In the age of the Gentiles, Atonement and the Brotherhood
of Man, the evil that men do no longer live after them but
live with them in the here and now.
In the configuration of time, yesterday was the tomorrow
that dovetailed into today, before it became yesterday.
Tomorrow is the future which plunged into today and then
passed on to become yesterday. However, what happens today,
matters most. Tomorrow is the future. Yesterday is
history. Politicians learn very little from history,
so they destroy souls, wittingly or unwittingly.
It was widely reported in the ebullient British media, that
the Committee set up by parliament to examine the activities
of the former British Prime Minister; Mr. Tony Blair in the
Iraqi crisis would summon him to appear before the Law
Lords, in due course.
During my visit to the Lauterpacht Center for International
Law, at the University of Cambridge, England in 2007, I
avidly read the reports of Governments’ Commissions from
the investigations of Lord Clive to the investigation of the
death of the British scientist, who killed himself over
information on the Iraqi war misadventure, which Mr. Tony
Blair master-minded and which has ended in a bloody mess.
I attest to the fact that the British Law Lords constitute
a Quango that has developed a jurisprudential culture, which
makes their findings to capture the quintessence of British
Their findings are usually, indisputably erudite. They
tighten every nut and bolt in their disquisitions and
extract the truth from a barrage of lies.
Some international lawyers aver that the involvement of
Tony Blair in the destruction of Iraq, the death of British
soldiers, Iraqi citizens, men, women and children, the
damage of ancient Babylonian sites, violate most principles
of Universal justice, the relevant provisions of the
four Geneva Conventions and that the Iraqi case is on all
fours with the Nurnberg trial rules.
The charges against El Omar Bashir are similar, when the
Iraqi case is put under the judicial microscope.
All these are weighty observations but I would wait for the
outcome of the Law Lord’s report. After exhausting the
domestic jurisdiction, further peer review could then follow
after the Law Lords have deliberated on Tony Blair’s Iraqi
Tony Blair is not likely to face the International Criminal
Court because after the “trial’ by the Law Lords, the
principle of litispendence would attach.
Between 1945 and 2003, the existing body of International
Law had evolved principles of justice, which form the corpus
of jus cogens. These are peremptory norms of international
law from which no derogation is permitted.
These principles are universally accepted as standards for
the regulation of actions of states, state responsibility
and diplomatic relations.
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the
violation of the territorial integrity and political
independence of any member of the United Nations.
It is also a cardinal principle of international law that
a state must formally declare war and not the “shock and
awe” method adopted by the Allies, after Tony Blair blared
out information that Saddam Hussein could be cut down in his
Saddam had a lucky escape. Blair over-emphasized going to
war with Iraq. He opted for the butcher’s solution rather
than seek a diplomatic one. There were no weapons of mass
destruction and Saddam had no links with Al Qaeda and did
not master-mind the 9/11 incident.
Yet, like Brutus, Blair wanted Saddam dead and he recently
seemed to be proud of it!
Blair did not only lie about these matters, he
over-populated his lies to the brim. With his machine-gun
like manner of speech, he swayed the President of the United
States, George Bush, into precipitate action and created the
atmosphere for a hurried eagerness to invade Iraq.
Blair’s over-weening stance misled the British Parliament
to give him the benefit of the doubt, but George Bush
believed US closest ally, absolutely.
His over-optimistic hype swayed the UN to adopt
mildly-worded resolutions. The hawks, unsatisfied, went for
“Delenda Iraqiensis “There is incontrovertible evidence
from the British press that Tony Blair over-dressed the
facts, over-flogged the issues.
The overarching relationship between Blair and his US
counter-part must be examined thoroughly whether Tony Blair
ceded British sovereign to a foreign sovereign. This is very
important because it included and influenced many things,
apparent lack independent decisions and actions.
Did he derive authority for his actions and decisions
from inordinate influence outside the British Parliament
as is not expected from one On Her Majesty’s
Could his “American Knighthood “be in lieu of his
obedience to a foreign power? What of his undignified
“errand boy” status to the Middle East as “Ambassador
Plenipotentiary and Extraordinary”?
All the Allied leaders, who operated as members of an
Occult Brotherhood lost in elections, which irreparably
weakened the “Alliance of the Willing on War on terror”.
Tony Blair operated from a cesspool of voluntarism,
egoistical, irreverent, frenzied, ovational platform. This
led to his pathetic exit, after a brilliant political
Since his exit, Tony Blair never seemed to have had
time for remorseful introspection because he has been
prancing around the Middle East, wearing soft pastels,
peddling diplomatic, “In remissionem peccatorum
“rhapsodies, no-one wants to hear.
Recently, Mr. Blair called on the people of Zimbabwe to
“remove Robert Mugabe”. This evangelism, after
subscribing to the death of Saddam Hussein, portrays Blair
as someone with the executioner’s murderous instincts. A
new convert to Christianity, Blair is yet to imbibe the
message in “Agnus Dei”.
Blair’s prefabricated political actions against Iraq
violated international law, to wit:
Misplaced Allegiance to the United
Non-declaration of war on Iraq.
The violation of Article 2(4) of the
United Nations Charter.
The murder of Saddam Hussein after a
judicial process that fell short of universally evidential
procedures and proof beyond all reasonable doubt. This was a
premeditated political murder (even though Saddam was
equally guilty of same).
Aiding and abetting the destruction
of Iraq, which was not at war with Britain.
The indiscriminate bombing of the
city of Baghdad in an “awe and shock” operation.
Wanton destruction through military
action of ancient Babylonian sites.(See UN Report-
Deaths of British soldiers in an
uncalled- for war
False claim that Iraq had weapons of
False claim that Iraq had links with
False claim that Iraq was
responsible for the unfortunate 9/11 incident in the United
Misinforming the British Parliament
Endangering international peace and
security in Iraq.
Acting as an accomplish in the
destruction of Iraq.
It can be recalled that it was not all Americans and
European leaders that supported the war. For example, Mr.
Clark, the former US Attorney-General, took a purely
juristic view of the invasion of Iraq.
He had argued that” such attack based on speculation that
Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction was illegal”.
He accused the US government of “unleashing a
psychological war” on Iraq, which violated the laws
against peace as proclaimed in the Nurnberg trials of 1947.
The former German Chancellor, Gephardt Schroeder said, Wir
konnen Amerika nicht helfen, es ist nicht richtig.”9 We
cannot help America. It is not right”.
American, Scott Richter, flew to Baghdad and in a speech to
the Iraqi parliament, declared that “the invasion of Iraq
would be a historical mistake”. In my book published in
2003, titled,” IRAQ: The New Carthage, International Law
and Diplomacy in the Iraqi Crisis”, I said that the
reasons advanced by the Allies, the entire military actions
against Iraq, violated international law.
By the way, Mr. Blair was the sympathetic undertaker of
failed African States, but he never kept any of his promises
to the Dark Continent.
The deliberations by the British Law Lords, is been watched
very closely. As William Shakespeare wrote,” The attempt
and not the deed confound us.”