International Criminal Court

HC Deb 27 October 1999 vol 336 cc929-48

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Vaz.]

9.33 am

Ms Oona King (Bethnal Green and Bow)

I am immensely honoured to have the opportunity to initiate this debate on the International Criminal Court, which represents nothing less than mankind's efforts to outlaw gross atrocities: crimes against humanity. It also represents 150 years of evolution in international humanitarian law. Above all, it represents the recognition that having laws alone is just not good enough: we must have the means of enforcing those laws.

So far, 89 countries have signed the statute of the International Criminal Court, which was passed on 17 July 1998 in Rome. As soon as 60 of those countries have ratified the treaty, the ICC will be established. It will be the first permanent institution dedicated to the investigation and prosecution of individuals for breaches of international humanitarian law. However, to understand the ICC's significance, we have to understand the context in which it has developed. I should therefore like briefly to mention some of the milestones preceding its establishment.

The first real codification of war crimes was the 1864 Geneva convention on care of the wounded. From about 1900, international humanitarian law evolved more quickly, especially with the 1899 and 1907 Hague conventions on the laws and customs of war on land. The customs of war have changed, and the Select Committee on International Development, of which I am a member, has published several reports on that. It is increasingly civilians who are wounded, and often in internal, not external, acts of aggression.

The horrors of the first world war led to new treaties on wounded soldiers and on the use of gas and bacteriological weapons. The first attempts to establish an International Criminal Court were also made in that period, but they were stillborn. International humanitarian law began to gain ground after the second world war, when there was a groundswell of opinion favouring prosecution of the leaders of the defeated powers. The charter of the international military tribunal of 1945 represents the establishment of the first temporary international criminal court.

The Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals tried three classes of crime: war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity. The genocide convention, in 1948, was the first of the post-war conventions on international humanitarian law, and defined genocide as an attempt to destroy

in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such". The genocide convention also gave a name to what Churchill described, in this Chamber, as a "crime with no name".

The 1949 Geneva conventions on conduct of armed conflict, with additional protocols in 1972, codified war crimes and specified that, for the first time, internal as well as international and external conflicts were covered by law. Crimes against humanity were defined under separate conventions, such as the torture convention of 1984.

All those conventions have universal jurisdiction, which is a central point in the argument that has, finally, ensured establishment of the International Criminal Court. Universal jurisdiction acknowledges the fact that such crimes are so grave that their commission may be tried in any country, regardless of where the perpetrator comes from or where the crimes are committed. As the Pinochet case has shown, not even sovereign immunity overrides the principle of universal jurisdiction. There must be no hiding place, no safe haven, for anyone who has committed crimes against humanity.

I have repeated the words "crimes against humanity" several times already in my speech, and hope that hon. Members will consider what they mean when they are translated into action. I shall detain the House with no more than one brief description.

I shall never forget going to E1 Salvador in 1986, at the height of its civil war, and hearing of one of the crimes against humanity being perpetrated there, involving pregnant women, rats and metal boxes. A rat was place on a pregnant woman's stomach inside a metal box, which was heated from above. When the heat became so intense that the rat was forced to try to burrow out of the box, it did so through the pregnant woman's stomach.

I have described that crime in a little detail because words can be very dry and may not convey the horror of the crimes that they describe. I am certain that there would be no controversy on either side of the House about the need to ensure that we do not allow people responsible for such crimes to escape.

Despite the large body of existing humanitarian law, the 1990s have seen continued breaches, including ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, genocide in Rwanda and mass murder in East Timor. However, those atrocities have coincided with an unprecedented willingness at international level to bring people to justice and a dawning realisation that it is possible to do so. The first step was the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia in The Hague. Next came the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha. Switzerland, which is often ahead of the game, has tried and convicted a Rwandan citizen for crimes committed in Rwanda during the genocide in 1994.

However, the successful prosecutions are the exceptions that prove the rule, which, thus far, has been that international humanitarian law is not enforced. Thousands of crimes have been committed and many of the criminals are now in third countries, including here in Britain. I know of people thought to be guilty of such crimes. In my constituency, I have taken an interest in cases involving alleged perpetrators of crimes against humanity in Bangladesh during the war of independence and in Rwanda.

Under universal jurisdiction, third countries, including Britain, should be trying such cases, but that is not happening. There has been only one trial under the War Crimes Act 1991, which refers specifically to crimes committed during the second world war. That has been the only trial in this country for grave breaches of international humanitarian law, although there is little doubt that such criminals have been, and continue to be, in this country.

That failure on our part is reflected throughout the world, but it does not square with an ethical foreign policy. However, under the current Government, Britain has been one of the most proactive states in trying to establish the International Criminal Court. Respect and praise are due for that.

The need for an International Criminal Court remains, because we have to bridge the gap between what a state promises that it will do and what it practises. The law exists, but it is not used. We can see that with the genocide convention, which took almost 50 years to the day to have its first success.

Under the principle of complementarity, which is central to the ICC, the primary responsibility for prosecution of breaches of international humanitarian law remains with the state parties. I must underline that, because some commentators and critics of the concept of an International Criminal Court have said that they worry that it might erode sovereignty. One of the most important points is that the ICC will be able to take on a case only if a state has been unable or unwilling to take it on itself and is already in breach of laws that it has signed up to. The ICC will not be rifling through the files of the Ministry of Defence or demanding the indictment of Cabinet Ministers and senior officers. It is not an international FBI.

By the same token, the ICC will not, unfortunately, be able to catch, try and convict every war criminal, torturer or genocidaire in the world—not even a significant minority of them. Let us be realistic about that. However, it will be able to oversee the development of international humanitarian law, try cases that come its way and add another hurdle in the path of criminals who have all too often felt that they can act with impunity despite—and sometimes because of—the magnitude of their crimes.

