Over at the Guardian Michael White has been having some fun and games with half a dozen or so prospects for “politicians of the decade.” He had this on Tony Blair the other day, kindly permitting the WE ALL KNOWERS to tell us the their truth.
Today Michael White tells it like it is. Somewhat apologetically, he concludes there IS only one. Don’t apologise, Mr White, just for the sake of some of your political nous challenged readers. All the others you name were also-rans.
Tony Blair - Michael White's 'Politician of the Decade'. (Photograph: Saeed Khan/AFP/Getty Images)
I have to conclude that the rest in Michael White’s list were there as padding, journalistic licence or for keeping the balance.
HA! Balance!? In today’s press? Good of you to try, Mr White. Now sign the Ban Blair-baiting petition. You know you should.
Still, my congratulations and my best wishes for a great 2010 to the commenter named ‘GrubHater’ for his/her summing-up (see here below, but don’t forget to click to come back up here. I’m missing you already.)
Michael White’s article follows:
Love Tony Blair or loathe him, only one choice for politician of the decade
Where some saw only an Iraq body count, others experienced better schools and NHS
Will posterity judge Tony Blair more harshly or more kindly?
Politician of the decade? Even to ask the question in a purely UK context, as guardian.co.uk has been doing this week, is to be struck by a fast-changing world in which no European leader can solidly lay claim to the mantle of global statesman during the turbulent noughties.
No Chirac, Schröder, Berlusconi, no Merkel (not yet) and certainly no pillar of the Brussels bureaucracy. Vladimir Putin stablised his country at great cost, but belongs to Russia’s Slav tradition, not its European one. As China and India emerged Europe seemed to shrink.
The EU politician with the energy, drive and brand-recognition charisma to have staked a claim was Tony Blair. But he hobbled his premiership over the Iraq invasion and the still echoing controversy surrounding it. Yet it is impossible not to shortlist him for the title. Love him or hate him, Blair was the dominant force.
Had Gordon Brown‘s premiership lived up to the post-Blair promises he so often hinted at during his long wait, his claim might have been better – but only if his 10-year stewardship of the UK economy proved durable. Instead it crashed along with bankers’ reputations soon after he took over in June 2007.
Apart from Blair who else? Robin Cook is an obvious what-if candidate. Never a New Labour Blairite, Westminster’s best debater rode the tiger of liberal interventionism overseas – Blair’s Chicago speech which ” Poodle” Bush bought into after 9/11 – until the 2003 invasion loomed and he resigned. By the time of his sudden death in 2005, Cook was reconciled with Brown. Could he have made a decisive difference to the current endgame?
Canny Alex Salmond must have a claim. Unlike those Northern Ireland politicians whose Stormont coalition emerged from bloodshed, the SNP leader started the noughties down on his luck. Ever the gambler, he bobbed and weaved, ending the decade as first minister in Holyrood’s minority government. Fifty-five tomorrow, his hopes of leading Scotland to independence cannot be ruled out despite the sobering collapse of RBS and HBOS.
A female claimant? That proved harder. Margaret Thatcher, who faded away as a political force in the noughties, leaves a long shadow. But Harriet Harman, who lost cabinet office in 1998, has proved a tough survivor who always fights her political corner: the equality agenda in all the progressive manifestations that enrage many voters. Deputy leader, Commons leader, party chair, she is bloodied but unbowed.
Which Tory deserves a glance? It has been a decade of humiliation for the “natural party of government”. Three leaders, Hague, Duncan Smith and Howard, fell beneath Blair’s chariot. Since unexpectedly snatching the crown in late 2005 David Cameron has made erratic progress, not yet the master of his party. But he has taken them to the gates of Downing Street which he expects to occupy in 2010. That in itself is an achievement.
Nice guys often finish last. But Vince Cable‘s decade saw the gangling Lib Dem economist emerge as a political star: clever, funny, self-deprecating, an MP voters seemed to like and respect in a bad decade for politics. It is unlikely to make him chancellor except in the wildest of hung parliaments. Yet he deserves an accolade.
All the same it remains hard to avoid the conclusion that will be uncomfortable for many. Blair won three resounding elections, millions voted for him and not all were disappointed. Where some saw only an Iraq body count others experienced better schools, a revitalised NHS, poverty checked (but not defeated) and a society adapting to tough realities of the new global order.
