Privacy breach leaves PM's Iraq stance open to scrutiny and attack
ANALYSIS
HAMISH MACDONELL
thescotsman.co.uk
ONE of the safeguards built into the British political system is the privacy accorded to Cabinet minutes.
Prime Ministers can make decisions and their ministers can disagree vociferously about government policy, safe in the knowledge that it will be 30 years before the discussions are made public. At a stroke, Robin Cook has blown away this safety net for Tony Blair and his government.
The reasons for Mr Cook’s decision to strike back against the Prime Minister with such devastating force go back to his demotion from the foreign secretary post to the role of leader of the House of Commons after the 2001 general election.
He knew then his career was not going to go any further and, as the Blair government moved towards war, so he became more and more estranged from Downing Street.
His resignation earlier this year over the Iraq war was the breaking point - and the publication of his diaries his final act of betrayal.
But where does this leave the Prime Minister?
Having coped with the furore over the Hutton Inquiry, the loss of Alastair Campbell, his director of communications, and the likely loss of Geoff Hoon, his Defence Secretary, Mr Blair probably hoped that he was over the worst.
But Mr Cook’s revelations have opened up a new front for the opposition and the media to attack the government.
By setting up the Hutton Inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly, Downing Street had successfully managed to focus attention on to the demise of the weapons scientist and away from the bigger issue, the reason Britain went to war.
Now, though, Mr Cook’s diaries have forced the spotlight back on to the Prime Minister’s determination to go to war, the debate over the existence of weapons of mass destruction and the Cabinet’s approach to war.
The one glimmer of light for the Prime Minister in what is generally a devastating exposé of what went on at the heart of government in the lead up to war, is that Mr Cook’s central allegation rests on supposition, not evidence.
The former foreign secretary’s claim is that he had been told by John Scarlett, the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, that Saddam Hussein probably did not have effective weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
He claims that when he put this point to the Prime Minister, Mr Blair did not disagree with him, proving - according to Mr Cook - that Mr Blair did not believe Iraq had effective and powerful weapons of mass destruction, despite his public insistence to the contrary.
However, there are other parts of Mr Cook’s diaries which may end up being almost as damaging.
First, there is his claim that Mr Blair refused to listen to arguments made in Cabinet even though almost every minister was opposed to his stance on Iraq.
Then, there is the allegation that the Prime Minister knew there was no link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, but continued to imply that there was.
Mr Cook also alleges that Mr Blair was warned that regime change in Baghdad might actually hasten a link-up between terrorists and WMD.
But, even more important, is the suggestion - again without evidence - that Mr Blair had given the US president, George Bush, an assurance of British military support for an invasion of Iraq long before the Cabinet, or parliament, was given a chance for debate.
Downing Street has managed to ignore the central thrust of the Cook revelations. But, at the very least, the rest of his claims will add to the impression that the country was never told the whole truth over the war in Iraq and that, in the end, could do more damage than anything else. |
