Tragedy of a Brave Man

There is something disappointing in the reaction that has greeted the unfortunate death of Doctor Kelly. That the suicide of one desperate man, rather than the murder of thousands of Iraqis or the deaths of British soldiers, should be the possible catalyst for the removal of our current dishonourable regime says depressingly too much about our priorities.

Dr Kelly's death is tragic - any premature death is. Kelly was a brave man, who has been hounded to his death for daring to tell the truth. But is his death really more tragic than the British squaddies, killed fighting an illegal and unnecessary war? Is his death more tragic than the Iraqis killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time? The media and political bias has been thrown into clear relief - one middle aged, middle class man is worth more than a dozen working class youths, or a thousand foreigners.

There is a temptation to lose sight of the central issue here. That Kelly died is not the central issue. He died because he attempted to expose, clearly and unequivocally, the lie at the heart of the government's case for war. When he finally admitted to his employers that he had spoken to the BBC, their reaction was barbaric. That he was isolated from his colleagues and treated to a brutal questioning before the foreign affairs select committee is bad enough. However, the MOD was not satisfied with punishing him - his humiliation had to be publicised. The Prime Minister's official spokesman, Tom Kelly, dropped hint after hint to journalists as to the mole's identity. When the Guardian had narrowed the possibilities down to three, the MOD confirmed Dr Kelly as the mole. The message sent to other potential whistle blowers is clear - disloyalty will be punished. We will destroy your careers, and we will do it in the harsh glow of the public media.

For Tony Blair to claim he was not involved in this is laughable. Dr Kelly's name was leaked by a co-ordinated action between Number Ten and the MOD, acting with the co-operation, it must be said, of the newspapers. If the MOD had wished Kelly's name kept secret, they would have refused to answer any questions about the mole's potential identity. If the Prime Minister had not wanted Kelly exposed, his office would not have led journalists to the correct man.

The real question is why the government was so keen to expose Dr Kelly. While discouraging other whistle blowers is doubtless seen as a useful side-effect, there are easier ways to punish such people. By placing Dr Kelly's name in the public domain, they made him a target for every journalist, especially if his isolation at work led him to resign. The government must have seen there was a risk of more disclosures from a man who was clearly concerned about the government's behaviour and believed the public had a right to know. What did they hope to gain that justified this risk?

The simple answer is that they hoped to marginalise Dr Kelly and invalidate the BBC's claims. Dr Kelly was too highly respected to simply brush under the carpet, or claim that his role was smaller than he claimed. If Dr Kelly confirmed the BBC's reports, he could have appeared as nothing other than a credible witness to government deception. Instead, it appears the government hoped that Kelly himself would support the government's position. If the revealed mole were to claim that his comments had been taken out of context and exaggerated, the BBC would be in a weak position indeed.

Why the MOD believed that Dr Kelly would support them we may never know. His testimony to the foreign affairs select committee would seem to justify their faith, but his subsequent comments to friends would not. The picture we have is of a man deeply confused, torn between the conflicting demands of family, career, and his conscience. His employers clearly hoped to persuade him to turn his allegiance to them, discrediting the BBC, and released his name when they believed this had been achieved.

Unfortunately for the government, the BBC holds a trump card. One of the conversations with Dr Kelly was recorded, and while the contents have yet to be revealed, the BBC seems very certain that it supports their version of events. Since the BBC plans to hand this tape to the Hutton inquiry, it is only a matter of time before this becomes public knowledge. If, as expected, this tape does contain the criticisms of the government that have been reported it will be a disaster for the government, and especially for Mr Blair. But it will be a fitting tribute to a brave man who risked everything to do what he believed was right.

The behaviour of the media has been less than exemplary throughout this whole affair. Dr Kelly's name could not have been leaked without the active collusion of journalists, more interested in their exclusive than the need to protect a colleague's source. The BBC's decision to confirm the identity of their source is understandable in light of their plans to make public the taped conversation, but the timing of the revelation left much to be desired.

Ultimately, the real tragedy is that it took the death of a middle classed man to ignite the row. If we valued the lives of working class soldiers and foreigners as highly many more people would have asked far tougher questions from the start. The government's case for war has always been full of holes, and as time passes the half-truths, conjecture and lies are becoming more apparent. If we had adopted a policy of risking neither British nor Iraqi lives without substantial proof, Dr Kelly would be alive today. Until Dr Kelly, no lives were lost that were valued by media or government. Perhaps that's the real tragedy.

Graham Robinson. 23rd July 2003.

archives :: links :: faq :: feedback

Find out how you can support Online Opinion

Online Opinion is a trademark owned by Graham Robinson. All rights reserved. The copyright on all articles, columns, and letters on this site is owned by the original author. The copyright on all other material is owned by Graham Robinson. Permission is granted to download and store these pages for personal or research purposes only, and only as is consistent with normal viewing of web pages. All other rights reserved. Permission is granted to freely link to any page within this site, as long as ownership of the material linked to is clear. No advertisements may be associated with this site, whether explicitly or implicitly, without prior written permission.