The sad story of David Kelly (the British scientist whose suicide triggered the Hutton inquiry) is, by now, well known – or so one would have thought. Now, the Observer is publishing an analysis that Kelly wrote, which makes interesting reading, to say the least. Here’s an extract of what the paper has to say:

“Kelly’s article reveals a hawkish stance on Iraq which will come as some comfort to Number 10. ‘Iraq has spent the past 30 years building up an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction [WMD],’ he wrote. ‘Although the current threat presented by Iraq militarily is modest, both in terms of conventional and unconventional weapons, it has never given up its intent to develop and stockpile such weapons for both military and terrorist use.’

Kelly argues that any co-operation with UN weapons inspectors was superficial and that rockets specifically for chemical and biological use had been found.

’Amer al-Saadi – formerly responsible for conserving Iraq’s WMD, now its principal spokesman on its weapons – continues to mislead the international community,’ Kelly said before the war. ‘It is difficult to imagine co-operation being properly established unless credible Iraqi officials are put into place by a changed Saddam.

’Yet some argue that inspections are working and more time is required; that increasing the numbers of inspectors would enhance their effectiveness. Others argue that the process is inherently flawed and disarmament by regime change is the only realistic way forward.’ Kelly said the UN had been trying to disarm Iraq since 1991, but had had no success in what he described as an ‘abject failure of diplomacy’. He argued that diplomatic splits had only served to exacerbate the problem.

’The threat of credible military force has forced Saddam Hussein to admit, but not co-operate with, the UN inspectorate,’ he wrote. ‘So-called concessions – U2 overflights, the right to interview – were all routine between 1991 and 1998. After 12 unsuccessful years of UN supervision of disarmament, military force regrettably appears to be the only way of finally and conclusively disarming Iraq.’

’War may now be inevitable,’ he wrote. ‘The proportionality and intensity of the conflict will depend on whether regime change or disarmament is the true objective. The US, and whoever willingly assists it, should ensure that the force, strength and strategy used is appropriate to the modest threat that Iraq now poses.’

’The long-term threat, however, remains Iraq’s development to military maturity of weapons of mass destruction – something that only regime change will avert.’ “

There are two things to remember about this: (1) It was an unpublished analysis [the full text is available here], so it cannot be considered to be Kelly’s final word on this topic (and indeed it wasn’t) and (2) it could, perhaps, be claimed that it does not directly relate to the immediate public justification for the war that is, of course, the subject of the current controversy in the UK. Nevertheless all this gives further support to those who argue that Tony Blair was acting in good faith.