Blair’s strengths and weaknesses were widely shared at the time, though angrily denounced today. Will posterity judge him more harshly or more kindly? It always depends what happens next.
a) Clapped-out Old Trots
b) Past-it Peaceniks
c) Grungey Greens
d) Woolley Liberals
e) Randist “Libertarians”
f) High Tory Paternalists
g) Low Tory Bourgeois Suprematists
h) BNP Fascists
all froth at the mouth at the same time can’t be entirely in the wrong.
The dear, generous, put-upon, misunderstood Iraqi hostage-takers have released a hostage captured a month before Tony Blair resigned. (All HIS fault, of course.)
Questions now surround our historic “no deals with terrorists” position AND whether or not Iran’s Revolutionary Guard rather than Iraqis were the original hostage-takers of these five men. According to BBC reports the US’s General Petraeus is 90% certain that their capture was Iranian-inspired/directed. Of course, Iran has denied this “masterminding” claim, just as it threatens to punch us in the face for ‘interfering’ in their little domestics.
BLAIR AND HIS POODLE DID IT – DON’T YOU KNOW?
Such are the complexities of the Middle East, and, of course, one of the reasons Tony Blair & his pet poodle George should never have thought of tackling the region in the first place.
What? Didn’t you know Tony told George to do it – “just do it, George”, he velvetly murmured, allegedly.
Clearly you don’t read the Guardian CIFers enough, my friends. The wise guys at the Guardian, Independent and the Daily MAUL are the joint arbiters of political machinations there, here and worldwide… AS WE ALL KNOW.
THE REAL ENEMY?
So, what has been happening recently in our little ol’ world that should make those of us of sound mind* work out WHO EXACTLY our REAL enemy is?
(Most Cifers, Indie commenters and Daily Mail hypocrites need to stop reading right here. Sound mind* required.)
1) After two and a half years in captivity in Iraq ONE hostage, IT consultant Peter Moore has been released. Three other hostages were shot dead and one is still missing, presumed dead. (see timeline here)
All OUR doing, of course. And just to prove how ‘evil’ we in the west are -
If only we in the west had made sure this poor, misunderstood kid hadn’t felt so… well… “lonely”. He wouldn’t have set out to kill a plane load of people over Detroit. It was only a hug he heeded, y’ know. Really must try harder, must try, MUST… ‘Breakdown in intelligence’ cited on failed Christmas Day plane bombing over Detroit.
Mousavi Nephew Dies in Streets of Tehran – Iran 27 Dec 09
The graphic images in this video, posted on a YouTube channel apparently maintained by the opposition Web site Jaras, are said to show the body of Ali Moussavi, a nephew of the opposition leader Mir Hussein Moussavi, who was reportedly killed during a protest in Tehran on Sunday:
Of course NONE of this would have happened – all would have been love, peace and light – if we in the west hadn’t stuck our little liberal noses into the Middle East in the first place, now would it?
In another part of this worrying world – China executes “mentally ill” Briton and tells us to keep our noses out. This execution might be seen by some as a continuation of the “opium wars”. Regardless of the guilt, sanity or otherwise of the executed Britain we need to see Britain’s history as part of the bigger picture in many parts of the world. A look at China/British history should give us pause for thought. Today, human rights are still a major stumbling block as far as China’s coming-of-age is concerned. We, at least, have moved on from trading drugs for freedom. Has China?
KEEPING OUR NOSES OUT
(DIDN’T MUGABE ONCE SUGGEST something about keeping our “pink noses out”. Ah yes. Another great guy who desevrves our admiration!)
Tough for some Brits to accept but Britain has long been one of the world’s stabilising forces, and has had historical associations with many parts of the world over many centuries. It would be negligence indeed and in deed if we were to kep “our noses out” when so many oppressed people still look to us for help.
President Obama says that “a mix of human and systemic failures” enabled a would-be suicide bomber to board a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day, where passengers foiled an effort to blow up the plane in midair. Obama called the breakdown “totally unacceptable.”
