The Report
of the Iraq Inquiry
137.
There had been
“opposition to Bremer’s ideas on de‑Ba’athification on a
local
level” from
Shia politicians. In addition, Mr Asquith reported
that:
“Washington
have also sought to hobble Bremer’s efforts. Principals prohibited
him
from giving
a speech on 16 April outlining the new initiatives as part of a
broader
national
reconciliation speech … According to Bremer, senior US officials
want the
message
delivered by an Iraqi, and failing that Rumsfeld.”
138.
Ambassador
Bremer made a speech in Baghdad addressed to the Iraqi
people
“… many
Iraqis have complained to me that de‑Ba’athification policy has
been
applied
unevenly and unjustly. I have looked into these complaints and they
are
legitimate.
The de‑Ba’athification policy was and is sound. It does not need to
be
changed. It
is the right policy for Iraq. But it has been poorly
implemented.”
139.
As a result,
Ambassador Bremer announced that he had agreed with the
Iraqi
Ministers
of Education and Higher Education, and with Dr Chalabi, that
“decisions made
by local
appeals committees of the Ministry of Education will be effective
immediately.
This will
allow thousands of teachers to return to work. Thousands more will
begin
receiving
pensions this week.” Arrangements had also been put in place to
speed up
appeals
that were still in the system.
140.
General
Sir John McColl, who served as the Senior British Military
Representative
– Iraq from
April to October 2004, told the Inquiry that the adaptation of
how
de‑Ba’athification
was implemented was “a welcome development”.123
141.
On the eve of
Ambassador Bremer’s speech, CNN quoted a State
Department
spokesman
saying “we are working to try to develop an equitable solution to
address the
widely
divergent activities of former Ba’athist party
members.”124
The same
article also
quoted
Secretary Rumsfeld stating “the remnants of Saddam Hussein’s regime
know
they have
no future in a free Iraq”.
142.
The GC issued
a statement on 25 April indicating that its policy on
de‑Ba’athification
had not changed, nor was there any intention to change
it.125
It
confirmed
that the statements in Ambassador Bremer’s speech were “in
agreement
with the
views of the Governing Council and with the Supreme National
Commission
on de‑Ba’athification”.
The statement continued:
“Even as
the Governing Council draws attention to the positive work of the
Supreme
National
Commission for De‑Ba’athification, it notes the necessity of
distinguishing
122
Speech L.
Paul Bremer III, 23 April 2004, ‘Turning the Page’.
123
Public
hearing, 8 February 2010, pages 20‑21.
124
CNN
World, 22 April
2004, From
‘de‑Ba’athification’ to ‘re‑Ba’athification?’
125
Statement
Governing Council, 25 April 2004.
30