The Sunday Mail
Lincoln Towindo Senior Reporter—
Tony Blair has blood on his hands. That is the blunt assessment of a seven-year inquiry into Britain’s involvement in the Iraq war. Findings of the Chilcot Inquiry released last week confirm what many already knew about the former British prime minister. The report all but validates Blair as a bloodthirsty warmonger who should – in all fairness – face the consequences of his ruinous misdeeds.
During his premiership (May 1997-June 2007), he led Britain into several wars. ln his wake lies a trail of destruction, deaths, displacements, injuries and broken nations on three continents.
First were airstrikes on Iraq (1998), then the Kosovo War (1999), followed by attacks on Sierra Leone (2000) and the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan (2001).
His list of infantile conquests could have been longer had he been permitted to get his way. Zimbabwe featured prominently on that list following his fallout with Harare over implementation of reforms that redressed colonial land imbalances.
The little African nation only has Providence to thank for locating her in a good neighbourhood that would not brook such nonsense.
In his best-selling book ‘Blair’s Wars’, respected author John Kampfner reveals that the ex-premier once told his Secretary for International Development, Claire Short, that, “If it were down to me, I’d do Zimbabwe as well – that is send troops.”
In his memoir ‘A Journey’, Blair says he “would have loved to get rid of Mugabe”, but failed to do so because “it wasn’t practical (since . . . the surrounding African nations maintained a lingering support for him and would have opposed any action strenuously)”.
Former South African President Thabo Mbeki confirmed as much in one of his latest throwback articles.
Mr Mbeki wrote, “Our then Minister of Intelligence, Lindiwe Sisulu, had to make a number of trips to London and Washington to engage the UK and US governments on their plans for Zimbabwe, with strict instructions from our Government to resist all plans to impose anything on the people of Zimbabwe, including by military means.”
The Chilcot Report shows Blair’s uniform approach to disputes, all of which shore up his deceptive and murderous disposition. His declarations of hostility leading to a war were always preceded by media propaganda to manage public opinion and stir global emotion.
In Iraq’s case, Western media fed the public a rabid diet of “news reports” on “intelligence proving that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, which could be deployed against the West at the click of a button”.
Blair kept his fellow cabinet ministers in the dark about his intention to go to war against Iraq. He and George Bush also tried in vain to get the United Nations’ blessing, with the latter unashamedly declaring that “we will go into Iraq with or without the UN”.
That Iraq had the said weapons was clearly a lie, and Sir John Chilcot has proved it. Where is Saddam today? He was hanged, not on a charge of “possessing weapons of mass destruction”, but on allegations dating many years back.
Where is Iraq?
It has never known real peace since then. I suppose that’s what Blair meant when he advised Bush to “act now, explain later”.
Traces of similar deception are evident in Zimbabwe’s case. Yes, Blair lied to the Americans, he deceived the European Union by throwing in the odd line about human rights abuses and whatever his checkered tongue could conjure up.
The result were debilitating US and EU economic sanctions that crippled Zimbabwe’s critical sectors, including social services. Hundreds of people died of cholera in 2008 due to collapsing sanitation and inhibited healthcare services.
There was widespread hunger as the Zimbabwe dollar plummeted due to hyperinflation. All this was because of one very deceptive character known as Bliar, sorry, Blair. And to imagine that he wanted to add military action to this suffering smacks of evil.
He lied that the white minority and opposition party supporters were being killed by “the Mugabe regime”, just to isolate the country. Granted, there were instances of violence given the nature of political reconfiguration that the country was undergoing at the time following land reforms. Surely that did not warrant military intervention or any consideration of such action. Blair’s modus operandi in both the Zimbabwe and Iraq cases is similar, and one would say he did all this to stroke his over-inflated ego.
But there are lessons to be learnt from that experience. Iraq is a pale shadow of its former self. Yes, it had its fair share of problems just as any other nation but the country is now torn by sectarian violence.
Over half a million Iraqi lives have been lost as a result of Blair’s war, while many more were injured.
Millions were displaced, too.
Militant groups control large swathes of Iraq and neighbouring Syria.
Hundreds are dying as a result of militant activity. The Middle East is a powder keg. All this can be retraced to Blair.
Six words betrayed him, “I will be with you, whatever.”
That’s what he wrote in one of his confidential notes to Bush. One could call it selling your soul to the devil. But Zimbabwe did not suffer the same fate as Iraq and other countries on Blair’s hit list, thank Providence.
Even worse, the entire Sadc region, by far the most peaceful in Africa, could have been in as much turmoil as the Middle East. What is particularly striking about the Chilcot findings is Blair’s culpability in the needless deaths of thousands, displacement of millions, torture and general destabilisation of nations.
Is there a case for war crimes against Blair? The United Kingdom is a signatory to the Rome Statute, so perhaps he could be hauled before the International Criminal Court. He can be indicted as a war criminal on the basis of these findings.
ICC prosecutors have never shied away from confronting African leaders on similar charges.
Let’s “act now, explain later”.
