https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19454562
BBC
Desmond Tutu calls for Blair and Bush to be tried over Iraq
2 September 2012
Archbishop Desmond Tutu
Archbishop Desmond Tutu has been a long time critic of the war in Iraq
Tony Blair and George W Bush should be taken to the International Criminal Court
in The Hague over the Iraq war, Archbishop Desmond Tutu has said. Writing in the
UK's Observer newspaper, he accused the former leaders of lying about weapons of
mass destruction. The Iraq military campaign had made the world more unstable
"than any other conflict in history", he said. Mr Blair responded by saying
"this is the same argument we have had many times with nothing new to say".
'Playground bullies'
Earlier this week, Archbishop Tutu, a veteran peace campaigner who won the Nobel
Peace Prize in 1984 in recognition of his campaign against apartheid, pulled out
of a leadership summit in Johannesburg because he refused to share a platform
with Mr Blair. The former Archbishop of Cape Town said the US- and UK-led action
launched against Saddam's regime in 2003 had brought about conditions for the
civil war in Syria and a possible Middle East conflict involving Iran.
"The then leaders of the United States [Mr Bush] and Great Britain [Mr Blair]
fabricated the grounds to behave like playground bullies and drive us further
apart. They have driven us to the edge of a precipice where we now stand - with
the spectre of Syria and Iran before us," he said. He added: "The question is
not whether Saddam Hussein was good or bad or how many of his people he
massacred. The point is that Mr Bush and Mr Blair should not have allowed
themselves to stoop to his immoral level."
Archbishop Tutu said the death toll as a result of military action in Iraq since
2003 was grounds for Mr Blair and Mr Bush to be tried in The Hague. But he said
different standards appeared to be applied to Western leaders. He said: "On
these grounds, alone, in a consistent world, those responsible should be
treading the same path as some of their African and Asian peers who have been
made to answer for their actions in The Hague." In response to Sunday's article,
Mr Blair issued a strongly worded defence of his decisions.
He said: "To repeat the old canard that we lied about the intelligence [on
weapons of mass destruction] is completely wrong as every single independent
analysis of the evidence has shown.
'Chemical weapons'
"And to say that the fact that Saddam massacred hundreds of thousands of his
citizens is irrelevant to the morality of removing him is bizarre. We have just
had the memorials both of the Halabja massacre, where thousands of people were
murdered in one day by Saddam's use of chemical weapons, and that of the
Iran-Iraq war where casualties numbered up to a million, including many killed
by chemical weapons. In addition, his slaughter of his political opponents, the
treatment of the Marsh Arabs and the systematic torture of his people make the
case for removing him morally strong. But the basis of action was as stated at
the time."
He added: "In short this is the same argument we have had many times with
nothing new to say. But surely in a healthy democracy people can agree to
disagree. "I would also point out that despite the problems, Iraq today has an
economy three times or more in size, with child mortality rate cut by a third of
what it was. And with investment hugely increased in places like Basra." Human
rights lawyer Sir Geoffrey Bindman told BBC Radio 4 the Iraq war was an illegal
aggressive war. He said a war crimes trial "should be and could be held on the
basis a crime of aggression has been committed and the crime of aggression was
starting the war.
"It's now almost certain that the war was illegal because it breached the UN
Charter provisions which say that all member of the United Nations must refrain
from the use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state." Former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer said he
disagreed with Desmond Tutu and Sir Geoffrey. "The use of force is allowed among
other reasons when the United Nations authorises it, and the United Nations
authorised it by resolution 1441.
"The dispute between Geoffrey and myself would be whether or not resolution 1441
did or did not authorise war and we say that it did. "Even that disagreement
doesn't give rise to the possibility of war crimes, the world has very
impressively over the last two decades come together and identified what they
mean by war crimes; genocide, ethnic cleansing, torture and in a variety of ways
brought people to trial for that"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19400136
BBC
Archbishop Tutu refuses platform with Tony Blair over Iraq
28 August 2012
Archbishop Desmond Tutu has pulled out of an event because he refuses to share a
platform with Tony Blair. The veteran peace campaigner said Mr Blair's support
for the Iraq war was "morally indefensible" and it would be "inappropriate" for
him to appear alongside him. The pair were due to take part in a one-day
leadership summit in Johannesburg, South Africa on Thursday. Mr Blair's office
said he was "sorry" the archbishop had decided to pull out. Dr Tutu, who was
awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984 in recognition of his campaign against
apartheid, and Mr Blair were due to appear at the Discovery Invest Leadership
Summit.
Other speakers include chess grandmaster and opposition Russian politician Garry
Kasparov and former Tesco chief executive Sir Terry Leahy.