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East)

Before the hon. Lady leaves this part of her excellent speech, will she agree to add a further item to the list of benefits of an International Criminal Court? Any such trials that have taken place, from Nuremberg onwards, have shown beyond peradventure that the war crimes were carried out, so that subsequent revisionists cannot get away with claiming that the acts never happened.

Ms King

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, which has not been lost on the House, where we recently remembered holocaust day. One reason why we have got to this stage is the Nuremberg trials. I entirely agree with him.

Because we have not yet ratified the ICC treaty, we might be letting slip some of the good progress that we have made. Let us not forget that the United Kingdom was at the forefront of negotiations in Rome and UK negotiators were instrumental in ensuring—this is an important point—that mass rape and other forced sexual crimes were included in the statute's definitions of crimes against humanity. The British Government are also credited with helping to secure compromises on some of the more esoteric but no less important matters of jurisdiction or definition. UK negotiators remain active in the preparatory committees now considering the rules of evidence for the court and the definition of the crime of aggression.

The Government have made several statements to the effect that we intend and hope to be among the first 60 states to sign. Four have already done so, including Italy, and many of our European partners are expected to do so soon. I hope that we shall not miss a chance to show our European partner France that we shall be quicker than them in upholding international law. If we fail to be among the first 60, we will lose influence over the critical early functioning of the administration of the court, including its financial administration. It would also be a poor indication of the seriousness with which we take our obligations under the international humanitarian law conventions that we have already signed.

The international community requires moral leadership on the issue, and I expect our Labour Government to show it. I shall be bitterly disappointed if we do not. I do not expect to be disappointed, because I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister—I take this opportunity to congratulate him on his elevation—and other Foreign Office Ministers take their obligations seriously. I understand that it is impossible to say exactly when a Bill will reach the House, particularly when it includes such major legal issues. However, I should like two reassurances from my hon. Friend.

First, I hope that the Government will not seek either of the opt-outs available under the statute. Article 124 says that a state can opt out of jurisdiction for seven years and article 98 leaves the door open for bilateral agreements allowing individuals to evade extradition. I would welcome reassurance about those opt-outs.

Secondly, I would welcome an indication of the date by which the Government intend to publish draft legislation and of the manner in which they intend to consult on the issue. If the Government could speed up the process, other countries might be prompted to ratify quickly and hence remove boltholes for today's and tomorrow's criminals.

My penultimate point relates to cost. Of course the court involves cost which, given America's intransigence on the issue, must be taken into account. It will be financed from three sources: assessed contributions by state parties, United Nations contributions approved by the General Assembly and voluntary contributions. Cost represents a reason to ratify sooner rather than later so that an undue burden does not fall upon the states that have ratified. Costs are attached to any legal system because the rule of law always has a price tag, but it is a price that any democrat should be prepared to pay. Ultimately, it is a bargain because we spend more on trying to clear up the mess caused by the people who will be brought into the dock than on ensuring that justice is done.

Finally, I am disappointed that the court will not be functioning in time for the millennium, but I am delighted that the Government have been so proactive. I hope that they continue to take a proactive approach. We should recognise that early ratification by ourselves and others will make sure that the court is the first international institution to be born in the new millennium. What better gift could today's politicians bequeath tomorrow's generation?

9.52 am

Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on her good fortune in being selected to initiate today's debate on the International Criminal Court. It is a timely debate and I hope that the Minister and the Government were listening carefully. It is more than 51 years since the idea was first discussed in the United Nations Assembly, which passed resolution 260 in December 1948, but we are not very much nearer the establishment of such a court. In the intervening time, there have been various committees and courts of the International Legal Commission, all of which have produced reports and ideas of fine words and sentiments, but until November 1998, no concrete proposals were forthcoming.

From time to time, there have been ad hoc international criminal tribunals. The hon. Lady mentioned the most recent ones, which were set up in The Hague to deal with the problems in the former Yugoslavia and the horrific activities in Rwanda. Those ad hoc bodies are fine as far as they go, but one has only to consider the Rwanda case to see their limitations. The Rwanda tribunal can deal only with offences committed in 1994. Other offences were committed in Rwanda outside that 12-month period, and the court can do nothing about them.

I do not wish to belittle the work of the ad hoc tribunals as they have done a great deal and there is still much to do. I should also praise the work of the Bar of England and Wales, which has sent British barristers to work as prosecutors and to train lawyers in Africa and has trained those appearing in The Hague in the work that is so necessary to achieve justice. However, I urge the Government to get their skates on and do something more than simply signing the statute of Rome, as they did last year.

Throughout history, most perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity have gone unpunished. Despite the military tribunals following the second world war and the two recent ad hoc international criminal tribunals, the same holds true for this century. Most perpetrators of atrocities on a national or international scale clearly believed that their crimes would go unpunished, and they have largely been correct. Very few criminals of that calibre have ever been brought to justice. One has only to think of Cambodia, where Pol Pot died in his bed and not in prison. There are criticisms that the Nuremberg trials that took place after the second world war were selective justice and there will no doubt be similar criticisms of the International Criminal Court in The Hague. To return to my example of Cambodia, unless we have a permanent International Criminal Court, the criticism of selective justice will continue to be made.

I know that criticisms have been made of the stand taken by the United States in relation to signing the statute and its lack of support for the establishment of an International Criminal Court. However, being rude about the United States will not achieve much. Instead of allowing their supporters and others to be rude about the United States, the Government should take the initiative.

