The trial of Tony Blair

Published on Saturday 23 January 2010 19:45

'ONE thing you can say about me," said Tony Blair not long after leaving Downing Street, "is that I have no problem moving on." The former prime minister is, say those who know him well, practically allergic to looking back.

The prime ministerial memoirs, for which he was paid 4.6 million by Random House, remain unfinished. He has been too busy to complete the task. It is as if the ten years he spent in Downing Street was merely an apprenticeship for something bigger.

His schedule these days is nothing short of lunatic. From a four-storey office in London's Grosvenor Square, the Blair empire spreads across the planet. For about a week every month he is in Jerusalem, working as Middle East envoy. But he is just as likely to be in Africa, or America, or Brussels. Fixing the Middle East, preventing the clash of civilisations, rebuilding Africa, pressing for action against global warming, reputedly earning up to $250,000 (177,000) a shot on the lecture circuit – nothing is too much for this most impatient and – many would say – most hubristic of politicians.

The "Office of Tony Blair" website has an almost comic Forrest Gump-like feel to it: 12 January – "Tony Blair urges support for Prime Minister Fayyad"; 6 January – "Tony Blair partners with global education providers to break down barriers between religions; 14 December – "Tony Blair talks to David Frost about the Middle East"; 12 December – "Tony Blair calls for Copenhagen climate talks to set the world on a new path".

By the time he left office, Blair had got bored by the limitations of merely running Britain. In an interview after his departure, he reflected on having to deal, three times over, with foot and mouth disease. "It had to be done but frankly it's not what you came into politics for," he commented. For Blair, the world – never mind Britain – is not enough.

The former Prime Minister claims that not a day goes past when he doesn't think of Iraq, and his fateful decision to go the war. And yet, while he confesses to doubts, at the same time he also argues that the constant going-over of the facts is futile. Asked once whether he would be vindicated, he declared: "I don't know. Nobody knows. So there's no point in answering it in the end."

But on Friday, in the modern clinical surroundings of the Queen Elizabeth conference centre, off Parliament Square, he will be asked to go through the facts once again, as the star witness at Sir John Chilcot's inquiry into the Iraq war. It promises to be an extraordinary affair. The questioning by the panel members will be polite rather than interrogative, but the drama will be no less for that. Blair knows that the eyes of the world will be on him.

And not just that. Behind him, in the small 60-seat room, dozens of family members of the bereaved will be gathered, having successfully applied for tickets in an open ballot. For them, this is their chance to pin down the man they blame for leading their sons and daughters to a needless death. It is, almost certainly, the last time anyone will get the chance to probe him for his views on what happened.

Rose Gentle, the Scottish mother whose 19-year-old son Gordon died in Iraq in 2004, is one of the unlucky few relatives whose name was not pulled out of the hat. But she will travel down from Glasgow to London on Friday nevertheless, and plans to watch Blair from an adjacent private viewing room within the conference centre. Alongside Reg Keys, whose son Tom also died in Iraq, she went on to found Military Families Against the War, campaigning to bring the troops home. They have returned, but she is not finished.

Despite all the previous inquiries, the coverage, and the explanations since Blair agreed to go into Iraq, she will journey down this week still wanting answers. She claims that when she wrote to Blair asking for a meeting, he wrote back to declare it "impossible".

She says: "I would still like to know why he went in. We are hearing totally different reasons about why now, and I'd like to hear from him. I'd like to ask, even if it was a legal war, why our boys went in without a proper level of equipment." So will Rose Gentle get her answers?

The dream scenario for the opponents of war – where a repentant Blair is forced to admit lying in order to secure parliamentary support for military action – can be discounted immediately. Their hopes have been raised during the inquiry thus far by the "revelation" that Blair had promised George W Bush, as early as 2002, that he would "be there" with the Americans. That followed Blair's own statement, in a Christmas interview with Fern Britton, that he would have found a way to topple Saddam Hussain, even without evidence of weapons of mass destruction. The two facts have prompted many to conclude that Blair was committed to military action come what may – misleading the public on the way.

But Blair can be counted on to easily dismiss the accusation. As his former communications chief Alastair Campbell emphasised in his own evidence, their alibi has always been the fact that everyone thought Saddam did indeed have WMD. Friends say Blair is likely to point out how he personally spoke to intelligence sources; how he had studied the history of Saddam's violence; how – post 9/11 – he was not prepared to take more risks. He wants to explain his motives for going into war, to defend his judgment. He is said to want to offer lessons for the future, based on the mistakes of the episode.

As for an apology, it is unlikely; those close to him say Blair is not likely to add grist to his critics' mill, particularly when he still feels he did the right thing.

The weaknesses in Blair's case will have to be teased out more subtly. The former United Nations weapons inspector Dr Hans Blix declared last week that he wanted more time to examine the WMD evidence – time he wasn't allowed. But why? And then there's the dodgy dossier; the infamous document used by Blair to substantiate Saddam's threat, intelligence which he described as "extensive, detailed and authoritative".

As we all know now, it was none of those things. Blair may be forced this week to admit – as did former foreign secretary Jack Straw – that his faith in that evidence was "an error" that "has haunted us ever since". If he does, that opens up questions about his judgment. Why did he place so much faith in those facts? Was it because he was so desperate for them to be true?

But where his evidence could be most explosive is on the practicalities of the war effort. Blair has already admitted to the mistakes made after the invasion ended, conceding "de-Baathification" of Iraq's government cost the allied forces dear.

The inquiry this week could tease this out further: did he demand assurances from the Americans for a proper post-war plan? His questioners may also demand to know about the way the war was waged: why did some British troops not have the equipment and resources they wanted? Was a certain chancellor of the exchequer refusing to pay up? And speaking of Gordon Brown, did he back Blair to the hilt?

Blair's evidence has the potential this week to turn the focus on to his successor. Might there be one final, lethal spat left between these two titans of New Labour?

Those relatives attending this week are hoping Blair's evidence may offer some closure in their lives. Gentle adds: "If we get the answers we need, then we can just say well, we've done our bit." But Blair and his inner circle are reconciled to the fact that they will never be able to do that. "Tony made an emotional connection with people, and so there was an emotional response (following Iraq] of betrayal. You can't ever rationally argue that away," says one close colleague. "All he can do is expose yourself to their grief, take responsibility, and say you believe you did the right thing." "You have to take the decision," Blair said recently. "And I look at the Middle East now and I think, well, if Saddam and his two sons were running Iraq, how many other people would have died and would the region be more stable?"

There appears to be no chance that Blair's evidence is going to soothe the anger of the relatives. For a man who travels the world, attempting to break down barriers between faiths and people, it is a stark irony.

In Dubai last week, Blair declared: "What we want is for there to be understanding, because understanding usually brings with it the possibility of peaceful coexistence." This week, he is sure to discover once again that, at home, understanding is in short supply.