Carne comments in an email to me and others (quoted with his permission) that:

Before I testified, FCO officials refused to give me access to all the documents I requested.  They also pressured me – apparently on behalf of the Cabinet Office – to delete references to some of the most egregious documents including those directly illustrating how the government exaggerated the WMD case (I refused, though I agreed to a couple of insignificant redactions at FCO request).  It was not a pleasant experience nor was I left feeling that Chilcot et al are equipped for the task of dismantling a well-constructed infrastructure justifying the government’s decisions. 

Chilcot’s panel has largely been offered a narrative that war was more or less unavoidable because Iraq was escaping from sanctions and containment was collapsing.  There is some truth to this, but there is also an alternate account – namely, what the Foreign Office actually believed at the time.  The testimonies of other witnesses showed clearly that many are painting a picture at odds with that evident in the internal policy documents and, secondly, that the panel is not forcing them to reveal the true picture, and instead letting them proffer their account without much challenge.

Tediously therefore, for these reasons, the fight for full revelation and the truth must continue.  My main conclusion is that the answer lies in more or less full disclosure of the relevant documents (as no less than the Deputy Prime Minister seems to have suggested).  Chilcot instead seems to be proposing partial disclosure when requested by witnesses.  This is in no ways adequate.

See also this by Chris Ames in the Guardian.

A former Blackwater employee and an ex-US Marine who has worked as a security operative for the company have made a series of explosive allegations in sworn statements filed on August 3 in federal court in Virginia.

The two men claim that the company’s owner, Erik Prince, may have murdered or facilitated the murder of individuals who were cooperating with federal authorities investigating the company. The former employee also alleges that Prince “views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe,” and that Prince’s companies “encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life.”

From the Nation, who also have the full sworn depositions – in which it just goes on and on. Such as:

“Mr Prince intentionally deployed to Iraq certain men who shared his vision of Christian supremacy, knowing and wanting these men to take every available opportunity to murder Iraqis. Many of these men used call signs based on the Knights of the Templar [sic], the warriors who fought the Crusades.”

“Mr Prince generated substantial revenues from participating in the illegal arms trade … [including] on Mr Prince’s private planes.”

The other deposition goes on,

“When I first arrived in Baghdad, I was asked to assist with unloading bags of dog food into the Armory. As I unloaded the bags of dog food, another Blackwater employee opened the bags and pulled out weapons from the dog food. Blackwater was smuggling weapons into Iraq.”

See also this.

At the REEL Iraq festival, the question is: “Has Iraq turned a corner?” In the chair, Rob Edwards kicks off asking the audience whether they think things in Iraq are getting better or worse. A few optimists but – in general – pessimism prevails. So on to the panellists… are they optimistic or pessimistic?

Khalil Al Mosawi, founder and Chair of Radio Al Nas: “We’re cautiously optimistic.” Provincial elections have “created new political facts on the ground.” The vote was one for moderation. “The mood of the people has significantly shifted away from religious sectarianism.” But many of the underlying causes of violence still remain…

Kim Sengupta, defence and diplomatic correspondent for the Independent (and the only non-Iraqi on the panel), is next up. Fewer journalists are going to Iraq – “there’s less mayhem and violence to report on.” When in Iraq, it’s easier to move around. Levels of kidnapping and murders has gone down, but levels of trepidation are high.

Maysoon Al Damluji, ex-Deputy Minister of Culture, current Parliamentarian and campaigner for women’s rights. It’s a complex situation, but democratic politicians have a duty to build democracy in a country that has suffered from war, violence and sanctions for three decades. Democracy is about building institutions, accountability and rule of law.

Most reformers thought they were sailing against the tide until a few months ago. In the provincial elections, people voted for non-sectarianism and non-fundamentalism. There’s a strong trend to build a nation that can live in peace with itself and other nations.

There’s a new energy bubbling up from the grassroots – and it needs to be supported. “A new and exciting culture can build up in Iraq and spill across the region. If it fails though, there are very difficult times ahead.”

Saad Eskander, Kurdish freedom fighter, blogger, and head of Iraq’s national library. ”Every educated Iraqi must be optimistic. Pessimism is out of the question.” But the problems in Iraq go back to before the Saddam Hussein era. The Baath party added its destructive legacy: “a dehumanised and atomised society”. Iraq needs to invest in education and culture – build a new foundation for Iraq’s society.

First round of questions and the audience is passionate, fuming. The West is trying to persuade itself it was right to invade Iraq, killing 1.5 million people. “Panellists are simply beneficiaries of the existing regime,” one says. “We need to hear from people out on the street – not the same old tired discourse from politicians.” The panel hits back – Iraq has to move forward from where it is today, and fight for the future – there’s a real tension here.

