Tony Blair and George W Bush should be taken to the International Criminal Court in The Hague over the Iraq war, Archbishop Desmond Tutu has said.
Writing in the UK's Observer newspaper, he accused the former leaders of lying about weapons of mass destruction.
The Iraq military campaign had made the world more unstable "than any other conflict in history", he said.
Mr Blair responded by saying "this is the same argument we have had many times with nothing new to say".
'Playground bullies'
Earlier this week, Archbishop Tutu, a veteran peace campaigner who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984 in recognition of his campaign against apartheid, pulled out of a leadership summit in Johannesburg because he refused to share a platform with Mr Blair.
The former Archbishop of Cape Town said the US- and UK-led action launched against Saddam's regime in 2003 had brought about conditions for the civil war in Syria and a possible Middle East conflict involving Iran.
"The then leaders of the United States [Mr Bush] and Great Britain [Mr Blair] fabricated the grounds to behave like playground bullies and drive us further apart. They have driven us to the edge of a precipice where we now stand - with the spectre of Syria and Iran before us," he said.
He added: "The question is not whether Saddam Hussein was good or bad or how many of his people he massacred. The point is that Mr Bush and Mr Blair should not have allowed themselves to stoop to his immoral level."
Archbishop Tutu said the death toll as a result of military action in Iraq since 2003 was grounds for Mr Blair and Mr Bush to be tried in The Hague.
But he said different standards appeared to be applied to Western leaders.
He said: "On these grounds, alone, in a consistent world, those responsible should be treading the same path as some of their African and Asian peers who have been made to answer for their actions in The Hague."
In response to Sunday's article, Mr Blair issued a strongly worded defence of his decisions.
He said: "To repeat the old canard that we lied about the intelligence [on weapons of mass destruction] is completely wrong as every single independent analysis of the evidence has shown.
'Chemical weapons'
"And to say that the fact that Saddam massacred hundreds of thousands of his citizens is irrelevant to the morality of removing him is bizarre.
"We have just had the memorials both of the Halabja massacre, where thousands of people were murdered in one day by Saddam's use of chemical weapons, and that of the Iran-Iraq war where casualties numbered up to a million, including many killed by chemical weapons.
"In addition, his slaughter of his political opponents, the treatment of the Marsh Arabs and the systematic torture of his people make the case for removing him morally strong. But the basis of action was as stated at the time."
He added: "In short this is the same argument we have had many times with nothing new to say. But surely in a healthy democracy people can agree to disagree.
"I would also point out that despite the problems, Iraq today has an economy three times or more in size, with child mortality rate cut by a third of what it was. And with investment hugely increased in places like Basra."
He said a war crimes trial "should be and could be held on the basis a crime of aggression has been committed and the crime of aggression was starting the war.
"It's now almost certain that the war was illegal because it breached the UN Charter provisions which say that all member of the United Nations must refrain from the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."
Former Lord Chancellor Lord Charles Falconer said he disagreed with Desmond Tutu and Sir Geoffrey.
"The use of force is allowed among other reasons when the United Nations authorises it, and the United Nations authorised it by resolution 1441.
"The dispute between Geoffrey and myself would be whether or not resolution 1441 did or did not authorise war and we say that it did.
"Even that disagreement doesn't give rise to the possibility of war crimes, the world has very impressively over the last two decades come together and identified what they mean by war crimes; genocide, ethnic cleansing, torture and in a variety of ways brought people to trial for that"
And I'm pretty sure the Anti-Saddam sentiment in Iraq was much greater than the current wave of Anti-American sentiment. Because, come on.. who wouldn't want a foreign country to come invade theirs, to depose of their leaders and install their own troops inside, while liberating them into the American way, ushering in a new era of economic prosperity, cultural freedom and all the aspects of the American Dream. Because they wouldn't leave without bringing the once-oppressed country into the forefront, along with the other developed countries, right?
Now, onto North Korea and Cuba and Iran. Maybe Venezuela too. Not that their people are asking for our help, but who gives a fuck about THAT anyway? They don't know what they want, and they sure can't depose of their dictators themselves. (OK. Let's not talk about Egypt, et al. It was just a fluke).
As for Sudan, Uganda, Kony, et al? Fuck em. They can take care of themselves. If it comes to that, we'll pepper our Facebook pages with Anti-dictatorship messages and share them with all our friends and ask them to spread the awareness by forwarding spam.
Team America To the Rescue!
GERONIMO!!
However, can anyone in all candor say that dictator after dictator around the world didn't need to be removed? Am thinking of people like Idi Amin and others on the African continent. When the world cowers before seemingly all powerful despots (Hitler was one and there are many lessons surrounding efforts at appeasement that failed) the dangers are greater than the evil to remove such individuals/governments.
The United States does not act unilaterally by the way. But, as with every nation-state in the world, the United States always reserves the right to act unilaterally.
Neither Bush nor Blair are world criminals. Any talk to the contrary is nonsense.
FWIIW
Now, we just need someone who'll go to war against genocidal maniacs/regimes where the people REALLY need them. Even if their countries don't have a lot of natural resources - say Uganda, Sudan, Congo, etc.
I just won't hold my breath waiting for them to do that though.
he turns his head away from what is unpleasant (genocide of a magnitude unthinkable by many in the west) and turns his attention to the two leaders bold enough to take action in a country that needed change badly...
the only way the UN Security Counsel took action when North Korea invaded the south was when the Soviet Union absented themselves from the meeting where the decision was made to commit UN forces... when a world body such as the UN, for all it's good points and intentions, cannot take action when action is clearly needed and warranted it is incumbent on world leaders in other settings (regions, for example) to act...
war is a human condition - it is an unpleasant one but a reality nevertheless - weak leaders guarantee disaster, strong leaders who act with a strong sense of moral outrage and who plead (as the US and the UK did repeatedly before the UN) take action...
I applaud the actions of the US and the UK
men such as Archbishop Tutu should take his clerical cape and outrage back to his chapel and think about the spiritual aspects of war, the moral justification of war, and the tragic realities of war - WHERE EVER found - and get off the pulpit that denounces leaders such as Bush and Blair
FWIIW