Did Tony Blair influence trial of UK soldiers accused of killing Iraqi man?

Recently released UK government files appear to indicate that former prime minister Tony Blair pressured officials to stop British soldiers from defaming Iraqi civilians during the war from appearing in court documents.

Documents released on Tuesday to the National Archives in Kew, west London, reveal that in 2005, Blair said it was “essential” that courts like the International Criminal Court (ICC) did not investigate UK actions in Iraq.

What do newly released documents show?

More than 600 documents were made available to the Kew National Archives on December 30 by the UK Cabinet Office. After 20 years, the government is required to give records of historical value to the National Archives in accordance with the UK’s Public Records Act of 1958.

According to the National Archives website, most of the newly added documents relate to the policies implemented by the Blair government between 2004 and 2005, from domestic decisions to ensure the UK would not break up by delegating power to Wales and Scotland, to foreign policy decisions on Iraq and other countries.

According to UK media reports, Blair stated in his declassified files that it was “essential” that civil courts did not prosecute British soldiers who had been abducted by Iraqi civilians while they were incarcerated during the war in Iraq.

In a written memo, he wrote that “we are actually in a position where the ICC is not involved and neither is CPS (UK Crown Prosecution Service).” “That is essential”.&nbsp,

Blair’s remarks came after Phillipson’s letter to him in July 2005 about a meeting between the nation’s attorney general and two former British military commanders, according to reports in the UK. He claimed that they had spoken about the case of British soldiers who were accused of murdering Baha Mousa, an Iraqi hotel receptionist.

Mousa, who was killed in September 2003 in Basra, Iraq, had been in the custody of UK troops.

According to information found in newly declassified documents, Phillipson stated to Blair that the case would result in a court martial. However, he added that “the Attorney General could direct accordingly if he felt the case needed to be handled in a civil court.”

“It must not”, Blair stressed.

Blair, an associate lecturer at the University of York’s Department of Politics, stated that he did not want to see the military of justice use international law and that it would be less harsh under the law. He also didn’t want the military to be able to defend itself in war zones.

According to Featherstone, Blair and his legacy have become synonymous with the Iraq war in British politics.

“He]Blair] was convinced that he could persuade the British public of the rightness of the Iraq war, both morally and strategically. However, this got harder and harder to accomplish. He expressed his concern about potential prosecution for UK soldiers because it would only amplify the country’s and international opposition to the war.

Blair Iraq — Protesters against the war in Iraq gather outside the Houses of Parliament in London, UK, in January 2003]File: Michael Stephens/PA Images via Getty Images]

What part did the UK play in the conflict in Iraq?

The Blair government used now-confused assertions that Iraq had WMDs to support the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 to justify its support for the UK’s support for the invasion. The UK said its aim was to eliminate these and to liberate the people of Iraq from the rule of then-President Saddam Hussein.

The US sent more than 100 000 soldiers to the United States in 2003, while the UK sent about 46 000, Australia sent 2, 000, and Poland sent about 194 special forces personnel.

However, there was a lot of discussion in the UK about whether or not war could be waged against Iraq based on what was believed to be flawed information regarding WMDs.

Featherstone, who wrote the book The Road to War in Iraq: Comparative Foreign Policy Analysis, said Blair was “frustrated” by worries from officials about the legality of going to war in Iraq.

Senior military and civil servants expressed concern for the legality of the requests for reassurance from the attorney general in the interviews I conducted for my book research. Blair expressed his frustration with the legality of the invasion, but he resisted it.

“Blair saw the UK role as showing the international support for the US war on terror, and saw his personal role as building the case for the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam”, he added.

Blair claimed that joining the invasion had been “the hardest decision” he had ever made while serving as prime minister in a press conference in July 2016 after the release of the Chilcot report, a British public inquiry into the country’s involvement in the war in Iraq.

The Chilcot report stated that Saddam Hussein’s use of weapons of mass destruction was “not justified,” and that there had not been an “imminent threat” from him.

Blair acknowledged that the intelligence was wrong but said invading Iraq was nevertheless the “right decision” at the time, as Saddam Hussein was a “threat to world peace”.

In response to the findings of the Chilcot report, Blair told reporters, “The world was and is, in my opinion, a better place without Saddam Hussein.”

