(16e) Mr Tony Blair received knighthood. Many disagree

Old UK PM Blair received a knighthood, even the highest honor possible in the UK, handed out by HRH Queen Elisabeth II. I think he deserves it for his premiership and he should have received it earlier. However, I don't think he should receive this honor all these years after his premiership because during those years he made bad decisions such as being adviser for questionable regimes to say it mildly, such as to the regime of Kazakhstan.

Although some British defend the honor that is given to Mr Blair, many more, both many journalists and ordinary people, oppose that he is rewarded this knighthood, an opposition mainly for his involvement in the second US-Iraq war, better known as Gulf war of which I still remember the discussions; but also because he forgot his roots and joined the rich. PM Blair decided about wars against dictators and terrorists while people claim he did it for the fossil fuels, and not to get rid of monsters, during which British soldiers died. Indeed, what many Europeans don't seem to understand is that he became a very much hated politician, to such an extend that British politicians refused him the top job as EU president while people want to arrest him. 

Portrait of now Sir Tony Blair, based on a photograph by Tolga Akmen

Why do I think he deserved this honor for his premiership? Because PM Blair did a lot of good as I wrote before: investments to improve school and hospital buildings but also better wages and thus more teachers and healthcare professionals (yes, waiting time to see a doctor went down). LGBT+ rights improved so the gay scene flourished. He also reached a deal with the IRA so the violence stopped while he allowed Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland their own government and Parliament although he "forgot" England, something that may be one reason why many English hate him. Also in Yugoslavia many still remember him as one of the first to intervene to stop genocides. 

During PM Blair's final years as PM, he became more involved in wars that resulted in growing unpopularity at home. The UK, together with other NATO countries, joined forces with the USA after the USA was attacked in 2001 (now known as 09/11) to invade Afghanistan and oust the Taliban as their government protected terrorists involved in the attacks. This involvement was accepted by most people because a friendly nation was attacked and this could not go unpunished. In addition, stories about the terrible treatment of Afghan women such as stoning to death were reported.

He became mostly hated for his collaboration with USA's President Bush (in opposition of many other European countries) to get rid of Iraq's Saddam Hussein, a man responsible for tyranny in his own country, the Iran-Iraq war (whereby the West supported Iraq and even provided material to make chemical weapons, a Weapon of Mass Destruction or WMD) and invasion of Kuwait after which the international community intervened against Iraq to liberate Kuwait. A pity the first President Bush hoped he regained control over Hussein and thus over Iraq's oil and gas fields so he didn't finish the job of removing Hussein although encouraged Iraqis to overthrow the regime. As a result, later under presidents Bush and Clinton, Western troops had to enforce no-fly zones to protect Kurds and others from among others gas attacks by the Iraqi government, yes, a WMD according the UN. Still, UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali called these zones illegal - yes, often the UN allows that dictators can remain in power ánd kill opponents and ordinary people. 

Further, before the 2nd USA-Iraq (Gulf) war, Iraq was bombed regularly because Iraq violated the no-fly zone and UN-imposed sanctions after the first Gulf War; this happened under the popular US President Clinton. Hussein still hesitated to collaborate with UN inspectors who had to find out whether Iraq had WMD while the USA knew they provided Iraq with chemicals to make such weapons. For me these can be a reasons to invade as it seemed Saddam Hussein had things to hide or he would have cooperated, although he later claimed he pretended to have WMD to keep Iran away. Still, a pity Iraqis preferred a dictator than that they were happy that Hussein was gone; this was a major miscalculation by the West and instead of gratitude, Iraqis started their civil war. Thus, Iraq had and used WMD in the past and thus may still have had some while the country also supported international terrorism, two reasons to get rid of Hussein. That doesn't mean every country should be invaded to change regimes when people choose their leaders while no-fly zones can be imposed to protect civilians from a dangerous leader.

Still, I think Mr Blair should not return into politics as I wrote extensively before. Indeed, after he left 10 Downing Street, he became adviser to many corrupt and even dictatorial regimes, and he refuses to understand why he was wrong with the argument that he tried to improve their rules. But, when leaders tortured and killed innocent people to keep themselves in power, can this simply be forgiven by "improving" their governance that will continue to keep others out of office or they would organise free elections?

No, Mr Blair shouldn't return because he forgot why he became one of the most important politicians of Great Britain after WWII. But, refusing him any honors? No, although this honor should have been given earlier. Syrians continue to suffer because the anger to free Iraqis from a dictator was so strong that no politician afterwards dared to help the Syrians; as a result, Russia was able to help its ally Assad so many more tens of thousands people died while we have an enormous migration problem that may one day boil over. I'm sure Tony Blair as PM would have agreed to help President Obama impose his red lines after Assad used gas against his people; I am not the only one to think that failure to do so had major consequences and up to today - to me, President Obama's biggest error. After all, WMD are illegal under the UN, and gas is one of them. As no-one acted after Assad used again WMD during another gas attack against his people, he felt strong to do whatever and Russia was able to protect Assad so he is still president of Syria. In addition, the West now thinks that enforcement of no-fly and safe zones are illegal and thus it criticised Turkey for imposing safe zones for Syrians so they can stay in their own country; the West could have helped Turkey to impose them to protect Syrians and thus get the goodwill of those people while we wouldn't have such an important migration problem. 

Also Northern Korea is a place where a terrible regime develops nuclear weapons and missiles, that it tests on a regular basis. Still, because China (and to a lesser extend Russia) is N-Korea's protector, the development of these WMD cannot be stopped such as bombing the sides of their development. And thus the world continues to become a more dangerous place as one day these weapons will be ready for use.