TheMillerCircle.org

Last month, a Dutch inquiry panel concluded that the Iraq war, supported by the Dutch government, based on intelligence from the U.S. and Britain, “had no sound mandate in international law.” The panel disclosed that, in a shocking violation of normal protocol, British Prime Minister Tony Blair had sent a personal letter to Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende for his eyes only and that the letter was then returned to Britain after Balkenende read it. The letter was unavailable to the panel who asked for a copy, but the British government refused to comply. Normally such letters would be delivered through regular diplomatic channels, become part of the national archives and would have been available to the panel. The letter might have shed some additional light on Tony Blair’s arguments, but it is unlikely that its contents would have changed the ruling of the panel.
The Dutch ruling is likely to have significant influence on how the war in Iraq is perceived in Europe. [From the article] Philippe Sands QC, a professor of international law, who gave evidence to the Dutch inquiry, said:

“There has been no other independent assessment on the legality of the war in Iraq and the findings of this inquiry are unambiguous. It concludes that the case argued by the Dutch and British governments, including the then attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, could not reasonably be argued.”

[further] “This is the authoritative view of seven commissioners including the former president of the Dutch supreme court, a former judge of the European court of justice, and two legal academics.”

The report of the Dutch panel has raised controversy in the Netherlands, but so far no parliamentary inquiry has been stimulated by the panel’s conclusion. In Britain however, the Chilcot inquiry has been looking into the justification for the war, but this committee lacks the legal sophistication of the Dutch panel and is seemingly in a poor position to offer a contrary opinion that will provide any serious counterbalance. In a way, this ruling puts Tony Blair in a more uncomfortable spot than he was with the Chilcot-only inquiry.
While it is unclear how influential this panel’s ruling will be, it is unlikely that it will be challenged by legal scholarship, as the Dutch panel consisted of expertise focused on that very specific issue–the legality of the war on the basis of national and international law, from the standpoint of the Netherlands and the entire European community. If I were Dick Cheney, George Bush, Condoleezza Rice or Donald Rumsfeld, planning on a vacation any time soon, I would probably avoid Europe. I suspect that this ruling, will in time, pervade into the European community and further erode the image of Tony Blair, who already walks around as damaged goods. His main problem was serving as a willing sycophant to GWB.

For a country that felt morally equipped to pass  judgment on Nazi Germany after WW II,  the U.S. now finds itself in a moral quagmire created by its own hubris, coupled with a complete disregard for our own Constitution and the obligations we have to our  international agreements and treaties. But when will a panel of legal experts in America rule on the legality of our invasion of Iraq, so that Americans can see for themselves how GWB shredded our own Constitution and the international agreements we helped to establish, the purpose of which was to prevent illegal wars from ever taking place? GW considered the Constitution to be an unbinding document throughout his entire presidency.  Unfortunately, all of the inquiries carried out in the U.S.  are done through a political process, not one founded within our legal, academic system alone;  until we establish such a vehicle, achieved at the peril of politicians who like war, we will never have a non-political evaluation of our own behavior. If you think that the Supreme Court offers that kind of objectivity, just ponder their recent 5-4 ruling which allows corporate wealth to dominate our political system, even more than it does today. That ruling has placed our democracy on the beltway towards the paper shredder.  For the Iraq war, however,  we shouldn’t really need a “truly objective” panel of legal experts to tell us that our invasion of Iraq was illegal and that the perpetrators of this war should receive stiff penalties, if for no other reason than to serve as a warning to all future militaristic politicians: if you love war, you could wind up in jail if you take us there! Taking a country to war should be a grave, agonizing decision, one that has, since WW II,  been far to easy for our presidents. But, for George W Bush, the decision to invade Iraq was an act of trivializing our own rules. That is one reason why the U.S. is so down, why we have a sense of national confusion. We are not following our own rules and because of that there is a gnawing rumbling in our gut that doesn’t respond to antacids, but responds better to the trivialization of our American culture. We avoid these kinds of conflicts by watching reality TV, wondering where Paris Hilton is tonight and staying away from history lessons and literature.

RFM