The award of the Congressional Gold Medal and being the fourth British Prime minister in history to address a joint meeting of the US congress can be viewed as the British equivalence of acquiring Knighthood.
Blair whilst being “Knighted” by the Americans he remain isolated from his own population, who not only opposed the war on moral and ethical grounds but are increasingly resentful of turning Britain into a doormat for Corporate-America. Now Mr. Blair refers to history as being the final arbiter rather then the legal pretext of the UN resolution. The question is whose history? More pertinently in his justification he failed to mention the loss of 8000 innocent Iraqi civilians not to mention the infliction hardship and suffering in general. We know there was no silence or pop concert held for them, but at least they deserved a passing reference. After all he did claim the war was being waged on their behalf. How convenient to alter the premise of this brutal war after having been caught red handed for lying and deceiving, but that is easy in a world where the “might is! right”.
Blair and Bush have no sense of accountability, they take it for granted that only they posses the right to judge and inflict punishment on others in accordance to their interests. Which is in line with the recent attempts by Blair to push for another UN resolution calling for the right to intervene in countries that violate human rights values. Of course the assumption being only the west have that prerogative as who has done that and who can be selectively punished to meet their interests. Blair seemed to have totally overlooked such violations are being carried out under his nose by the USA in Gunatanamo-bay. Hence would such a resolution be enforced upon the USA by force?
Apart from the personal gift of Blair’s “Knighthood” what was actually gained for British nation? As a Capitalist nation wars are never fought for genuine principals other then economic benefit. No one is convinced of the rhetoric of saving the Iraqis with bombs and bullets, whilst ignoring the longer suffering Palestinians, also given the historical track record of Britain in the region.
In the 1930s Winston Churchill gassed the Kurds long before Saddam, as he wanted to spread a “lively terror”. So did the British firms gain any of the valuable lucrative contracts that went to Bechtel and Halliburton? Or perhaps only Blair will be rewarded personally in the future with some sort of directorship in one of the many multinational companies that are currently collecting the booty in Iraq! In every other sphere Blair may think he has earned the title of a partner of the US but! it is highly doubtful the Americans have the same view. Far from being grateful the Americans did not hesitate to blame British for the recent fiasco of “intelligence” reports related to the issue of Iraq’s alleged purchase of Uranium from Niger. As Blair is so keen on the subject human rights violation will he exert the same level of enthusiasm and demonstrate his influence over Bush, which he has been claiming, with regards to the British citizens who are being held illegally in cages like animals, without charge and independent legal representation, breaking the basic conventions on human rights.
Thus Bush seems to be a direct reflection of those who he is been demonizing. History may judge Blair and his gangs on the basis that, had Feroz been Fred, and Moazzam been Michael, they would have pursued this with the same resolve as they have done in Iraq in the name of uprooting human rights violation.
The writer is a Graduate in Chemistry from London University and Technical Director. He contributed above article to Media Monitors Network (MMN) from the United Kingdom.