In a brief statement to reporters in Hawaii, where he’s vacationing with his family, the president outlined his “serious concerns” about the failure of the U.S. security apparatus to keep Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab off a Northwest flight despite a warning to U.S. Embassy officials several week’s earlier by the 23-year-old’s father. Highlights of the president’s brief statement: Obama said reviews that he ordered of the nation’s air security system began Sunday and that he has requested preliminary reports to be delivered to him by Thursday.
In their self-flagellation over their own “systemic failures” it might be instructive for our American friends to understand this:
WE BRITS DID THE RIGHT THING, BUT FOR THE WRONG REASONS
Americans seem to think that WE in Britain did the right thing in keeping out this Nigerian when he applied for a visa earlier this year despite having put him through a British university, 2005 – 2008.
Well, I have news for our American friends. We MAY have done the right thing, but it was for the wrong reasons.
We refused his visa ONLY because the British authorities have just recently begun to act on the thousands of bogus colleges in London, fronts for training jihadists. They have been warned about this for months, perhaps years. He was stopped because the university he had applied to attend did not exist.
This begs the question: why then was he not investigated further? It is clear as day that anyone applying to such a university KNOWS that it does not exist. THAT is why they apply to join it! They are all trainee terrorists.
The British government failed the international community.
Its policy should NOT be to try hide the fact that we have had fake (trainee Jihad) degrees in Britain for some time. Its policy should have been to follow up these university applicants AND to inform the rest of our allies of any names which had applied.
AND WHY DIDN’T BROWN’S GOVERNMENT SHARE THIS INFORMATION…
With the Americans AND our EU allies?…
Well, partly because since Tony Blair left office this government has tried to distance itself from terror/terrorism/terrorists/Islamists – ANYthing uncomfortably reminiscent of the rope still dangling above the heads of Blair and Bush.
Both Brown and Obama have said little about terrorism in both our lands. They have tried to pretend that the threat went with Mr Blair and then Mr Bush. Until now that suited the American administration admirably in its ‘reaching out’ mode. You see, it was all THEIR doing – the two “formers”.
Except it wasn’t.
Now Mr Obama is starting to notice this, and starting to understand why Guantanamo was, as referred to by Blair “an anomaly”. He is now trying to work out what exactly to do with the Yemenis there awaiting return to the Yemen. Well? Send ‘em back, Big O. That’s what you SAID you’d do, wasn’t it? Well, didn’t you? That’s why all the liberals voted for you, wasn’t it? Well, wasn’t it?
Tough this running the free world business isn’t it?
Abdulmutallab’s al Qaeda Ties
Since the moment Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was taken into custody he has claimed a tie to al Qaeda. As Jim Axelrod reports, al Qaeda has taken responsibility for the Christmas day terror attack attempt.
So, Is This Terrorism? From Yemen to Detroit to Iran
The Underwear Bomber,’ or What Happened on Christmas Over Detroit.
Larry Kudlow on CNBC’s The Kudlow Report is joined by an A-Team of terrorism analysis. Joining Kudlow is Frank Gaffney, Steve Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, and The Heritage Foundation’s Homeland Security expert Jena Baker McNeil.
Tony Blair and the record number of female MPs he brought into Parliament in 1997. Take note, ladies. This will NOT be bettered or even equalled for years, possibly decades to come. Another Blair legacy too easily forgotten.
A week or so before Christmas, 19th December we had these two pictured below convicted for 10 years (for one of them, humourously described as “life”!? That’ll make him just 43 when he gets out of jail.)
19th December, 2009: Habib Ahmed and Rangzieb Ahmed have been convicted of being members of al Qaida Photo: PA
And now, on Christmas day (no hidden meaning there, then?) we had a former British student of Nigerian nationality failing in his attempt in the skies over Detroit to attend the 70 virgins awaiting his pleasure; he and a plane-load of innocent people. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, attended university in London between 2005 and 2008, and applied for a visa to return to a non-existent university (oh, there are/were scores of them, didn’t you know?) in London several months ago. The request was turned down. Why… I ask myself in my logical confusion … why was he not investigated more seriously after this “application” in the first place?
