Journal of the Plague Years

(Postscript on 23 Feb '08)

The UK is a signatory to the treaty that set up the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Underpinning the ICC are the Geneva Conventions and the 1945 Nuremberg Charter. The latter states clearly:

"To initiate a war of aggression... is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing from other war crimes only in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

So: was Blair's engagement in war in Iraq in 2003 a war crime or not?

More precisely: did he share in initiating 'a war of aggression' (ipso facto a war crime)?

The political establishment in this country demonstrably thinks that the answer to these questions is 'No', since there has been neither action nor declaration of intent with regard to holding Blair to account.

-/-

The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, gave legal advice to Blair on March 17, 2003 (largely reversing his own opinion given 10 days earlier*), giving Blair the green light to go to war without a second UN resolution. The revised advice was in the face of overwhelming legal opinion on the war's illegality and huge public opposition to the invasion and occupation.**

* "This 7 March document is written by a man who, in his heart, recognises that, without a second resolution (from the UN), the war would be unlawful." (John Silverman, 'Was this a man under pressure?' [referring to Lord Goldsmith], BBC news online, April 28, 2005; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4492093.stm)

** Of the March 17 opinion, Philippe Sands QC wrote, "It is a bad argument, and very few states and virtually no established international lawyers see its merits." ('Lawless World', Penguin, 2006, p.189)

["A little-noticed passage of the Attorney General's 7 March advice pointed out that 'aggression is a crime under customary international law which automatically forms part of domestic law'. Those most closely associated with the initiation of recent events in Iraq may also want to avoid holidays in those countries that have criminalized the planning, preparation or conduct of aggressive war." (Sands, op. cit., pp. 282-283)]

Legal advice does conflict quite frequently; one of the primary functions of the courts of law is to resolve these disagreements.

I don't know if Blair is guilty of war crimes or not (although I obviously have my own ideas). But, clearly, nobody else knows, either. It has not been tested.

The only way, it seems, that Blair could be brought to account - and the only way that we could move towards testing whether or not that he is guilty of any war crime - seems to be by impeachment. But there has been no great call for that to happen.

Pretty much all I could find are these:

• A campaign led by Plaid Cymru MP Adam Price to impeach Tony Blair was set in motion in 2004.

• General Sir Michael Rose, the British UN commander in Bosnia, called for Blair to be impeached in January 2006.

• Andreas Whittam-Smith, a columnist in the Independent, wrote on 22 May 2006, "The US President and the British Prime Minister really should be impeached, but I don't suppose they will be."

The closest any court has come to mentioning the possibility that there was an illegality (that I can find) was oblique:

• Malcolm Kendall-Smith, an RAF doctor who had previously served overseas, was jailed for eight months for refusing to serve in Iraq; his refusal was based on his belief that the invasion had been unlawful. The RAF's legal argument (in saying that the doctor was wrong to refuse) was that "no individual service personnel could be implicated in 'crimes of aggression' [because] these were a 'leadership crime' which the Nuremberg trials established could not be committed by an individual not in a position to dictate state policy".

The calls for impeachment have been pretty feeble, and have come to nothing. It may seem pretty understandable that Parliament, having largely supported the invasion, would not be keen to institute proceedings which might cast a pretty poor light on its own role

The silence from the media has been pretty deafening, too. Medialens searched the newspaper databases for articles published in the three years following the invasion addressing the possibility that Tony Blair might have committed the "supreme international crime". 'We could find only six such articles; two of those were by John Pilger.'

'The BBC tells us that Bush and Blair now admit "mistakes" in Iraq and that "Iraq has cast a shadow over the leaders' careers." But the publicly-funded broadcaster has yet to report that Bush and Blair have committed crimes" ' - "the supreme international crime" as defined at the Nuremberg trials.

'News reports that mentioned the grounds for impeachment were couched in terms of the Prime Minister having "misled the country in the run-up to war." But the more damning indictment of having committed the supreme international crime of launching a war of aggression, and the context of the Nuremberg judgement, is entirely missing. Of the 190 press reports in over three years that mention the impeachment campaign, we could not find even one report that included this basic context.'

-/-

From Medialens:

'It is entirely unsurprising that Bush and Blair are not under sustained pressure to face impeachment - the establishment media and political system, virtually en masse, has rejected even the possibility.

'Despite overwhelming legal opinion on the illegality of the war, and huge public opposition to the invasion and occupation, not a single editorial in any British national newspaper has, as far as know, ever stated that western leaders ought to stand trial before the International Criminal Court. Not one newspaper in its leader column has called for Blair to be impeached for war crimes. The editorial silence from the Guardian, Independent, Financial Times, Daily Telegraph, The Times and the rest is shameful.

'A British Prime Minister may launch a war of aggression, cause death and suffering on an unimaginable scale, and still not be held to account by the supposed 'watchdogs' of democracy.'

From me:

I. Apologists for Blair point out:

1) that there have been four independent inquiries into the circumstances of the war

• The extent to which they were 'independent' is at least arguable; but it is irrelevant: they were all constrained in their terms of reference, so that they weren't in a position to examine the issues discussed here at all.

2) that there have been at least three democratic elections in Iraq since 2003.

• Do you look at Iraq and observe a stable, secure, democratic nation?

II. If I believe that my leaders might be criminal:

• I must do all I can to call them to account;

• In the event that they are guilty, as I believe, of war crimes, I must - as an active free citizen - canvas for appropriate action.

If this sounds pompous, let me say:

• There are plenty of criminal governments around the world. If an established liberal democracy such as ours can't keep its own house in order (if and when it needs to), then what hope is there for the world?

• My own parents and grandparents (and many of yours) fought, suffered and died to fight against the makers of aggressive war. We fight against Germans who invade Poland, but don't bother to check on our own leaders when they invade foreign lands... I don't think so!

• There was a growing consensus that the international community had a responsibility to deal with cruel and tyrannical governments. The invasion of Iraq without the sanction of that community - while processes were taking place - has knocked the fight against tyranny back by years (or by decades, or even forever).

• Our own soldiers deserve the right to know that they are not putting their lives on the line on behalf of leaders who may in fact be criminal.

But here's the crux of the matter:

If our leaders are guilty of war crimes resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and we do nothing about it, how can we even begin to complain when the 'friends' of those innocents plant bombs in our streets?


Added 23 February 2008: The delivery of the 'Williams draft' into the public domain:

It's the smoking gun:

It proves beyond peradventure that Blair lied to Parliament and the public in order to massage the case for war in Iraq;

It proves that he lied repeatedly and consistently to Parliament and the public once the invasion had started to maintain the original fiction;

While it may circumstantial evidence, it reinforces the case that Blair knew that he was embarking on an illegal war - in fact, despite its circumstantial nature, it is of itself prima facie evidence.

So there are two grounds on which Blair is open to Impeachment - lying to the House and engaging in war contrary to international law.

Can we stand reminded that impeachment is not the same as guilt; like a court case, its purpose is to find the truth. In Blair's place, now, if I had a clear conscience, I would offer myself for impeachment, both for the sake of the nation and to clear my name.

Until there is impeachment, this poison will linger. We'll still be paying for it 30 years from now, and possibly 60.


Material in this posting has been drawn from:

• Silence in the service of power. (May 30, 2006) (MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media)

• http://www.williambowles.info/media/2006/0506/silence_power.html

• http://www.counterpunch.org/herman05112006.html

Site map

gt