Eye View 

by David Charbonneau

Can we outlaw war between countries?

 

July 22, 2010

 

What if they made war illegal? That's what the International Criminal Court did on June 11. It's been hailed as the most significant reform of international law since 1945. Now world leaders who recklessly invade other countries will be nervously looking over their shoulders.

It was a bold move by the relatively new court which was created in 2002. The official seat is in The Hague, Netherlands, but its proceedings may take place anywhere so that bullies and megalomaniacs have nowhere to hide. Canada has been a significant supporter of the ICC. Canadian Philippe Kirsch was elected a Judge of the International Criminal Court in 2003 and subsequently elected President of the Court in 2006.

Not unexpectedly, the world's biggest aggressors have resisted the ICC while supporting it in principle but rejecting it in practice. Russia and the United States have not ratified the statute making war illegal despite being signatories to ICC treaties. Fortunately they are in the minority. Of the 111 member states, only 37 have not ratified the statute.

From the beginning the ICC was the only permanent international court capable of trying individuals accused of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity. Now aggressive war has been added. The Court has already indicted criminals accused of genocide, mass-murder, enslavement, sexual enslavement, mass-rape, torture, forced recruitment of child soldiers, pillaging and more.

Aggressor states find all kinds of reasons to invade other countries but it usually comes down to expansion of empire and pursuit of diminishing resources.

The invasion of Afghanistan is illegal. Despite claims that it was a response to the criminal attacks on September 11, 2001, the attackers were not from Afghanistan. The U.S. claims that the invasion had the approval of the UN Security Council. The UN did support a response to 9/11 but not the invasion of Afghanistan. While the ICC recognized that some military response is justified in the case of self defence from certain and imminent attack, in the defence of borders, and the protection of people from genocide. None of those applied in the invasion of Afghanistan.





 

The U.S. and its NATO allies, including Canada, are guilty of war crimes including acts of aggression against the Afghan people, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, torture, murder of civilians, military attacks against civilian infrastructure.

The ICC is founded on principles which everyone can support, even the world's superaggressors. At one time, U.S. and allied governments actively supported the prosecution of aggressor states. At the Nuremberg trials of Hitler's Nazis after World War II, allied forces concluded that the waging of war is "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

But time erodes the lofty principles of military powers. As the world's only superpower, the U.S. is caught in that hard place between lofty principles hammered out at Nuremburg and aggressive actions in Afghanistan.

U.S. presidents have waffled ever since Nuremburg. When he was a senator, Barack Obama stated: "The United States should cooperate with ICC investigations in a way that reflects American sovereignty and promotes our national security interests." In other words, the U.S. will support the ICC when it suits their interests. American presidents are not going to risk being arrested and tried in court for criminal acts of war, especially when the invasion of Afghanistan was illegal according to international law experts.

As law-abiding citizens, Canadians and Americans detest lawless acts of aggression by their governments as much as they hate the breakdown of law and order in their own cities and communities.

The world is understandably baffled at Canada's contradictory position: defender of the ICC yet accomplices in the illegal invasion of Afghanistan. Our macho General Hillier took Canada into one of the most dangerous provinces of Afghanistan to show the world that we can kick butt. His bravado has left our soldiers with one of the highest casualty rates of NATO forces.

Once seen as a peaceful people, Canadian motives are now viewed with suspicion. Perhaps the threat of a knock at the door at the prime minister's residence from ICC prosecutors will bring alignment of Canada's foreign policy with the wishes of its people.


 David Charbonneau is the owner of Trio Technical.
He can be reached at dcharbonneau13@shaw.ca
 





go back to my Columns in the