In the age of the Gentiles, Atonement and the Brotherhood of Man, the evil that men do no longer live after them but live with them in the here and now.
In the configuration of time, yesterday was the tomorrow that dovetailed into today, before it became yesterday. Tomorrow is the future which plunged into today and then passed on to become yesterday. However, what happens today, matters most. Tomorrow is the future. Yesterday is history. Politicians learn very little from history, so they destroy souls, wittingly or unwittingly.
It was widely reported in the ebullient British media, that the Committee set up by parliament to examine the activities of the former British Prime Minister; Mr. Tony Blair in the Iraqi crisis would summon him to appear before the Law Lords, in due course.
During my visit to the Lauterpacht Center for International Law, at the University of Cambridge, England in 2007, I avidly read the reports of Governments’ Commissions from the investigations of Lord Clive to the investigation of the death of the British scientist, who killed himself over information on the Iraqi war misadventure, which Mr. Tony Blair master-minded and which has ended in a bloody mess.
I attest to the fact that the British Law Lords constitute a Quango that has developed a jurisprudential culture, which makes their findings to capture the quintessence of British justice.
Their findings are usually, indisputably erudite. They tighten every nut and bolt in their disquisitions and extract the truth from a barrage of lies.
Some international lawyers aver that the involvement of Tony Blair in the destruction of Iraq, the death of British soldiers, Iraqi citizens, men, women and children, the damage of ancient Babylonian sites, violate most principles of Universal justice, the relevant provisions of the four Geneva Conventions and that the Iraqi case is on all fours with the Nurnberg trial rules.
The charges against El Omar Bashir are similar, when the Iraqi case is put under the judicial microscope.
All these are weighty observations but I would wait for the outcome of the Law Lord’s report. After exhausting the domestic jurisdiction, further peer review could then follow after the Law Lords have deliberated on Tony Blair’s Iraqi misadventure.
Tony Blair is not likely to face the International Criminal Court because after the “trial’ by the Law Lords, the principle of litispendence would attach.
Between 1945 and 2003, the existing body of International Law had evolved principles of justice, which form the corpus of jus cogens. These are peremptory norms of international law from which no derogation is permitted.
These principles are universally accepted as standards for the regulation of actions of states, state responsibility and diplomatic relations.
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the violation of the territorial integrity and political independence of any member of the United Nations. It is also a cardinal principle of international law that a state must formally declare war and not the “shock and awe” method adopted by the Allies, after Tony Blair blared out information that Saddam Hussein could be cut down in his palace.
Saddam had a lucky escape. Blair over-emphasized going to war with Iraq. He opted for the butcher’s solution rather than seek a diplomatic one. There were no weapons of mass destruction and Saddam had no links with Al Qaeda and did not master-mind the 9/11 incident.
Yet, like Brutus, Blair wanted Saddam dead and he recently seemed to be proud of it!
Blair did not only lie about these matters, he over-populated his lies to the brim. With his machine-gun like manner of speech, he swayed the President of the United States, George Bush, into precipitate action and created the atmosphere for a hurried eagerness to invade Iraq.
Blair’s over-weening stance misled the British Parliament to give him the benefit of the doubt, but George Bush believed US closest ally, absolutely.
His over-optimistic hype swayed the UN to adopt mildly-worded resolutions. The hawks, unsatisfied, went for “Delenda Iraqiensis “There is incontrovertible evidence from the British press that Tony Blair over-dressed the facts, over-flogged the issues.
The overarching relationship between Blair and his US counter-part must be examined thoroughly whether Tony Blair ceded British sovereign to a foreign sovereign. This is very important because it included and influenced many things, apparent lack independent decisions and actions.
Did he derive authority for his actions and decisions from inordinate influence outside the British Parliament as is not expected from one On Her Majesty’s Service?
Could his “American Knighthood “be in lieu of his obedience to a foreign power? What of his undignified “errand boy” status to the Middle East as “Ambassador Plenipotentiary and Extraordinary”?
All the Allied leaders, who operated as members of an Occult Brotherhood lost in elections, which irreparably weakened the “Alliance of the willing on War on terror”. Huh!
Tony Blair operated from a cesspool of voluntarism, egoistical, irreverent, frenzied, ovational platform. This led to his pathetic exit, after a brilliant political career
Since his exit, Tony Blair never seemed to have had time for remorseful introspection because he has been prancing around the Middle East, wearing soft pastels, peddling diplomatic, “In remissionem peccatorum“ rhapsodies, no-one wants to hear.
Recently, Mr. Blair called on the people of Zimbabwe to “remove Robert Mugabe”. This evangelism, after subscribing to the death of Saddam Hussein, portrays Blair as someone with the executioner’s murderous instincts. A new convert to Christianity, Blair is yet to imbibe the message in “Agnus Dei”.
Blair’s prefabricated political actions against Iraq violated international law, to wit:
(1) Misplaced Allegiance to the United States on Iraq.
(2) Non-declaration of war on Iraq.
(3) The violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter.
(4) The murder of Saddam Hussein after a judicial process that fell short of universally evidential procedures and proof beyond all reasonable doubt. This was a premeditated political murder (even though Saddam was equally guilty of same).
(5) Aiding and abetting the destruction of Iraq, which was not at war with Britain?
(6) The indiscriminate bombing of the city of Baghdad in an “awe and shock” operation.
(7) Wanton destruction through military action of ancient Babylonian sites.(See UN Report- 2009)
(8) Deaths of British soldiers in an uncalled- for war
(9) False claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
(10) False claim that Iraq had links with Al Qaeda.
(11) False claim that Iraq was responsible for the unfortunate 9/11 incident in the United States.
(12) Misinforming the British Parliament and people.
(13) Endangering international peace and security in Iraq.
(14) Acting as an accomplice in the destruction of Iraq.
It can be recalled that it was not all Americans and European leaders that supported the war. For example, Mr. Clark, the former US Attorney-General, took a purely juristic view of the invasion of Iraq.
He had argued that” such attack based on speculation that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction was illegal”.
He accused the US government of “unleashing a psychological war” on Iraq, which violated the laws against peace as proclaimed in the Nurnberg trials of 1947.
The former German Chancellor, Gephardt Schroeder said, Wir konnen Amerika nicht helfen, es ist nicht richtig
.”9 We cannot help America. It is not right”.
American, Scott Richter, flew to Baghdad and in a speech to the Iraqi parliament, declared that “the invasion of Iraq would be a historical mistake”. In my book published in 2003, titled,” IRAQ: The New Carthage, International Law and Diplomacy in the Iraqi Crisis”, I said that the reasons advanced by the Allies, the entire military actions against Iraq, violated international law.
By the way, Mr. Blair was the sympathetic undertaker of failed African States, but he never kept any of his promises to the Dark Continent.
The deliberations by the British Law Lords, is being watched very closely. As William Shakespeare wrote,” The attempt and not the deed confound us.”