Tag Archives: iraq war

TUTU MAKES A STAND – Calls for Bush and Blair to be Tried Over Iraq

Posted on by

Writing in the Observer on Sunday, former Noble Peace Prize Winner Desmond Tutu has called for George Bush and Tony Blair to be tried over the Iraq war.

The move follows Tutus decision to pull out of a leadership summit in Johannesburg because he refused to be on the same stage as Tony Blair. He wrote, ‘I couldn’t sit with someone who justified the invasion of Iraq with a lie’.

Tutu has been active in the defense of human rights and uses his high profile to campaign for the oppressed. He has campaigned to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, poverty, racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia.

He is most famous for his role during apartheid where he played a huge part in bringing about an end to the oppressive regime.

Tutu’s protests and actions were always peaceful. He was critical of the violent tactics of some anti-apartheid groups such as the African National Congress and he always advocated for the reconciliation of all parties. His actions led to him being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984.

In his article Tutu writes of the, ‘even greater costs that have been exacted beyond the killing fields’. Tutus greatest concern is the deepening divide between West and East. The actions in Iraq have made terrorist attacks more and not less likely and may now lead to war in Iran as well.

This action is typical of Tutu. He has never been afraid to speak out. Although he probably knows there is no chance Bush and Blair will ever face trial at the Hague he is trying to pull the East and West together. I think this article has as much to do with Iran as anything else. This is a conflict Tutu clearly fears.

In response to the article, Mr Blair issued a strongly worded defence. He maintained that he had never lied over weapons of mass destruction.

Pressure on Blair and Bush increased as Human rights lawyer Sir Geoffrey Bindman told BBC Radio 4 the Iraq war was an illegal aggressive war.

It’s now almost certain that the war was illegal because it breached the UN Charter provisions which say that all member of the United Nations must refrain from the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

Lord Faulkner disagreed

“The dispute between Geoffrey and myself would be whether or not resolution 1441 did or did not authorise war and we say that it did.

However Faulkner’s argument is severely weakened by the attempts of Britain and the US to secure a second resolution to justify military action. They ultimately failed to do so and this implies in my mind that resolution 1441 was not enough by itself and everyone knew that. Indeed speaking in 2004 former Secretary General of the UN Kofi Annan said, ‘I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view it was illegal.’

The Perversion of Empire {Carl Packman}

Posted on by

We live in an age of bombast. Anyone who has seen Eddie Izzard’s show Circle will know of the skit he does about the word awesome, used so liberally now that even hot-dogs can be described as awesome, and of course if a hot-dog is considered awesome, what words will be available in our bank to describe the first landing on Mars, or our first sighting of Erkel.

Today the word empire and imperialism are used out of place, obscuring those original meanings. People go forth on these words particularly with regards to US and European ventures in the Middle East.

My own view is that it was unnecessary to be too instrumental in the creation of Afghan and Iraqi governments, not for the oversimplified reason that democracy building equals empire (it doesn’t) but because it was unnecessary in the war on terror (by and large a war against terror cells and factions). Regime change follows stripping the influence and power of those cells and ripping down the cash channels between neighbouring terror cells.

I opposed the Iraq war on the grounds that it was an own goal, and I still do, but the Taliban continues to forge power in northern provinces of Afghanistan and wields power by setting up fake checkpoints and unleashing suicide attacks. Reports back in 2009 suggest that families in Kunduz, a northern city in Afghanistan, and capital of the Kunduz Province, have been sending one son to join the Taliban in case militants take back control of that region again.

Fear pervades that region, and the Western troops ought to play a role in training Afghan forces to take power away from the hands of Taliban forces. Whatever ones view, that venture is not one of empire, and good reason too, because empire is over.

But one man who is not amused by the setting of the sun on the empire is Niall Ferguson – the man Michael Gove jumped up and down to clapping like an inebriated guinea fowl – empire apologist courted by the department of education.

Ferguson has been characterised as the Jamie Oliver of History, but this is not true, because as far as I can tell Oliver can at least tell his mange tout from his lady fingers.

In Ferguson’s opinion history is a discipline that won’t be jeopardised by strong opinion. Barely concealing his apologies for the British Empire, and criticising the American Empire for not being enough like the former, is one thing, but basic knowledge can remind you that history is at least the one subject where a relaxation of emotional attachment to a political ideology is vital.

In fact, the first lesson of relaying the objective facts lent to us by history is to leave agendas aside (they can obscure our understanding, and drag historical literature down to the level of chinese whispers).

Well this simply isn’t on the menu for Ferguson, who will now be in charge of deciding what goes in and what stays out of the curriculum of history for children (perhaps this is why the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority – a non department body – has been scrapped by the new coalition government).

Gove’s reason for allowing this is because he believes in traditional history teaching. We can guess what this means (Tudors, Saxons, Smurfs, Pingu etc) but is Ferguson the architect of traditional history, or is he to history what Mao was to the open society.

Gove uses the word tradition like some talk of empire today; perversely.