. . . Giving evidence before the arms-to-Iraq enquiry, [Mark] Higson was the only
British official commended by Lord Justice Scott for telling the truth. The
price he paid was the loss of his health and marriage and constant
surveillance by spooks. He ended up living on benefits in a Birmingham
bedsitter where he suffered a seizure, struck his head and died alone.
Whistleblowers are often heroes; he was one.
He came to mind when I saw a picture in the paper of another Foreign Office
official, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who was Tony Blair's ambassador to the
United Nations in the build-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. More than
anyone, it was Sir Jeremy who tried every trick to find a UN cover for the
bloodbath to come. Indeed, this was his boast to the Chilcot enquiry on 27
November, where he described the invasion as "legal but of questionable
legitimacy". How clever. In the picture he wore a smirk.
Under international law, "questionable legitimacy" does not exist. An attack
on a sovereign state is a crime. This was made clear by Britain's chief law
officer, Attorney General Peter Goldsmith, before his arm was twisted, and
by the Foreign Office's own legal advisers and subsequently by the
secretary-general of the United Nations. The invasion is the crime of the
21st century. During 17 years of assault on a defenceless civilian
population, veiled with weasel monikers like "sanctions" and "no fly zones"
and "building democracy", more people have died in Iraq than during the peak
years of the slave trade. . . .
[The 45-minute claim was a key feature of the dossier about Iraq's weapons
of mass destruction that was released by Tony Blair in September 2002. Blair
published the information to bolster public support for war.--Andrew
Sparrow, "45-minute WMD claim 'came from an Iraqi taxi driver',"
Guardian, December 8, 2009]
[Iraq is on course to overtake Iran as the holder of the world's
second-largest proven oil reserves, solidifying its position as the energy
industry's new frontier in the scramble to secure fresh resources.--Carola
Hoyos, "Iraq
set to be second in oil league table," Financial Times, December 11, 2009]
[The responsibility for launching the war must be judged against the
knowledge that the allies had when they actually started it. The UK should
have recognised that no smoking gun had been found at any time, and that in
the months before the invasion evidence of WMD was beginning to unravel. As
we have heard recently: out of 19 Iraqi sites suspected by the UK Ð and
suggested to the UN monitoring, verification and inspection commission for
inspection (Unmovic) -- 10 were actually inspected, and while "interesting",
none turned up any WMD. This warning that sources were not reliable seems to
have been ignored. Intelligence organisations seem to have been 100%
convinced of the existence of WMD but to have had 0% knowledge where they
were. Worse still: the uranium contract between Iraq and Niger that George
Bush had given prominence in his 2002 state of the union message was found
by the International Atomic Energy Agency to be a forgery.--Hans Blix, "Blair sold Iraq on WMD, but only regime
change adds up," Guardian, December 14, 2009]
[Carne Ross claimed that Britain and the United States privately did not
believe that Iraq's weapons programmes posed a "substantial threat" before
launching the 2003 invasion.--Nigel Morris, "WMD claims were lies says former
envoy," Independent, July 12, 2010]
[Blair conspired in and executed an unprovoked war of aggression against a
defenseless country, which the Nuremberg judges in 1946 described as the
"paramount war crime." This has caused, according to scholarly studies, the
deaths of more than a million people, a figure that exceeds the Fordham
University estimate of deaths in the Rwandan genocide.--John Pilger, "Tony Blair Must Be Prosecuted," antiwar.com, August
5, 2010]
[Had Hans Blix, the then UN chief weapons inspector, been given the
additional three months he requested, your plans could have been thwarted.
You and George W Bush feared this. If you had respected international law,
you would not, following Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, have allowed
your forces to launch attacks from two no-fly zones.--"Hans von
Sponeck: A UN Man's Open Letter to Tony Blair," middle-east-online.com,
October 1, 2010]
[One document, previously leaked, notes that Blair told Bush at a meeting in
Washington on 31 January 2003, less than two months before the invasion,
that "he was solidly with the president". That was his response after Bush
said military action would be taken with or without a new UN resolution and
the day after Goldsmith warned Blair that an invasion of Iraq would be
unlawful without a fresh UN resolution. Goldsmith subsquently changed his
mind.--Richard Norton-Taylor, "Whitehall
chief blocks release of Blair's notes to Bush on Iraq," Guardian, January 18, 2011]
[The offence is known by two names in international law: the crime of
aggression and a crime against peace. It is defined by the Nuremberg
principles as the "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of
aggression". This means a war fought for a purpose other than self-defence:
in other words outwith articles 33 and 51 of the UN Charter.--George
Monbiot, "We're One Crucial Step Closer to Seeing Tony Blair at The
Hague," Guardian, September 3, 2012]
[Hitherto unseen evidence given to the Chilcot Inquiry by British
intelligence has revealed that former prime minister Tony Blair was told that Iraq had,
at most, only a trivial amount of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and that Libya was
in this respect a far greater threat.--Jonathan Owen, "Tony Blair and Iraq: The damning evidence,"
Independent, April 7, 2013]