Back on the floor and the Western media gets a pasting. “Once the conflict dies down, the media moves on to the next ‘interesting’ situation,” says a woman solider, who later worked as a civilian on reconstruction in the Marshes. Kim Sengupta accepts the criticism (“we were imperfect”), but turns the spotlight onto the Iraqi media. 248 journalists – mostly Iraqi – have been murdered during the conflict – more than in the Second World War, Vietnam, etc.

Saad makes a plea for investment in culture and education. “It’s vital to question all the prevailing assumptions about Iraq’s culture and history. Otherwise, there is just one interpretation of history.” The role of libraries and other cultural institutions is to provide tools for Iraqis to raise questions about the country’s past and its future direction.

Audience: Is Iraq’s government really in control? Can it maintain territorial integrity? Gain control of its own assets? Purge Iraq’s territory of CIA black sites?

Panel: Iraq has agreement that US forces will leave – withdrawal is already starting. Its government controls its resources – and is increasingly able to negotiate with the Americans as a sovereign body. “All signs show that the worst is behind us and Iraq will remain united, through the will of the Iraqi people.”

Round of questions on Iraqi national identity and civil society.

Khalil: What he wants for the future: (i) “I want to find in Iraq the spirit of dialogue.” Vital to explore Iraq’s legacy of conflict. (ii) Need practical action on infrastructure, health, employment, etc – proper strategic planning. (iii) This will provide a basis for the reinforcement of Iraq’s national identity.

Saad: Iraq started in 1920s as a truly pluralistic society, but its elites wanted ideological and ethnic conformity, and Sunni dominance. To move forward, Iraq need to build a state that is inclusive in its ideology and practical in its policies.

Kim: It’s time to focus on Iraq’s economy and the demographic peril it finds itself in. Iraq has 65% unemployment among young males in some of the key recruiting grounds for extremists. It badly needs a fairer distribution of income and good economic management from the Iraqi government. Economic performance will be a key determinant of Iraq’s future.

Maysoon: Civil society organisations and unions existed before 2003, but they were mainly controlled by government. Government would like to regain control. In parliament she and her colleagues are currently legislating on the sector. “We’re fighting for a civil society independent from government.”

Final question: Why does the panel assume that democracy is the only choice for Iraq? Why not an authoritarian regime? Why not communism? Surely the Western model of democratic capitalism has been discredited…

Saad: “Democracy is the only Iraqi choice.” All Iraq’s regimes have imported their ideology from abroad – even the Baath party was not an indigenous Iraqi phenomenon. Finally, in recent elections, Iraqis have made democracy their own choice.

And so to the close – a second straw poll and a dramatic turn around. Now we have a majority of audience members optimistic about Iraq’s future, and only a few pessimists. We started with a real divide between panellists and the audience. At the end, enduring anger about American and British blunders in Iraq – but a sense that Iraq can only go forward from where it is now.

As Maysoon concluded:

Democracy might not be the ideal solution for Iraq. But we deserve a chance. And we are fighting to have our chance.

(All quotes as accurate as possible – but do check against the transcript when it’s available. Has Iraq Turned a Corner? was supported by the British Council. Disclosure: the British Council and Foreign Office paid for my recent trip to Iraq – an Iraq case study will be part of Alex and my forthcoming Demos pamphlet on the new diplomacy.)

It was an impressive event – the main hall at the Landmark Hotel, which seats around 500, was completely full, with people being turned away. Prime minister Al-Maliki and several other ministers gave a strong message: Iraq is moving from a centrally-planned to a free market economy, and it wants to move very quickly to provide jobs and services to the economy. ‘Otherwise’,  as the suave deputy PM Barham Saleh put it, ‘we will be voted out at the next election.’

One of the key talking points was the negotiations now going on between the government and around 30 foreign oil companies, for the rights to develop Iraq’s enormous oil reserves. This will be the first major post-war private investment into the country, and the deal that really kicks off the country’s post-war reconstruction.

Apparently the negotiations are going well, though I heard mixed reports about what the government is demanding – some said a 51% stake in projects, others a 75% stake, others that they may allow foreign companies to take a controlling stake in projects, which would be fairly unheard of in most emerging markets, but the government needs money to stay in power, the price of oil is low, so it’s not in as strong a bargaining position as say the Kremlin was in 2007, when it ‘re-negotiated’ several 90s era deals.