I hope that I am establishing for the record what the Conservative party believes by quoting my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) when she questioned the Foreign Secretary when he made a statement on the International Criminal Court. She said: By creating an International Criminal Court, we hope that we can move towards a more humane and peaceful world in which there is no sanctuary for the despot, the dictator, or the depraved."—[Official Report, 20 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 806.] She was right then and the Government would be right now if they did a little more to push for the ratification of the statute.

The Government should not allow themselves to be drawn into a sense of complacency and self-satisfaction. We are one of the first nations to have signed the statute, but only four countries have ratified it. The hon. Lady mentioned Italy. The other three are no doubt worthy nations, but they are not in the first rank of international power. I urge the Government to get on and lead by example. Unless we do, all sorts of other less powerful and influential states that look to the permanent five will also lag behind.

Dr. Nick Palmer (Broxtowe)

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that a two-track strategy whereby we speed up ratification but also put polite pressure on larger powers to ratify would be appropriate?

Mr. Garnier

I am sure that it would. I am not suggesting that we should not put diplomatic or other pressure on China, for example, which sent its president here last week. I sincerely hope that our Prime Minister, when he was not entertaining the President of China, found an opportunity to remind him of the need for it to become one of the signatories to—not to mention ratifiers of—the statute of Rome. I trust that we have a sufficiently good relationship with the United States under this and any future presidency for the Government and their successors to be able to put pressure on the US to sign and ratify the statute; but unless we get on and do it ourselves, our arguments will have less force.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham)

I wholeheartedly agree with the points that my hon. and learned Friend is making. Does he agree that it is a great shame that, in the negotiations at Rome, where our team and others bent over backwards to try to assuage the fears of the USA—and the document that was produced consequently contained substantial legal flaws—the USA ultimately felt that it could not join the countries that signed up? Should not the Government make every effort on every occasion to meet US officials and try to persuade them that their fears can be accommodated so that they can be brought within the ambit of the statute? Without the USA, Israel, China and India, the job will not be done.

Mr. Garnier

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, as I did when she asked the Foreign Secretary a question in response to his statement in July 1998. I urge the Government to listen carefully to her, as I have done.

There is certainly a general feeling of warmth towards the establishment of an International Criminal Court, but the problem is how to translate that warmth into activity.

Only seven of the 127 countries represented in Rome voted against the establishment of the ICC. China and the United States were two among them. The US based its decision on its fears that US service personnel stationed abroad might be subject to malicious prosecution. Our service personnel are often stationed abroad—indeed, about half our armed forces are overseas at any one time—as are those of other NATO countries, but the United States is the only NATO state that failed to sign the statute. Strong diplomatic pressure is required.

My main concern about the statute and the thinking behind it is that, while 60 countries will have to ratify before the court can be established, only four have so far done so, and our Government say that they cannot tell us when the necessary legislation will be introduced because it is terribly complicated. Legislation is frequently complicated but Governments have not always used that as an excuse for not introducing it. Reform of the House of Lords is complicated but that is being pushed through, as other Labour Government legislation has been that could easily be described as complicated. If the Government had the will, the complications could be dealt with.

Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South)

May I draw the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to column 805 in the written answers in yesterday's Hansard, where the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) says that the problem is parliamentary time? Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman could have a word with his colleagues in the other place so that we get more parliamentary time and can ratify as soon as possible.

Mr. Garnier

If the hon. Gentleman can save the House parliamentary time by not supporting a Bill to ban fox hunting, we will no doubt have plenty of time to deal with more serious matters.

Mrs. Gillan

Has my hon. and learned Friend had a chance to look at some of the papers before the preparatory committee? I came across the disturbing information that for the statute to come into force the number of ratifications required, previously five to 65, had moved to 25 to 90. Has he any comment on that moving of the goalposts and the barriers that are being put in the way of the court at every stage?

Mr. Garnier

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to my attention. It underlines the point that, if our Government lead by example, others may follow.

It is not only Conservative Members who are urging the Government to press ahead with the legislation. The Foreign Affairs Committee did so in its first report. The then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), said: We intend that the UK should be among the first sixty States to ratify the Statute of the International Criminal Court. Legislation will be necessary before we can proceed to ratification. We will introduce such legislation as soon as the Parliamentary timetable allows."—[Official Report, 16 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 418.]

I was interested to hear from the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) that another answer has been published today; one appeared on 20 October from the new Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), saying that legislation would be introduced as soon as time allows. It is for the Government to control their own programme. They know how to make the time. The Queen's Speech is on 17 November, and I sincerely hope that we shall find reference in it to the relevant legislation.

Mr. Douglas Alexander (Paisley, South)

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the challenge of ratification extends beyond this country, as only four other countries plan to ratify within their coming parliamentary years?

Mr. Garnier

I would not disagree with that for a moment. I repeat my mantra: the sooner we do it, the sooner others may do it as well.

I, too, congratulate the Minister on his new position. It is always a joy to see one's parliamentary neighbours getting on in the world. I sincerely hope, in the nicest possible way, that his new job in the Foreign Office keeps him a long way from Leicester and Leicestershire for most of the parliamentary year. No doubt he will receive the typical Leicester welcome when he gets back to his constituency from time to time.

Niceties apart, I urge the Government to introduce legislation to allow us to ratify the statute in order to realise their intention that we should be among the first 60 states to do so, especially as it is more than a year since the Foreign Secretary said that ratification would not be a swift or fast-track process and that the legislation would be complex. All legislation has the capacity to be complex and I wish that we could get on with it more speedily.

The Minister will be aware of the consensus that it is most important that the major states, and especially the permanent members of the Security Council, show their support for the court. Will he comment on the most effective means by which we can put pressure on the United States to participate? There must be some easy way of assuaging its fears about malicious prosecution of its service personnel.

