Tony Blair is a War Criminal

Nicholas Pentney 

Image © World Economic Forum

Tony Blair’s recent testimony at the Leveson Inquiry was interrupted when an angry protester breached security and branded the former PM a War Criminal. David Lawley Wakelin, a film-maker, managed to storm the supposedly secure hearing by using the judge’s corridor and then proceeded to let Blair have it in full view of the inquiry team and press. This was not the first time Blair has been confronted by someone in this manner. In September 2010, activist Kate O’Sullivan attempted to make a citizens’ arrest upon the former PM for war crimes whilst he was signing copies of his autobiography in a Dublin book shop.

After such incidents, the media devote their attention to the breach of security that allowed those involved to get so close to Blair. The accusations themselves seldom receive as much attention and the accusers like Wakelin are dismissed as “crazed” or as “lone idiots.” In reality however, Wakelin and O’Sullivan are neither crazy nor idiotic but rather spot on – Tony Blair is a War Criminal. He may lack the comical get-up of Sacha Baron Cohen’s character in The Dictator but nevertheless, he can be accurately described as a War Criminal for committing the “supreme international crime” of aggression.

The US/UK invasion of Iraq was a war of aggression. It violated the principle of Nuremberg and the UN Charter. Aggression is the very crime that the Nazis were convicted and subsequently hung for at Nuremberg. Robert Jackson, the chief counsel for the prosecution at Nuremberg clearly defined aggression: “Declaration of war upon another State/ Invasion by its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State/Attack by its land, naval or air forces, with or without a declaration of war, on the territory, vessels or aircraft of another State.”  Jackson also made it clear that there were to be no exceptions barring one: “No political, military, economic or other considerations may serve as an excuse or justification for such actions, but exercise of the right of legitimate self-defence, that is to say, resistance to an act of aggression, or action to assist a State which has been subjected to aggression, shall not constitute a war of aggression.” 

Why did the Labour Party indulge Ken?

Frederick Cowell

Image © Amplified2010

If you are a Labour party member and disappointed at Ken Livingstone’s second defeat, go to a mirror, look at yourself – you are looking at one of the people responsible for his defeat.  Now, this article comes out before the official result; the Sack Boris campaign and the get out the vote drives undertaken by many local Labour parties could have helped turn the tide. But it is unlikely. So go and look at yourself in a mirror. If you are Labour you should use this as an opportunity to learn how to find a credible winning candidate – but then if you were part of the delegation that booed the mere mention of Tony Blair’s name last year you are a lost cause.

 In the primary election to be mayor two thirds of all London Labour members voted for Livingston over Oona King. Deep structural reasons and problems that go to the heart of the Labour party explain why this happened. King started her primary campaign late in mid- May 2010 when all the political action was focusing on the novelty of coalition government, whereas Ken had been unofficially campaigning the day after he was ejected from office in 2008. The primary also fell in the middle of the most contested Labour leadership contest for 30 years. Blame acting Labour leader Harriet Harman for that one – it is difficult to accept that someone of her political experience could not have foreseen that this would effectively make it a one horse race. King also had voted for the Iraq war in 2003 although, like many other Labour MPs, it was a decision she thought was wrong in hindsight and may have been less pertinent had she not lost her seat to George Galloway in the 2005 General Election. This gave a sense of permanence to her pro-war vote back in March 2003 so much so that seven years later it stuck with her as she tried to reach party members in the mayoral primary. Blame Tony Blair for that one – Blairites who bemoan the current state of the Labour party often have an attack of amnesia about the toxicity of the Iraq war and don’t seem to understand how much harm it did to an entire generation of centrist Labour MP’s. For example it did David Miliband’s leadership campaign no favours when he penned an article effectively asking people to ‘get over the Iraq war’.

As even the Economist noted at the time King was a good choice; her background reflected London’s nature as modern dynamic city, her policies were centre leftish and she was unencumbered by Livingstone’s foot-in-mouth tendency. Yet canvassing in the primary some workers for King noticed that a large numbers of Labour party members seemed to have a rose-tinted view of the race; a Tory PM promising cuts was in Number 10, wasn’t it time to get Red Ken back in city hall so he could fight them just like he fought Thatcher? Except this wasn’t 1981 it was 2012, and Ken lost to Maggie the first time round and is set to lose to Boris second time around. This is the answer to Dan Hodges, a Labour journo who took pride at voting Boris, but did quite sensibly ask the question – why does the Labour party indulge Ken? The new leadership aren’t really to blame; Ed Miliband was lumbered with him and as consequence had to defend him.  Instead party members decided to ignore the fact that in spite of a very strong first term record as mayor there were several features about his last two years in office, in particular his proximity with extremists, and the 2008 campaign that made him basically unelectable. This was known in 2010 yet members backed him – if you did that in 2010 look in the mirror today; you are responsible for giving the Conservative party a boost nationally in what should have been their worst election in a decade.