This is from the 'Chilcot Panel, set up to investigate the legality of the Invasion of Iraq. As the article says...
"At one point, as he continued to question the advice of Foreign Office lawyers, Straw accused Wood of being "very dogmatic" by warning that an invasion would be unlawful, the inquiry heard. It was told that Downing Street was reluctant to hear arguments about whether an invasion would be legal. Wood described how he received what he called a "curious request" from Straw in October 2002 asking for his views on the consequences of acting without international legal authority in using force against Iraq. He responded by saying that it was "inconceivable that a government which has on numerous occasions made clear its intentions to comply with international law would order troops into a conflict without justification in international law". He also reminded Straw that under their official code of conduct, ministers had a duty to "comply with the law, including international law".
He said his warnings were sent to Downing Street. Worried officials there asked: "Why has this been put in writing?"
Straw will give evidence on the legality of the war in a second round of evidence from him on 8 February."
It seems to be turning out that the Iraq invasion, rather than being of 'dubious legality', as we have been told for so long, may actually be demonstrably illegal. The government lawyers consulted about it were actually, it seems unanimous on this point- that "without a specific UN resolution" it would be illegal. Now for many this is no news, but I hasten to add to them that their opinion is not only lacking in the legally binding power of a court, but also open to accusations of bias. The truth remains true (it is also my opinion, I might add, as it has consistently been throughout the whole affair), yet the legally enshrined powers will effect how much influence it has over decisions made.
What the inquiry is uncovering, which will probably not be the closed and toothless affair that the Labour Party wanted, is a consistent bullying from those higher up to rubber stamp an illegal invasion that wasn't just catastrophic- and I use the word advisedly, catastrophic, for the people in Iraq, but also for the reputation of the US and Britain in world affairs in general. The 'world's policemen' were seen to be bending the law in a way that suited them, even as it took place. Unprecedented demonstrations erupted as a result of this assumption of their own omnipotence. Now, tragically belatedly, but still welcome, courts are issuing verdicts that it was actually clearly illegal and as such people who lied about this will have to pay for their crimes. How far up the chain this will go is as yet unclear, though it should be remembered that Richard Nixon was impeached for far less severe offenses. Those with faith in the power of justice know that even if this particular enquiry falls short of the whole truth, others will pick up where they left off in due course. There is a word for what they got into that has stood the test of time... hubris.
Assuming it is established that it was an illegal war and that this is something they knew all along, the next question to answer- properly, not by the mob but by the jury- is why? Was it to increase the Western access to oil reserves, as is popularly believed, a classic neo-colonial war for resources much like Saddam's own invasion of Kuwait? Was it because they believed him to be a dangerous tyrant who's wings were not yet firmly clipped and that they would help the world by ridding it of him? Did they really believe that he might supply WMD's to terrorist groups to be used against Western cities (the most common reason given and one still being used for the controversial campaign or 'military adventure', depending on who you ask, in Afghanistan)? To my mind, the most plausible is the first answer- the invasion was clearly planned, both tactically and logistically well before the 'terrorist' attack of 9/11. The intention to take over the country, whether or not Saddam complied was established- if only by the moving of so many troops into position, at such great expense. It is almost inconceivable that they would be willing to go home 'empty handed'. It is also quite likely that the events of 9/11 were either permitted or even, (God forbid), staged so as to give some plausible reason for the whole invasion. Of course, all this is just my view, yet it seems to be increasingly widely accepted as more evidence emerges, most notably through inquiries such as these.
Yet it is also important to note just how badly Bush and Blair miscalculated. Their arguments failed to convince as many people or for that matter countries as they were hoping. Not only were tens of thousands of lives lost, but also their reputations. Resistance, both in the population and in the streets of Iraq was far fiercer than they anticipated and far less moderated. They succeeded in doing what many warned would happen- lionising Islamic Militancy and helping add fuel to it's fires throughout the Islamic world. They also weakened our on military deterrent by showing how our troops could be vulnerable to certain weaponry and how our strategies can be undermined by the power of the media itself to expose our hypocrisy. Rather than being lauded as heroes who understood the system enough to circumvent it, they are seen as tax avoiders who are yet to stand trial. This isn't just a 'liberal view'. It's one based around moral and legal facts, facts that are emerging ever more clearly into the limelight as I speak. I foresee a day when they really do stand trial, if for no other reason than the fact that whoever puts them on the stand will themselves be lauded as a hero and the media that supported them will have their own fresh story. Whether this is a good thing or not is another matter.
The main thing to remember is that they weren't just attacking Iraq. They were demonstrating an extreme contempt for the whole international order, including the democratic laws of their own countries. It is hard to say anything that hasn't yet been said. As a morality tale, it shows the bankruptcy of Machiavellian tactics, especially in a modern context in which information is freely available. The only hope they have is that they can demonstrate that they were sincerely pursuing 'good motives', so the judgment of history will be gentler than if it turns out to just be a search for personal profit.
