JUSTICE WOULD BE SERVED IF BLAIR WAS JAILED

By Mark Cooney

TONY BLAIR - very few sane people would associate his name with truth and justice.

The disingenuous nature of this man led to the violent deaths of more than 100,00 Iraqis, a normally hospitable and generous race who represented no threat to us.

For decades, their only instinct has been to survive.

But then they were caught in the crossfire of a monstrous dictator who ruled them with an iron fist, and two scheming Western governments who ostensibly sponsored their destruction - babies and all.

Today, the Iraqis find themselves once again trapped by their geography and history in a cauldron of violence and hate.

With political, religious and tribal uprisings sweeping the Middle East, they don't even have the comfort blanket of peace in order to pick up the pieces of their lives destroyed by death and destruction.

Old tribal vendettas have re-emerged and exploded into bloody civil war.

While Iraq’s majority Shia and minority Sunni tribes fight for control of the region, the al-Qaeda splinter group, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), has comprehensively rekindled the flames of sectarian bloodshed in recent days. Amidst this carnage, a fourth faction, the Kurds, are on the verge of realising a long-held dream by taking control of Iraq’s northern region.

Blair’s contribution to the chaos is once again to step into the spotlight and declare that the latest insurgency has nothing to do with him.

He has further twisted his blood-stained dagger into the hearts of Iraqis seeking justice by reiterating his spurious claims that he didn’t initiate the crisis over there. Far from it. In fact, in waging a devastating war on the country, he claims he did the right thing.

The Labour Party’s former golden boy has said that Iraq would still be a major problem even without the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003. He insists the US-UK invasion was not to blame for the current apocalypse.

In an essay on the Middle East crisis (Read it here), Blair insisted that we had to “liberate ourselves from the notion that we caused this”. Note the “we”.

And, in another unconvincing televised ramble, he added: ”Even if you'd left Saddam in place in 2003, then when 2011 happened - and  had the Arab revolutions going through Tunisia and Libya and Yemen and Bahrain and Egypt and Syria - you would have still had a major problem in Iraq.”

That claim has already been disputed by some diplomatic heavyweights, including Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain's ambassador to the US between 1997 and 2003. In a newspaper interview, he said the campaign strategy against Saddam Hussein was "perhaps the most significant reason" for the current sectarian violence.

"We are reaping what we sowed in 2003,” he claimed. “This is not hindsight. We knew in the run-up to war that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein would seriously destabilise Iraq after 24 years of his iron rule.”

And Lakhdar Brahimi, former UN representative in Iraq, also disputes Tony Blair's analysis of the conflict, saying ISIS did not exist before the 2003 invasion. Rather, it grew out of the bloodshed and the regional instability created by Bush and Blair.

He has already said several times in the past that the West's indifference to Syria would put it at risk of being a failed state and that it would spill over into neighbouring areas.

When asked by Channel 4 News if he agreed with Tony Blair that the West should once again send in the troops, Mr Brahimi said: "Military intervention? Not again, please. I doubt if military intervention from the outside again is the right thing because you know how these things start, and how they finish."

Asked if Blair was correct in his assertion that the current slaughter would exist even without the 2003 invasion, he replied: "I'm afraid he's wrong. We would probably still be in an extremely bad place, but nothing like we have now. You wouldn't have al-Qaeda going around. I mean, al-Qaeda taking over three cities in two days...that's unthinkable!

"A lot of people in the region who were interested in listening to Mr Blair don't listen anymore."

Something of a handicap for a Middle East peace envoy.

What is also for sure is that without Blair and George Bush’s trigger-happy attitude, there would be a lot more Iraqi citizens alive today to testify against these claims of innocence.

There would also not have been thousands of British and American parents saluting their sons and daughters returning in coffins, having served their purpose in the eyes of the politicians.

There have also been strong accusations that the Ministry of Defence under equipped our soldiers, which is why their American counterparts nickname the British Army “The Borrowers”. They weren’t given the right tools to execute a very dirty job. The fact that they were not properly protected in a war zone was morally reprehensible.

So, does this one rate as a war crime? That’s one for international law to decide if it ever bothers to catch up with this morally bankrupt globetrotter.

There would almost certainly not be a whole generation of orphaned children growing up with appalling injuries and a lifetime of horrific mental traumas. And who can blame them for growing up with a serious grudge?

In his typical phoney manner, Blair pleaded in the run-up to the invasion that he just wanted to help the Iraqi people and that the troops were going to “win hearts and minds”. Instead, they put bullets in them.

Saddam was hanged for his three-decade murder spree (and perhaps other more convenient reasons). But, following the invasion and slaughter, Blair was bestowed with the distinguished mantle of Middle East peace envoy.

On that kind of recruiting logic, could Kim Jong-un be next in line for UN Secretary General? Is it any more absurd or distasteful?

If it the whole scenario were not appalling enough, Blair has become exceedingly rich off the back of the invasion.

