> Hans Blix:
The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a tragedy - for Iraq, for the US, for the UN, for truth and human dignity. I can only see one gain: the end of Saddam Hussein, a murderous tyrant. Had the war not finished him he would, in all likelihood, have become another Gadafy or Castro; an oppressor of his own people but no longer a threat to the world.Leave aside that, being a murderous tyrant, Saddam already was an oppressor of his own people and one fully capable of holding his own in the company of Gadafy and Castro. But Blix's only apparent concern in this piece is the 'no longer a threat' one; being an oppressor and murderous tyrant is something one just has to live with. This is evident, also, from what he goes on to say about the 'troubling legacies' of the war:
It is a setback in the world's efforts to develop legal restraints on the use of armed force between states. In 1945 the US helped to write into the UN charter a prohibition of the use of armed force against states. Exceptions were made only for self-defence against armed attacks and for armed force authorised by the security council.And then there's also what's known as 'the responsibility to protect', affirmed by none other than the UN. But better not to bring that up here.
> Seumas Milne:
Iraqis were promised freedom, democracy and prosperity. Instead...It's that now-no-now-yes business again: they didn't justify the war on the basis of democracy and/or humanity; and they also did do that, but it didn't work out. Whatever - they were wrong, which is the main thing.
> The Guardian leader today says that the Iraq war was 'almost certainly illegal in the opinion of international lawyers'. Well, the 'almost' works against the 'certainly', if you think about it. Further to this recent post of mine, the sources of international law are given, authoritatively, in Article 38 (1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. One of these sources, but only one and deemed 'subsidiary', is provided by 'the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists'. Another such subsidiary source is: 'judicial decisions'. So far, Tony Blair, John Howard, Jose Maria Aznar and Silvio Berlusconi are going about as free men. To the best of my knowledge, they are not in hiding. Other sources of international law according to the aforesaid statute: international conventions; international custom; and the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations. Principles such as those widely flouted by the regime of Saddam Hussain.
> The Guardian's opinion of itself is that it is a progressive newspaper. Yes. And also no. Not entirely.