There’s controversy over the knighthood for Tony Blair. I find such awards generally absurd, but I find it difficult to read many criticisms of Blair’s approach to Iraq. Saddam had committed genocide. That should have already been enough for his removal. While in power he was a tyrant who had a policy of horrific torture to suppress opposition. He had a record of using poison gas as a weapon of war. He was building one of the largest armies. I was supportive of the invasion and removal of Saddam for humanitarian reasons. Where things went terribly wrong was the aftermath, as a result of US policy about policing and military structures. That was not British policy. It was not Blair’s policy. It was disastrous, as there was a chaotic result with a huge death toll as a result of internecine conflicts. If there had not been these conflicts, If British advice regarding policing had been followed, the results could have been very different. It’s worth noting that the post-war occupation was not illegal, and was supported by the UN, which shows that UN support is no guarantee of a good outcome.
It could be argued that the invasion was, at the time, unnecessary, as UN weapons inspectors were on-site and so would have hindered any use if there weapons were present. But would these weapons inspectors have shut down the torture chambers, and allowed Iraqis to live without fear?Calling Blair a “War Criminal” isn’t a helpful argument one way or another. In the 90s, with Blair in power, NATO bombed Serbia to stop the ethnic cleansing of Albanians. This was illegal by international law. It was also necessary.
There are things I would fight for. Examples are the stopping of torture and genocide. I can’t morally support the idea of sovereignty in which a country itself has rights as that leaves citizens as the legal possessions of whoever is power, to torture and kill as desired.
We should be better than that.