PLANE TERRORIST (not JUST a “suspect”) CAUGHT RED-HANDED
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian arrested after the failed bomb plot
Melanie Phillips: “Londonistan still the weakest link”. Excerpt: “But the deeper and more urgent issue for Britain concerns the key role this country has once again played in a Muslim’s trajectory to radicalisation and terror. Abdulmutallab, who claims to have been working for Al Qaeda, was an engineering student at prestigious University College London for three years until 2008.
He was actually refused an entry visa to Britain earlier this year, but only because the institution at which he said he wanted to study turned out to be non-existent.
How, people might well ask, could such a radical have been educated in Britain without the authorities jumping on him? Did MI5 know anything about him – especially since he was on a U.S. terrorism watch-list for two years?
As yet, we still don’t know much about this man’s history. It appears he became a religiously extreme Muslim at a school in Togo, but was further radicalised while studying in London before apparently going to Yemen and linking to Al Qaeda.
Who can be surprised? After all, this is ‘ Londonistan’ — the contemptuous term coined by the French security service back in the Nineties as they watched Britain become the central hub of Islamic terrorism in Europe.”
NOTE: I AM NOT CONVINCED, MR JOHNSON
If Phillips is right, and she often is, the Home Secretary Alan Johnson cannot claim brownie points for Abdulamutallab’s exclusion from Britain. It seems it was only because, belatedly, the government had realised that there were numerous bogus (non-existent) universities in London – simply breeding grounds for terrorists. He was not excluded on terrorism fears but only on the fake university issue. The bigger question is the state of shared intelligence between EU countries, the USA and other allies. With that in place as it should have been, the Dutch authorities would have stopped this terrorist at the airport in Amsterdam.
‘Terrorist Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab spent at least 3 years in London and lived in a posh West London neighborhood, he attended the University College London and studied mechanical engineering there between September 2005 and June 2008. The problem of radical Islam on British university campuses is entrenched, and any attempts to address the problem are met with whines of “Islamophobia” from Muslims and leftists. In October 2006, a lecture was held at Staffordshire University, entitled “The true word of God – the Koran or the Bible.” The lecture was given by a former member of Al-Muhajiroun.
The London School of Economics was a locus for Islamist terror recruitment yet London universities are now rife with individuals who do not seek to share common values of liberty and democracy. In July 2005, it was reported by the National Union of Students that Al-Muhajiroun and Hizb ut-Tahrir members were still trying to recruit members from Scottish universities, using “front” names to avoid detection.
On August 10, 2006, it was revealed that a massive plot, involving about twenty British Muslims, had been halted. This plot had involved a plan to smuggle liquid explosives onto several US-bound airlines. These were to be reassembled into bombs on board flights, in the manner first outlined by Ramzi Yousef in 1995, in his notorious “Operation Bojinka”. One of the suspects in this plot was 22-year old Waheed Zaman from Walthamstow, north-east London, who was head of the Islamic Society at London Metropolitan University, more from this source.
‘Al-Muhajiroun are still a threat because Bakri’s followers continue to operate under different names giving leaflets out at mosques and universities,’ said Dr Irfan al-Alawi, director of the Centre for Islamic Pluralism. ‘Bakri continues to preach his sermons via an internet chatroom from his exile, which means his evil ideology is still being practised by his followers.’
Exclusive: Al Muhajiroun – Vigilantes of Islam, Adrian MorganAl-Muhajroun has an Internet presence, it is called “Islam 4 UK.” At the end of May this year (2009), this group made an announcement on its website: “…For almost a decade it struggled in its quest to re-establish the mighty Islamic State and moreover see the black flag of Islam fly high over 10 Downing Street; it also strived to confront the ills of society and invite the masses to the Deen of al-Islam as a complete way of life, and was extremely successful in doing so….. However, we would like to declare that after almost 15 years since the establishment of Al-Muhajiroun, and 5 years since its disbandment, Al-Muhajiroun is to be re-launched in the United Kingdom and to resume its activities as normal…” (terrorism).
WASHINGTON; An official briefed on the attack on a Detroit airliner by Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab said Saturday the U.S. has known for at least two years that the suspect in the attack could have terrorist ties (Al-Muhajiroun).
The official told The Associated Press that the suspect, Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, has been on a list that includes people with known or suspected contact or ties to a terrorist or terrorist organization (Al-Muhajiroun).
