FOR years, the world has watched in awe as Britain and its cousins on the other side of the Atlantic, America, exported their aggression across the globe.
The two self-proclaimed champions of democracy did not hesitate to throw bombs on nations they perceived to be resisting their hegemonic control of the world.
For instance, when America imposed illegal economic sanctions on Zimbabwe, it claimed Harare posed what it said was an extraordinary, unusual threat to Uncle Sam.
Such is the ridiculousness that these two countries spew against enemies that according to Tony Blair, former British Prime Minister, Zimbabwe had to be bombed in order to bring ‘sanity’ to the Southern African nation.
Saddam Hussein fell victim to the destructive tendencies of the duo of Blair and his staunch ally and former US president George Bush in 2003.
The progressive world did not support an invasion whose prospect made Bush and Blair drool like kindergarten kids.
The world was in favour of a more pacifist approach that included among other things, negotiations.
Once Blair wrote that famous private note to his dearest partner of ‘greatness’, Bush, on July 28 2002 assuring him that he would accost Britain to support America in its Iraq invasion project, the deal was sealed.
An evil deed indeed.
It should be kept in mind when unpacking the Iraq invasion project that it had nothing to do with Hussein’s alleged crimes against humanity.
It had nothing to do with Iraq’s supposed growing programme of biological and chemical weapons as Bush and Blair forced the world to believe.
It was about the two nations extending their hegemony over oil-rich countries like Saud Arabia and Kuwait.
The project was designed to include Iraq, Syria and Iran.
Libya was also part of the project, but only as an afterthought.
This is where the African perspective comes in.
Blair never made his resentment for President Robert Mugabe a secret.
He never hid his umbrage for Muammar Gaddafi.
Both these men and their countries made Britain and America’s project undesirable.
And their war-mongering manifested through their constant intrusion into the internal affairs of both Zimbabwe and Libya.
In that vein, Africa, in particular Zimbabwe, has every reason to be interested parties in the publication of the Chilcot Report.
The report is an indictment of Blair, especially how he overrode all processes to send British troops to mercilessly massacre innocent Iraqis and the subsequent murder of Hussein.
What the Chilcot Report teaches us is that what the British did in Iraq under instructions from Blair was to unleash unprecedented genocide.
This, without doubt, presents a clear case for the much maligned International Criminal Court (ICC) to not only arrest Blair, but charge him with crimes against humanity.
Significantly, the report is a test case for the eternally embattled ICC to wad off accusations that the court is an extension of the colonial agenda and that it is brazenly biased against Africa and people from the developing world.
But if the deafening silence of the ICC, since the publication of the Chilcot Report, is anything to go by, then we can safely conclude that Blair will never face trial over Iraq.
If anything, he will continue with both his now legendary arrogance and his retirement as a free citizen of this our aggrieved world.
His defence after the publication of the report that he believes he made the right decision to invade says all about the incompetence of the ICC when it comes to righting travesties.
It is owned and controlled by Western powers.
It takes instructions from Western corridors.
It would therefore take a miracle for it to even have the idea of prosecuting Blair and his partner in crime Bush.
In the final analysis, the Chilcot Report has given the world some insights on how skewed global politics has become over the years.
Blair is the perfect candidate for the ICC, but the question is: Will justice be served.
Only time will tell.