Time to Recognize the Blair Government’s Criminality
In the kabuki theater of British parliamentary politics, great crimes do not happen and criminals go free. It is theater after all; the pirouettes matter, not actions taken at remove in distance and culture from their consequences. It is a secure arrangement guarded by cast and critics alike. The farewell speech of one of the most artful, Tony Blair, had "a sense of moral conviction running through it," effused the television presenter Jon Snow, as if Blair’s appeal to kabuki devotees was mystical. That he was a war criminal was irrelevant.
The suppression of Blair’s criminality and that of his administrations is described in Gareth Peirce’s Dispatches from the Dark Side: on torture and the death of justice, published in paperback this month by Verso. Peirce is Britain’s most distinguished human rights lawyer; her pursuit of infamous miscarriages of justice and justice for the victims of state crimes, such as torture and rendition, is unsurpassed. What is unusual about this accounting of what she calls the "moral and legal pandemonium" in the wake of 9/11 is that, in drawing on the memoirs of Blair and Alistair Campbell, Cabinet minutes and MI6 files, she applies the rule of law to them.
Advocates such as Peirce, Phil Shiner, and Clive Stafford-Smith have ensured the indictment of dominant powers is no longer a taboo. Israel, America’s hitman, is now widely recognized as the world’s most lawless state. The likes of Donald Rumsfeld now avoid countries where the law reaches beyond borders, as does George W. Bush and Blair.
Deploying sinecures of "peace-making" and "development" that allow him to replenish the fortune accumulated since leaving Downing Street, Blair’s jackdaw travels are concentrated on the Gulf sheikhdoms, the US, Israel and safe havens like the small African nation of Rwanda. Since 2007, Blair has made seven visits to Rwanda, where he has access to a private jet supplied by President Paul Kagame. Kagame’s regime, whose opponents have been silenced brutally on trumped-up charges, is "innovative" and a "leader" in Africa, says Blair.
Peirce’s book achieves the impossible on Blair: it shocks. In tracing the "unjustifiable theses, unrestrained belligerence, falsification and wilful illegality" that led to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, she identifies Blair’s assault on Muslims as both criminal and racist. "Human beings presumed to hold [Islamist] views were to be disabled by any means possible, and permanently … in Blair’s language a ‘virus’ to be ‘eliminated’ and requiring ‘a myriad of interventions [sic] deep into the affairs of other nations’." Whole societies were reduced to "splashes of color" on a canvas upon which Labor’s Napoleon would "re-order the world."
The very concept of war was wrenched from its dictionary meaning and became "our values versus theirs." The actual perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, mostly Saudis trained to fly in America, were all but forgotten. Instead, the "splashes of color" were made blood-red – first in Afghanistan, land of the poorest of the poor. No Afghans were members of al-Qaeda; on the contrary, there was mutual resentment. No matter. Once the bombing began on 7 October 2001, tens of thousands of Afghans were punished with starvation as the World Food Program withdrew aid on the cusp of winter. In one stricken village, Bibi Mahru, I witnessed the aftermath of a single Mk82 "precision" bomb’s obliteration of two families, including eight children. "TB," wrote Alistair Campbell, "said they had to know that we would hurt them if they don’t yield up OBL."
The cartoon figure of Campbell was already at work on concocting another threat in Iraq. This "yielded up," according to the MIT Center for International Studies, between 800,000 and 1.3 million deaths: figures that exceed the Fordham University estimate of deaths in the genocide in Rwanda.
And yet, wrote Peirce, "the threads of emails, internal government communiqués reveal no dissent." Interrogation that included torture was on "the express instructions … of government ministers." On 10 January 2002, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw emailed his colleagues that sending British citizens to Guantánamo Bay was "the best way to meet our counter terrorism objective." He rejected "the only alternative of repatriation to the United Kingdom." (Later appointed "justice secretary," Straw suppressed incriminating Cabinet minutes in defiance of the Information Commissioner). On 6 February 2002, Home Secretary David Blunkett noted that he was in "no hurry to see any individuals returned to the UK [from Guantánamo]." Three days later, Foreign Office minister Ben Bradshaw wrote, "We need to do all that we can to avoid the detainees being repatriated to the UK." Not one of the people to which they refer had been charged with anything; most had been sold as bounties to the Americans by Afghan warlords. Peirce describes how Foreign Office officials, prior to an inspection of Guantánamo Bay, "verified" that British prisoners were being "treated humanely" when the opposite was true.
Immersed in its misadventure and lies, listening only to their leader’s crooned "sincerity," the Labor government consulted no one who spoke the truth. Peirce cites one of the most reliable sources, Conflicts Forum, run by the former British intelligence officer Alastair Crooke, who argued that to "isolate and demonize [Islamic] groups that have support on the ground, the perception is reinforced that the west only understands the language of military strength." In wilfully denying this truth, Blair, Campbell and their echoes planted the roots of the 7/7 attacks in London.
Today, another Afghanistan and Iraq beckons in Syria and Iran, perhaps even a world war. Once again, voices such as Crooke’s attempt to explain to a media salivating for " intervention" in Syria that the civil war in that country requires skilled, patient negotiation, not the provocations of the British SAS and the familiar, bought-and-paid-for exiles who ride in Anglo-America’s Trojan Horse.