Now for the most difficult question- one I have to admit I don't have a satisfactory answer for. What can we do about it all now? What would be a suitable way of finding 'closure', so that we can return to, or perhaps create in a purer way than ever before, a more honest and good government? Although many are baying for blood and crying 'war criminal' or 'traitor', I personally dislike the idea of punishments, which seem to me to be a crude way to deal with misdeeds- far better to teach by example and help others realise that lying is wrong than look for some dark satisfaction in vengeful suffering. Many say that they are responsible for immense suffering, yet I think it more the case that their miscalculations were responsible for said suffering. If it sounds like I am letting them off the hook, it's not the case. Their disregard for the law, their incompetence, is criminal. But I need to know that they really did have darker motives, darker than those publicly stated, before I can move down the path of wanting their punishment as such. We should be looking to establish ideals in government and remember important lessons learned. One is that international law is there to protect us all, if it slows the resolution of things down, than that is a necessary compromise and a path to goodness. Impatience itself demonstrates lack of compassion for those effected by it and is therefor a vice.
A civilised, nuanced approach is needed to these official investigations and thankfully, this seems to be the approach taken, even if it takes longer, it is so much more exhaustive. We should be wary of repeating the mistakes of the pair in seeking to resolve a problem faster than is possible to and thereby robbing ourselves of good results. Humiliating show trials (even if they were possible) could be a mistake, softer means need to be used to coax out the truth and hopefully- unlikely as it is- gain their repentance. I also am not sure if it is likely. Can the system really examine itself? I prefer a South African 'truth and reconciliation' approach, for being less divisive and serving the far more important goals of moving on.
If they had ruled as absolute dictators, it would be a different matter, we have to keep things in perspective if we are to make choices conductive to a better future. Justice needs to be tempered with compassion, for something good to come out of the whole, sordid affair. I am not alone in my view- it is being seen as one of the main weapons in the fight against Islamic militants, so why not use it with the neo-conservatives that paid and created them (a major problem of course is how to gauge when the repentance is genuine and when it is just 'buying time')? Maybe a compulsory spell in 'megalomaniacs anonymous', followed by international community service requiring them to go around lecturing on the importance of telling the truth and respecting human dignity. In a sense, they have already started to pay. Tony Blair lost his chance to be the President of the EU, which he would otherwise be a natural candidate for, and whilst he still gets paid millions to speak, George Bush Jr. more likely has to pay people to listen to him.
Now all these calls for moderation are what I think is best, but it has already been taking many years, with the whole world being forced to endure the most diabolical lies, just so this incompetent pair can mire us in ever-deepening quagmires of their own making. It is becoming hard for good, decent politicians such as Barak Obama to rule effectively, such is the confusion created as to right and wrong, left and right. The toxic mix of lies and military adventures have actually come close to wrecking our countries' economies, not just our reputations. Hundreds of thousands have died, millions have had their lives disrupted and even destroyed, all for 'freedom'? Really?
The only way to overcome this confusion of priorities is to put the culprits on trial- real, civilised trials, for jeopardising the greater good to their own agendas. Only then can we know for sure whether they really believed (falsely) that they were helping and then can repent for such costly, malpractice-like mistakes. Or, if as many suspect, pure greed for profit was the cause, the military-industrial complex up to it's old, dirty tricks, well then, if we can't get whichever dark actors are secretly responsible for the orders being followed, then at least we can criminalise those who go along with it and show that really, they would have been better off listening to the legal advice available to them in the first place. If such is the case, they can't claim now that they were never warned, nor can they escape censure for their attempts to 'shoot the messenger' for the news they brought.
Now for my temporary closure on this article, which turned out to be much longer than I envisioned and was not exactly easy to write. Let's remember that everything in this life is an opportunity for a learning experience. Whether it is politics, love, history, past-times, anything. Hence criticism, made in a spirit of love, is necessary, or else we can never move on. Mistakes can lead to evil- in fact they always lead to evil results, yet often their authors simply didn't foresee that, even if they should have. Intentional wrongdoing for personal gain, however, is closer to the definition of sin. Such actions are in their very nature unforgivable and the only way out of their karmic chains is repentance. The Iraq war and it's continuing counterpart, the invasion of Afghanistan, are certainly at the very least the former. In any case in which the latter is playing apart, it is absolutely imperative that we know, so that amends can be made, compensation paid, repentance started. Imperative, as we all live in a legal, faithful universe and however darkly buried, such thing simply must come to light if we are to be freed from the peril of their bad affects. Knowing, for sure, is the first step towards healing. It is my sincere wish that these inquiries do just that and unmask the truth, so we can be free from the confusion of half-truths and innuendos and, even worse, excuse-making, once and for all. We need to move on, we need closure. That will only be possible when all the facts are in the public eye, however embarrassing they may be to their actors. Living in Japan I can see the strain of a society essentially at war with itself about it's past, at least partly because it has yet to come clean about it. I want my own society to be spared the pain of this and I hope, as a democracy, we have the tools to do this and recover that most treasured virtue- clarity of mind.
May God have mercy on us all,
Amen.
Starfire
No comments:
Post a Comment