A London-based writer, broadcaster and journalist, Stefan Simanowitz writes for publications in the UK and around the world including the: Guardian, Independent, Financial Times, Washington Times, Global Post, Huffington Post, New Statesman, In These Times, New Internationalist, Prospect, Lancet, Salon.com, Contemporary Review, Mail & Guardian.
He has a background in policy, political strategy and international human rights law and has worked for the European Commission, Liberty and the ANC during South Africa’s first democratic election campaign. He has reported from mass graves in Somaliland and Indonesia, prisons in Cameroon and South Africa, refugee camps in the Sahara desert and he writes on all aspects of global politics. He also has an interest in culture and travel, writing reviews on music, literature, film and theatre and taking photographs to accompany his reviews and reportage.
The Other Afrik - International - Iraq - United Kingdom - United States - Conflicts
Tony Blair at the Iraq Inquiry
In a speech in May 1997 newly elected Prime Minister Tony Blair stated “[m]ine is the first generation able to contemplate the possibility that we may live our entire lives without going to war or sending our children to war.” Friday, two wars and countless deaths later, Tony Blair appeared in front of the Chilcot Inquiry to answer questions on the war on Iraq. Anyone hoping for Tony Blair to show an ounce of contrition or remorse was in for a sore disappointment. Instead a relaxed and sun-tanned Blair lived up to his ’Teflon Tony’ sobriquet defiantly repeating his ’I did what I thought was right’ mantra whilst the pusillanimous Inquiry panel failed to land a punch.
Blair’s repeated assertion that it was the September 11th attacks that had changed his “mindset in relation to Iraq” went unchallenged despite the fact that there is no connection between September 11th and Iraq and no links between Saddam Hussein and al-Quaida. Frustratingly, the private letters Tony Blair wrote to U.S. President George Bush during the build up to the war in which he allegedly committed Britain to regime change were not disclosed. The panel failed to challenge Blair on his statement that “we could not take the risk of Saddam reconstituting his WMD’s”: an argument not made at the time. More crucially the panel danced around the WMD question failing yet again to address the key issue of ’imminent threat’. Even if weapons of mass destruction did exist, where was the evidence of intent to use them? Without evidence of imminent attack an invasion of Iraq based on the principle of ‘anticipatory self defense’ or ‘preventive war’ would have been in breach international law.
Like former Lord Goldsmith who himself had appeared before the panel on Wednesday, Blair could not recall any conversations he might have had with his former Attorney General before Goldsmith’s sudden change of opinion with regard to the legality of war. Lord Goldsmith had gone for over two years convinced that there was no legal basis for war against Iraq and yet in the space of seven short days, from 10th to 17th March, he completely changed his mind. Did he remember the reason for this dramatic volte-face? Could it have been due to the fact that Tony Blair who had already committed British troops to the invasion had asked him to rewrite his advice? “I don’t recall it that way” Goldsmith had told Lord Chilcot.
The Inquiry has faced criticism on various issues, ranging from the composition of its committee, handpicked by Gordon Brown and the fact that its remit was determined by the government rather than by Parliament. Others question how this Inquiry would avoid being seen as a whitewash in the way that previous inquiries have. There have already been four inquiries into aspects of the Iraq conflict: the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee and the joint Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee both looked into the intelligence used to justify war; the Hutton inquiry examined the circumstances surrounding the death of scientist Dr David Kelly and the claim by the government that Iraq could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes; the Butler inquiry again looked at the intelligence which was used to justify the war.
In terms of the lessons learned from the disastrous and unlawful invasion of Iraq, Blair offered few insights. He had “no regrets” and indeed he made a chilling reference to what many feared had been the next part of the Bush/Blair project for the Middle East, namely an attack on Iran. “Any possibility of WMD should be stopped.” he said, “Iran is in a very similar situation [to Iraq], which is why these lessons are so important.”
Tony Blair’s appearance at the Chilcot Inquiry was never going be his ’day of judgment’ as it had been billed by some in the media. Blair has always said that history will be his judge and it is a judgment that looking increasingly harsh. Attempts by Blair to restate his version of history are hollow, no matter how eloquent his language. Outside the hall demonstrators called for Blair to stand trial for war crimes in the International Criminal Court. Inside, Blair seemed seemed content to allow God to be his judge.
Stefan Simanowitz is a journalist, broadcaster and outspoken critic of the invasion of Iraq. In 2003 he coordinated of the Human Shield Movement to Iraq and in 2005 coordinated Reg Key’s campaign to oust Tony Blair during the 2005 General Election. See www.simanowitz.ning.com
Unauthorized republication of this article without the express permission of Afrik-news.com is prohibited. The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of Afrik-news.com.