IN defending former British prime minister Tony Blair’s role over the Iraq war and his credentials to deliver the 22nd Sultan Azlan Shah Law Lecture, Duncan Horne of Kuantan has made light of the former’s role in the ensuing lawlessness in Iraq and the political turmoil in the Middle East ("Not fair to call him ’war criminal’” — NST, Aug 18).

As leader of a once great nation known for its even-handedness and justice in world affairs, Blair had a historic opportunity to play a role towards a more peaceful world. But he chose to listen to misguided counsel and succumbed to a faulty vision of a new world order that is Western-dominated.
To say that it was well within his rights to defend his country and flush out global terrorists in view of the July 2005 London bombings is a fallacious argument. In fact, it was his zealous and intransigent stand over the war that had radicalised more young Bri-tish Muslims and drew them closer to al-Qaeda.

To understand Blair’s stand and role in the Iraq war and the global political arena, one has to understand where he is coming from.
It is in the records that he entered politics in Britain through a pro-Israeli Labour group.
Throughout his political career he had always worked closely with pro-Israeli elements and surrounded himself with pro-Israeli advisers. Over the years, he had also developed relationships with pro-Israeli individuals in the United States who had started an ultra-conservative movement for a US-dominated world, the so-called neo-conservatives, in the 1980s.
It is not difficult to see how he was cultivated to be an “action hero” of the movement, along with his close allies in the Iraq war, US President George W. Bush and former Australian president John Howard, while the real masterminds worked from behind.
One of the agendas of the neo-cons under the so-called “Project for the New American Century” is regime change in target states, including Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia. These states were targeted because of their oil reserves, not because they are Muslim countries. Given such audacious agendas, it is not surprising that some elements of the Arab Muslim society had developed extreme anti-American sentiments, giving rise to al-Qaeda and other radical movements in the Middle East and Pakistan.
Thus, the seeds of global terrorism were first planted not in the madrasah of Pakistan but in such political think-tanks as the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs in the US.

In an interview with David Frost on Al-Jazeera television, Blair had said that the war in Iraq had been a disaster. That was the closest he had ever got to admitting his mistake in supporting the US in invading Iraq.

Discredited in his own country and desperately attempting to find a place in history, which has consigned him to its dustbin, he strikes a pitiful figure. Not welcome in many places, he seized the opportunity to speak at an event in a country which had opposed the war.
Perhaps it is time that Universiti Malaya, the organiser of the lecture, broke its silence on the Blair episode so that the public may hear its rationale for the invitation.