Why we must stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our fellow Fabian

At half-time in Tony Blair’s testimony to the Iraq Inquiry, let us recall the horror of Saddam’s regime, and the threat he posed to his own people, the region and the wider world. One need only cast minds back to this Monday, and the execution of Ali Hassan al-Majid – aka Chemical Ali.

Here’s a reminder of the evil perpetrated by Chemical Ali:

“He was known for his ruthlessness, ordering the indiscriminate use of chemical weapons such as mustard gas, sarin, tabun and VX against Kurdish targets. The first such attacks occurred as early as April 1987 and continued into 1988, culminating in the notorious attack on Halabja in which over 5,000 people were killed.

“With Kurdish resistance continuing, al-Majid decided to cripple the rebellion by eradicating the civilian population of the Kurdish regions. His forces embarked on a systematic campaign of mass killings, property destruction and forced population transfer (called “Arabization”) in which thousands of Kurdish villages were razed and their inhabitants either killed or deported to the south of Iraq.

“He signed a decree in June 1987 stating that “Within their jurisdiction, the armed forces must kill any human being or animal present in these areas”. By 1988, some 4,000 villages had been destroyed, an estimated 180,000 Kurds had been killed and some 1.5 million had been deported.”

Fast forward to the eve of war and today’s protests, and the debates about the legality of the war. Leaving aside the need for a second UN Resolution or an “urgent need for self-defence” – the apparent lack of either cited as grounds for illegality by opponents – let us look at a third factor pertaining to the legality of war, a “humanitarian crisis”.

This is what the undisputed chapter in the 2002 Iraq Dossier, titled “Iraq under Saddam”, says:

“Human rights abuses continue within Iraq. People continue to be arrested and detained on suspicion of political or religious activities, or often because they are related to members of the opposition. Executions are carried out without due process of law. Relatives are often prevented from burying the victims in accordance with Islamic practice. Thousands of prisoners have been executed.

“Saddam has issued a series of decrees establishing severe penalties for criminal offences. These include amputation, branding, cutting off ears, and other forms of mutilation. Anyone found guilty of slandering the President has their tongue removed.”

These facts are just part of what we know; the true nature of Iraq under Saddam, the real figure for casualties under Saddam, may never be known. What’s certain is that the figure is less than that of the past seven years.

Finally, to the opponents of the war, I ask this:

• Had WMDs been discovered, would that have made the war legal, despite the lack of a second resolution?

• Had they been discovered, would the aftermath have been any less bloody?

• If the UN had passed a second resolution, would that have made the aftermath any less bloody?

• Had the aftermath not been as bloody, would the question of legality had been so important?

• If Britain had not joined the war, would America have gone ahead regardless, and would the resulting aftermath have been any different?

And imagine, for one second, that there had been no war, that Saddam had developed WMDs, that he’d used them, on the Iraqi people, neighbouring countries or even us. An emboldened, strengthened, nuclear-armed Saddam. Untouchable. Torturing, raping and murdering innocent men, women and children forever more…

As internationalists, liberals and democrats, whatever the reasoning, justification or legality for the war, we should all be proud that it was a Labour leader, a Labour Prime Minister, who removed this evil regime and freed the Iraqi people.