[Al-Jazeera] ICC, Tony Blair, and Western Impunity

[Op-ed]

Yesterday, in the Hague, the ICC administered the case against Tony Blair, for his role in facilitating various human rights violations against Iraqi civilians during the occupation of Iraq by the U.S. & UK. 

The court is ruling, now in 2020, because of the various legal and jurisdictional barriers to the ICC for trying Blair in the past. The prosecution brings three charges against Blair, including (1.) committing war crimes and crimes against humanity under international law and the Geneva Conventions; (2.) inhuman treatment of Iraqi civilians; and (3.) the crime of torture under the UN convention against torture; whilst arguing primarily under Article 28 (2-b) under the Rome Statute.

The prosecutor's  arguments rest on the notion that Blair systematically approved such behavior in the ranks of the UK military. They highlight the severity of such acts and how holding Blair accountable is vitally important to international legal retribution. The defense counters such claims by de-centering the focus from Blair and shifts towards a vague focus on British soldiers in Iraq. They argue them to be isolated incidents which oppose the values and laws of the British Prime Minister himself, disconnecting torture from any systemic pattern. 

This argument brought forth by the defense is arguably a dangerous one. U.S. officials embedded a similar narrative regarding the torture of Iraqis in detention centers by American troops. However, internal legal documents confirm a top-down approval of the sexual-torture tactics utilized by British forces as well. Essentially, the defense seeks an outcome absolving Tony Blair of any genuine accountability for the outcome of the decisions he took as commander in chief. The argument rests on the distinction of de facto and de jure responsibility; de facto being direct military control in Iraq, de jure being commander in name and title (eg: leader of a nation). They claim that as Blair was not present in Iraq, he is not criminally liable. Additionally, that true responsibility must be linked to a kind of intention to act against Iraqis in this manner and an ability to foresee and desire the outcome of torture, which they claim Blair is not guilty of. Furthermore, they combine the ‘logistical nightmare’ of the Iraq war with these factors to argue that Blair could not have foreseen such outcomes and is not responsible. 

The legal notion of responsibility is heavily diluted in the defense's case, in a way which perpetuates Western-systemic impunity for their attack against human rights. The historical pattern of Western impunity for their infringement of human rights and dignity is beyond the scope of this article, however Blair is reflective of such offenses. Blair’s absence in Iraq is irrelevant to the defense’s case. Blair chose to rush his country into a war against the will of the United Nations, in a hastily and understaffed manner. The horrendous outcomes of those decisions are therefore his responsibility. The torture was a widespread systemically-approved issue across UK and U.S. run detention centers, making the defense’s ‘isolated incident’ argument incredibly weak. There is no doubt that torture was tactically utilized to subject Iraqi detainees to Western powers, in a way which dehumanizes and strips individuals of personal agency and control. The defense was reactionary to the implication that a ‘moral power’ such as the UK would perpetrate such crimes. This hollow claim distances the UK from accountability, while denying Iraqi victims legitimacy in their experiences of torture, dictating who is seen as rightful and justified individuals. 

The defense and prosecution are arguing from two entirely different scopes and clash in a way which will lead to no proper retribution to the individual Iraqi victims. 

In this trial we see it being administered in a Western country, with Western individuals, to judges who are wholly disconnected from the reality of Iraqi suffering. Thus, the legal case becomes so distant from the reality of Iraqi victims and civilians that no outcome will bring any positive change to the affected. 

This brings into question the role the ICC plays in perpetuating impunity and who gets to be heard. Such, was represented when the defense claimed that international-criminal legal standards would be delegitimized were the judges to side with the prosecution. This argument runs into moral problems regarding the international legal system. How can you allow made up legal barriers to get in the way of making accountable those who facilitated and approved the attack on Iraqis human rights? This is not the degradation of the legal-system, it reveals the moral erosion of humanity as the disregard for human rights becomes baked into our legal realities. This is far worse than any implication that the overpassing of a legal standard would mean the degradation of international law as we know it. Perhaps the international legal system must be re-examined to accommodate structural power imbalances in its construction and rulings. 

While the ICC presents itself as a mechanism of justice, the structural and political barriers surrounding the trial reveal how easily powerful Western actors can evade genuine responsibility for human rights abuses. If international law is to retain moral legitimacy, it must confront these imbalances directly and prioritize justice for victims over the protection of institutional and political power. 

As day three of these proceedings unravel and expert witnesses testify before the ICC, the outcome will reveal the status quo they aim to uphold.