The Nigerian man arrested Friday for trying to destroy Northwest Airlines Flight 253, Umar Farouk Abdul Mattallab, is being investigated by London authorities. Officers from the Metropolitan Police — the force is involved in most of the major terrorism investigations in Britain — went in and out of an imposing white stone apartment block in a well-to-do area of central London. A police spokeswoman said the force was carrying out searches in connection with the incident in Detroit, but would not say if the searches at the building were connected.
The seven-story building in a posh West London neighborhood where Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab lived is a stone’s throw from London’s busy Oxford Street shopping area. It was adorned with ornate carvings on its facade and antique lamps flank an imposing front door.
The deadliest attack occurred in 2005 when four suicide bombers killed themselves and 52 rush hour commuters. Three of the bombers — Europe’s first suicide attack — had Pakistani origins while another was a Muslim convert with ties to Jamaica.
Hashmi, who moved to Britain (London) from Queens in 2003, allegedly allowed his London flat to be used to store supplies and money that Babar was shipping out to Abdul al-Hadi al-Iraqi, then head of al-Qaeda’s operations in Afghanistan. The supplies included ponchos, torches and boots, useful for recruits fighting US troops in remote parts of Afghanistan.
Hashmi was arrested as he tried to board a plane from Heathrow to Pakistan carrying thousands of pounds in cash. If convicted in the US he faces up to 54 years in prison. His lawyers say he will deny all the charges and that much of the evidence against him is conflicting.
But the thwarted plot in London that has been hardest felt around the world has been the trans-Atlantic airliner attack. Several men were recently convinced in London in the 2006 plot that was intended to rival the Sept. 11 attacks (all linked to Al-Muhajiroun).
The men tried to smuggle explosives through security in soft drink bottles. Massive disruptions were caused around the world and a ban on taking liquids through airport security still exists.
Rohan Gunaratna, an al-Qaida expert, said Friday’s thwarted attack appeared to be a copycat of the trans-Atlantic technique. “What is surprising is that this man is Nigerian,” he said, noting that recruiting in that country has not been the norm, and is more common in major European capitals like London. “Yemen and Somalia have been the two most important terrorism theaters developing, although it seems clear that Mutallab was recruited in London — probably not at a mainstream mosque but on the sly with militant groups (Al-Muhajiroun).”
Just as a by the way – Michael Savage on Winston Churchill and the Threat of Radical Islam
From Mosque Watch on Michael Savage’s “The Savage Nation”
The excerpt below is from Churchill’s speech in 1899, full speech here, which I used some time ago. Even if you say that was then, this is now, we are no longer a colonising power, it’s still worth a read. If only for those of us who keep accusing recent British leaders of having no historical understanding of regional significances.
A further excerpt from Churchill’s book, with resonance perhaps today: (my bolding)
“The long story now approaches its conclusion. The River War is over. In its varied course, which extended over fourteen years and involved the untimely destruction of perhaps 300,000 lives, many extremes and contrasts
have been displayed. There have been battles which were massacres, and others that were mere parades. There have been occasions of shocking cowardice and surprising heroism, of plans conceived in haste and emergency, of schemes laid with slow deliberation, of wild extravagance and cruel waste, of economies scarcely less barbarous, of wisdom and incompetence. But the result is at length achieved, and the flags of England and Egypt wave unchallenged over the valley of the Nile.
At what cost were such advantages obtained? The reader must judge for himself of the loss in men; yet while he deplores the deaths of brave officers and soldiers, and no less the appalling destruction of the valiant Arabs, he should remember that such slaughter is inseparable from war, and that, if the war be justified, the loss of life cannot be accused.
[...]
For something less than two and a half millions sterling active military operations were carried on for nearly three years, involving the employment –far from its base–of an army of 25,000 disciplined troops, including an expensive British contingent of 8,000 men, and ending in the utter defeat of an enemy whose armed forces numbered at the beginning of the war upwards of 80,000 soldiers, and the reconquest and re-occupation of a territory measuring sixteen hundred miles from north to south and twelve hundred from east to west [Lieut.-Colonel Stewart's Report: Egypt, No.11, 1883], which at one time supported at least twenty millions of inhabitants.
