Tuesday, 27 October 2009

Why Karadzic But Not Blair?

Funny thing politics isn't it as the story of two recent leaders of small European countries is proving. While one is sat in the Hague facing charges of being responsible for the death of 7500 muslims while undertaking his role of Supreme Commander of the Bosnian Serb armed force, the other one, responsible for killing over a million Muslims while in his role of head of the British Armed forces, is being touted as a possible President of the continent.
Not to dismiss Karadzic's crimes, he deserves to be sat where he is and i hope he rots in a prison cell somewhere, but at least he can apply the twisted logic to his argument that his country was involved in a war at the time. Blair can make no such claim.
His own Attorney General, the top legal advisor the UK has, stated that there was only three possible legal justifications for launching a war. Self defence, humanitarian intervention or with UN Security Council Authorisation.
The foreign secretary, Jack Straw, told Blair that "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran'.
When he tried, and failed, to get the Security Council Authorisation then any military action was outside of his own legal teams three justifications and therefore illegal.
So why is Tony Blair not sat beside Radovan Karadzic facing crimes against humanity or why is Karadzic's name not being put forward as a European Presidential nominee?
Blair certainly has a case to answer and he has said that he is prepared to be held to account by God for ‘those who have died or have been horribly maimed as a result of my decisions’.
The familes of those that have been killed or those who have been horribly maimed as a result of his decisions probably wish that they can get hold of him long before the big man upstairs does.
Despite all his crimes, Saddam Hussein was actually hanged after being found guilty of ordering the killing of 148 Muslims.
Karadzic rightly faces trial for overseeing the death of 7500 Muslims.
Tony Blair speaks falsehood after falsehood to launch an illegal war with kills over a million Muslims and pockets a multi-million pound book deal and launches himself for European President.
Yep, it's a funny thing politics but i'll be damned if i can see why Karadzic is on trial and Blair isn't.

8 comments:

Cheezy said...

I think the reason why Honest Tony isn't in the dock can be summed up by one neat little word that the Germans coined: Realpolitik.

Did you read Monbiot's column in yesterday's Guardian? He's firmly in the 'Tony for President' camp... but only because he thinks it would mean Tony would have to visit certain European countries in which he could legally be arrested and tried for war crimes!!!

Still won't happen though. Realpolitik, dammit.

life insurance broker Toronto said...

It's somehow unfair although in these particular cases, I assume, the difference is the intention. And the one of Karadzic was a genocide or an ethnic cleansing, if you will. And I suppose, that is, what matters here. And since the Nazi time, justice has been very careful and cautious concerning this. So I think this played the biggest role here. But the idea in the Guardian's column was very amusing! Lorne

Lucy said...

I did see the George Monbiot column yesterday Cheezy and until then it wasn't something that had even crossed my mind. I hope that his idea of building a fund for someone to make a citizens arrest on Blair takes off like the atheist bus idea.

I take your point broker, Karadzic set out to kill civilians during a war while Blair's civilain deaths were a by-product of war.
My point is that Blair actively instigated his war so he must bear as much responsibilty for the deaths as Karadzic for his so should therefore be in the dock also.

Annie said...

Or Cheney, for that matter.

Cheezy said...

Unfortunately Darth Cheney seems both untouchable & immortal. He'll outlive rats, cockroaches, and Coronation Street.

Lucy said...

Cheney was bad enough but i always had that little extra spite for Donald Rumsfeld. I think he just looked that bit smugger and pleased with himself.

Annie said...

Rumsfeld too. And Alberto Gonzalez. War criminals, all.

Lucy said...

There was also that White House mouthpiece who looked far too smug and spoke in such a flat drone that i just wanted to throw things at the screen. I'd have to google his name.