Does the Minister agree that, given that 60 states have to ratify before the court can be set up and that there has been so little progress so far, the likely timetable for establishment is about 50 years? I will be long dead by then, and I—and, I hope, the Minister—would like to be alive when the court is established. I look forward to an encouraging response.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)

Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that this debate is very short and that short speeches would be appreciated. That will allow more Members to speak.

10.10 am

Mr. Tony Colman (Putney)

I start by declaring an interest, in that I am a member of the drafting committee of Charter 99, the charter for global democracy that was launched on United Nations day, last Sunday.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on obtaining this debate, which is extremely fortuitous in reminding Ministers of the importance of the ratification of the statute in this coming Session. My hon. Friend said that France is due to ratify the statute this week, and I understand that Germany will ratify it before the end of the year. I heard this morning that, during the past few days, President Clinton has made a positive speech about ratification. I urge all hon. Members with influence in Congress to use it, perhaps through the British-American parliamentary group seeking a meeting with Trent Lott, so that he can take the matter forward on the Republican side in the United States.

My hon. Friend mentioned the antecedents of the work in Rome last year. I wish to refer also to the Commission on Global Governance, which was set up by Willy Brandt and was co-chaired by the ex-Commonwealth Secretary-General Sonny Ramphal. It met between 1992 and 1995 and had wide membership, including, from this country, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), the noble Lord Judd and Brian Urquhart.

"Our Global Neighbourhood" was published in 1995 and contained strong recommendations that supported the International Criminal Court. This September, Patsy Robertson—who is in charge of taking forward the work of the commission—met with Titus Alexander of the Westminster UNA, Peter Luff of the Royal Commonwealth Society and others, including Anthony Barnett, of Charter 88, to take forward the agenda of ratification of the statute.

Last Sunday—UN day—saw the launch of Charter 99. I urge all hon. Members who have not obtained copies nor signed the document to support it. It is an extremely important initiative, and one of the 12 points aimed at taking the agenda forward is the ratification of the statute.

The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) suggested other areas of influence. The Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting takes places in about four weeks' time in Durban. I hope that the Minister will be able to support the idea that, within the discussion of the review of the Harare declaration—which concerns crimes against humanity—ratification of the statute could be taken forward. The work done by our parliamentary counsel and in the preparatory committee could be shared with our Commonwealth partners.

I am proud of the Government's ethical foreign policy, and I believe strongly that ratification in the coming Session is a key part of that policy. I suggest that the millennium United Nations General Assembly next September would be a good point to ensure ratification, so that we can announce to the people of the world that this country has ratified early and has led the way in ensuring that the International Criminal Court can come into existence for the year 2000.

10.14 am

Mr. Martin Bell (Tatton)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) for her initiative in proposing this important debate. She will not like everything I say, but not everyone always does.

I had not expected to be a witness to war crimes and genocide in my time and in my continent. I was, and that left a deep impression on me. From that, I came to the conclusion that there surely had to be just such a jurisdiction and mechanism as we are discussing here.

I know the nature of modern warfare, which is to involve and to target civilians; it is to breach the Geneva conventions almost every day. I know that the leaders of people, armies and paramilitaries have become aware of this final sanction which might be used against them. I know that, in some cases, this has moderated their behaviour.

However, if the new court is to continue on the lines of the existing court at The Hague, I have grave doubts about it. That is from personal experience. I was the only journalist who agreed to testify to the court in the case of Blaskic. Most of the suspects who came before that court dealing with the former Yugoslavia were small fry, but Blaskic was not. He was the commander of the Bosnian Croat forces in the Lasva valley in central Bosnia in the bitter side war between Muslims and Croats, which started in April 1993 and continued to the ceasefire in February 1994.

Blaskic was arrested in the spring of 1996 and brought to The Hague. I believe that he has been subject to certain injustices which give me grave misgivings about the court that is now being proposed. He was held for more than a year before the trial began in June 1997. That trial went on until the end of July 1999—more than 25 months. As we stand here in this Chamber now, there still has been no decision from the judges. That means that, without a conviction, 10 per cent. of that young man's life has been spent in jail. That has to be unjust.

The procedures of the court are extremely dilatory. There were 158 witnesses and 3,000 pages of evidence, and the court sat for three days a week. The judges came in late on Monday and went early on Thursday. I calculated that Blaskic must have spent six days of his life in jail because of the judge's tea breaks. These courts are supposed to bear in mind the facts of the case, and not the comfort and convenience of the judges. If we are to set up a new system, it has to be run on different lines.

I am not sure that I am happy with the idea of a prosecutors court, which would be under political pressure to convict. If five cases come before that court in The Hague, and there are five acquittals, pressure will grow on the court. People will ask, "What is wrong? Why are you not convicting?" It may be because there has been insufficient evidence in those five cases. That is very important.

There is a risk when an individual—usually quite a prominent individual who represents a people—is arrested. He then develops a kind of iconic significance and is held responsible for the actions of some individuals in that group to which he belongs. The English language has a word for that—it is "scapegoat".

By all means, let us have a system of international justice in which there is no refuge for the guilty—however, let us above all have a system in which there is no injustice for the innocent.

10.17 am

Mr. Desmond Browne (Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

I join with other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on securing this debate and on generating an opportunity to contribute to this important subject. I congratulate her also on so clearly and succinctly setting out the history and development of the International Criminal Court and on identifying the key issues in the debate.

I congratulate the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), on his promotion, and I wish him well.

It is not possible to overestimate the significance of the adoption in Rome in July 1998 of the statutes of the permanent International Criminal Court. Consequent on that historic decision, for the first time a truly independent international court with an independent prosecutor and with the power to try crimes committed in internal conflicts will have jurisdiction to try those charged with war crimes, acts of genocide and crimes against humanity, and—when the issues of definition are resolved—acts of aggression.