But this is not all. Of the total EP2,354,354 only EP996,223 can be accounted as military expenditure. For the remaining EP1,358,131 Egypt possesses 500 miles of railway, 900 miles of telegraph, and a flotilla of steamers. The railway will not, indeed, pay a great return upon the capital invested, but it will immediately pay something, and may ultimately pay much. The telegraph is as necessary as the railway to the development of the country; it costs far less, and, when the Egyptian system is connected with the South African, it will be a sure source of revenue. Lastly, there are the gunboats. The reader cannot have any doubts as to the value of these vessels during the war. Never was money better spent on military plant. Now that the river operations are over the gunboats discharge the duties of ordinary steamers; and although they are, of course, expensive machines for goods and passenger traffic, they are by no means inefficient. The movement of the troops, their extra pay, the supplies at the end of a long line of communications, the ammunition, the loss by wear and tear of uniforms and accoutrements, the correspondence, the rewards, all cost together less than a million sterling; and for that million Egypt has recovered the Soudan.
[...]
A great, though perhaps academic, issue remains: Was the war justified by wisdom and by right?
If the reader will look at a map of the Nile system, he cannot fail to be struck by its resemblance to a palm-tree. At the top the green and fertile area of the Delta spreads like the graceful leaves and foliage. The stem is perhaps a little twisted, for the Nile makes a vast bend in flowing through the desert. South of Khartoum the likeness is again perfect, and the roots of the tree begin to stretch deeply into the Soudan. I can imagine no better illustration of the intimate and sympathetic connection between Egypt and the southern provinces. The water–the life of the Delta–is drawn from the Soudan, and passes along the channel of the Nile, as the sap passes up the stem of the tree, to produce a fine crop
of fruit above. The benefit to Egypt is obvious; but Egypt does not benefit alone. The advantages of the connection are mutual; for if the Soudan is thus naturally and geographically an integral part of Egypt, Egypt is no less essential to the development of the Soudan. Of what use would the roots and the rich soil be, if the stem were severed, by which alone their vital essence may find expression in the upper air?
Here, then, is a plain and honest reason for the River War. To unite territories that could not indefinitely have continued divided; to combine peoples whose future welfare is inseparably intermingled;to collect energies which, concentrated, may promote a common interest; to join together what could not improve apart–these are the objects which, history will pronounce, have justified the enterprise.
The advantage to Great Britain is no less clear to those who believe that our connection with Egypt, as with India, is in itself a source of strength. The grasp of England upon Egypt has been strengthened twofold by the events of the war. The joint action and ownership of the two countries in the basin of the Upper Nile form an additional bond between them. The command of the vital river is an irresistible weapon. The influence of France over the native mind in Egypt has been completely destroyed by the result of the Fashoda negotiations; and although she still retains the legal power to meddle in and obstruct all financial arrangements, that power, unsupported by real influence, is like a body whence the soul has fled, which may, indeed, be an offensive encumbrance, but must ultimately decompose and crumble into dust.
But, apart from any connection with Egypt, Britain has gained a vast territory which, although it would be easy to exaggerate its value, is nevertheless coveted by every Great Power in Europe. The policy of acquiring large waterways, which has been pursued deliberately or unconsciously by British statesmen for three centuries, has been carried one step further; and in the valley of the Nile England may develop a trade which, passing up and down the river and its complement the railway, shall exchange the manufactures of the Temperate Zone for the products of the Tropic of Cancer, and may use the north wind to drive civilisation and prosperity to the south and the stream of the Nile to bear wealth and commerce to the sea.”
“Islamic Human Rights Charter … based on Sharia … which is, of course, invalid because it’s God’s Law, and God doesn’t exist. To claim that he does is extremely offensive to those of us who passionately believe otherwise. It’s a grave insult to our most deeply cherished beliefs, an assault on the every core of our being no less and a violation therefore of our human rights, isn’t it? Well, isn’t it?”
Logical.
I may not agree with devout atheist Pat Condell on everything; I do on free speech, AND on the threat from Islam especially when combined with the west’s liberal moderation and self-sacrificial inclusivity.
