What are we waiting for? Publish the Chilcot report as soon as the polls close

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/21/publish-chilcot-report-iraq-war-tony-blair

Version 0 of 1.

When the chairman of the Iraq inquiry, Sir John Chilcot, appeared before MPs in February, he declined to say exactly when his report would be published. So the idea that it would appear immediately after the 7 May general election was always a bit of a red herring. The BBC has now learned that we will probably have to wait until next year.

The decision to avoid getting the report tangled up in the election campaign was understandable. You can argue that it was a recipe for further delay, or indeed that responsibility for the Iraq debacle is something that actually should be an election issue, but the logic is clear. Now, though, it appears that the election was neither here nor there; the report is simply not ready; full stop.

Related: Chilcot inquiry into Iraq war may be delayed beyond 2015

It is hard to remember now what hopes the Iraq inquiry raised when it opened in November 2009. After going down some expensive blind alleys (Hutton and Butler), the country now had an inquiry that would consider all aspects of the Iraq war, from the justification, to the conduct of the war, to the dismal aftermath. Chilcot was on record as saying he would not “shy away” from criticising individuals.

Senior civil servants and diplomats, regional experts, and former ministers were all called before the inquiry for questioning that on occasion verged on interrogation. Early on, the media jostled for places in the sterile room allocated to the inquiry at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre. The appearance of Tony Blair commanded a level of advance billing and media absorption that was almost on a par with Bill Clinton testifying about his relations with Monica Lewinsky.

Not long thereafter, though, the whole process seemed to run into the sand. It was not just that the public hearings were over. There was a sense of drift, of not seeing wood for trees, of the plot being lost. One inquiry member, the historian Sir Martin Gilbert, has died. Chilcot seemed to be going the way of its predecessors. By the time it reported, the scandal it had been set up to address would have lost much of its resonance, and public indignation would have cooled – the perfect outcome for some.

There would appear to be two specific stumbling blocks to publication. One is the wheeling and dealing about publishing correspondence between Blair and the then US president, George Bush. There is, obviously, a US-UK intelligence aspect; but there is also an internal British quarrel about how much, if any, of the communications deemed at the time to have been confidential should see the light of day. This is a matter of principle as well as practice, with senior UK civil servants apparently more hostile to transparency than either former ministers or the US authorities. Is that just because they fear the consequences of setting a precedent and discouraging “full and frank” conversations at summit level, or are there more personal, or power-related, elements in play?

The other stumbling block, and the one officially being blamed for the present delay, is the process of so-called Maxwellisation, according to which those people subject to criticism are given advance sight of the accusations and the opportunity to defend themselves. On the face of it, this is only fair – but is it, given that there are no commercial interests at stake, and to whom? Has the pendulum not swung too far?

The whole point of a public inquiry is the judgment that the inquiry panel reaches on the basis of the evidence placed before it. If the report is complete – which it appears to be – let’s have it proofread over the next two weeks and the whole thing posted on the internet as soon as the polls close on 7 May. Blair, who perhaps has the most to fear from publication, has denied he is holding up proceedings, so what is anyone waiting for? Let it roll. Those who feel unjustly criticised will of course have a right of public reply – but does the public not have a right to know what the charge-sheet says first?

• This article was amended on 21 May 2015 to delete a reference to the Iraq inquiry being “a quasi-judicial process, chaired by a senior judge”. Sir John Chilcot is not a senior judge.