Prime Minister John Howard promised before the last election that Australia would ratify the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court. It is alarming, therefore, that on his visit to the United States he emerged from a briefing by US officials on the US position on the treaty to say that the US arguments against it were “”very powerful”. If he bends to the US will it indicates sickening sychophancy and an incapacity by Mr Howard to make up his own mind on the merits. Presumably, when ratification of the treaty became Liberal policy before the election, Mr Howard had decided the issue on its merits. His Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, obviously thought so, calling the ratification of the treaty one of the Government’s “”key human rights objectives.” Now, it seems, just because the US does not like the treaty, Mr Howard is impressed by the US view and Australia could well follow the US lead, just as it has done with the Kyoto treaty on climate change. It is almost as if Australia is reverting to the days before World War II when it did not have a foreign policy of its own, but merely followed British policy. Now, it seems, we are about to blindly follow the US. Australia will not get any respect that way. It is demeaning.
If Mr Howard follows the US lead and overrides those in his party room who want to go ahead with the treaty, Mr Downer would have not option but to resign. After promoting the treaty to heavily and stating it as a key objective, he could hardly hold his head up in foreign capitals if the Government refuses to ratify the treaty. No foreign government could treat him seriously again.
Perhaps it is time for those few remaining in the Liberal Party who believe in the rule of law and international co-operation and obligations to stand up on this issue – especially those with a legal background who understand the importance of this treaty and the international criminal court as a statement of universal human values.
The US objections to the treaty are misconceived and arrogant in their misconception. The US fears that its soldiers might be tried by an international war crimes tribunal and be subjected to trumped up charges in a kangaroo court. No so. The international court has no jurisdiction over the soldiers of nations who have a system of law themselves. The international court does not enter the picture where a suspected soldier is subjected to discipline and law of his or her own country – as in the case of the US and Australia. The court is only there to try cases of soldiers who are not answerable to national law because it is absent, such as in the case of the former Yugoslavia. The US and Australia should not arrogantly exclude themselves from international co-operation. If they joined the treaty they would be able to help select judges and take part in lawying down the practice and procedure of the court.
The importance of this treaty is that it is a statement of universal human values that murder, rape and waging an aggressive war are universal crimes and that those who commit them will be held answerable either by their national law or failing that by the international court, irrespective of the fact that the crimes were committed while fighting for nation, independence, religious freedom or whatever cause.
Over the past decade, Australia has played a key role in bringing this treaty to fruition. Australia has made an enormous role in other war crimes trials from Nuremburg after World War II to trials after Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. It would be a pity to waste such good work and the good will generated from it.