Blood on His
Hands: Tony Blair is a Coward
William Russell,
the great correspondent who reported the carnage of imperial wars, may have
first used the expression "blood on his hands" to describe impeccable
politicians who, at a safe distance, order the mass killing of ordinary people.
In my experience
"on his hands" applies especially to those modern political leaders
who have had no personal experience of war, like George W Bush, who managed not
to serve in Vietnam, and the effete Tony Blair.
There is about
them the essential cowardice of the man who causes death and suffering not by
his own hand but through a chain of command that affirms his
"authority".
In 1946 the
judges at Nuremberg who tried the Nazi leaders for war crimes left no doubt
about what they regarded as the gravest crimes against humanity.
The most serious
was unprovoked invasion of a sovereign state that offered no threat to one's
homeland. Then there was the murder of civilians, for which responsibility
rested with the "highest authority".
Blair is about
to commit both these crimes, for which he is being denied even the flimsiest
United Nations cover now that the weapons inspectors have found, as one put it,
"zilch".
Like those in
the dock at Nuremberg, he has no democratic cover.
Using the
archaic "royal prerogative" he did not consult parliament or the
people when he dispatched 35,000 troops and ships and aircraft to the Gulf; he
consulted a foreign power, the Washington regime.
Unelected in
2000, the Washington regime of George W Bush is now totalitarian, captured by a
clique whose fanaticism and ambitions of "endless war" and "full
spectrum dominance" are a matter of record.
All the world
knows their names: Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Perle, and
Powell, the false liberal. Bush's State of the Union speech last night was
reminiscent of that other great moment in 1938 when Hitler called his generals
together and told them: "I must have war." He then had it.
To call Blair a
mere "poodle" is to allow him distance from the killing of innocent
Iraqi men, women and children for which he will share responsibility.
He is the
embodiment of the most dangerous appeasement humanity has known since the
1930s. The current American elite is the Third Reich of our times, although
this distinction ought not to let us forget that they have merely accelerated
more than half a century of unrelenting American state terrorism: from the
atomic bombs dropped cynically on Japan as a signal of their new power to the
dozens of countries invaded, directly or by proxy, to destroy democracy
wherever it collided with American "interests", such as a voracious
appetite for the world's resources, like oil.
When you next
hear Blair or Straw or Bush talk about "bringing democracy to the people
of Iraq", remember that it was the CIA that installed the Ba'ath Party in
Baghdad from which emerged Saddam Hussein.
"That was
my favourite coup," said the CIA man responsible. When you next hear Blair
and Bush talking about a "smoking gun" in Iraq, ask why the US
government last December confiscated the 12,000 pages of Iraq's weapons
declaration, saying they contained "sensitive information" which
needed "a little editing".
Sensitive
indeed. The original Iraqi documents listed 150 American, British and other
foreign companies that supplied Iraq with its nuclear, chemical and missile
technology, many of them in illegal transactions. In 2000 Peter Hain, then a
Foreign Office Minister, blocked a parliamentary request to publish the full
list of lawbreaking British companies. He has never explained why.
As a reporter of
many wars I am constantly aware that words on the page like these can seem
almost abstract, part of a great chess game unconnected to people's lives.
The most vivid
images I carry make that connection. They are the end result of orders given
far away by the likes of Bush and Blair, who never see, or would have the
courage to see, the effect of their actions on ordinary lives: the blood on
their hands.
Let me give a
couple of examples. Waves of B52 bombers will be used in the attack on Iraq. In
Vietnam, where more than a million people were killed in the American invasion
of the 1960s, I once watched three ladders of bombs curve in the sky, falling
from B52s flying in formation, unseen above the clouds.
They dropped
about 70 tons of explosives that day in what was known as the "long
box" pattern, the military term for carpet bombing. Everything inside a
"box" was presumed destroyed.
When I reached a
village within the "box", the street had been replaced by a crater.
I slipped on the
severed shank of a buffalo and fell hard into a ditch filled with pieces of
limbs and the intact bodies of children thrown into the air by the blast.
The children's
skin had folded back, like parchment, revealing veins and burnt flesh that
seeped blood, while the eyes, intact, stared straight ahead. A small leg had
been so contorted by the blast that the foot seemed to be growing from a
shoulder. I vomited.
I am being purposely
graphic. This is what I saw, and often; yet even in that "media war"
I never saw images of these grotesque sights on television or in the pages of a
newspaper.
I saw them only
pinned on the wall of news agency offices in Saigon as a kind of freaks' gallery.
SOME years later
I often came upon terribly deformed Vietnamese children in villages where
American aircraft had sprayed a herbicide called Agent Orange.
It was banned in
the United States, not surprisingly for it contained Dioxin, the deadliest known
poison.
This terrible
chemical weapon, which the cliche-mongers would now call a weapon of mass
destruction, was dumped on almost half of South Vietnam.
Today, as the
poison continues to move through water and soil and food, children continue to
be born without palates and chins and scrotums or are stillborn. Many have leukemia.
You never saw
these children on the TV news then; they were too hideous for their pictures,
the evidence of a great crime, even to be pinned up on a wall and they are old news
now.
That is the true
face of war. Will you be shown it by satellite when Iraq is attacked? I doubt
it.
