Buch lesen: «The Spy Who Tried to Stop a War»

FOREWORD TO THIS EDITION

The consequences of the invasion and of the conflict within Iraq which followed are still being felt in Iraq and the wider Middle East, as well as in the UK. It left families bereaved and many individuals wounded, mentally as well as physically.

– ‘The Chilcot report’ Executive Summary, 2016

Chilcot has shone a light on what happened, but it is clear there are still bits of the puzzle that are missing. Now that we know better, will we do better?

– Katharine Gun, Guardian, 8 July 2016

Gun will not go quietly. Her trial … will rehash the war’s legality.

– Time Magazine Europe, 2 February 2004

ON 6 JULY 2016 – thirteen years after Katharine Gun was arrested for violating the Official Secrets Act, eight years after this book was first published, and seven years after the official UK Iraq Inquiry was launched – a comprehensive government report made worldwide headlines. In twelve volumes totalling 2.6 million words, the inquiry report concluded that the Iraq War was unnecessary, was based on questionable intelligence, and resulted in a chaotic, painful aftermath – all of which were avoidable.

Relevant to this story, Sir John Chilcot’s investigating committee concluded that the legality of military action taken by then-US President George Bush and then-UK Prime Minister Tony Blair was questionable and never satisfactorily determined. From January to March 2003, a series of conflicting advisories and decisions revealed shady machinations fuelling Bush’s passionate pursuit of the grand prize: a sanctioned war and the removal of Saddam Hussein.

While two heads of state, two of the most powerful men on the planet, secretly plotted the invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam, a young British woman was among those who suspected that the two were set on war – an unnecessary, possibly illegal, war – despite repeated claims to the contrary. Katharine Gun enthusiastically marched against the invasion, along with thousands of others. But for her, marching was not enough.

It’s been said that Katharine Gun remains a moral compass for the United Kingdom – someone who was willing to put her own interests behind those of her country and of the world. Fearful that the United Kingdom would launch an illegal war, the British secret service officer risked her freedom and her future in an effort to derail that war and to save lives certain to be lost. She did so by blowing the whistle on a United States spy operation against the UN Security Council (UNSC), an operation designed to ensure that it voted for war. Some called the operation blackmail; others, US ‘dirty tricks’. By whatever name, it was unlawful.

At the time, the UNSC was considering a highly controversial resolution to legitimize war against Iraq. Truth, made public by Katharine’s whistle, ended the US National Security Agency spy operation and hopes for legalizing the war.

Where the Crown Prosecution Service’s most distinguished practitioners wanted to make the criminal case against Katharine about sharing secrets, Katharine wanted it to be about the secrets themselves. She wanted the public to understand what our governments were doing, and who would suffer as a result. She was deeply concerned about the multitude of deaths that would result from an unnecessary war. Her defence, that she believed the Iraq War was illegal, would – years later – be supported by excerpts from the Chilcot report.[1]

But five years would pass before the inquiry would be initiated.

When it was complete, the historic, voluminous document substantiated what Katharine and many others had believed all along – that after the 9/11 World Trade Center tragedy, George Bush determined to get rid of Saddam Hussein and then dragged a reluctant Blair along with him. Of special interest was the release of declassified correspondence between Downing Street and the White House. The cosy exchange of thirty-one letters concerning a proposed invasion of Iraq revealed the truth of the matter. Writing in July of 2002, eight months prior to the invasion – Blair told Bush that, ‘I will be with you, whatever.’ A mountain of criticism has been heaped upon the former prime minister for fulfilling his risky promise. He is still widely accused of having followed the wrong man into a wrong war.

In fairness, Blair had earlier supported containment as the way to handle threats from Iraq, and he was concerned about what would happen if military action were precipitously undertaken. The report concluded that he was innocent of inventing or distorting evidence to support the war – but that he had indeed weakened and acquiesced to Bush, and that he was responsible for ill-fated decision-making and its ultimate result. In a heated and nearly tearful response, Blair defended his honour, insisting that he had not been a US pawn, that he ‘did not mislead [his] country.’

Regardless, it is impossible for this author to reconcile the report’s findings with Blair’s overarching denial: ‘What I cannot do and will not do is say we took the wrong decision.’ The world believes otherwise.

