told Parliament on Thursday: “It is not for this House to consider whether there are specific measures that can be taken against individuals, that is a matter for the relevant authorities and it is not for us as a Parliament to debate those matters.”
But Blair’s critics, many of whom are lawmakers in the House of Commons, will be combing the report’s 2.6 million words before next Tuesday’s debate to find the legal justification they seek.