*Blairdoyer comes from the French word plaidoyer/closing argument in a court case
[This is a cross-post. You can visit the original site here]
–
Experts disagree as to whether the war in Iraq was legal or illegal. It is a result of the complex nature of international law which is different to national and European law. It is customary law, has no common legislator, is vague and its legitimacy derives from the recognition of states concerned. Overall, international law has no supremacy over national law.
Casus belli- The case of war
Death Kurds- Victims of Chemical Ali
In order to establish the legality of the war in Iraq, it is essential to understand the long history of violence of the country. The war was launched for different reasons. Sanctions against the regime were crumbling and the No-Fly–Zone policy not working. While the Iraqi civilian population was heavily suffering, it had little impact on Saddam’s terror regime. Smart sanctions were suggested by the US and the UK in the UN Security Council but were blocked by Russia for economic interests. The problem of Iraq remained unresolved. In fact, the problem had remained unresolved for over 12 years.
9/11 changed the mentality of the US administration and also its policy. Self defence and conflict prevention were now on top of the agenda. The premise was that war is sometimes inevitable, necessary to restore peace and security, in order to address the roots- such as bad governance and dictatorship- of potential threats.
The question remains if the Iraq war was legal under international law. According to Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, the use of force is authorised under two circumstances:
a) Self defence (Article 51)
b) A Security Council Resolution (Article 42)
One could argue that in case of Iraq both conditions were met, as explained by the following. Saddam was a potential threat because the possession or the capability to build WMDs constituted a threat to international peace and security. On top, the humanitarian situation was alarming. Saddam was the Ethnic Cleanser of the Middle East. Furthermore, the use of force was covered by previous UN Security Resolutions.
The opponents of the war claim this argumentation is invalid. They insist the intelligence on Saddam’s WMD capabilities was flawed. Some go a step further and accuse the government of manipulating information and misleading the public and parliament. Additionally, they do not accept Resolution 1441 as a justification for the use of previous resolutions as the legal basis for the military invasion.
Bona fide- Good faith
The House of Commons approved the war
One could follow the argument of the anti-war brigade and assume that some of the intelligence was false. This is a far cry from a lie and does not make the war in Iraq illegal under international law. The crucial question is if the British government deliberately misled the country.
So far there is no indication the Blair administration acted in bad faith. There is no evidence they doubted the existence of WMDs. There is no proof they deliberately lied to the public or parliament. Tony Blair and his ministers believed what most of people believed at that time, namely that Saddam was in possession or at least was capable of building WMDs. The French and the Russians, the strongest opponents of the war in Iraq, did not disagree. Neither did the UN Secretary General or the weapons inspectors beg to differ.
The UK parliament shared this view and voted in favour of the invasion of Iraq. This was crucial, since after all, national law has supremacy over international law. With the backing of the House, the UK government therefore established the legal basis for the war with Iraq under national law.
Actio non accrevit infra duodecim annos- Action has not accrued within twelve years
Saddam refused to cooperate with the UN for over a decade; he was not complying with any of the Security Council Resolutions. It was impossible to assess the potential threat of Iraq. Under the given circumstances it was right of the US and the UK to use force in anticipatory self- defence.
On August 2, 1990 Kuwait was invaded by Saddam’s army. The UN issued Resolution 660 and asked Iraq to drop out of Kuwait immediately. Diplomatic efforts failed. As a result, the UN adopted the infamous Resolution 678, which set a deadline for January 15, 1991 to comply with Resolution 660. Again, Saddam refused to act according to the previous resolution. Since Resolution 678 allowed “to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area”, the legal basis for the military operation Desert Storm was given.
On April 3, 1991, the Security Council issued another decisive Resolution, 687, which outlined the conditions for a ceasefire with Iraq:
a) Destroy all biological and chemical weapons, as well as ballistic missiles. On top, Iraq had to agree to inspections
b) Do not use, develop, construct, or acquire WMDs
c) Do not develop or acquire nuclear weapons or material of that sort
The UNSCOM was established to carry out the inspections and Iraq was asked to cooperate with the IAEA. On April 6, 1991 Iraq formally accepted the Resolution and a ceasefire was spelled out between Kuwait and Iraq.
