I’ve just finished watching The Trial of Tony Blair, a “biting feature-length satire” originally broadcast on More4. We join Tony in 2010 as he prepares to leave office, making way for Gordon Brown. President Hilary Clinton is in the White House and a resolution is up before the UN Security Council to put those responsible for the criminal aggression against Iraq on trial in the Hague. We see Blair obsessing almost to the point of madness over his “legacy”, whilst suffering horrific visions of dead Iraqis and, at one point, his own coffin. The film ends with Blair in a jail cell, on his way to face trial for war crimes.
The Trial of Tony Blair is neither gripping nor funny, two qualities one would think essential for a “comedy drama”. The gags would feel more at home on the set of Have I Got News For You or Bremner, Bird and Fortune, such is their sophistication, and they distract and detract from the plot. As Greg Maughan writes,
“The Trial of Tony Blair lacks any real purpose; Beaton swings from trying to present us with a Shakespearian allegory, with Blair confronted by demonic visions of Iraq, to giving us a cheap sketch show where Cherie Blair steals all the light bulbs from No 10 before the Browns move in…there’s absolutely no attempt to explore the real underlying motives for the Iraq war – the massive oil supplies in the region and the prestige of US imperialism, which Blair kow-towed to.”
But some of the reactions to the show in the press have been extraordinary. Whether they enjoyed the film or not, I’ve yet to see a single mainstream journalist either use the film as a starting point to discuss the relevent background issues (has Blair committed war crimes? What were those crimes? What were their consequences? Should we bring him to trial?) or to point out that this drama, for all it’s faults, has done what the media has completely failed to: it has raised unafraid the issue of Tony Blair’s crimes and discussed the possibility of holding him accountable.
In the past six months, according to a database search, The Independent has carried only six articles that include the words `Tony Blair’ and `war criminal’. Two of those were by Robert Fisk, and a third – a comment piece by Steve Richards, described those who “conclude simplistically that he [Tony Blair] metamorphosed suddenly into a liar and a war criminal.” None of them directly labelled Blair a war criminal or discussed the possiblity of trying him in court.
The Observer, the supposed guardian of liberal values, published no articles in the past six months either calling Blair a war criminal or discussing the possiblity that he be tried for his crimes.
The Daily/Sunday Telegraph carried only one article in the past six months mentioning the words `Tony Blair’ and `war criminal’ – the topic was Israel’s war on Lebanon. However, the article did not call Tony Blair to account for his complicity in Israeli crimes, let alone accuse him of committing a crime himself.
Only two Guardian articles in the past six months directly associated Tony Blair with war crimes. In the first, Tommy Sheridan (former Member of the Scottish Parliament) writes,
“Blair’s part in Bush’s illegal and immoral war on Iraq makes him war criminal number two across the globe. For providing Bush with such cover, Blair should be in the dock for war crimes.”
The second, whilst not itself branding Blair a war criminal, quotes Hizbullah official Abu Zeinab as saying,
“He [Tony Blair] is a full partner in the atrocities and I think he should be prosecuted as a war criminal alongside Bush and Olmert.”
Of course, the article does not go on to provide details of any possible justification for Zeinab’s claim, and so, him being a Hizbullah member, the reader is not expected to take him seriously.
In addition, a comment piece very briefly notes that “hardline critics” were disappointed by inquiries that failed to indict Blair as a “war criminal”. Such is the depth of analysis permitted in the mainstream British press about the crimes our leader has committed in our names.
The Financial Times published only two articles linking Mr Blair to the war crimes he has undoubtedly committed, but in both cases the accusation appeared as a quote from an anti-war protestor. Since no explanation or discussion of the claim or Blair’s crimes accompanied them, the reader is again left to conclude that this was just a crazy anti-war protestor being crazy. Imagine if the press only accused Saddam Hussein (or any other official enemy of the state) of being a war criminal through quotes from anti-Saddam protestors that were not accompanied by any explanation or detail of the atrocities he committed. It’s inconceivable.
Neither The Times nor The Sunday Times published a single article in the past six months calling Blair a war criminal or discussing the possiblity of bringing him to trial.
In total, over the past six months, the combined coverage from the entire mainstream, respected British press that dared to discuss the possibility of Tony Blair being a war criminal consisted of just seven articles, at a push. Our `free’ press is too afraid and too docile even to take an honest look at the crimes our leader has commited in our names using our money.
We should not be surprised at this spineless subservience. An Economic & Social Research Council study into media performance during the build-up to the Iraq war concluded,
`Many reports about the military campaign favoured the coalition and all media outlets became more deferential towards government during the period of major combat operations…
`The Sun gave the most explicit support to coalition operations among newspapers but much newspaper coverage – even in the Independent and Daily Mirror, the most avowedly anti-war publications – was supportive of the military campaign…
`Coverage mainly served to reinforce official justifications for war, in particular the humanitarian case for regime change in Iraq. Media debate over the reasons for the action tailed off once the war started. The tendency was for news media to accept the official position and this enabled the coalition’s moral case for the war to go by default.’
The sad truth is, The Trial of Tony Blair succeeded where the mainstream British press has spectacularly failed – it was unafraid to call Blair what he really is and to discuss the issue of trying him in the International Criminal Court for war crimes. That is something the press should have been doing non-stop ever since the illegal invasion of Iraq. That the crucial task of holding politicians to account for their actions has been left to a “comedy drama” reveals a lot about the state of our democracy.