At the ceremony celebrating the adoption in Rome in July of the statute of the International Criminal Court, Kofi Annan said: By adopting this statute, participants in the conference have overcome many legal and political problems which kept this question on the United Nations agenda almost throughout the organisation's history. No doubt many of us would have liked the court vested with even more far-reaching powers, but that should not lead us to minimise the breakthrough you have achieved. It is an achievement which, only a few years ago, nobody would have thought possible.

The following day, in a statement to the House, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said: It has been a paradox of our century that those who murder one person are more likely to be brought to justice than those who plot genocide against millions. The International Criminal Court will put on notice the Pol Pots and Saddam Husseins of the future that they may be held to account personally for their crimes against humanity. It will also offer justice to the victims who have no means at present of bringing their suffering before any court."—[Official Report, 20 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 803.]

However, the political success of the adoption of the statute of the court is only a partial victory, as has already been pointed out. The permanent court will not be established until at least 60 states have ratified the Rome statute. So that as many states as possible will do so by the end of 2000, and so that the court may commence its activities no later than that date, it is necessary to mobilise an international movement towards ratification. The United Kingdom, which played a leading role in brokering a consensus at Rome, must now play a leading role in achieving the necessary number of ratifying states.

Delay is unthinkable. It would deprive the international community of a fundamental instrument in the defence of human rights by allowing the prosecution of those responsible for the most atrocious crimes, and it would have a number of other negative repercussions. While great progress has been made in the past 20 years to foster an effective system of international criminal justice, in particular through the creation of the two international criminal tribunals in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda, it cannot be emphasised enough that that effort must be constantly consolidated.

Consolidation is imperative when one considers how many acts of genocide and violations of human rights go unpunished. In the past 50 years, there have been countless instances of crimes against humanity, including war crimes, for which no individual has been held accountable. Cambodia, Mozambique, El Salvador and Liberia have seen horrifying loss of civilian life, including many millions of unarmed women and children. In Algeria and the Great Lakes area of Africa, massacres of civilians continue and, over the past year, one need only contemplate the actions of war criminals in Kosovo and East Timor to see that respect for international law desperately needs reinforcement. We cannot hope to generate that respect for international law unless we establish the principle of individual criminal accountability for all who commit such acts and unless we tackle impunity.

Without justice, many countries have no hope of lasting peace. To neglect or delay ratification of the International Criminal Court would send a negative message to the international community, at precisely the time that we should reinforce the progress made so far. Furthermore, the longer it takes the court to begin its work, the more chance its opponents have to mount a negative campaign against it. Therefore, we must build on the enthusiasm and momentum generated in Rome before it is dissipated. To do that, it is essential that countries in favour of the court, such as the United Kingdom, proceed with ratification immediately.

In the unlikely event that my hon. Friend the Minister has not had his mind concentrated on the important issues raised by this debate, I have several questions for him. Can he provide any information on the progress of ratification in the United Kingdom? Can he tell us in broad terms when the Bill for ratification will be voted on in this Parliament? I accept that the process of ratification is complicated, but can he give us some indication of what adaptation of the criminal law of the United Kingdom will be necessary to facilitate that ratification? In order to speed up the process, will he consider separating the ratification procedure from the adaptation of our legislation? Given that we have two distinct criminal law systems in these islands, can my hon. Friend tell the House what discussions he has had with the Minister for Justice of the Scottish Executive about the adaptation of Scots law in anticipation of ratification?

10.25 am

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East)

I shall be brief, so that other hon. Members have a chance to contribute. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), although I will probably damn her future political prospects by saying that I agree with almost every word that she said. I intend to refer briefly to two points—verification and enforcement. As I pointed out in the intervention that the hon. Lady kindly allowed me to make, the value of an International Criminal Court is that it allows not only the possibility of retribution and deterrence, but verification that the atrocities have indeed occurred.

The searing experience of the Nuremberg trials set on record more than 20 volumes of evidence of bestial depravity committed by the Nazi regime. I will never forget seeing a short film, "A Painful Reminder", which I commend to hon. Members, made by Sidney Bernstein and Alfred Hitchcock when the concentration camps were opened. They went to the camps and made a filmed record of what they saw. They even anticipated that, one day, people would deny that those horrors had taken place. Shortly before he died, Lord Bernstein gave an interview in which he explained that they had thought ahead and filmed with the widest angle camera shots they could, to make it as difficult as possible for the people who would one day wish to commit those crimes again to deny that their political allies had committed them in the past. That was before we had the obscenity of neo-Nazi historians such as David Irving in this country, Ernst Zündel in Canada and Fred Leuchter in the United States of America trying to deny the holocaust. Verification is extremely important.

Enforcement is also important. It may cause some problems, but they should not prevent us from proceeding. The first problem is that of the criminal who is so strong that no one dares try him. It was argued at Nuremberg that the trials were "victors' justice". People still ask today how it was fair that the Soviets could sit in judgment when their regime was responsible for as many deaths and murders as the Nazi regime. We have recently had the visit of the Chinese President. One day, when those people are no longer in power, they may find themselves in the dock. My answer to that point is that being unable to bring everyone to justice does not mean that no one should be brought to justice.

The second problem is if the criminal is protected locally. Walter Rauff lived out his days in south America, even though he invented the vans which served as mobile gas chambers. People knew where he was and he was even interviewed for magazines, but he was never brought to justice. Mladic and Karadzic are still in Bosnia and nobody has yet sought to arrest them, presumably for political reasons rather than issues of justice. Aloïs Brunner, whom I have mentioned several times in the Chamber with a nil response from the Foreign Secretary on each occasion, was the man who assisted Eichmann in the holocaust in France—and he is still believed to be living in Syria under his pseudonym of Georg Fischer. Nothing is being done.

