The arrest and prosecution of Blair

Calls to have Tony Blair brought to justice over his support of the illegal invasion of Iraq are increasing, but thankfully there's no time limit under International Law for crimes against humunity to be considered. It could well be that Blair's money making tours around the world giving his version of reality are numbered. Once Blair is convicted it will assist in the prosecution of the USA's war criminals, particularly Bush, Cheney, Rice etc.

Blair and his USA neocons accomplices argued that the US didn't need another UN Resolution authorising an invasion and occupation of Iraq. That's despite the obvious fact that the US Gov. and Colin Powell went to the UN with complete fabrications concerning Iraq's WMD and links with terrorism in an attempt to get one. But Resolution 1441 did not include the critical words "all necessary means". They are important words because they are the formula used by the UN to indicate that the use of force is authorised. They were the words used to justify military action against Iraq in 1991 and, subsequently, when the security council authorised intervention in Rwanda, Bosnia, Somalia and Haiti.

Nevertheless they claim that Resolution 1441 itself gave authorisation for this illegal war. But if you look at the relevant part of 1441 it says that "the Security Council decides …to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime…" It also says that non-compliance "will be reported to the Council for assessment" and directs the Security Council "to convene immediately" on receipt of the weapons inspectors' report "in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions." Resolution 1441 further "Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations."

That's it. To anyone vaguely familiar with the English language this can only mean that it is the responsibility of the Security Council as a body -- all fifteen members including each of the Permanent Members with a veto -- to decide whether and to what extent there has been compliance and what to do about it. It's not the American government that has to be "convinced" according to 1441; it's the Security Council. Indeed if you look at comments made by members of the Security Council during the debate regarding its approval, it's clear that all of the Security Council, obviously with the exception of the US & UK, specifically stated that Resolution 1441 should not be used an an authorisation for an invasion. It is clear therefore that the USA did not only lie in an attempt to get a second Resolution but they also lied to get Resolution 1441 approved.

The representative of France welcomed the two-stage approach required by the resolution, saying that the concept of "automaticity" for the use of force had been eliminated.

The representatives of China and the Russian Federation stressed that only UNMOVIC and the IAEA had the authority to report violations by Iraq of the resolution's requirements.

JEREMY GREENSTOCK (United Kingdom )said there was no "automaticity" in the resolution. If there was a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter would return to the Council for discussion. He expected the Council then to meet its responsibilities.

ADOLPHO AGUILAR ZINSER (Mexico) said "Those who had advocated the automatic recourse to the use of force had agreed to afford Iraq a final chance, he said. Iraq was now obliged to fully comply with its international obligations. The resolution had eliminated "automaticity" in the use of force as a result of material breach.

RICHARD RYAN (Ireland) said that the unanimous adoption of the resolution was a strong statement of the Council's unity. The resolution was about disarming Iraq without the use of force.

SERGEY LAVROV (Russian Federation) He emphasized that the resolution did not contain any provisions for the automatic use of force and underlined that the sponsors of the text had affirmed that today.

FAYSSAL MEKDAD (Syria) His country had voted in favour after having received from the United States and United Kingdom, as well as France and the Russian Federation, reassurances that the resolution would not be used as pretext to strike Iraq and did not constitute a basis for "automaticity".

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!