Desmond Tutu is wrong to want Tony Blair tried for war crimes
GOD wants to arrest Tony Blair. Well, at least Archbishop and Nobel Peace Laureate Desmond Tutu does. He writes:
The immorality of the United States and Great Britain’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003, premised on the lie that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, has destabilised and polarised the world to a greater extent than any other conflict in history.
Has it? Any conflict?
Is a cruel world one that supports war or one that can find no reason to launch one?
A spokesman told the New Statesman that Tutu was “a very prayerful man” who “spent hours on his knees considering this decision”. Like, er, Tony Blair and George Bush. Does praying make you right? Says Tutu:
In a consistent world, those responsible for this suffering and loss of life should be treading the same path as some of their African and Asian peers who have been made to answer for their actions in the Hague.
Tutu then asks:
“If leaders may lie, then who should tell the truth?”
Tony Blair raies his hand and replies:
“In a healthy democracy people can agree to disagree.”
Jimmy Carter had a dream:
“Even the most intense disagreements and the most intense personal animosity between two people or two nations can be resolved through the application of Christian principles and with the help of a trusted mediator, either a counselor in a church or a mediator – like I played a small role between Egypt and Israel.”
Margaret Atwood mused:
“Could it be ended? In theory, yes. Is it going to be difficult? Absolutely, because it is so extremely profitable for a number of people.”
They can find no just reason to launch a war?
In 2003 President Bush thanked the military:
“America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished.”
The war was easily waon. Saddam Hussein packed no punch. Defeating him was about the West looking like it was capable of winning a war and removing a threat. Blair said he “would still have led the country to war in Iraq even if he had known that it had no weapons of mass destruction”. It was never about those non-found WMD. (The UN inspectors said they did exist but had vanished.) It was about the US-UK alliance. Blair lied and connived. We know. His ethical case for regime change was also nonsense. Blair and Bush shared a liking for foreign interventionism. The state of Iraq, a predictable debacle, came about because the big countries went out and told little states how they should be run.
Blair’s defence is always that doing nothing is worse than doing something. He’s right on the theory but sorely lacking in the details…