Finally, there is the problem that a criminal in government may be deterred from standing down if he does not feel he will get an amnesty if he ceases to be in government. My answer to that is simple: he should stay at home. General Pinochet might have found it useful to follow that advice. If this court is going to be made to work—as it can and must be made to work—it must be even-handed in the application of its practice, and dictators of left and right with blood on their hands must be brought to account impartially.

10.29 am

Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park)

I shall begin by adding my congratulations to the Minister on his new appointment. I am especially delighted as he is a former constituent of mine, and I like to see my boys doing well.

My main interest in terms of human rights has always been to examine the factors that lead to the abuse of those rights, and to crimes against humanity. My aim is to find ways to prevent abuse occurring in the first place. The task is awesome and involves many factors, such as relief of poverty, conflict prevention and fair trade conditions.

In the past two and a half years, I and other members of the Select Committee on International Development have travelled extensively. There is not time for all the stories that I could tell: suffice it to say that the blood-curdling and heart-rending stories from Rwanda, southern Sudan and Kosovo were enough to make me realise that, as well as trying to find ways to prevent such crimes against humanity, we must ensure justice for the victims and make certain that the aggressors are brought to justice.

That is why we Liberal Democrats were delighted that, after much pushing and prodding—and despite rumours that the United States was trying to stop us—the United Kingdom eventually signed up to the ICC in Rome last year. The treaty is probably imperfect, as the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) said, but it contains safeguards against malicious prosecution. There is provision for a pre-trial chamber that is independent of the prosecutor, and other safeguards will govern the length of time for which a person can be held. The sooner we ratify the treaty and begin the discussions on how it will work, the sooner we will be able to iron out the problems.

I am reminded very much of the problems that we had with the ratification of the land mine treaty. Many rumours circulated at that time to the effect that the US was trying to prevent us signing. In the end, I suspect that the United Kingdom signed up to that treaty because the French bounced us into it. Perish the thought that that should happen this time.

Must we experience the same delay with the ICC? Many agencies accuse the Government of being influenced by the United States. Other countries are not ratifying the treaty because we have not ratified it. That is a chicken-and-egg problem that we must get to grips with—once Britain ratifies the treaty, other countries will follow.

As the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said, we must be among the first 60 states to ratify the treaty so that we will belong to the assembly of state parties that will draw up the rules of procedure and evidence about which the hon. Member for Tatton is so worried. As the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) said, we must ratify the treaty to set an example to next month's Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.

Will the Minister tell the House what line the Government intend to take with the United States? That country's refusal to sign the treaties on nuclear test bans and land mines shows that it will not sign any international treaty at present. The cold war is over, but the United States does not know how to behave in the new world. Its excuse in this case is that there would be malicious prosecution of its military personnel, but safeguards against that are built into the treaty. For example, the UN Security Council has the power to halt any prosecution indefinitely. Moreover, if the US prosecuted one of its own nationals, the ICC would have no jurisdiction anyway, so what is the problem?

We have received many assurances from the Foreign Secretary that we will ratify this treaty, but the time for such assurances is over. We must ratify the treaty, and I hope that the Minister will tell the House that proposals to that effect will be included in the Queen's Speech.

10.34 am

Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South)

I shall be very brief, as I have only one substantive point to make. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) referred to the dangers of selective justice, and the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) mentioned the dangers of creating scapegoats. I believe that another danger exists, to which the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) alluded. That is that, in any conflict, there is always the risk that those on the winning side will determine the rules of the continuation of the conflict by other means.

I am worried by what the proceedings in the tribunal in The Hague have revealed. Reference was made to an apparent injustice suffered by a Croat who allegedly carried out war crime against Muslims. However, although leading members of the Bosnian Serb side have been indicted, either in public or in secret, the commander-in-chief of the Croatian forces responsible for atrocities against Serbs and Muslims is lauded around the world.

That commander is Mr. Franjo Tudjman, who visited this country for the VE day celebrations, and other purposes. As far as I know, no country in western Europe has tried to bring a war crimes action against him, even though he is implicated in the atrocities carried out in Bosnia in that period almost as much—or as much—as many of the other senior figures. I am a strong advocate of the International Criminal Court, and I want the Government to ratify the treaty as soon as possible, but we must look with honesty at the way in which the process has been handled over recent years.

It is good that Croatia's courts have now prosecuted Dinko Sadjik, the former commandant of the Jasenovac concentration camp. That came about as a result of international pressure. In order to get into the Council of Europe, among other things, Croatia had to be seen to do something about a man who went back to Croatia and said that it represented the flowering of the Ustasa state that he had supported and worked for in the 1940s.

I believe that we must start asking questions about the atrocities committed by the Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims, as well as by the Bosnian Serbs. We must ask those questions in an even-handed way, or the ICC will be seen—as The Hague tribunal is already seen by some people—to be the plaything of one side in the conflict.

10.34 am

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham)

At the instigation of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), we have had an extremely interesting debate on the International Criminal Court, and I am sure that the House, and a wider audience outside, will be grateful to her. Last year, the Foreign Secretary announced with great fanfare that the ICC was going to come into effect soon, but nothing has happened since.

I should also like to welcome the Minister on his first outing in his new post. I wish him great happiness and hope that he will stay a little longer than his predecessors. He is fortunate in that there is clearly a consensus in the Chamber today. There have been interesting and helpful contributions from hon. Members of all parties. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) shared his experiences with us today, and I am grateful for the views expressed by the hon. Members for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) and for Putney (Mr. Colman), as well as by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) also made a very sound contribution, but I am not sure that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) will be welcomed with open arms in America after her remarks.

