Blair's arrogant intransigence on Iraq is reminiscent of the colonial and imperial era that many thought was history, writes Ayman El-Amir* If it proved anything, the testimony of former British prime minister Tony Blair before the Chilcot Iraq Inquiry last week reveals that we are reliving the mediaeval age of discovery and colonial conquest. Blair's account of the developments leading to -- and the justification he offered for -- the 2003 Anglo-American invasion of Iraq is not much different from that of the legacy of colonial military conquest five centuries ago. It is the logic of the powerful over the powerless, of civilised nations against pagans, of the white man's burden, of the Bey of Tunisia insulting the French ambassador that required the conquest of that country and of the British invasion of Egypt to protect the Suez Canal and the British empire's trade routes with the Indian subcontinent. As would be expected, the six-hour question and answer session was all but show. Typically, Blair took the questions, twisted them around and threw back elaborate arguments to justify his decision to involve Britain in the Iraq war, but providing no actual substance. He fudged the issues and left members of the inquiry not only unsatisfied but also unable -- or unwilling -- to press for plausible answers. Except for the indisputable argument that Saddam Hussein was a rogue leader who oppressed his people and gassed his opponents, Blair could not explain how Saddam posed a threat to the US or the Western world that would require the invasion and destruction of Iraq. It is no surprise that a public a opinion survey conducted following Blair's testimony showed that 74 per cent of Britons believed he was lying. The claim that Iraq was invaded to forcibly rid the country of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was debunked by the fact that none was found after the invasion. The 1,400-man Iraq Survey Group jointly organised by the Pentagon and the CIA searched suspected sites in 2003 through 2004 and finally declared in its report it "had not found evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD stocks in 2003" when the allies invaded. It was the same conclusion reached prior to the invasion by the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC). These facts strip Blair's testimony of any credibility and make the case he presented purely argumentative. After the testimony, The Independent has revealed that the Blair government worked with Iraqi dissidents living abroad to overthrow Saddam two years prior to the 9/11 attacks that Blair claimed had changed "the risk calculus" as far as Saddam's regime was concerned. Under the so-called "contract with the Iraqi people", the Blair government promised oil deals, debt cancellation and trade deals if the opposition helped oust Saddam. The central point in Blair's presentation was regime change. He argued that "issues of WMDs and regime change conjoined," and that "removing Saddam was always an option" in his discussions with former US president George W Bush. He added that during his cabinet discussions the focus was on potential problems of a war against Iraq and its impact on the Arab world, not the legality of the war itself. He had no qualms of conscience about the legality of the invasion because UN Security Council Resolution 1441 -- which considered Iraq to be "in material breach" of its obligations under international law and Security Council resolutions -- was adequate authorisation for the use of force. This was another twist of facts. Blair argued that Britain and the US went to war against Iraq without a second Security Council resolution because of the possibility of French and Russian veto. The truth at the time is that the US and the UK could not garner the two- thirds majority needed to pass a war resolution, even without a veto. Despite heavy lobbying and blackmail by the two powers, members of the Security Council believed that not all diplomatic efforts had been exhausted. UNMOVIC reported that no WMD were found, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) could not confirm that Iraq was involved in nuclear activities of any kind. The dramatic powerpoint presentation by then US secretary of state Colin Powell on supposed mobile labs for the manufacture of biological weapons was a gross diplomatic embarrassment. After the invasion, the trailers turned out to be simply what in fact they really were: shipping trailers. Nonetheless, the invasion was carried out regardless of any material evidence. This raises a great number of questions regarding the definition of international legality by the big powers. By comparison, Israeli violations of international law are overlooked while action is taken against national resistance movements against Israeli occupation because they are labelled "terrorist organisations". NATO took unauthorised military action against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999 because of alleged acts of genocide in the autonomous province of Kosovo, but the same Western nations, the guardians of international legality, looked the other way when 800,000 Tutsis were hacked to death in Rwanda in 1994. After two world wars, numerous acts of genocide and more than 100 civil conflicts, Western powers still view the world through the same colonial prism they used 500 years ago. Where does this cynical approach leave developing countries and emerging regional powers that challenge Western moral selectivity and prejudices? It would seem that the timeless struggle against colonialism in all its manifestations should continue. In 1956, Egypt was the target of a tripartite attack by Britain, France and Israel because of its anti-colonial posture. US policies in the Middle East, South America and East Asia led to conflict and instability for most of the second half of the 20th century. Newly independent countries had their share of the blame, too, as they laced their nations with one-man, post- independence autocratic regimes and failed development policies. These socialist oriented regimes were supported by the former Soviet Union as part of the Cold War struggle for dominance. After the demise of the former Soviet Union, the US developed its own coterie of dictatorships, particularly in the Middle East. The US and the UK developed alliances with dictators who served their interests, ignoring the fact that these repressive regimes inspired local resistance that later developed into international networks of terrorism. US support of Saddam's war against Iran for most of the 1980s, and the training, supply and funding of the mujahideen and Taliban in Afghanistan are now the terrorist monsters it is waging a global war against. Since the beginning of World War II, Western powers have fostered a global alliance against rogue states and regimes, albeit selectively. It is now time to create a more credible system that could send rogue Western statesmen to the International Criminal Court instead of the current immunity arrangements that protect them. * The writer is former Al-Ahram correspondent in Washington, DC. He also served as director of United Nations Radio and Television in New York.