'Untenable' In a statement, Dr Tutu's Office said: "Ultimately, the archbishop
is of the view that Mr Blair's decision to support the United States' military
invasion of Iraq, on the basis of unproven allegations of the existence in Iraq
of weapons of mass destruction, was morally indefensible. "The Discovery Invest
Leadership Summit has leadership as its theme. Morality and leadership are
indivisible. In this context, it would be inappropriate and untenable for the
archbishop to share a platform with Mr Blair."
Tony Blair's office responded by saying he was sorry that Dr Tutu had pulled
out, adding that the former prime minister and the former Archbishop of Cape
Town "were never actually sharing a platform" together. The statement continued:
"As far as Iraq is concerned they have always disagreed about removing Saddam by
force - such disagreement is part of a healthy democracy."
"As for the morality of that decision we have recently had both the memorial of
the Halabja massacre where thousands of people were murdered in one day by
Saddam's use of chemical weapons; and that of the Iran-Iraq war where casualties
numbered up to a million including many killed by chemical weapons. "So these
decisions are never easy morally or politically." Dr Tutu's withdrawal comes as
the local Muslim party Al Jama-ah is reported to be planning a protest against
Mr Blair's participation at the event because of his support for the Iraq war.
https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/02/desmond-tutu-tony-blair-iraq
The Guardian home
Why I had no choice but to spurn Tony Blair
I couldn't sit with someone who justified the invasion of Iraq with a lie
Desmond Tutu
Desmond Tutu: pulled out of a seminar which Tony Blair was scheduled to attend.
Photograph: Str/REUTERS
The immorality of the United States and Great Britain's decision to invade Iraq
in 2003, premised on the lie that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction,
has destabilised and polarised the world to a greater extent than any other
conflict in history.
Instead of recognising that the world we lived in, with increasingly
sophisticated communications, transportations and weapons systems necessitated
sophisticated leadership that would bring the global family together, the
then-leaders of the US and UK fabricated the grounds to behave like playground
bullies and drive us further apart. They have driven us to the edge of a
precipice where we now stand – with the spectre of Syria and Iran before us.
If leaders may lie, then who should tell the truth? Days before George W Bush
and Tony Blair ordered the invasion of Iraq, I called the White House and spoke
to Condoleezza Rice, who was then national security adviser, to urge that United
Nations weapons inspectors be given more time to confirm or deny the existence
of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Should they be able to confirm finding
such weapons, I argued, dismantling the threat would have the support of
virtually the entire world. Ms Rice demurred, saying there was too much risk and
the president would not postpone any longer.
On what grounds do we decide that Robert Mugabe should go the International
Criminal Court, Tony Blair should join the international speakers' circuit, bin
Laden should be assassinated, but Iraq should be invaded, not because it
possesses weapons of mass destruction, as Mr Bush's chief supporter, Mr Blair,
confessed last week, but in order to get rid of Saddam Hussein?
The cost of the decision to rid Iraq of its by-all-accounts despotic and
murderous leader has been staggering, beginning in Iraq itself. Last year, an
average of 6.5 people died there each day in suicide attacks and vehicle bombs,
according to the Iraqi Body Count project. More than 110,000 Iraqis have died in
the conflict since 2003 and millions have been displaced. By the end of last
year, nearly 4,500 American soldiers had been killed and more than 32,000
wounded.
On these grounds alone, in a consistent world, those responsible for this
suffering and loss of life should be treading the same path as some of their
African and Asian peers who have been made to answer for their actions in the
Hague. But even greater costs have been exacted beyond the killing fields, in
the hardened hearts and minds of members of the human family across the world.
Has the potential for terrorist attacks decreased? To what extent have we
succeeded in bringing the so-called Muslim and Judeo-Christian worlds closer
together, in sowing the seeds of understanding and hope?
Leadership and morality are indivisible. Good leaders are the custodians of
morality. The question is not whether Saddam Hussein was good or bad or how many
of his people he massacred. The point is that Mr Bush and Mr Blair should not
have allowed themselves to stoop to his immoral level. If it is acceptable for
leaders to take drastic action on the basis of a lie, without an acknowledgement
or an apology when they are found out, what should we teach our children?
My appeal to Mr Blair is not to talk about leadership, but to demonstrate it.
You are a member of our family, God's family. You are made for goodness, for
honesty, for morality, for love; so are our brothers and sisters in Iraq, in the
US, in Syria, in Israel and Iran. I did not deem it appropriate to have this
discussion at the Discovery Invest Leadership Summit in Johannesburg last week.
As the date drew nearer, I felt an increasingly profound sense of discomfort
about attending a summit on "leadership" with Mr Blair. I extend my humblest and
sincerest apologies to Discovery, the summit organisers, the speakers and
delegates for the lateness of my decision not to attend.