I shall be brief, as I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say on this subject. My views about the International Criminal Court can easily be summarised. Only four countries have ratified the court so far, and it has been noted that major countries such as India, Israel, China and the United States have not signed up to it. I believe that compromises in the negotiations have left the treaty with fundamental flaws, and the United Kingdom has made no progress towards ratification. In addition, the efficacy and cost of the final outcome remain to be explored in detail.

The Foreign Secretary promised us ratification, and the will of the House is to seek ratification. The Foreign Secretary said that that would be difficult and complex, and that he did not want to rush it through in a single day as was done with the land mines legislation. We are willing to give the process time, but the Minister must realise that the Government are in charge of business—only they can make the time for this important move. The House expects the Minister to give us good news today; indeed, if he fails to do so, he will show that our greatest fears have been realised and that the Government are merely pandering to soundbite politics by making something look good, but failing to come through on it.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough reminded us that the process has been going on for decades. An international tribunal with universal jurisdiction over war crimes and crimes against humanity has been at the top of the agenda since resolution 260 was passed in 1948. Yet there is still no permanent International Criminal Court. The ad hoc tribunals set up to deal with Rwanda and Yugoslavia were set up at the express instruction of the United Nations Security Council and were never intended to be permanent. Indeed, the efficacy of those institutions has been called into question many times.

The establishment of an international court probably remains many years away. The Foreign Secretary's initial enthusiasm was misleading because it is hard to envisage the success of an institution that seven nations opposed and on which 21 nations abstained. The countries that I have mentioned are a massive concentration of people and world power. What have the Government done since Rome to persuade those countries towards the perspective of the countries that ratified the treaty? If the Minister cannot answer now, I hope that he will write to me.

Closer examination of the treaty reveals some serious difficulties. Speakers have alluded to its necessary adoption by 60 states if it is to come into force. I have been told that, on the preparatory commission—PrepCom—that target has moved. Is that so, and what does the Minister propose to do about it? There are plenty of anomalies in the treaty: acts of terrorism will fall outside the court's jurisdiction, as will the use of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. The use of poisoned weapons will constitute a war crime, so that the court would have jurisdiction if someone killed a single civilian with a poisoned arrow or dumdum bullet, but would not be able to act if the person concerned had killed hundreds of thousands of people with a biological or nuclear weapon. It would be helpful if the Minister would comment on those anomalies.

Costs and efficacy are important matters. The hon. Member for Tatton used his personal experience of the Yugoslavian tribunal to refer to a detainee who is awaiting sentence. However, the facts and figures relating to that tribunal are frightening. What is the Minister doing about the problems highlighted by that tribunal, and what lessons have been learned from it that may be carried over to the International Criminal Court?

The tribunal was established in May 1993. It has 778 members of staff from 63 countries. To date, it has cost more than $279 million. Yet the net result is that just one person—currently serving a sentence in Norway—has been convicted. Some 91 people have been publicly indicted: six have died; 18 have had the charges dropped; 33 remain at large; 31 are in custody; and two have been released pending appeals. We must query the spending of $279 million on putting one person in custody. What lessons is the Minister learning from the tribunals? What contribution is the UK making towards ensuring that PrepCom meetings and planning meetings on the court will rid us of the worst excesses of tribunals of this type? We must ensure that we achieve an effective vehicle for international justice.

I have mentioned our broad support for the court, a support the Conservative party has offered for decades. We have always supported the principle, and shall continue to do so by helping the Minister in any way that we can. I therefore hope that he will tell us that the Queen's Speech will contain a relevant measure.

Foreign policy today is not conducted as the Conservative party would like. It seems to be based on saying one thing and doing another. It is to be commended that Amnesty International is working within the Foreign Office, but less so that it is left to the President of China rather than our Prime Minister to raise human rights during the President's recent visit. The Foreign Secretary will not even sign a condemnation of China's human rights records, as the Conservatives did successively. I hold out little hope for Labour's ethical and moral foreign policy, which seems to have two faces.

I also have little hope that the Minister will tell me that the ratification of the International Criminal Court will be contained in the Queen's Speech. If he cannot tell us that—I can see from the expression on his face that he cannot—he has already failed. Perhaps instead I could ask for this commitment to the House and to those who wish to see the court's creation: will the Foreign Office give us regular progress reports and details of discussions that Ministers are holding with their opposite numbers in China, the USA, Israel, India and other countries that have not supported the treaty? I want to see letters and correspondence that prove that the Government are putting their money where their mouth is by pursuing a moral and ethical foreign policy.

At present, the Foreign Office tries to sound good and look good, but does nothing. No progress has been made since the Foreign Secretary announced to the House with a great fanfare the signing of the treaty in Rome. The House demands action.

10.47 am

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) for raising this important matter. Until the final remarks of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), an excellent consensus had been found, and I have rarely attended a foreign policy debate in which there have been so many expressions of support for the principle of what the Government propose. I am grateful for that support to the hon. Members for Tatton (Mr. Bell) and for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), and my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), for Putney (Mr. Colman) and for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes). I thank, too, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) for his kind comments, but must add that, although I am the Minister for Europe, Leicester remains in Europe—

Mr. Garnier

But not run by Europe.

Mr. Vaz

Nor, fortunately, is it run by the Conservative party. I shall continue to make my constituency duties a priority.

I was delighted that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) called me one of her boys, and shall refer to her from now on as "Mummy".

