http://dapmalaysia.org
|
Malaysia should ratify ICC Speech - during the committee stage (Foreign Ministry) debate of the 2005 budget by MKula Segaran (Dewan Rakyat, Tuesday): In December 1948, the United Nations (UN) first mentioned the need to establish an international criminal court to prosecute crimes such as genocide. Only sometime in 1989 the UN General Assembly asked the International Law Commission to resume its work on an international criminal court including now jurisdiction against drug trafficking. The United Nations General Secretary Kofi Annan said in July 1998: “There can be no global justice unless the worst of crimes – crimes against humanity – are subject to the law. In this age more than ever we recognise that the crime of genocide against one people truly is an assault on all of us – a crime against humanity. The establishment of an International Criminal Court will ensure that humanity’s response will be swift and will be just.” On17th July 1998, the international community adopted a treaty creating the world’s first independent and permanent International Criminal Court (ICC). The 17th July is since then celebrated as the World Day for International Justice.
In brief the ICC’s objectives are:
Ø Securing universal respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals throughout the world Ø The fight against impunity Ø The struggle for peace and justice and human rights in conflict situations in today’s world
The Rome Statue for the International Criminal Court in July 1998, was adopted by a majority from 160 countries and thus came about the establishment of the ICC. ICC’s judges and officials have been appointed and the first case is likely to be heard soon.
As of November 2003 the Rome Statute was signed by 139 and ratified by 92 member states. That means that the court is backed by nearly half of the world’s nations, including all 15 members of the European Union (EU) and all but one (Turkey) of America’s NATO allies. In the Asia/Pacific region only 11 out of 40 nations ratified and in Southeast Asia only two out of eleven nations, Cambodia and Timor-Leste, have ratified the treaty as of today. Thailand and the Philippines have signed the Rome Statute and are making first steps towards ratification. The question of the ICC and its involvement in national judicial system functions has ever since divided the international community. Since the first negotiations on the establishment of the ICC, international NGOs and civil society groups started to promote the engagement of their governments in signing and ratifying the Rome Statute. Asia has one of the more active regional movements for the ICC, but it is also the region where the United States (US) is focusing its efforts towards non-ratification.
The US is trying to involve more and more countries in bilateral agreements prohibiting the surrender of American citizens to the ICC. The US is threatening with the withdrawal of all its military aid to those countries who had ratified the Rome Statute but which were unwilling to sign the bilateral impunity agreements with the US. As of now some 70 countries, representing 40% of the world’s population, have signed bilateral agreements with the US exempting American citizens – and often their own - from prosecution by the ICC.[1] The US claims that the ICC would undermine the basic constitutional principles of popular sovereignty, checks and balances and national independence.
When the above matters were raised during the debate the Parliamentary Secretary for foreign affairs Zainal Abidin Osman was totally unsure as to whether Malaysia was a signatory of the ICC. Now how is this possible? A simple answer is that the present government has many leaders who are totally inept and misfits who have been appointed to shoulder important public responsibilities. These form of leaders need a thorough retraining and a new mind set, in short, need to sacked.
I was shocked when the Parliamentary Secretary for foreign affairs asserted he will give me a written reply to the matters I have raised. An oral answer in the House is best befitting of a Minister who knows his matters well. I urge the Prime Minister to take note the lackadaisical responsibility of the Parliamentary Secretary for foreign affairs in discharging his public duties. Why the Foreign Minister was absent from the house and have allowed the Parliamentary Secretary to discharge the Ministerial functions? Is t too much to ask the Foreign Minister to be present in the house and be accountable to Parliament?
What is clear is that the 9/10 majority of the present government has resulted the majority Ministers and the like to treat Parliament as just a mere rubber stamp!
* M.Kula Segaran, DAP National Vice Chairman and MP for Ipoh Barat |