In its treatment of former British prime minister Tony Blair last week, the UK Iraq Inquiry has shown itself to be more irrelevant than ever, writes Salah Hemeid Former British prime minister Tony Blair gave evidence last Friday in his second appearance before the Iraq Inquiry set up by the British government to probe UK involvement in the 2003 US-led war in Iraq and its aftermath. Blair was summoned for a second hearing after other witnesses before the five- member panel had revealed discrepancies and conflicting claims in his previous testimony given a year ago. This time the committee wanted to narrow its focus on three particular issues: the truth, the law and the process of decision-making inside Blair's cabinet before the British participation in the US-led war. Yet, in four hours of testimony to the Inquiry, Blair used his usual evasiveness and deception in order to avoid giving clear answers to how he had planned a war that turned into a fiasco. Questions raised by the committee revealed a lot about the misguided politics, folly and disregard for international law and human lives that had characterised Blair's government. From testimony given at the Inquiry, it appears that there were no properly structured discussions in cabinet about the war, that Blair concealed important details from cabinet members and that he did not care about the legal basis for the war. One of the stunning revelations made during this session of the Inquiry was that the Blair government had spun Britain along, not merely by hyping intelligence, but also by making promises to the Americans in private, while at the same time insisting in public that no decision to go to war had been made. Blair admitted that the majority of cabinet members had been kept in the dark about plans for military action in Iraq. He revealed that an "options paper" setting out the possibility of war was only shown to "leading members" of the government. When one member of the Inquiry quizzed Blair about how the cabinet could have questioned the need to go to war without knowing the facts, his answer was that there "was a perpetual debate about the possibility of war. I can't believe anyone would come and say they didn't realise that was the policy of the government." Another revelation made during his testimony was that Blair had brushed aside warnings that invading Iraq would be unlawful, making clear that his priority, even at the expense of opposition at home, was to maintain a close relationship with US president George W. Bush. He delivered a striking defense of his approach to the US. "I did this because I believed in it. Whatever phrasing I used, I accepted entirely I was going to be with America in handling this." Documents released at the hearing, including testimony by the former British attorney-general, the country's chief legal officer, showed that Blair had been warned that by going to war in order to achieve regime change in Iraq he would be breaking international law. The legal case for military action was "threadbare", Blair was told and he needed to find legal grounds to justify the war. Blair's response was that the legal advice was only "provisional" and the 11 September 2001 attacks on the United States meant that nations needed to deal with -- not just contain -- potential aggressors. "I didn't see 11 September as an attack on America. I saw it as an attack on us, the West," Blair told the panel. Blair showed no remorse for his actions and tried to acquit himself by saying that he had done it "my way." His declaration of "regret" at the loss of life did not amount to an apology for going to war and destroying Iraq. However, the Inquiry is not advertised as a trial, and its terms of reference are "to consider the UK's involvement in Iraq, including the way decisions were made and actions taken, to establish, as accurately as possible, what happened and to identify the lessons that can be learned." Immediately after it was established it came under fire, especially as a result of its limited mandate and because of the way its members had been selected. The Inquiry has been widely criticised in the UK for being dependent on the British government, which will have the power to veto sections of the final report. The panel is already behind in its original aim of publishing a report by now. Some in Britain have criticised it for its timidity and for not laying a finger on those responsible for the war, including Blair. There are also fears that were the Inquiry's findings to be too critical, they could risk further dividing Britain's present coalition government by antagonising Conservative politicians who backed Blair's decision to invade Iraq. There have been reports in the British press that British officials have made promises to the US to "put measures in place to protect your interests" on the Inquiry. Concerns have also been raised about the expertise of the panel. Many commentators have drawn attention to the absence of anyone with first-hand military experience on the Inquiry, the lack of members with acknowledged inquisitorial skills, and the absence of elected representatives. In November 2009, former British ambassador Oliver Miles published an article in the British newspaper The Independent in which he questioned the appointment to the Inquiry of two British historians on the basis of their Jewish background and previous support for Israel When added to the other criticisms made of the Inquiry and its proceedings, it seems to be simply another exercise in British hypocrisy and conscience clearing. The aim seems to be to allow possible war criminals to get away with their horrendous crimes against Iraq and the untold sufferings they have inflicted on the Iraqi people. There is ample evidence that could lead the International Criminal Court to mount a case against both Blair and Bush for crimes such as waging illegal war and invading and occupying another country under false pretexts and lies. Other factors that should be part of a case at the International Court are the killing of innocent civilians, possible genocide, and the use of depleted uranium and other radioactive weapons that are still leading to the deaths of thousands of Iraqis each year. There have also been human rights abuses, such as random killings, torture, ransacking and destruction of houses and civilian property and other abuses that are illegal under international law. However, the US-led occupation's most flagrant crime has been the destruction of the Iraqi nation and its social fabric. Over the 14 months of the UK Inquiry's hearing, it has never once addressed such issues, and nor is its final report expected to do so, given the state of British-US relations, issues regarding the fragility of the current coalition government, and the fact that 179 British soldiers died in the war. Nevertheless, it would not be enough even if the Inquiry succeeded in revealing something of the deceit that led to the disaster in Iraq. Those who were behind this human catastrophe should be held to account for their actions.
