It pains me that in my country, or any of the neighboring countries, there is no Chilcott Commission, like the committee before which Tony Blair appeared in London the other day. This is not because my country's equivalents of Tony Blair, those who run the country's affairs, wage foreign wars that require us to ask about the justifications for these policies, even if they serve so-called higher national interests. Wars of this kind are not waged in my country. Ever since my youth, I can remember wars of another kind, which are civil wars, led by people who sometimes share Tony Blair's official capacity, against others, who aspire to such posts. In my country, leaders reach these positions on the debris of these wars, which are called civil wars, although there is nothing civil about them; no one civil would commit such acts, and the winners are not civil either! This is not the only thing that saddens me, as I follow the former British prime minister sitting on that chair, before the five investigators, who have no authority or position, or than popular authority, which protects them and in whose name the commission carries out its work. I am sad because a scene such as this in my country would be from the realm of science fiction, the kind of thing people see on the screen and dream of it happening on another planet. In my country, there is a lack of censure by the citizen for government officials. The official can do as he pleases. He changes his colors once a month, and if he is loyal to his beliefs, it will be once every two months. This lack of censure is emblematic of the country; citizens rarely see this change that their leaders commit, with no shame, in unprecedented fashion. If they do, they rarely see the justification for the question. The rule is to not ask in the first place, and anything else would be an exception. You can say what you want about Tony Blair. He used the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as a reason for bringing down Saddam Hussein. He ignored the wishes of the majority of his people, who chose him to govern them, and went to war despite their opinion. However, he was not legally obliged to take this point of view into consideration or put it into practice. He followed George Bush wherever the interests of the latter took him. But you cannot say that Tony Blair was a political leader who changed his position based on circumstances and a change in conditions. Before the commission the other day, we heard him say what he said seven years ago, when he took his country to war. Moreover, we heard him affirm: if I found myself facing the same conditions, I would have made the same decision. Is it not sad that in my country, I need a candle in the darkness to find an official of this type, one who keeps his promise and sticks to his word, and does not forget where he used to stand, before changing his position, opinion and alliances. You no longer know if it is the same person you used to hear about before he shifted from one side to other! It is neither an issue of revenge nor jealousy. I know that I am talking about a British official. I also know that despite all of the criticisms and insults he has faced since leaving office, Tony Blair will not dare stand before the investigating commission or any other body and repudiate what he used to say while in office. I know this because I know that people in those countries hold people accountable and do not forgive a politician for making a promise and taking a position and then repudiating what he used to say, or make such a switch the following day. This kind of behavior, which is called “politics” in my country, is not good enough to be a basis of political life in the country of Tony Blair. Also, people there are citizens, and I find a big difference between Tony Blair's country and mine.