Strangely silent in the debate – both during Katharine’s case and after the monumental report was released – was the United States. In July of 2016, that country was distracted by the nastiest, most vicious election campaign in its history. The annoying ‘Iraq issue’ neatly folded into the campaign only as a political weapon: Which candidate had supported the 2003 invasion, and which had not? Still, many American lawmakers regret having supported the invasion.

In The Restless Wave, published shortly before his 2018 death, US Senator John McCain wrote that the Iraq War ‘can’t be judged as anything other than a mistake’. One of the most hawkish Senate Republicans, he had been firmly in favour of the invasion. Later, he took full responsibility for ‘my share of the blame for it’. Hillary Clinton, a Democratic senator from 2001–2009, apologized during the 2016 presidential campaign for her previous aye vote in Congress, for having been deceived by the surround-sound of political rhetoric deafening Capitol Hill.

What is easy to miss in the continuing flurry of political hindsight is what Katharine Gun actually accomplished. No, she was not able to stop the war. However, she revealed a crime, a plot to start and legitimize a war. There is no question that had the UN Security Council adopted a proposed resolution to legalize the war, the Iraq narrative would have been different. The invading coalition would have had legal justification for its action. While criticism certainly would have followed military action, it would have been considered and voiced differently – seen as a coalition of countries, authorized by the Council and acting legally and legitimately. Without Katharine’s act of conscience, the invaders would have achieved what they so sorely sought: approval for a horrific, wrongful act.

There exists a compelling and excruciatingly obvious lesson in a time when the ‘Iran issue’ and Middle East destabilization are of such concern: The Iraq Inquiry Report should be required study for every US and UK lawmaker. Further, it should be first on the international reading list of anyone involved in decision-making affecting Iran and the Middle East. An addition to the study curriculum could well be the writings of Gordon Brown, Blair’s successor and Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time Bush and Blair were planning their invasion.

‘War could not be justified as a last resort and invasion cannot now be seen as a proportionate response,’ Brown writes in 2017.[2]

On numerous occasions, both publicly and privately, Katharine has insisted that she still has no regrets about violating the Official Secrets Act in an effort to stop the war and save lives. ‘I would do it again,’ she says, words once bannered across newspapers around the world (except in the United States) and accompanied by the photo of a triumphant, smiling young woman. She said it again when she and her infant daughter travelled to Washington DC, where an American University symposium featured Katharine’s story and the first edition of this book.

By then, Katharine was in her early thirties and five years had passed since her arrest. She was happily married to Yasar Gun, a Turkish national, and had fallen back on teaching Chinese to British students. Her parents were close by, and they remained proud, dedicated advocates, championing their daughter throughout her ordeal and beyond. Katharine’s life was before her, but that single decision – as right as it was for her – would play a major role in her family’s future. Most difficult would be finding satisfying long-term employment. It’s just not easy when you’ve been the star of a story like this.

After a while, she and Yasar took trips to his beloved Turkey to explore the possibilities of moving permanently. Making a decision to settle abroad would be difficult for Katharine, despite the challenges she faced in her home country. But finally, in the spring of 2011, Katharine wrote, ‘We finally decided to take the plunge.’ Since relocating to Turkey, the family has visited England several times, and in 2016, the death of Katharine’s beloved mother, Jan Harwood, took Katharine back for a stay with her grieving father.

In her most recent letter, Katharine writes: ‘We moved to a village and live on a farmyard. Our daughter has loved living here; she helps to look after the chickens, goats, sheep, and cows. She wanders off into the fields on her own. There are acres of wheat fields behind the house. She sits and sings songs to herself or writes poetry or draws, she jumps in the haystacks and takes photos of everything, sometimes making videos and introducing the animals. It’s a very simple life, and our home has been very basic.’

This author has lived in the countryside of South Dakota for years, and surely can appreciate the attraction of a simple life, the joys of solitude, and the freedom of children playing in nature. However, one also wonders: what have we all lost, with Katharine Gun removed from the dialogue of conscience? Her sharp mind and strong will are exactly what today’s political and governmental discussions sorely need. One should never say that because Katharine is intelligent, strong, and experienced that she should leap back into the fray – but wouldn’t we all be better for it?

Reflecting on her act of conscience and its impact, Katharine’s letter concludes, ‘I hope my example will give others courage to stand firm against abuse of power and deception.’ As for the war?

‘In truth, it was a war crime, an illegal war, a war against humanity.’

– Marcia Mitchell, 20 February 2019