Read more by John Pilger
- The New Propaganda Is Liberal – March 14th, 2013
- WikiLeaks is a rare truth-teller. Smearing Julian Assange is shameful – February 17th, 2013
- The Real Invasion of Africa Is Not News, and a License To Lie Is Hollywood’s Gift – January 31st, 2013
- As Sanctions Hit Iran’s Most Vulnerable, the Man Who Dared to Feed Sanction-Starved Iraq Remains in Prison – November 9th, 2012
- The Life and Death of an Australian Hero, Whose Skin Was the Wrong Colour – October 4th, 2012





mickperry
February 17th, 2012 at 12:27 am
Ten years on, and former UK resident Shaker Aamer continues to rot in a cage at Guantanamo. Spokesperson Sarah Wilson of the Foreign Office writes that “..the British Government remains committed to using best efforts to secure his release and return”. Discussions between the US and UK governments over his release remain “… constructive, cordial and conducted in good faith.”
Blunkett, Bradshaw and Straw's comments meanwhile reveal the underlying truths. Today, this trio along with Campbell have faded away from the scene of their crimes, but their legacy remains: http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_con…
may ayres
February 17th, 2012 at 3:51 am
A good article from John Pilger and a succinct comment from Mick Perry. The government's latest lame excuse for its impotence in securing Shaker's release is that the US has toughened its criteria for removal. As we are the US's closest ally and possess sophisticated methods of detecting risk, this excuse is bunkum. The true reason could be that Shaker knows too much about the UK's complicity in his torture and incarceration. The only acceptable exit route for the US and the UK is transfer to his country of origin, Saudi Arabia, or failing that, his 'natural' death in Guantanamo. It is public indignation alone that will bring him home. And the biggest hurdle is the ignorance of the general public. This ignorant hostility from members of the public directed against our recent protest demonstrations calling for Shaker's release was quite chilling.
carroll price
February 17th, 2012 at 7:54 am
Well, it's not like England is new at this sort of thing. Just take a look at the heinous crimes they committed against their own neighbors in Scotland, Ireland and Wales. Wiping out entire villages then making an attempt to destroy all local culture as well as language itself. Not to mention the horrors visited on the native people of Africa, India and the Middle East. The English Crown has always represented one of the most despotic and cruel regimes in human history. The Huns and Nazis pale in comparison.
John Phipps
February 17th, 2012 at 10:34 am
To be fair look at the Levellers and Diggers in England in 1649. Cromwell, the champion of Republicanism and the ruling classes in England did the same sort of thing to its own citizens. Kick them off common ground for profit. Clan heads in Scotland did the same. Colonials in America used the same fort models that the English used to subdue the Irish against the natives. The US inherited this mindset and ran with it.
MoT
February 17th, 2012 at 11:30 am
Seeing as the Americans were in all honesty just British that happened to be on the other side of the globe this is really not a surprise as you say. I can't count the times I have to reeducate my friends and associates that there wasn't a hairs worth of difference but for the "titles" affixed to certain personages. Deep down they were and are the same cat.
MoT
February 17th, 2012 at 11:32 am
Or that Australian who was silenced about his guest treatment at club gitmo. I'm sure Sahker has tales to tell but they won't let him go for the bad publicity.
the lion
February 17th, 2012 at 3:51 pm
The Term Afghan war Lords really means Afghan Drug Dealers and growers, The same Drug lords that even today are courted by the British and US Governments. In relation to the Taliban at the time of invasion the Taliban were considered even by the Bush Regime as the lawful Government of Afghanistan and as such their troops have Full Geneva article 4 POW status ( the Bush Regime gave 60 million dollars (or thereabouts) to the Taliban because they were burning all the Opium plantations of the Afghan War lords, and hence stopping Heroin from entering the US. Before some fool says but they were not in UNIFORM Geneva doesnt actually require a Uniform if the Citizen spontaniously takes up arms against a foreign invader! Just a requirement that the fighter carry his arms in plain view. Effectively that means EVERY Taliban that was captured and sent to Gitmo was and still is in fact a LAWFUL COMBATANT and as such Bush is a War Criminal (see comments in the minority judgement of Hamdin V Rumsfeld) .
the lion
February 17th, 2012 at 3:59 pm
There are many breaches of Geneva, but these are teh most important
Article 130
Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, compelling a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of the hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a prisoner of war of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in this Convention.
Article 131
No High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself or any other High Contracting Party of any liability incurred by itself or by another High Contracting Party in respect of breaches referred to in the preceding Article.
Just think of all those US members of the House and Senate that voted to allow both the Torture and the Cover up of that torture with laws they made regardless of the fact that under the US Constitution treaties have actually have a HIGHER Status than Congressionally made law, and are virtually part of the Constitution!
MvGuy
February 17th, 2012 at 8:49 pm
Good Job by John…………… I'm ready to recognize their crimes…………. even if my government turns a blind eye, and moral vacuity as it's option…!!
mickperry
February 18th, 2012 at 12:08 am
“…it's not like England is new at this sort of thing” needs qualifying. Certainly there were the English that made it Westwards across the ocean to wreak havoc and genocide upon the native American, while others traveled East and did the same to the native Australian. Another breed chose to inflict the very same carnage upon their fellow native English. Neither the crown nor the new capitalist merchant class of the seventeenth century were backed by a majority of English people during their 'civil war', and thanks to John Phipps for alluding to this fact. Doubtless the majority of English people would have opposed the American and Australian adventures also, but as is the case today, they had no voice.
England meanwhile has no monopoly on genocide: witness the imperial conquests by Holland, Spain, Portugal for example.
The majority of English people would likely be supportive of Gareth Peirce's work if they understood what she does. Most though are entirely unaware of her, and the majority of those who are dimly perceive her to be a lawyer who represents 'the terrorists'. She deserves far better than this and I look forward to reading her book. I'm therefore grateful to this White Australian journalist residing in England for bringing it to our attention.