He offered his condolences to the families who lost loved ones in Iraq, saying that “no words can adequately express the grief and sorrow of those who lost their loved ones in Iraq, whether it be our armed forces, the armed forces of other countries, or Iraqis,” and that “no words can adequately express the sorrow and grief of those who lost those who lost them.”

Did UK soldiers abuse Iraqis during the war?

There is a lot of evidence that they did, according to the evidence.

During the war, cases of UK soldiers abusing hundreds of Iraqi civilians in their custody have been documented by rights organizations like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR).

“Their testimonies]Iraqi civilians] show a pattern of violent beatings, sleep and sensory deprivation, ‘ stress positions’, deprivation of food and water, sexual and religious humiliation, and, in some cases, sexual abuse”, the ECCHR said in a report in 2020.

Three UK soldiers were detained in 2005 after being held for trial by a court martial at a British military base in northern Germany. Photos were taken of the abuses they committed. The soldiers denied the accusations, but they were found guilty of abusing Iraqi civilians during the war and were fired from the army.

In 2007, Corporal Donald Payne became the first British soldier to be sentenced. After being court-martialed by the army for treating Iraqi prisoners badly during the war, he was put in prison for a year.

Baha Mousa, an Iraqi civilian and hotel receptionist, passed away in 2003 after enduring 93 beatings, according to Payne.

Has the ICC intervened?

The ICC opened an investigation into the UK’s involvement in the Iraq war in 2005, but it ended when ICC judges decided that the case was outside the jurisdiction of the highest court in February 2006.

Despite the fact that rights groups had provided evidence of UK soldiers’ systematic abuse of Iraqi civilians, including murder and torture, the inquiry was reopened by ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda in May 2014.

But in December 2020, Bensouda abandoned the inquiry, saying that while there was “reasonable basis to believe” that “members of the British armed forces committed the war crimes of wilful killing, torture, inhuman/cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity, and rape and/or other forms of sexual violence”, the UK government had not tried to block investigations into the case.

Bensouda’s office stated in a 184-page report that an investigation by my office would have been necessary in December 2020. Despite the concerns raised in its report, the prosecutor’s office was unable to refute the claims that the UK’s investigative and prosecutorial bodies had conducted shielding [i.e., blocking inquiries] based on a thorough examination of the information presented.

” Having exhausted reasonable lines of enquiry arising from the information available, I therefore determined that the only professionally appropriate decision at this stage is to close the preliminary examination and to inform the senders of communications. She continued, “My decision is without prejudice to a reconsideration based on fresh evidence or facts.”

Rights groups have condemned the prosecutor’s action.

” The UK government has repeatedly shown precious little interest in investigating and prosecuting atrocities committed abroad by British troops, “Clive Baldwin, senior legal adviser at Human Rights Watch said in a statement in December 2020.

The prosecutor’s decision to close her investigation in the UK will undoubtedly stoke fears of a “ugly double standard” in justice, with one approach for powerful states and the other for less powerful, he added.

What was Blair’s opinion of the ICC?

Tuesday’s declassified documents have revealed that Blair was confident the ICC would not prosecute UK soldiers.

According to the documents, Blair had stated to the Australian prime minister at the time, John Howard, that countries like the UK had no reason to fear the ICC, one month before the ICC statute became effective, and about a year before the UK enlisted in the Iraq war.

The ICC’s main treaty, the Rome Statute, establishes that the ICC has the authority to prosecute individuals for serious crimes, including crimes against humanity and genocide.

Blair wrote to Howard after officials in Australia expressed fears about the ICC’s jurisdiction, as Australia had also joined the US and UK in the Iraq war.

However, Blair reassured Howard in his letter that the Supreme Court “only acts in the case of failed states” or “where judicial processes have failed.”

We think the ICC is harmless in responsible democratic states where the rule of law is upheld, he wrote.

According to UK media reports, Blair’s administration had agreed to sign the ICC’s Rome Statute in 1998 after the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office negotiated with the court that” the court]ICC] may only act when national legal systems are unable or unwilling to do so”.

It’s true, but Featherstone said, “The ICC has historically been accused of being biased in terms of where it has focused its attention and effort in investigating and prosecuting cases.”