Ellee Seymour

If you are attending a conference on freedom of information, secrecy, truth, lies and political spin, then the last thing you expect is for the Chatham House rules to be invoked.

And, much to my astonishment, that is what happened yesterday. Could there be any greater irony?

I challenged the reason for this during the question session. I pointed out that it didn’t make sense to discuss these important issues under those restrictive conditions. I explained I wanted to write about the events on my blog without fear of being tracked down and shot for revealing previously undisclosed secrets. To me, it was as good as being gagged.

One of the speakers on stage, Prof David Edgerton, gallantly replied that I could attribute his comments to him. And I was also told that I could attribute statements made by the speakers in their outline presentation, but nothing that arose from the ensuing debate, I guess that was a compromise, .but it still presents difficulties for a journalist.

It transpired that one speaker had specifically sought the Chatham House rules - Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain’s best known diplomat. I later asked him the reasons why. He said he was concerned about the way his comments would be interpreted. He told me he he had requested this condition in advance.

Other speakers were not so shy, Tony Benn laughed and said the rule was “utterly disgraceful” and would be taking no notice of it, Dr Hans Blix said he wasn’t worried either, and the former Cabinet Secretary and Master of Emmanuel College, Lord Wilson of Dinton, felt no hitherto unknown secrets had been disclosed during the day’s debate. Interestingly, Lord Wilson told me he enjoys reading blogs, I would love the chance to interview him for a post.

I can understand the reasons why Chatham House rules have a role to play in certain circumstances, but felt it was not appropriate on a day when we were debating freedom of information, there was certainly no secret information to protect.

For clarification, what happens if you ignore them? Has anyone broken the Chatham House rules and faced any consequences? Is it something you would do?

Dr Hans Blix has urged Tony Blair to reconsider the UK’s future commitment to Trident nuclear weapons.

The chairman of The Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission believes that they are not necessary, that they have had their day, that we should be “walking away from it”.

I spoke to him at the end of a conference in Cambridge debating freedom of information, the use of political spin and, of course, that dodgy dossier and WMD. It was riveting stuff, but I was more interested in where the future lay.

We chatted afterwards over a glass of bubbly, Dr Blix is so incredibly affable and good humoured. He believes America is firmly entrenched in Iraq and will not withdraw its troops in the near future for fear of losing face, Bush will not want to appear the loser in the run up to the next presidential election in two years time, which makes good sense to me, though not a reason to be at war, he should be challenged about this motive.

But back to Trident and the future of WMDs. The peace loving Dr Blix and his Commission firmly believe we should be reducing our nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, South Africa is the only country to have walked away from them.

He believes we have “stagnated” regarding disarmament, and are rearming with Trident at a time when our warheads have almost halved from the peak of the cold war when they numbered 50,000 to 27,000 today. He said:

“I would like the UK to ask itself if they need them. I understand why Britain had nuclear weapons in the the first place, they were conventional weapons in those days. We are now working towards cooperation with Russia and Europe and detente, is it meaningful any more?”

Dr Blix’s recent WMD Commission report states that the world must aim at achieving a ban on both possession and use of nuclear weapons, in the same way as bans apply to biological and chemical weapons. All states - even the great powers - must prepare to live without nuclear weapons and other weapons of terror.

Which country will be the first to lay down its arms? Should we be supporting Trident or backing Dr Blix’s proposals? I would prefer a future without these weapons, but I would also like reassurance that this was happening globally. Is that a realistic expectation?

Update: 28 November 2006, The Independent runs the same story.

Update: 18 December 2006, The Bartlett Diaries  linked to this post and has over 100 comments.