Rather than demonstrate some humility and accountability, perhaps even a smattering of repentance, he continues to enjoy the glare of the public eye, travelling the globe first class to give handsomely-paid speeches to all who will listen to his self-serving version of world events. He is now a multi-millionaire.

Perhaps repeating the same old nonsense to audiences is cathartic for him, and helps relieve him of some of the guilt burden that most of us would carry heavily. But he gives the impression that he possesses neither guilt nor shame.

He ignored the will of the British public, many of whom still fully believe the attack on Iraq to be illegal. Instead, he cartwheeled out of international obscurity and onto the world stage to fully support Bush’s plan to invade. Brothers-in-arms, or, at least, brothers-in-bomber jackets.

He sent UK forces to join the US-led invasion in violation of international law.

America’s favourite poodle sold it on a pretext of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. It didn’t. But now he says they might have got them at some point in the future.

As for Blair’s “hearts and minds” pledge? Well, it was left to charities to count the bodies (and the body parts) in the streets and market squares.

Perversely, Blair expected us all to triumphantly celebrate the glory of Britain in “liberating” a country and installing “democracy”. He was wrong.

Moreover, this narcissistic egomaniac hoped we would all laud him as a great leader and world statesman who had helped make the world a safer place. Another massive miscalculation.

This week Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond, who wants to end England’s 300-year rule over Scotland in September’s Independence Referendum, said: “Tony Blair has now claimed that the invasion of Iraq was about whether or not Saddam Hussein remained in power. Eleven years ago he said it was about weapons of mass destruction.

“He is guilty of breathtaking amnesia on his reasons for invading Iraq and clearly hopes everybody else will conveniently forget his 2003 decision, the consequences of which have played out over 11 years, with hundreds of thousands dead.

“We have reached a position where Western powers’ ability to intervene in any conflict – even in a just manner – has been totally undermined by the legacy of the Iraq disaster, with a damaging loss."

Blair’s denials and delusions suggest he believes only God should judge him.

He has blood on his hands alright, but he’s cleansed himself of all responsibility.

The next time we see Tony Blair, let's hope it's in front of a judge, or, better still, behind bars.

EXPLOITATION AT THE RYDER CUP: CALLING MR ALEX SALMOND

BY BRYAN COONEY

IT’S possibly injudicious to write about your relatives on a public platform such as this, but lack of judgment seems to form a stout branch of the family tree, so here goes.

Today, I ’m concentrating on what I consider to be exploitation, and also the autumnal madness of my Chicago-based brother- in-law.

Alejandro Gonzales, aka Alex, is a volunteer (one of around 1,800, or so) for this year’s Ryder Cup in September. I’m still wondering whether he has forfeited his wits.

But, before highlighting the plight of the less than privileged key workers at Gleneagles, it’s necessary to paint a picture of a rather incredible and impressive man who, it must be stated, has not uttered one single word of complaint about what’s ahead of him.

At 82 years of age, Alex is a former oil company executive who declares himself quite captivated by the game of golf. As a player, he’s Mr Average in that he’ll never be a reincarnation of Lee Trevino but, there again, he will assuredly never witness the indignity of the number 24 attached to his handicap.

He takes his allegiance to the sport further by dedicating some of his leisure time to the professional game: he’s been a steward at two Ryder Cups, a US Open and quite a few other big tournaments. It allows him, he says, to be close to his heroes. You cannot curb enthusiasm like that, it seems.

But now it’s time to study the exploitative nature of this year’s biennial bun fight between Europe and America. We’ll vote for fairness and start with the one perk afforded volunteers. Most of them work a four-hour shift - and then are permitted to watch the proceedings in their downtime. Now, ain’t that cute?

But prepare yourselves for the negatives. Firstly, workers are expected to pay in the order of £65-70 for their uniforms, which comprise a windcheater, polo shirt and cap.

Surely they are remunerated in other ways? A daily wage, for instance? Er, not so as you would notice. Other than a £15 daily voucher for food and drink, they won’t receive a hillock of beans, far less a hill, for their efforts. Neither, it‘s claimed, are they given an allowance for travelling to Perthshire.

While we’re at it, let’s count the ancillary costs of being a volunteer. Whilst the panjandrums of the competition are firmly ensconced in the luxury of Gleneagles - no doubt contemplating the millions of pounds of profit - the worker ants must scurry around finding their own accommodation. Again, they must pay for this themselves.

To ease this potential burden, Alex originally considered staying at a hotel in nearby Crieff, but was deterred by the prohibitive cost of £200 a night. So, he will stay in Glasgow at approximately £60 a night and make a daily 100-mile round trip in order to perform his duties in the merchandising marquee. Remember, we’re talking about an octogenarian here.

Overall, the cost to his pocket will be equally disturbing: at a conservative estimate, his trip from America will cost him two or three thousand pounds, possibly more.

Now, let me underline again that my brother-in-law’s lips are sealed against recrimination. When I say that the organisers are taking an almighty liberty with willing hands, Alex prefers diplomacy.

