As expected, Blair gave a competent performance defending his position.
The British Gazette will be aware that readers will be split on the question of whether it was right to topple Saddam Hussein.
A common line amongst Mr. Blair’s critics (on this issue) has been the violation of International Law. In fact, we at the British Gazette have heard comments from Eurorealists – no friends of Blair – endorse other critics comments vis-à-vis Blair breaking international law.
The British Gazette would like to take issue with such comments. Do not however assume that the British Gazette is not stating that Mr. Blair has not broken the law. He most assuredly has! However the British Gazette would take issue with the statements condemning Blair for breaches of international law.
O.K. so let us clear this matter up and begin to shed light into darkness. Let us start by listing those laws that Blair has undoubtedly broken.
Perjury: he has sworn – on oath – as a Privy Councillor to defend Her Majesty’s prerogatives. Notwithstanding this, he has done precisely the opposite:
- of conspiring with others to implement E.U. Directives in contravention of the Declaration of Rights of 1688 and the aforementioned oath.
- of formerly handing over the government of the Queen’s realm to a foreign power – the E.U. in violation of the above.
- of conspiring with others to prevent and to undermine Her Majesty from carrying out her own Coronation Oath (to govern us according to our laws and customs) contrary to common law.
Clearly, Mr. Blair should – with others – be enjoying the austere comforts of one of Her Majesty’s prisons.
However Mr. Blair should not be accused of breaking international law. Why? For precisely the reasons that he should be sitting inside a prison cell at this very time. You see, “international law” in this context means the will of the United Nations – an organisation of which this country is a member. At the time of the Iraq crisis the United States and the United Kingdom sought United Nations approval for their policy to contain Saddam Hussein. The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 did not give explicit – or if the Syrian Ambassador to the UN is to be believed – implicit UNO sanction for pre-emptive military action against Iraq. Does this mean that the United States and the United Kingdom broke international law by commencing hostilities? No. All it means is that the United States and the United Kingdom went to war without the approval of the United Nations – in very much the same way this country has gone to war in the past without the express of implied approval of other sovereign powers. Why? Because as a supposedly sovereign state the United Kingdom DOES NOT NEED OR REQUIRE the approval of other sovereign powers.
Of course: there is one sovereign power the United Kingdom is beholden to. The European Union.
So to the question that may ask: Is Blair a War Criminal? No. Just a criminal.