Hopefully the Iraqi government will build some flexibility into deals, so that it will get a greater share of profits if and when the oil price rises.

The other question was the reconstruction of the electricity sector. Apparently, it’s now back to pre-war output levels, which means the country receives on average 14 hours of electricity a day. Improving this will be key to the government and economy’s success.

It’s a daunting task. One businessman I spoke to, who’s advising on the sector’s reconstruction, said output needed to be quintupled to cope with the rising energy demands of Iraqis. Western private investment could be persuaded into that sector, according to some bankers I spoke to, but it would need western government support, because unlike the oil sector, electricity revenues cannot be secured offshore, so there’s all the local legal risk for big electricity investments.

That support could come in the form of export credit agency (ECA) guarantees. Such ECA guarantees are quite normal for big infrastructure projects in emerging markets, and in today’s low liquidity market, it’s essential if public-private deals are going to get done. Otherwise, governments have to finance deals off their own balance sheet, which Iraq’s government cannot yet afford to do. So ECA coverage would seem to be essential for the reconstruction of Iraq’s infrastructure.

But here’s the rub – not a single western government provides any export credit agency coverage (ECA) for project finance in Iraq. Not the US, not the UK, nothing.

Many bankers I spoke to said they are willing to put alot more money into the reconstruction of infrastructure, but they would need ECA coverage to do so.

I was really shocked to hear we don’t provide any ECA coverage for the country. All that talk of nation-building, and according to Hugh Sykes of the Today show, all Basra has to show for it is a UK army-constructed fish market.

There’s a strong economic motive for providing ECA coverage for private firms to help re-build Iraq. And, I would argue, there is also a moral argument for it.

At the moment, however,  Iraq is apparently ‘too risky’ for ECA coverage. But if western governments are not prepared to risk their money in Iraq, how ever are they meant to persuade private companies to do so?

The world may be in deep trouble, but Barack Obama is still stumbling around trying to staff up his government – testimony to a crazy appointment system and a domestic political environment more toxic than AIG’s balance sheet.

Much attention has been focused on Treasury’s failure to confirm enough staff to have anything sensible to say about the London Summit – but there are problems all round the world, with few Ambassadors in their jobs. 

Take the farcical situation in Iraq, which,  as I saw on a recent trip, desperately needs US civilian agencies to step up a gear as the military draws down.

You’d think that everyone would be desperate to get an ambassador in place to replace Ryan Crocker. But no – politics have intervened, with John McCain leading an especially boneheaded charge. It’s got so bad that top military brass are letting on that they’re thoroughly pissed off:

Sources tell The Cable that Centcom commander Gen. David Petraeus, top Iraq commander Gen. Raymond Odierno, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates are frustrated by the delay in getting a U.S. ambassador confirmed and into place in Iraq, and support [Christopher Hill's] confirmation proceeding swiftly. 

Opposition to the Hill appointment has been led by Sens. John McCain (R-AZ),Sam Brownback (R-KS), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Brownback has called Hill’s past dealings with Congress over North Korea “evasive and unprofessional.” In a joint statement last week, McCain and Graham wrote that Hill had a “controversial legacy” on North Korea, and added, “The next ambassador should have experience in the Middle East and in working closely with the U.S. military in counterinsurgency or counterterrorism operations. Mr. Hill has neither.”

Since the previous ambassador, Ryan Crocker, left the job Feb. 13, Odierno has complained of doing double duty: serving as the commanding general and the de facto ambassador.

The power vacuum in Baghdad comes at a critical juncture in Iraq’s transition, sources noted. The U.S. mission is becoming increasingly focused on political stabilization and economic development over military missions; Arab-Kurd tensions are rising in the north; struggles for dominance within and across sectarian groups are heating up in the aftermath of January’s provincial elections; the Baghdad government is facing tough budget choices due to declining oil prices; and national elections that will determine whether Iraq can consolidate its democracy are due by year’s end.

Keeping a lid on such political tensions is “crucial to consolidating the security gains from the surge,” a Washington Iraq hand said, “yet the advocates of the surge want to slow down the process of getting an ambassador to Iraq.” [...]

If this drags on, Democrats may look to turn the tables on the Republican senators, who have argued that Iraq was so central to U.S. national security. “Why are they dicking around and not putting an ambassador in there if Iraq is so important?” the Senate Democratic foreign-policy staffer said.

It’s a point the generals are quietly saying among themselves, if not yet publicly.

I know that Washington really only cares about Washington, while the right is settling in for a decade long tantrum. But I wish they’d at least pretend they give a damn about everybody else…