Tony
Blair Must Be Prosecuted: The London 7/7 A Direct
Consequence Of Blair’s Actions
07 August 2010
By John Pilger
In his latest column for the
New Statesman, John Pilger writes about the "paramount
war crime" defined by the Nuremberg judges in 1946 and
its relevance to the case of Tony Blair, whose shared
responsibility for the Iraq invasion resulted in the
deaths of more than a million people. New developments
in international and domestic political attitudes
towards war crimes mean that Blair is now 'Britain's
Kissinger'.
Tony Blair must be prosecuted, not indulged like his
mentor Peter Mandelson. Both have produced
self-serving memoirs for which they have been paid
fortunes. Blair’s will appear next month and earn him
£4.6 million. Now consider Britain’s Proceeds of Crime
Act. Blair consired in and executed an unprovoked war
of aggression against a defenceless country, which the
Nuremberg judges in 1946 described as the “paramount
war crime”. This has caused, according to scholarly
studies, the deaths of more than a million people, a
figure that exceeds the Fordham University estimate of
deaths in the Rwandan genocide.
In addition, four million Iraqis have been forced to
flee their homes and a majority of children have
descended into malnutrition and trauma. Cancer rates
near the cities of Fallujah, Najaf and Basra (the
latter “liberated” by the British) are now revealed as
higher than those at Hiroshima. “UK forces used about
1.9 metric tons of depleted uranium ammunition in the
Iraq war in 2003,” the Defence Secretary Liam Fox told
parliament on 22 July. A range of toxic
“anti-personnel” weapons, such as cluster bombs, was
employed by British and American forces.
Such carnage was justified with lies that have been
repeatedly exposed. On 29 January 2003, Blair told
parliament, “We do know of links between al-Qaida and
Iraq …”. Last month, the former head of the
intelligence service, MI5, Eliza Manningham-Buller,
told the Chilcot inquiry, “There is no credible
intelligence to suggest that connection … [it was the
invasion] that gave Osama bin Laden his Iraqi jihad”.
Asked to what extent the invasion exacerbated the
threat to Britain from terrorism, she replied,
“Substantially”. The bombings in London on 7 July 2005
were a direct consequence of Blair’s actions.
Documents released by the High Court show that Blair
allowed British citizens to be abducted and tortured.
The then foreign secretary, Jack Straw, decided in
January 2002 that Guantanamo was the “best way” to
ensure UK nationals were “securely held”.
Instead of remorse, Blair has demonstrated a voracious
and secretive greed. Since stepping down as prime
minister in 2007, he has accumulated an estimated £20
million, much of it as a result of his ties with the
Bush administration. The House f Commons Advisory
Committee on Business Appointments, which vets jobs
taken by former ministers, was pressured not to make
public Blair’s “consultancy” deals with the Kuwaiti
royal family and the South Korean oil giant UI Energy
Corporation. He gets £2 million a year “advising” the
American investment bank J P Morgan and undisclosed
sums from financial services companies. He makes
millions from speeches, including reportedly £200,000
for one speech in China.
In his unpaid but expenses-rich role as the West’s
“peace envoy” in the Middle East, Blair is, in effect,
a voice of Israel, which awarded him a $1 million
“peace prize”. In other words, his wealth has grown
rapidly since he launched, with George W. Bush, the
bloodbath in Iraq.
His collaborators are numerous. The Cabinet in March
2003 knew a great deal about the conspiracy to attack
Iraq. Jack Straw, later appointed “justice secretary”,
suppressed the relevant Cabinet minutes in defiance of
an order by the Information Commissioner to release
them. Most of those now running for the Labour Party
leadership supported Blair’s epic crime, rising as one
to salute his final appearance in the Commons. As
foreign secretary, David Miliband, sought to cover
Britain’s complicity in torture, and promoted Iran as
the next “threat”.
Journalists who once fawned on Blair as “mystical” and
amplified his vainglorious bids now pretend they were
his critics all along. As for the media’s gulling of
the public, only the Observer’s David Rose, to his
great credit, has apologised. The Wikileaks’ exposes,
released with a moral objective of truth with justice,
have been bracing for a public force-fed on complicit,
lobby journalism. Verbose celebrity historians like
Niall Ferguson, who rejoiced in Blair’s rejuvenation
of “enlightened” imperialism, remain silent on the
“moral truancy”, as Pankaj Mishra wrote, “of [those]
paid to intelligently interpret the contemporary
world”.
Is it wishful thinking that Blair will be collared?
Just as the Cameron government understands the
“threat” of a law that makes Britain a risky stopover
for Israeli war criminals, a similar risk awaits Blair
in a number of countries and jurisdictions, at least
of being apprehended and questioned. He is now
Britain’s Kissinger, who has long planned his travel
outside the United States with the care of a fugitive.
Two recent events add weight to this. On 15 June, the
International Criminal Court made the landmark
decision of adding aggression to its list of war
crimes to be prosecuted. This is defined as a “crime
committed by a political or military leader which by
its character, gravity and scale constituted a
manifest violation of the [United Nations] Charter”.
International lawyers described this as a “giant
leap”. Britain is a signatory to the Rome statute that
created the court and is bound by its decisions.
On 21 July, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, standing
at the Commons despatch box, declared the invasion of
Iraq illegal. For all the later “clarification” that
he was speaking personally, he had made “a statement
that the international court would be interested in”,
said Philippe Sands, professor of international law at
University College London.
Tony Blair came from Britain’s upper middle classes
who, having rejoiced in his unctuous ascendancy, might
now reflect on the principles of right and wrong they
require of their own children. The suffering of the
children of Iraq will remain a spectre haunting
Britain while Blair remains free to profit.