However, Saddam never lived up to his promises. He remained in breach of the Security Council Resolutions for all those years. Repeatedly, the UN complained about the non-compliance of Iraq but never took serious actions. On November 12, 1997 Resolution 1137 was adopted, as a response to Iraq’s constant denial to allow the UN weapons inspectors to do their work. It “condemn[ed] ….the continued violation by Iraq of its obligations under the relevant resolutions to cooperate fully and unconditionally with the UNSCOM. “ Thus, the UN expressed its “firm intention to take further measures as may be required for the implementation of this resolution.”
Si vis pacem, para bellum - If you want peace, prepare for war
On November 8, 2002 the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1441. It gave Iraq “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations”. It insisted that Iraq remained “in material breach” and noted the absence of weapons inspectors in Iraq since December 1998, Saddam’s refusal to cease international terrorism and the repression of the Iraqi people. It threatened Saddam’s regime with “serious action”, if he continued to refuse to comply with the international community.
But once again, Saddam failed to provide full and unconditional cooperation. It was impossible for the UN weapons inspectors to do their work, and as a result impossible to accurately assess the threat deriving from Saddam’s regime. Thus, he remained not only in breach of Resolution 1441 but also of all previous ones, including 678. Crucially, it has never been rescinded and therefore established, together with Resolution 1441, the legal basis for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Legally, it is incredibly illogical to claim, as some opponents of the war do, that Resolution 678 was no longer valid because it was over 12 years old. Most of the primary and secondary legal sources on which our society is based are many years old. It would be like saying that someone is not accountable for a murder anymore because it happened 20 years ago. That is not how our legal system works.
Homo praesumitur bonus donec probetur malus- One is innocent until proven guilty
As the examination of the legal setting showed, there was sufficient authority for the use of force against Iraq under national and international law. It is sensible to claim that without war, it would have been impossible to restore stability and peace in Iraq.
However, many people remain sceptical of the legality of the 2003 invasion. So far, all attempts to hold the UK government responsible for war crimes in front of a court have failed. It is highly unlikely that the Chilcot Inquiry will provide the necessary information to change that. Like the four previous inquiries into the war with Iraq, it will criticise the government for its shortcomings but not question the legitimacy of the invasion.
The opponents will accuse Chilcot of a whitewash. They will not accept the inquiry’s findings, until it fits their agenda. But the anti-war brigade has to accept that, although they reject the policy on Iraq, it was and is not necessarily illegal. Tony Blair is not a war criminal. He was not tried by a court and he presumably never will.
The doubters should learn to cherish one of the fundamental principles of our European democratic legal system:
I do have to wonder why exactly the Tony Blair Office channel has allowed the brain-dead to comment here.
On the other hand, if any of them DO have more than one braincell to rub against another misplaced one the comments show clearly what Mr Blair is up against, with the encouragement, training and brainwashing of the written press in this country.
And that’s before he has even appeared at the Iraq Inquiry! What chance any fair treatment at any trial, if it were ever to happen (which of course it won’t)?
List of Clickable Links – Pages/Video/Audio/External Sites
This list is alphabetical. Browse down the lists to search for an item.
Or click through to a 'popular page' on the topic where it is likely to be found. All video/audio/articles etc will also be found at the appropriate page or post.
Putting a search item into the search box will bring up one or more pages which include your search item.
Should the USA, Britain & the rest of the western world seriously consider Sharia Finance, in view of the present financial worries?
There is concern that such is the state of collapse of western capitalism that SOME of our leaders may even be considering adopting "Sharia Finance".
It already exists in the west in various forms and is presently being marketed heavily to non-Muslims.
Is this a slippery slope to Sharia Law?
Sharia law and now Sharia finance are touted by its proponents as the answers to the "evils" of the west.
I don't want ANYTHING Sharia in my country - Britain. And I am not happy that there are already FIVE Sharia courts in our land. I don't recall the government asking us to vote for this in 1997, 2001 or 2005.
But two months after Mr Brown took over from Mr Blair in 2007 Sharia courts were set up in English cities. Perhaps Mr Brown thought he had received subliminal permission from the people to do this when he took over from Mr Blair in a subliminal non-election.
What do YOU think?
VOTE NOW for or against Sharia Finance for the West
