‘Cameron-Blair ties damaging to UK’

May 22nd, 2014

FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda

Thursday is election day, and the attention of the political nation is focused on Nigel Farage, the remarkable rise of UKIP, and the consequences for the three main parties. I dealt at length with all these issues last week, since when a series of devastating developments has compelled my attention. As with so much else in British public life, these have their origins in Tony Blair’s premiership and lethal issues remaining unresolved from the Iraq War.

It has been obvious for a while that some kind of private understanding exists between David Cameron and Tony Blair. In numerous ways, our current Prime Minister has modelled his premiership on the former’s. The two men talk regularly, and their conversations range far wider than official conversations about Tony Blair’s role as Middle East envoy. I understand Mr Blair gave advice to David Cameron ahead of the British intervention in Libya that dislodged Colonel Gaddafi. He has visited David Cameron at Chequers.

There is also a strategic dimension to the friendship. Baroness Thatcher sabotaged John Major’s 1997 election campaign by letting it be known that it was safe to vote for Tony Blair. Some Tory strategists believe that the same trick could be played with Mr Blair (no great admirer of Ed Miliband) ahead of 2015.

So Mr Cameron needs Tony Blair or, to be strictly accurate, thinks that he does. Equally, Tony Blair needs David Cameron. Mr Blair has now been envoy for the Quartet on the Middle East, the organisation that is trying to mediate [the so-called] Israeli-Palestinian peace, for nearly seven years, during which time his achievements have been minimal. There is pressure for his removal and British support is crucial. (Mr Blair’s decision to prop up President Putin over Ukraine, which surprised many observers, has also shored up his position because Russia is one of the four members of the Quartet.)

More important still is the former prime minister’s business empire. The British Government could pull the plug on Tony Blair Associates overnight with just an official hint in the right places that it disapproved of the lucrative but controversial advisory network, but has chosen not to do so.

The most urgent issue of all concerns Tony Blair’s reputation. Only one prime minister since the Second World War has left office in disgrace. That was Sir Anthony Eden after the failed seizure of the Suez Canal in 1956. The damage was inflicted not by the military fiasco (though that was bad enough) but by the later revelation that Sir Anthony had lied to parliament about the secret dealing with France and Israel ahead of the invasion.

The parallels between Suez and Iraq are fascinating. Mr Blair has consistently denied that he made any commitments to President Bush, insisting that he kept an open mind about the invasion right up to the last minute. There have, however, been persistent claims that Mr Blair effectively gave the US president a “blank cheque”, saying that Britain would go to war come what may. The correspondence and private conversations between Bush and Blair still exist, so it should be relatively simple for the Chilcot inquiry to establish the truth. Mr Blair, however, is reportedly seeking to block the publication of these conversations.

The ultimate decision lies, however, with the Prime Minister, who therefore bears his share of the responsibility for the four-year delay in the publication of the Chilcot report. Last weekend Mr Cameron was finally drawn into the open, stating that he “hoped” the Chilcot report would be out by the end of this year, words that inspire little confidence.

We now come to an even more serious subject: British involvement in torture of terrorist suspects and the abuse of prisoners. Something changed after Tony Blair became prime minister. In 1990, just ahead of the first [Persian] Gulf War, Margaret Thatcher sent a message through Whitehall banning the use of information obtained through torture. Two decades later Tony Blair’s government allegedly relaxed the ban, with wretched consequences. The evidence of British involvement during Iraq was sufficiently horrifying for David Cameron (and Nick Clegg) to demand a full investigation.

To his credit, the Prime Minister did indeed order an inquiry under Sir Peter Gibson. Sir Peter’s investigations came to a close, however, after a discovery in Tripoli showed that British intelligence had helped Colonel Gaddafi’s regime abduct two Libyan dissidents (along with their families), who were brought home and tortured.

This find led to a Scotland Yard investigation that, two years later, has made no visible progress. According to the latest reports, Britain is now making strenuous efforts to ensure that all mention of this country’s involvement is expunged from the 6,300-page Senate Intelligence committee report into torture carried out by CIA interrogators. Most troubling of all are the allegations that British soldiers breached the Geneva Conventions, which outlaw inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners, on a large scale in the wake of Tony Blair’s 2003 invasion. Hundreds of Iraqis have come forward with claims that they were illegally detained or tortured by British forces.

The MoD’s response to these allegations has been reminiscent of News International’s response to the early allegations of phone hacking. Celebrities and other victims were bought off with expensive out-of-court settlements while the Murdoch papers carried on insisting they had done nothing wrong. By 2011 the United Kingdom had settled more than 200 claims of mistreatment at a cost of some £14 million, with many more waiting in the wings.

There has been one conviction, a corporal who received a one-year jail sentence after pleading guilty to the inhumane treatment of detainees. Meanwhile, the Justice and Security Act, which effectively prevents victims bringing claims of torture against the British government, has become law. Ministers furiously insist that the claims are vexatious – and with some justice. In March a public inquiry into allegations that soldiers had murdered Iraqi prisoners and mutilated their bodies collapsed after the most important claims were shown to be false. Nevertheless, the contrast with 1991, when Iraqi prisoners were as a whole treated with exemplary care and compassion, is striking. It is obvious to any reasonable observer that something went very wrong at the time of the Iraq invasion.

When David Cameron and Nick Clegg formed the Coalition in 2010, they had an opportunity to address the legacy of the 2003 Iraq invasion. They have not done so, and now they have paid the price. Last week the International Criminal Court sensationally announced a “preliminary examination” of allegations that British troops have committed war crimes.

The ICC only ever investigates allegations of crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide. It only intervenes when a nation is unable or unwilling to investigate wrong-doing. This is the first time that any Western nation has been the object of this kind of ICC attention. Britain now finds itself in the company of such places as Afghanistan, the Central African Republic and Colombia.

David Cameron’s hands are clean with regard to Iraq. In many ways his desire to protect the reputation of British soldiers, intelligence officers and politicians is honourable. But in the long term his refusal to countenance serious investigation into alleged British crimes and atrocities will damage his own reputation. That, of course, is a matter for the Prime Minister alone. Very much more important, his inertia is starting to inflict serious damage on the reputation of Britain.

SSM/HJL

Source Article from http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/05/22/363689/cameronblair-ties-damaging-to-uk/