Via Hard News: The Times has obtained a copy of a leaked British cabinet paper, which clearly shows that the US and UK had already agreed to invade Iraq before July 2002, and that the major delay was in "creating the conditions necessary to justify government military action". In other words, the invasion of Iraq was clearly a war of choice, rather than necessity - and therefore a crime.
The paper discusses the legal justification for war, and states that "Regime change per se is not a proper basis for military action". It goes on to say that force could be justified
...if exercised in the right of individual or collective self-defence, if carried out to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, or authorised by the UN Security Council.
None of these conditions were met, and the cabinet itself noted that the former two would pose problems of "immediacy and proportionality". It concludes that it may be necessary to manufacture an ultimatium deliberately designed to be rejected to provide a pretext for war.
The cabinet paper also talks of the need to "shape" and "prepare" public opinion through an "information campaign" (meaning propaganda). Obviously that bit didn't work out so well.
When a government sets out to dupe its citizens into backing an illegal war, it deserves to be de-elected. Unfortunately, the sheer loathsomeness of Britain's opposition prevented that (and in any case, they would have behaved no differently). But there is another avenue available: The Hague. There is enough evidence in these memos to support prosecuting Tony Blair for deliberately waging a war of aggression - "the supreme international crime". If the International Criminal Court is to be an impartial instrument of justice rather than a tool of the powerful, then it must begin proceedings to prosecute Tony Blair.
Heh... to some extent I hope htey do impartially charge blair and bush for iraq... and Putin for chechnya (a somewhat bigger event than iraq it would seem) and while they are at it they can charge the chinese leader over tibet or somthing and the indian leader over hmm kashmere lets say.
ReplyDeleteIt would prove a point I think.
Remember the ultimatum wasn't about disarmament it was about Saddam leaving within 48 hours, ie. "regime change." They had to demand something that they knew could not be done in case Saddam surprised them (like he did before when he let the inspectors back in). Classic, textbook stuff, a la Austria-Hungary's ultimatum to Serbia.
ReplyDeleteBlair promised a second UN resolution and now he says because France said they would veto any war resolution that means they had to go to war... I didn't think the UK owed the US that much money? I knew they forced them into a huge loan in 1947 and locked them into the IMF-World Bank-US Dollar-Gold axis but surely their financial position isn't that bad? Is it?