Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- jail_for_the_war_criminals [2021/04/13 11:37] – iris
+++ jail_for_the_war_criminals [2021/04/14 12:00] (current) – [Related] bab
@@ Line 80: / Line 80: @@
 ==== Related ====
   * [[https://www.therenditionproject.org.uk/|The Rendition Project]]
+  * [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6VAw3YUjIMD|The Killing$ Of Tony Blair]] by George Galloway, 2016
 ===== Who is behind Tony Blair ? =====
@@ Line 249: / Line 250: @@
 The invasion of Iraq has long been criticised for being a war for oil and for years many commentators sought information on whether Britain would encourage its oil companies to profit from this widely-condemned war.
-A US cable of April 2009, six years after the invasion of Iraq, shows Peter Mandelson, a chief architect of Tony Blair’s election wins and then Trade Secretary in the Brown government, pushing British oil and other corporate interests in Iraq. Mandelson attended the Basrah Investment Conference which brought together 23 UK-based companies such as Shell, BP, Rolls Royce and HSBC. The region was significant to the UK since this was the principal area occupied by UK military forces after the 2003 invasion.
+A US cable from April 2009 - six years after the invasion of Iraq - shows Peter Mandelson, a chief architect of Tony Blair’s election victory and then Trade Secretary in the Brown government, pushing British oil and other corporate interests in Iraq. Mandelson attended the Basrah Investment Conference which brought together 23 UK-based companies such as Shell, BP, Rolls Royce and HSBC. The region was significant to the UK since this was the principal area occupied by UK military forces after the 2003 invasion.
 The US cable notes: “According to Basrah HMG officials, UK delegates were able to establish or strengthen relationships with key business figures in Basrah”. Attendees also included the directors of oil investment in Basrah and the commander of Iraqi security forces in the region alongside “UK Force Commander Tom Beckett and several Basrah-based UK military officials”. The cable added:
@@ Line 257: / Line 258: @@
 Another WikiLeaks file shows how the US and Britain rigged the International Criminal Court (ICC) to stop it being able to hold Blair and Bush accountable for the crime of aggression over Iraq.
-During the 1998 negotiations on the Rome Statute, the ICC’s founding treaty, many of the 160 states attending argued for the Court to be given jurisdiction over the crime of aggression but the US and the UK, amongst other states, were opposed. A compromise was struck in which the crime of aggression was included in the Rome Statute but the Court would not exercise jurisdiction over this crime until a definition, along with the conditions under which the court could exercise jurisdiction, had been agreed. Discussion of these matters was put off until a conference in Kampala, Uganda, in 2010, ahead of which the US, France and the UK sought to influence the outcome of discussions. (([[https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/wikileaks-shows-how-us-britain-rigged-icc-avoid-justice-iraq|WikiLeaks shows how US, Britain rigged the ICC to avoid justice for Iraq]]))
+During the 1998 negotiations on the Rome Statute, the ICC’s founding treaty, many of the 160 states attending argued for the Court to be given jurisdiction over the crime of aggression but the US and the UK, amongst other states, were to opposed it. A compromise was struck in which the crime of aggression was included in the Rome Statute but the Court would not exercise jurisdiction over this crime until a definition, along with the conditions under which the court could exercise jurisdiction, had been agreed. Discussion of these matters was put off until a conference in Kampala, Uganda, in 2010, ahead of which the US, France and the UK sought to influence the outcome of discussions. (([[https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/wikileaks-shows-how-us-britain-rigged-icc-avoid-justice-iraq|WikiLeaks shows how US, Britain rigged the ICC to avoid justice for Iraq]]))
 According to a February 2010 cable from the US Embassy to the UN in New York, the Obama administration wanted decisions on the crime of aggression to be deferred yet again after discussions in Kampala. Failing that, the US wanted to ensure that the ICC’s jurisdiction over the crime would be subject to a “Security Council trigger”, that is, the Court would only be able to act after the Security Council had determined that an act of aggression had taken place.(([[https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/10USUNNEWYORK77_a.html]]))