On the same day that Tony Blair made his much anticipated appearance in front of the Chilcot Inquiry into the war in Iraq recently, Lance Corporal Joe Glenton appeared in front of a Judge for the preliminary hearing of his court martial for refusing to return to Afghanistan and subsequently speaking at an antiwar demonstration and to the media in defiance of military orders.

Thus we have the contradiction which sits at the heart of the past 13 years of New Labour in government, most of it under the leadership of Tony Blair. It is the difference between that layer of privileged, white, rich members of a war mongering ruling class – the likes of Blair, Straw, Goldsmith, and others – who were able to take the nation into an illegal war and as yet have suffered no legal sanction for doing so, and someone like Joe Glenton, a man of no wealth and privilege but with the courage to oppose what he knew to be morally wrong and face going to prison for doing so.

In what was already one of the most explosive weeks in British politics in years, testimony was heard outlining the framework of lies, subterfuge, and deceit that surrounded the government’s decision to join the Bush administration in going to war. The messianic fervour with which Blair committed the nation to this military fiasco had long been articulated by the antiwar movement and in the pages of the progressive and left wing press. However, hearing it confirmed first hand by a selection of foreign office lawyers, mandarins and ex-government officials left the entire British legal and political system in disrepute.

Even before Blair made his appearance in front of Chilcot, it was clear that the decision to join the United States in going to war was taken at a meeting at Bush’s ranch in the spring of 2002. It was also clear that the use of UN Security Council Resolution 1441, giving the then Iraqi government a final opportunity to disarm, was insufficient on its own to sanction subsequent military action in 2003. This is confirmed by statements given by representatives of the Security Council at the time, when 1441 was passed unanimously. The US ambassador to the UN, John Negraponte, said back then thatIt is clear that Blair committed Britain to military action alongside the United States as far back as 2002. It is also clear that the use of UN Security Council Resolution 1441, giving the then Iraqi government a final opportunity to disarm, was insufficient on its own to sanction the subsequent military action of 2003. This is confirmed by statements given by representatives of the Security Council when 1441 was passed unanimously by 15 votes in favour. The US ambassador to the UN at the time, John Negraponte, said:‘

This resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.

Meanwhile, the British UN ambassador, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who co-sponsored the resolution, said:

‘We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" -- the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response…there is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.

From the aformentioned we are left in no doubt that any subsequent military action would have required the sanction of a second UN Security Council Resolution if Iraq was found to be in material breach of its obligations to disarm as set out in 1441. Yet by the time it became certain that the French were intent on vetoing any such second resolution, at least until Hans Blix and his team of weapons inspectors had completed the task of looking for WMD in Iraq, Blair had already decided to go along with the Bush administration’s prior decision to go to war regardless of the UN and in violation of international law.

During Lord Goldsmith’s testimony, the key question of when and why, as the then Attorney General, he changed his opinion on the legal basis for military action was answered. He stated to the inquiry that he was swayed by legal arguments in favour of military action under 1141 that were made to him by lawyers acting for the US government. He was also swayed by mounting pressure from British military commanders at the time for clarity on the legality of military action prior to committing British forces. Yet the day before Goldsmith’s appearance the former chief legal adviser at the Foreign Office, Sir Michael Wood and his then deputy, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, testified that in their opinion the war was illegal. Sir Michael Wood further testified that then Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, firmly rejected legal advice to this effect, citing the ‘vagueness of international law’ as his reason for doing so. It is testimony which sits at odds with Straw’s own testimony, during which he claimed to have wrestled with his decision to support the war up until the last moment, depicting a man conflicted and ridden with doubt.

The precipitate withdrawal of Hans Blix and his inspections team from Iraq just before the war began should also be recalled - for it gives lie to the justification for war given by both the US and British governments as being motivated by the need to disarm Iraq’s stockpiles of WMD under the provisions set out in 1441. The fact is that Blix and his inspections team were withdrawn when it became apparent that there were no such stockpiles of WMD in Iraq and that the basis for taking military action was about to be rendered untenable. Arising from this is confirmation that the objective of both the US and UK governments from the very beginning was regime change, in clear violation of international law.

Since leaving office in 2006, Tony Blair has become an extremely wealthy man. He is currently a senior advisor to J P Morgan Bank, reputedly earning $500, 000 a year, and advises Zurich Financial Services on climate change. He has also enjoyed a lucrative career as an after-dinner speaker, earning up to $250,000 per speech. It was recently reported that he’s been booked to give a series of private speeches to Lansdowne Partners, a London-based hedge fund which made millions betting on the collapse of Britain’s banks during the credit crunch. The co-founder of the fund is a major donor to the Conservative Party. Such are the wages of sin.

Whatever the outcome of the Chilcot Inquiry, the verdict of the people and of history has already been passed. The war which devastated Iraq and left millions dead, maimed, traumatised and destitute was illegal, not to mention immoral, waged with the objective of asserting US hegemony in the region through the control of Iraq’s oil and with it the ability to break the monopoly of OPEC over oil prices.

As we watched Blair’s appearance in front of Chilcot, listening to the testimony of the man who has come to embody the venality, dishonesty and ruthlessness of the British establishment, we could have taken some comfort from the example of Joe Glenton. Here is someone who, motivated by his conscience and the desire to make sense of the carnage he was being ordered to participate in, joined that noble and proud tradition of men and women who throughout history have dared to say no.

It is something which no court martial or prison sentence will ever be able to take away from him.

This is an updated version of on article that originally appeared on the Socialist Unity website