Guardian Unlimited
Go to:  
Guardian UnlimitedSpecial reports
Home UK Business Online World dispatch The wrap Weblog Talk Search
The Guardian World News guide Arts Special reports Columnists Audio Help Quiz

Special report Iraq

  Search this site

Full coverage
Special report: Iraq

Iraq archived articles

Interactive guides on Iraq

More special reports
Britain's armed forces

The anti-war movement


United States


Israel & the Middle East



Full index of our special reports

 In this section
Iran helping religious militias in Iraq, British envoy warns

Soldiers held over PoW claims

Fighting demons, material and spiritual

Silent majority prepares to rescue beleaguered prime minister

Richard Norton-Taylor: Ten killer questions to put to Blair

Baghdad Blogger

MPs open attack on a different front

Letters: We were not deceived

MPs to grill cabinet on WMD

Blair rules out judicial inquiry

British soldiers questioned over PoW deaths

Transcript: John Reid v John Humphrys

Reid accuses media over security claims

No 10 backs Reid on 'rogue elements'

We're victims of conspiracy claims Reid


UK war dossier a sham, say experts

British 'intelligence' lifted from academic articles

Michael White and Brian Whitaker
Friday February 7, 2003
The Guardian

Downing Street was last night plunged into acute international embarrassment after it emerged that large parts of the British government's latest dossier on Iraq - allegedly based on "intelligence material" - were taken from published academic articles, some of them several years old.

Amid charges of "scandalous" plagiarism on the night when Tony Blair attempted to rally support for the US-led campaign against Saddam Hussein, Whitehall's dismay was compounded by the knowledge that the disputed document was singled out for praise by the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, in his speech to the UN security council on Wednesday.

Citing the British dossier, entitled Iraq - its infrastructure of concealment, deception and intimidation in front of a worldwide television audience Mr Powell said: "I would call my colleagues' attention to the fine paper that the United Kingdom distributed... which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities."

But on Channel 4 News last night it was revealed that four of the report's 19 pages had been copied - with only minor editing and a few insertions - from the internet version of an article by Ibrahim al-Marashi which appeared in the Middle East Review of International Affairs last September.

Though that was not the only textual embarrassment No 10 seemed determined to tough it out last night.

Dismissing the gathering controversy as the latest example of media obsession with spin, officials insisted it in no way undermines the underlying truth of the dossier, whose contents had been re-checked with British intelligence sources. "The important thing is that it is accurate," said one source.

What Whitehall may not grasp is the horror with which unacknowledged borrowing of material - the crime of plagiarism - is regarded in American academic and media circles, even though successive US governments have a poor record of misleading their own citizens on foreign policy issues at least since the Vietnam war. On a special edi tion of BBC Newsnight, filmed before a critical audience last night, Mr Blair stressed that he was willing to forgo popularity to warn voters of the dangers of weapons of mass destruction: "I may be wrong, but I do believe it."

With trust a critical element in the battle to woo a sceptical public the first sentence of the No 10 document merely states, somewhat cryptically, that it "draws upon a number of sources, including intelligence material".

But Glen Rangwala, a lecturer in politics at Cambridge University, told Channel 4: "I found it quite startling when I realised that I'd read most of it before."

The content of six more pages relies heavily on articles by Sean Boyne and Ken Gause that appeared in Jane's Intelligence Review in 1997 and last November. None of these sources is acknowledged.

The document, as posted on Downing Street's website at the end of January, also acci dentally named four Whitehall officials who had worked on it: P Hamill, J Pratt, A Blackshaw and M Khan. It was reposted on February 3 with the first three names deleted.

"Apart from passing this off as the work of its intelligence services," Dr Rangwala said, "it indicates that the UK really does not have any independent sources of information on Iraq's internal policies. It just draws upon publicly available data."

Evidence of an electronic cut-and-paste operation by Whitehall officials can be found in the way the dossier preserves textual quirks from its original sources. One sentence in Dr Marashi's article includes a misplaced comma in referring to Iraq's head of military intelligence during the 1991 Gulf war. The same sentence in Downing Street's report contains the same misplaced comma.

A Downing Street spokesman declined to say why the report's public sources had not been acknowledged. "We said that it draws on a number of sources, including intelligence. It speaks for itself."

Dr Marashi, a research associate at the Centre for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, California, said no one had contacted him before lifting the material.

But on the regular edition of Newsnight he later gave some comfort to No 10. "In my opinion, the UK document overall is accurate even though there are a few minor cosmetic changes. The only inaccuracies in the UK document were that they maybe inflated some of the numbers of these intelligence agencies," he said.

Explaining the more journalistic changes inserted into his work by Whitehall he added: "Being an academic paper, I tried to soften the language.

"For example, in one of my documents, I said that they support organisations in what Iraq considers hostile regimes, whereas the UK document refers to it as 'supporting terrorist organisations in hostile regimes'.

"The primary documents I used for this article are a collection of two sets of documents, one taken from Kurdish rebels in the north of Iraq - around 4m documents - as well as 300,000 documents left by Iraqi security services in Kuwait. After that, I have been following events in the Iraqi security services for the last 10 years."

Iraq's decision last night to let weapons inspectors interview one of its scientists for the first time without government "minders" signalled that Baghdad may be bending under international pressure.

But diplomats will be trying to determine over the next few days whether it is a token gesture or a real shift away from what they describe as Iraq's "catch us if you can" approach to inspections. Hours before the announcement, a Foreign Office source in London signalled that this was the kind of change of heart that Iraq would have to make to avoid war.

Key documents
Read the government's paper
Read the academic's paper

Special reports

Colin Powell's speech to the UN
05.02.2003: Full text of Colin Powell's speech
Interactive guide: the US's evidence
06.02.2003: Poll: did Powell present a convincing case for military action against Iraq?

Interactive guides
Click-through graphics on Iraq

Voices on Iraq
Read our collection of 28 exclusive interviews

Comment and analysis
Comment and analysis on Iraq

Iraq: archive special

09.12.2002: Weapons inspections
04.10.2002: War with Iraq

The weblog
Weblog special: Iraq

News guide

Key documents
Sites visited by the UN weapons inspectors
20.12.2002: US secretary of state Colin Powell's statement on Iraq's weapons declaration
20.12.2002: UN security council resolution 1441 on Iraq
02.12.02: UK government dossier on human rights abuses in Iraq (pdf)
24.09.02: UK government dossier on Iraq's military capability (pdf)

In pictures
Saddam Hussein's inner circle
10 years after the Gulf war

Anti-war movement
Special report: the anti-war movement
28.01.2003: Guide to anti-war websites

Useful links
Arab Gateway: Iraq briefing
Middle East Daily
Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq
Iraq sanctions - UN security council
UN special commission on Iraq

Printable version | Send it to a friend | Read it later | See saved stories


Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003