Chilcot re­port: Prose­cut­ing Bush-Blair for war crimes

Daily Trust - - BUSINESS -

“The UK chose to join the in­va­sion of Iraq be­fore the peace­ful op­tions for dis­ar­ma­ment had been ex­hausted. Mil­i­tary ac­tion at that time was not the last re­sort” Sir John Chilcot Re­port on Iraq war, June 2016 “Ge­orge W. Bush jnr “has no fore­sight” and “can­not think prop­erly” Nel­son Man­dela, in 2003 when Amer­ica in­vaded Iraq.

The Bri­tish pub­lic in­quiry into the na­tion’s role in the no­to­ri­ous Iraq War of 2003 is out. The In­quiry con­ducted un­der the chair­man­ship of a re­tired civil servant, Sir John Chilcot has com­mend­ably come out with a damn­ing ver­dict which as ob­served by Daily Trust of Sun­day July 10 Sun­day 2016 “vin­di­cates the world” that the bru­tal bomb­ing of a mod­ern­iz­ing state of Iraq into Stone Age by the coali­tion of over 40 na­tions led by the USA, on ac­count of non-ex­is­tent Weapons of Mass De­struc­tion, WMD was un­called for af­ter­all. The In­quiry sig­nif­i­cantly noted that the “Mil­i­tary ac­tion at that time was not the last re­sort”.

Read­ing through some 700-words of Tony Blair, it is clear that the man at the cen­tre of it all as the prime (sorry; Crime) min­is­ter is yet to learn lessons of fail­ure of lead­er­ship and that in­ter­na­tional pros­e­cu­tion of duo Bush-Blair for war crimes is im­per­a­tive to pre­vent sim­i­lar global im­punity.

On the one hand he ac­cepts re­spon­si­bil­ity for crim­i­nally go­ing to war with Bush based on the “In­tel­li­gence state­ments” that turned out. “ be wrong”. Yet he was in de­nial that the “in­tel­li­gence was not fal­si­fied, and the de­ci­sion was made in good faith”. Pray on what in­tel­li­gence re­ports did he per­suade the par­lia­ment to go to war if not the one sexed up by his war cab­i­net?

Is Tony Blair say­ing if he had another chance he would again with same im­punity go to war with­out just cause be­y­ound regime change and whose end the world has not re­cov­ered from? Most un­ac­cept­able was his du­bi­ous claim that those who have been killed in the sense­less war of at­tri­tion caused by his reck­less lead­er­ship de­ci­sion did so not in vain but as heroes of a so-called “global strug­gle of the 21st Cen­tury against the ter­ror­ism and vi­o­lence”. Hap­pily Blair’s con­science tells him that “...some of the fam­i­lies” of the be­reaved “can­not and do not ac­cept this is so”.

Cer­tainly mil­lions of ob­servers would def­i­nitely dis­agree with Tony Blair that 200 Bri­tish dead, in­clud­ing 179 sol­diers, some 5000 Amer­i­cans and al­most a mil­lion Iraqis killed in an avoid­able war are heroes. On the con­trary, many would agree that the dead and the dy­ing in the un­end­ing wars were vic­tims of his ir­re­spon­si­ble lead­er­ship. The late Robin Cook was the For­eign Sec­re­tary in Tony Blair’s cab­i­net. He com­mend­ably re­signed in 2003 be­cause of the uni­lat­eral com­mit­ment of both Blair and Bush to based on any other rea­son other than Sadam Hus­sein had weapons of mass de­struc­tion.

In his cele­ber­ated book en­tit­tled; The Point of De­par­ture, he doc­u­ments that the dead, sol­diers and civil­ians like of the Iraqi war were largely in­no­cent vic­tims of an ill- thought sense­less war. One in­stance of the geno­ci­dal war of at­tri­tion of Bush-Blair in the book is worth be­ing quoted here; at the height of the war in 2003, he wrote that “...the US Air­force mis­took an open wed­ding party for a clan­des­tine gath­er­ing of for­eign fight­ers. Over forty civil­ian were an­ni­hi­lated in the sub­se­quent bomb­ing raid.

De­spite the ir­refutable ev­i­dence of a dozen small chil­dren and a pop­u­lar wed­ding singer among the dead, the Coali­tion Forces re­fused even to ad­mit there had been a mis­take”. Some com­men­ta­tors have de­scribed Tony Blair’s de­fi­ant re­ac­tion and nonac­cep­tance of the war as mis­take to “self-delu­sion, de­nial and van­ity”.

What­ever is it an in­ter­na­tional pros­e­cu­tion of both Tony Blair and Ge­orge W Bush for war crimes will bring out the truth. But so far Tony Balir has not shown suf­fi­cient so­bri­ety and sense of re­gret over his 2003 de­ci­sion. In­deed Tony has shown that ide­o­log­i­cally as he had in­di­cated in note writ­ten in late July 2002 he re­mains with Bush “...what­ever”.

Again Tony’s re­ac­tion con­firms the va­lid­ity of Robin Cook that Tony Balir as a prime min­is­ter “...ap­proached re­la­tions with the in­com­ing Bush US Ad­min­is­tra­tion as a ques­tion of power pol­i­tics. He never com­pre­hended the per­plex­ity he would cause his sup­port­ers at home by be­com­ing the truly part­ner of the most re­ac­tionary U.S. Ad­min­is­tra­tion in mod­ern times”. The Chilcot re­port has also raised the nol­sta­gia of the sim­i­lar Bi-par­ti­san Amer­ica Study Group on Iraq pub­lished in De­cem­ber 2006.

The re­port ac­knowl­edged dire sit­u­a­tion in Iraq in con­trast to Tony Blair’s ro­man­tic view of post-Sadam Iraq. The ex­ec­u­tive sum­mary of the re­port of the ten mem­bers group co-chaired by James Baker111, for­mer sec­re­tary of state and Lee H. Hamil­ton opened with the ac­knowl­edge­ment of global open sour: that the “sit­u­a­tion in Iraq is grave and de­te­ri­o­rat­ing”. The group’s sin­gu­lar ad­mit­tance of the grim re­al­ity of the atroc­i­ties and mass hu­man mis­ery caused by sense­less and crim­i­nal in­va­sion of Iraq con­trasts sharply with false grand­stand­ing and white­wash­ing of a failed ad­ven­ture by Bush-Blair war-cab­i­nets.

Many cer­tainly loathed the de­spi­ca­ble regime of Sadam Hus­sein and his litany of gov­er­nance crimes but there is global con­sen­sus to­day that the Amer­i­can Bri­tish oc­cu­pa­tion had brought to­tal ru­ina­tion to Iraq and threat­ened world se­cu­rity than Sadam Hus­sein. In fact, for­mer sec­re­tary Gen­eral of the United Na­tions, Mr Kofi An­nan ac­cepted as much that Iraq fared bet­ter rel­a­tively un­der Sadam Hus­sein.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Nigeria

© PressReader. All rights reserved.