The Opinion expressed here is of Anyi Muo, an independent Writer, contributions by @olusolakemmy, konet-tv.com editor.
One year after the conclusion and publication of his inquiry into the Iraq war, Sir John Chilcot granted an interview with the BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg and said the following:
“Any prime minister taking a country into war has got to be straight with the nation and carry it, so far as possible, with him or her. I don’t believe that was the case in the Iraq instance.” BBC
Whether this is a mild manner of saying Tony Blair deceived the nation by taking Britain to war which turned out, in the end, to be for a falsified reason, as there was never a weapon of mass destruction found and thereby committing a war crime is open to debate.
This question whether Tony Blair is a war criminal or not will forever be asked, regardless of the recent court pronouncement that there is no realistic chance of successful prosecution, in a private case brought by General Abdul Wahed Shannan Al Rabbat who accused Blair of a ‘crime of aggression’ by invading Iraq in 2003 to overthrow President Saddam Hussein.
To underline this, a YouGov recent poll shows a third of Britons would like to see Blair prosecuted for War crime.
Tony Blair stepped down as Prime Minister after igniting an inextinguishable flame in the middle east, he was never tried for possible war crimes but was rather unbelievably rewarded with a highly undeserving, cynical role as a Middle East peace envoy working on behalf of the US, Russia, the UN and the EU, with the then Bush administration applauding Blair’s acceptance of the role and willingness to serve
It is no rocket science, the link between the destabilisation of the middle east and the invasion of Iraq is as clear as daylight, yet following his resignation in 2015, Tony Blair continue to earn highly lucrative international guest speaking roles, there is even a side-talk of Trump attempting to reinstate Tony Blair’s divisive Middle East peace envoy role.
The Chilcot inquiry proved “there was no imminent threat from Saddam”, yet, Iraq was invaded with what we now know as a false evidence.
The destruction of once-peaceful Iraq and the killings of several innocent people therein created monsters left to mourn the deaths of their people and land.
You create monsters when you destroy a man’s family, peace, and possessions, today Iraq is ranked 161 of possible 163 countries on the 2017 Global Peace Index
One monster met another and they both met another and created Isis.
It’s not hard to make a monster, you only have to eliminate everything a person loves and cares about, then you have a creature that has nothing to live for other than the ruins of their land.
An Iraqi general decided to seek justice for the terror engineered on his once loving Land by Seeking a judicial review to prosecute Blair, the then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith.
His lawyers asked London’s High Court for permission to seek the proceedings in an attempt to get the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling by the House of Lords in 2006 that there is no such crime as the crime of aggression under the law of England and Wales.
Now consider this:
First, the Magistrate court said ex-ministers have immunity from legal action (So they can pretty much do whatever they want). Untouchables!
Next, the High court says: there’s no such crime as “Crime of Aggression” under English law. However, hang on…is there a crime of Aggression under International law?
What is the role of ICC?
The International Criminal Court (ICC)
The ICC has the jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The ICC is intended to complement existing national judicial systems and it may therefore only exercise its jurisdiction when certain conditions are met, such as when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute criminals or when the United Nations Security Council or individual states refer situations to the Court. The Human Right Watch
According to the statute of Rome, the founding treaty of ICC, while the ICC is intended to complement existing national judicial systems, it may exercise its jurisdiction when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute criminals.
To my mind, there is a clear role for ICC here? Or so it seems.
A quick glance at the record of ICC shows it is a court set solely for the prosecutions of Africans, this is a fact underlined by ICC record and a subject of international debate.
23 cases in 9 situations have been brought before the ICC thus far – all from Africa. All 32 individuals who have been indicted so far are African. Louise Mushikiwabo, Foreign Minister of Rwanda.
The statement by Louise Mushikiwabo was made in January 2016, as of today, there have been further indictments and still, all are Africans. So, as much as we may wish that ICC intervene in the case of Tony Blair, in the face of the reluctance by the British legal system, this is not going to happen, as it is clear that the ICC was not set up to prosecute beyond the shores of Africa.
The malleability of the legal system here is creating the untouchables.
I doubt Iraqi would ever get the justice it deserves because as Lemar sang ” there’s not much justice in the world”.
Anyi Muo, is an independent writer, Contributions and edited by Oluwakemi Olushola (konet-tv.com) editor.