An absolute veto?
One key document (or more precisely collection of documentation) that the Inquiry may well wish to see is Iraq’s final 7 December 2002 “Currently Accurate, Full, and Complete Declaration” (CAFCD), which contains some 12,000 pages, much on CD-ROM. These documents are not available in the public-domain – only an index currently exists outside of the offices of the governments of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.
The biological, chemical and missile sections were delivered to UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Dr Hans Blix and the nuclear section was delivered to IAEA Director General Dr Mohamed ElBaradei on the last day of the thirty-day deadline set by the adoption of Resolution 1441.
This documentation was sent first for redaction of any WMD ‘cook-book’ information, and was then distributed to the members of the Security Council. The permanent members all received the full version, whilst the rotating members only received the redacted version.
These documents will almost certainly be subject to the protocol agreed between the Government (the Cabinet Office) and the Iraq Inquiry on the treatment of sensitive written and electronic information. See Chris Ames’ earlier post on this.
The protocol states that:
5. All information identified during the search will be supplied to the Inquiry as soon as possible: no such information may be withheld, with the exception of information HMG holds which is covered by an existing duty of confidentiality HMG has to a third party which, despite the commitments made in paragraph 6 below, prevents disclosure to the Inquiry. In this event, HMG will urgently seek permission from such a third party to the sharing of its information with the Inquiry.
Freedom of Information Act requests have been made (by myself) to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for sections of both versions of the documentation (unredacted and redacted), and these have been denied on the grounds of exemption from release under sections 27(1)(a) and 27(2) of the Freedom of Information Act.
I) Request for sections of the redacted version of the 7 December CAFCD, 15 December 2008:
Freedom of Information Request Reference: 0866-08
I refer to your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (”the Act”) for
“Which parts of Iraq’s ballistic missile declaration which formed section IV of the December 7th 2002 CAFCD are contained in the redacted version of the documentation which was sent to London for analysis following my earlier FOIA request?”
I can confirm that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has now completed its assessment of the information which you requested on 12 October and must inform you that the information you requested is exempt from release under sections 27(1)(a) and 27(2) of the Freedom of Information Act.
Section 27 of the Act requires the application of a public interest test. In reaching this decision I have considered both the factors in favour of release balanced against the factors in favour of withholding the information.
Releasing the information would demonstrate our openness and accountability as it would increase public knowledge of the issues we deal with and help to inform debate. However, balanced against this, we have judged that the factors in favour of withholding the information outweigh the factors in favour of disclosure. In respect of section 27(1)(a), the effective conduct of international relations depends upon maintaining trust and confidence between Governments. If the United Kingdom does not maintain this trust and confidence, its ability to protect and promote UK interests through international relations will be hampered. In respect of section 27(2), the information requested is confidential information obtained from a State other than the United Kingdom or from an international organisation or international court.
Only the 10 elected Security Council members received the redacted version of the CAFCD. We can confirm that the redacted version is also held within UNMOVIC archives and has been declared as confidential.
We are therefore satisfied that the redacted version contains confidential information provided by other States which would have been given to the 10 elected Security Council members in confidence.
The UN Security Council’s view is that information provided in confidence by UN member States, should be kept under strict control. Access to confidential information held within the UNMOVIC archives is restricted for an initial period of 30 years. For reference please see the following links below:
Link to S/2007/680: http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/Iraq%20S2007%20680.pdf
Link to SG’s final report: http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/UNMOVIC%20S%202008%20372.pdf
In view of this, the confidential information contained in the redacted CAFCD should not be disseminated more widely. This was upheld in UN resolution 1762 dated 29 June 2007, to which the UK has agreed.
The effective conduct of international relations depends upon the UK maintaining the trust and confidence of other States, which allows for the free and frank exchange of information on the understanding that it will be treated in confidence. If the contents of the redacted CAFCD were to be released now, the other Permanent Members and 10 elected members of the UN Security Council may be more reluctant to share sensitive information with the UK in future. Furthermore, they may also be less likely to respect the confidentiality of information supplied by the UK to them, to the detriment of UK interests. This in turn would be likely to harm our relations with those Members, hampering our ability to protect and promote UK interests through international relations. For these reasons, we consider that the public interest in maintaining this exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the contents of the redacted version CAFCD.
II) Request for sections of the unredacted version of the 7 December CAFCD, 9 October 2008:
FOI Request 0529-08: Iraq Declaration: Internal Review
You have requested an internal review of the decision, conveyed to you in XX-XXXX XXXXXXX’s email of 20 August, not to disclose the entirety of Chapter 6 of Part IV of the December 7th 2002 “Currently Accurate, Full and Complete Declaration” (CAFCD) made by Iraq. Your request was made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I have conducted a full examination of the case, and have concluded the following.
Search for information and consultation
I have reviewed the information sources used in making this assessment, and the breadth of consultation undergone. I have concluded that there was a broad trawl for relevant information, and am content that a reasonable search was carried out in relation to your request. I also conclude that all appropriate stakeholders (including those outside the Foreign and Commonwealth Office) have been consulted.
I note that the request was subject to two extensions and that, on both occasions, you were made aware of such. While it is desirable to reply to such requests within the 20 day deadline, I consider the use of extensions to have been appropriate given the complexity of the issues concerned, the breadth of consultation undergone, and the use of a Public Interest Test.
Use of exemptions
I have reviewed the exemptions used, and concur with Ms XXXXXXX’s assessment that the information held by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is exempt from release under sections 27(1)(a) and 27(2) of the Freedom of Information Act. I also conclude that the factors considered during application of the Public Interest Test have been properly recorded and explained.
Factors in favour of release include that it would increase public knowledge of the issues and inform debate. However, as conveyed to you in the email of 20 August, the effective conduct of international relations depends upon the UN maintaining the trust and confidence of other States, which allows for the free and frank exchange of information on the understanding that it will be treated in confidence. If the requested information were to be released, such States may be more reluctant to share sensitive information with the UK Government in future, and may be less likely to respect the confidentiality of the information supplied by the UK Government to them. In both instances, there would be prejudice to relations between the UK and that State, and I therefore conclude that the information was and remains exempt from disclosure under section 27(1)(a).
I also conclude that the information was and remains exempt from disclosure under section 27(2), as it is indeed confidential information gained from “a State other than the United Kingdom or from an international organisation”. It is clear from my review that the information requested is covered by the stipulations highlighted in Ms XXXXXXX’s email, namely that it should be kept under strict control, and should be restricted for an initial period of 20 years.
Given the reasons above, I do not believe that the public interest favours release over exemption.
…
Should the Inquiry seek to review the evidence of Iraq’s final CAFCD, HMG will have to make an application to the United Nations Security Council for its release. HMG has an absolute veto over decisions made by the Security Council in any case due to its permanent seat there, and it has already set a precedent by refusing the release of other parts of this documentation.