A section of Members of Parliament in Britain belonging to different political parties have initiated a fresh effort to bring a formal statement of severe disapproval of Mr. Blair’s conduct & statements to the Nation over the Iraq War. The cross-party motion on this issue will be put down at Westminster, accusing the former Prime Minister of misleading the Parliament.
According to experts, the move, could see the ex-Labour leader stripped of membership of the Privy Council. The motion, which will be debated on Wednesday, calls on MPs to recognize the Chilcot inquiry which the motion bringing MPs believe
“provided substantial evidence of misleading information presented by the then Prime Minister and others on the development of the then government’s policy towards the invasion of Iraq as shown in the contrast between private correspondence to the US government and public statements to parliament and people”.
A section of experts is also seeing the move as a consequence of Mr. Blair’s opening vowing that Brexit could still be stopped.
Notably, the fresh motion comes amid mounting anger that the Chilcot Report, published in July after a seven-year inquiry, did not spark any government action or accountability for Mr Blair.
Why we’re reading about it here?
Actually it’s not about Brexit and what possibly may be the other motivations behind the censure motion against Blair.
We’re discussing it here because it may resonate with India as well.
A section of MPs (who are just 6 in number) are bringing the issue for debate in Parliament as they are aware that a section of people in the country do believe in the Chilcot inquiry findings. The magnitude of support is not important here, what is important is the awareness that some people believe in Chilcot inquiry findings. This section of people want the inquiry report discussed elaborately in the house of representatives, and Mr. Blair be made to answer some tough questions. Overall, whatever be the ulterior motives, the MPs are bringing the motion as they know a section of people want Blair face some tough questions.
What are these questions?
Had Mr. Blair misled the Nation over Iraq War?
Were there serious differences between what Mr Blair said publicly to the Chilcot Inquiry into the war and privately, including assurances to then US President George Bush? … If yes, then they want a parliamentary committee to probe alleged differences in Mr. Blair’s statements.
“Had Tony Blair lied to the public, Parliament and his own Cabinet in order to drag the Nation and its people into the Iraq War, as confirmed by the Chilcot report?”
“Had he said privately he would support Bush ‘whatever’ eight months before the war – and everyone else publicly was told war could be avoided?”
“Had he put the Nation into a war which resulted in the loss of thousands of lives, because he had promised Bush in “Private” before all the evidence?”
“Was the Chilcot report unceremoniously trashed earlier, despite the damning evidence against Mr. Blair? Was this the reason why no action has been taken against the former Prime Minister?”
“If such reports looking into issues of grave importance and crimes against humanity are silently side-lined, without making anyone accountable for that, then what does that say about the Institution (The Privy Council)? “
What is important here?
The questions that will be asked in Privy Council, must resonate with every democratic nation on the Globe.
The very debate over the Mr. Blair’s handling of Iraq issue tells war or any armed fight against Humanity can have more serious dimensions to it, than what politicians aka leaders say in public. A politician or a Government in power many a times doesn’t think twice before putting a Nation into a war or an armed conflict situation, if that very decision helps the politician, leader or the Government extend his/its time in power.
In simple, there may be real chances that during Iraq war, Mr. Blair might be facing serious domestic issues such as loss of jobs, unfulfilled promises and fast declining public credibility. Under such circumstances, putting the Nation into a war or a conflict situation seems the easiest way out to distract the public attention from more pressing domestic issues, as no citizen usually questions such decisions. It’s easier to put a garb of National interest on such decisions.
Although, any war and any surge in armed conflict with in and with another country must always be avoided, as massive resources go into it; even if that’s not the intent, still these must be debated openly in country’s Parliament. The answers must be sought for toughest of questions, and must be answered with least emotion. Actually, factual and well-researched answers explaining important decisions must be shared with Public as well. If an action is taken in true public interest, then why hide something from them.