I was starkly
reminded of the children of Vietnam when I travelled in Iraq two years ago. A pediatrician
showed me hospital wards of children similarly deformed: a phenomenon unheard
of prior to the Gulf war in 1991.
She kept a photo
album of those who had died, their smiles undimmed on grey little faces. Now
and then she would turn away and wipe her eyes.
More than 300
tons of depleted uranium, another weapon of mass destruction, were fired by
American aircraft and tanks and possibly by the British.
Many of the
rounds were solid uranium which, inhaled or ingested, causes cancer. In a
country where dust carries everything, swirling through markets and
playgrounds, children are especially vulnerable.
For 12 years
Iraq has been denied specialist equipment that would allow its engineers to
decontaminate its southern battlefields.
It has also been
denied equipment and drugs that would identify and treat the cancer which, it
is estimated, will affect almost half the population in the south.
LAST November Jeremy
Corbyn MP asked the Junior Defence Minister Adam Ingram what stocks of weapons
containing depleted uranium were held by British forces operating in Iraq.
His robotic
reply was: "I am withholding details in accordance with Exemption 1 of the
Code of Practice on Access to Government Information."
Let us be clear
about what the Bush-Blair attack will do to our fellow human beings in a
country already stricken by an embargo run by America and Britain and aimed not
at Saddam Hussein but at the civilian population, who are denied even vaccines
for the children. Last week the Pentagon in Washington announced matter of
factly that it intended to shatter Iraq "physically, emotionally and
psychologically" by raining down on its people 800 cruise missiles in two
days.
This will be
more than twice the number of missiles launched during the entire 40 days of
the 1991 Gulf War.
A military
strategist named Harlan Ullman told American television: "There will not
be a safe place in Baghdad. The sheer size of this has never been seen before,
never been contemplated before."
The strategy is
known as Shock and Awe and Ullman is apparently its proud inventor. He said:
"You have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at
Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but minutes."
What will his
"Hiroshima effect" actually do to a population of whom almost half
are children under the age of 14?
The answer is to
be found in a "confidential" UN document, based on World Health
Organisation estimates, which says that "as many as 500,000 people could
require treatment as a result of direct and indirect injuries".
A Bush-Blair
attack will destroy "a functioning primary health care system" and
deny clean water to 39 per cent of the population. There is "likely [to
be] an outbreak of diseases in epidemic if not pandemic proportions".
It is
Washington's utter disregard for humanity, I believe, together with Blair's
lies that have turned most people in this country against them, including
people who have not protested before.
Last weekend
Blair said there was no need for the UN weapons inspectors to find a
"smoking gun" for Iraq to be attacked.
Compare that
with his reassurance in October 2001 that there would be no "wider
war" against Iraq unless there was "absolute evidence" of Iraqi
complicity in September 11. And there has been no evidence.
Blair's
deceptions are too numerous to list here. He has lied about the nature and
effect of the embargo on Iraq by covering up the fact that Washington, with
Britain's support, is withholding more than $5billion worth of humanitarian
supplies approved by the Security Council.
He has lied
about Iraq buying aluminum tubes, which he told Parliament were "needed to
enrich uranium". The International Atomic Energy Agency has denied this
outright.
He has lied
about an Iraqi "threat", which he discovered only following September
11 2001 when Bush made Iraq a gratuitous target of his "war on
terror". Blair's "Iraq dossier" has been mocked by human rights
groups.
However, what is
wonderful is that across the world the sheer force of public opinion isolates
Bush and Blair and their lemming, John Howard in Australia.
So few people
believe them and support them that The Guardian this week went in search of the
few who do - "the hawks". The paper published a list of celebrity
warmongers, some apparently shy at describing their contortion of intellect and
morality. It is a small list.
IN CONTRAST the
majority of people in the West, including the United States, are now against
this gruesome adventure and the numbers grow every day.
It is time MPs
joined their constituents and reclaimed the true authority of parliament. MPs
like Tam Dalyell, Alice Mahon, Jeremy Corbyn and George Galloway have stood
alone for too long on this issue and there have been too many sham debates
manipulated by Downing Street.
If, as Galloway
says, a majority of Labour backbenchers are against an attack, let them speak
up now.
Blair's figleaf
of a "coalition" is very important to Bush and only the moral power
of the British people can bring the troops home without them firing a shot.
The consequences
of not speaking out go well beyond an attack on Iraq. Washington will
effectively take over the Middle East, ensuring an age of terrorism other than
their own.
The next
American attack is likely to be Iran - the Israelis want this - and their
aircraft are already in place in Turkey. Then it may be China's turn.
"Endless
war" is Vice-President Cheney's contribution to our understanding.
Bush has said he
will use nuclear weapons "if necessary". On March 26 last Geoffrey
Hoon said that other countries "can be absolutely confident that in the
right conditions we would be willing to use our nuclear weapons".
Such
madness is the true enemy. What's more, it is right here at home and you, the
British people, can stop it.
John Pilger is one of the world’s most renowned investigative
journalists and documentary filmmaker. His latest book is The New Rulers of the
World (Verso, 2002). Visit John Pilger’s website at: http://www.johnpilger.com