The Government are absolutely committed to the establishment of an International Criminal Court. Recent events in Kosovo and East Timor have only served to strengthen our resolve. The court will be able to tackle the culture of impunity, and to put an end to the dreadful paradox of the 20th century that those guilty of killing one man, woman or child are more likely to be brought to justice than those guilty of killing thousands. It will put dictators and potential dictators on notice that crimes against humanity will not be tolerated. We are determined that the International Criminal Court should be an effective means of securing justice for victims of heinous crimes. We hope that the knowledge that those who have committed atrocities will be brought to justice will help their victims and their victims' families to put the past behind them and participate in a process of reconciliation and reconstruction.

As many hon. Members have noted in the debate, the Rome statute was a huge achievement. The United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has called it a giant step forward in the march towards universal human rights and the rule of law. I am glad to report that the United Kingdom has played an impressive part in that achievement. We were, and remain, part of the like-minded group of states that formed in Rome to throw their collective weight behind the court.

We are proud of our achievements during the Rome negotiations. The United Kingdom took the lead in introducing important elements such as ensuring that the court covered internal conflicts, the question of child soldiers, reparations for victims, the appropriate qualifications for judges and the important question of court procedures. That work continues at the preparatory commission meetings at which our delegates continue to contribute in preparing rules of procedure and evidence of crimes, and the work is proceeding well. The next meeting of the preparatory commission will be held in New York on 29 November.

As many hon. Members have said, 89 countries have signed the Rome statute and four have ratified it. That level of support proves how seriously the international community views these crimes and demonstrates global revulsion at genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. However, the work is not over yet. We want many more countries to sign the statute and we have encouraged all Commonwealth members to sign and ratify it. We raise the issue of the court in bilateral contacts with countries around the world as well as in multilateral forums and we have supported activities to promote awareness of the court and ratification.

Mrs. Gillan

Did the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary raise the matter of the ICC directly with President Jiang during the Chinese president's visit last week?

Mr. Vaz

We raised many issues with the president of China. It is important that all such questions are raised whenever we meet Prime Ministers and other heads of state.

We have provided funding to the NGO coalition for an International Criminal Court and helped to fund the South African development community conference on ratification. We have offered support to countries that require technical assistance with ratification, and I repeat that offer today. We share the widespread hope that the United States will sign the Rome statute of the court. The Americans are concerned that their service men operating overseas could be subject to unjustified, politically motivated accusations, but we and our other NATO allies disagree.

We believe that the Rome statute contains sufficient safeguards to protect service men, the most important of which is the complementarity principle that allows domestic jurisdictions the right to try their own people. If serious allegations were made in good faith against British citizens, we are confident that we could demonstrate that there was a remedy in British justice. The same argument would apply to the United States of America.

We regularly make the case for the International Criminal Court with the Americans: it is no secret that we want them on board. The court will be much stronger if the United States is a party to it. The Foreign Secretary has urged Mrs. Albright, the American Secretary of State, to support the court—most recently when they met at the United Nations in September. I assure the hon. and learned Member for Harborough that there is no question of our being rude to the United States—that is not the Foreign Secretary's style. My right hon. Friend has taken every opportunity to ensure that the matter is raised constructively.

The Americans have said that they would like to move towards signing the statute, and we hope that a way can be found to address their concerns. I assure the House that we are very clear on one point: any solution to the United States question or any other problem must not undermine the integrity of the statute that was agreed in Rome or reduce the effectiveness of the court. The Government believe in a strong International Criminal Court as negotiated in Rome.

It is too early to predict when the court will come into being. It will happen when 60 states ratify the statute. I must inform the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham that it is not possible to alter that figure because it is set in statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence Committee cannot change it. It is obviously too early to predict when every state will ratify the statute so that we achieve the necessary 60 signatures. Some states can ratify before passing implementing legislation—which is what the four signatories to the treaty have done—but many others, like the United Kingdom, will have to make legislative provisions first and some countries will need to change their constitutions.

In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun who raised this point, let me say that it is important that we keep in touch with the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive about this issue. Several matters of concern to the ICC are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, which will be clearly consulted before the Bill comes to Westminster. We will have to alter our criminal law before we can introduce implementing legislation, so we will need to make changes before the Bill comes before the House.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House have tried gently to persuade me to reveal the contents of the Queen's Speech, but I do not propose to do so on the Floor of the House because I do not know what is in it and I cannot comment on such matters. Hon. Members are quite passionate about this issue—as are the Government—and they want to know whether legislation will come before the next Session of Parliament. It remains our firm intention to be one of the first 60 states to ratify the statute because that is an important demonstration of our support for the court. I cannot say what will be in the legislative programme but we hope that, if we make our intentions clear, others will take our lead and begin the process of ratification.

It is important for the United Kingdom to ratify early so that we can be a founder member of the court. We want to be part of the decision-making process at the first assembly of states. However, I cannot look into the future and predict accurately how soon the statute will come into force. Officials in my Department are already working hard preparing for a Bill. It will be detailed and complex legislation involving several Government Departments and will be introduced as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows.

The Bill will set out the practical operation of our relationship with the ICC. It will enable our law enforcement authorities to fulfil our obligation to co-operate with the court in matters such as the arrest and transfer of suspects, handing over information and conducting searches and seizures. The legislation will also give effect to the fines and forfeitures ordered by the ICC and incorporate into British law crimes that are within the court's jurisdiction. That will allow British courts to prosecute those crimes when they occur in our jurisdiction, something that we believe is very important. The primary right and responsibility to prosecute such crimes will continue to fall to the states, and the International Criminal Court will act only when states are unable or unwilling to do so. The Security Council will also be able to refer cases to the court in accordance with its responsibilities for international peace and security.

I hope that the very existence of the court will reduce the number of future crimes of this kind. However, we must be realistic: the International Criminal Court will be needed and it will require our support, politically and financially. I was pleased to witness cross-party support for the ICC this morning, and I trust that it will be borne in mind when the Bill passes smoothly through the House.