“It doesn’t bother me, fortunately,” he responds. “I’m retired and in a (financial) position to do it. Hey, I’m still blessed with the memory of Medinah. Now that came as a complete surprise.

“I’ll always remember that the Europeans were so happy - meanwhile I think the Americans took it in their stride: I didn’t see any confrontations. I don’t think we’ll ever see another ending like that one.”

Alex is not getting off that easily, though. I press him again for a reaction and am rewarded with a token victory. “Oh, I suppose I’d like to see some additional benes (benefits) for the volunteers. We do work hard and try to make it as smooth as possible.”

So what benes would be acceptable? “Oh, okay, the ball swings towards the Ryder Cup group as far as being able to take advantage of myself and others. But, hey, by the same token, if I weren’t there, it would be very easy to fill my shoes. I understand 18,000 people volunteered. That gives you an idea how many people out there want to do this.”

That may be so, but who expects a man to work for nothing in this age of corporate activity and insatiable greed? It is exploitation by any name you can conjure.

There are no firm figures regarding what the European Tour as organisers expect to make from this year’s competition, but I do know that, back in 2006, the K Club in Dublin is said to have cleared £10million after the taxman had deliberated.

They say Gleneagles will generate £100million, so you can take that as around £20 million of clear profit.

Wouldn’t it be nice if each and every one of those volunteers from all over the world went back home with a small but well-earned bonus. Plus a pleasant memory of their time in Scotland?

I’m no actuary, but my instant calculations say it would take just over one and a quarter million pounds to do that. Small potatoes, indeed, considering the crop.

Now, I understand the Scottish Government was highly instrumental in bringing the competition back to Scotland. Perhaps another Alex - the one called Salmond, can supply a rescue package.

Mr Salmond positively thrives on being seen and heard at big events; I also imagine he believes in fairness. What a chance for him to flourish his true mettle.

He could step in and demand justice for the underprivileged of Ryder Cup golf. Surely, it's not beyond him in this year of destiny?

HOLYROOD OR HOLLYWOOD? - By Jim Black

BY JIM BLACK

I can’t make up my mind which was worse: the sight of Scotland’s First Minister – minus shades and pink beret, it should be stressed – shamelessly high-jacking the Ryder Cup for political ends or the cast of dozens of public relations gurus turning the grand pile that is Gleneagles Hotel into a scene resembling Sauchiehall Street on the morning of the Boxing Day sales.

Not even the 101 Dalmatians could have caused quite such a stir as the rich and famous weaved their way through the madding crowd in an effort to check in before, I suspect, giving careful consideration to checking straight back out.

Most of us are by now all too familiar with what Alex Salmond is about. Less clear, in my mind at least, is the role of the P.R. – if indeed the majority actually serve a useful purpose.

I shudder at the thought of what the cost to the tax-payer is supporting the Holyrood hordes.

On this occasion marking  a “Year To Go” before the over-hyped, over-inflated, over-the-top Ryder Cup returns to Scotland for the first time for more than 40 years, an independent P.R. agency had also been employed to oversee the operation in addition to the usual suspects.

If their purpose was to keep the assembled media informed and attend to the basic requirements of the scribes – a workplace and a power point – they largely failed in their task.

They same cannot be said of the European Tour’s media department. That handful of efficient souls were, as always, on the ball.

Just as well. Otherwise Tom Watson, the bemused and bewildered American Ryder Cup captain might well have turned on his heels and headed straight back out of town on the specially commissioned Choo-Choo that delivered him to a waking hell of press briefings, stage shows and glad-handing.

The last time the links legend captained a Ryder Cup team – in 1993 – it was just a game.

Regrettably, in the years since the biennial match has grown into an ugly monster of commercialism and a sporting event of exaggerated importance.

Sure, as sporting occasions go, the Ryder Cup is up there with the best of them. But do we really need to turn a three-day event every 24 months into a circus?

With apologies to a valued colleague for stealing his line, next year’s match is being played on the fourth best course in Auchterarder!

But money is always the game changer and no matter how hard the First Minister endeavours to highjack the Ryder Cup, he will ultimately play second fiddle to commercialism and the tens of millions of pounds the event generates.

But at least we are assured of one thing, Europe and the United States have chosen wisely in appointing Paul McGinley and Tom Watson to captain the respective teams.

Both are articulate, knowledgeable and gracious with a rare awareness of the need to have the world’s media onboard.

They will also ensure that the event is conducted in a true sporting manner.

Personally, I am already relishing the sight of 24 golfing Gladiators slugging it out in the mist and rain of late September in the Glen of Eagles.

No matter that the decision-makers could hardly have chosen a more inhospitable venue, given that even on a summer’s day it can feel like winter in that part of rural Perthshire, for one week at least, Hollywood is coming to Gleneagles in even larger numbers than the usual A-list of celebrities who regularly “slum it” in five star luxury.

Regrettably, Holyrood is coming as well.

But, with luck, we won’t notice the unimportant important people.