International Criminal Court (Hansard, 19 November 2002)

§ Lord Wallace of Saltaire
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to sign a bilateral immunity agreement with the United States on the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

§ The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
My Lords, we have held preliminary discussions with the United States on the possibility of a bilateral agreement. We shall ensure that any agreement which emerges will be consistent with our obligations under the statute of the International Criminal Court and within the guiding principles agreed by the European Union Foreign Ministers on 30th September.

§ Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I thank the Minister for confirming that preliminary discussions have taken place. Will she also confirm my understanding that Her Majesty's Government have made it clear that they are, in principle, willing to sign a bilateral agreement with the United States? Can she also confirm that two staunch allies of the United States—Canada and the Netherlands—have made it clear that they are not willing, in principle, to sign an immunity agreement? Does she recognise that the praise that the Government have received from these Benches for pushing the Bush Administration on the multilateral route so far as Iraq is concerned, and for resisting those on the far reaches of the Right in Washington who wish to undermine international law and institutions, also causes us to question why Her Majesty's Government are not doing the same to uphold the principle of international law and international institutions on this other important principle?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, there are a number of states which have indicated willingness to sign up to bilateral agreements and a number which have indicated unwillingness. However, I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. The fact is that the statute itself provides for that type of agreement under Article 98(2). Agreement, of course, has to be within specific circumstances. Under the article itself we are not moving outside the legislation in coming to that sort of bilateral agreement because that is the provision within the statute. Therefore, in making such agreements, it is important to ensure that the United 253 States is still able to form part of the important international peacekeeping forces. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that I consider that an important ingredient in multilateralism in the world.

§ Lord Archer of Sandwell
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the provision was inserted into the statute at the insistence of the United States? Does she agree that over the past few years this country has built up enormous international respect, not least through its leadership in ensuring that those who commit horrific offences should be made accountable internationally? Would it not be a tragedy to squander that capital paying off the moral debts of the United States?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, my noble and learned friend puts his point in tendentious terms. However the article came to be put in the legislation, the fact is that it was agreed. Nothing that we are discussing with the United States will move outside the guiding principles agreed with EU partners and we believe that that is enormously important in securing the United States' continued agreement to continue in the important multilateral forces which I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. We cannot keep going on the basis of deferrals, such as the one agreed in July, to protect the position of the United States. We need something far more solid than that, and we have a means of getting it.

§ Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, does the Minister share my mild surprise at the criticism of the United States implicit in the remarks heard in this Chamber? Is it not the position that the United States is by far the biggest contributor to peacekeeping, providing the most personnel in the whole world? Those personnel inevitably are more exposed than any other to possibly politically motivated or malicious prosecutions. Should we not be doing everything we possibly can to retain the peacekeeping roles of America and to ensure that America continues to safeguard the stability of the international community?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, that is precisely the point I have been making. We understand the anxieties that the United States has about the International Criminal Court. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, is right. The United States is an important part of peacekeeping forces around the world. We do not share the anxieties of the United States. We are full-blooded participants in having signed up to the International Criminal Court. The fact is that the reality of the United States, position has to be addressed. We believe that the United States is serious when it says that the absence of assurances in respect of the ICC will constrain its willingness to conduct military operations in support of foreign policy, such as the peacekeeping to which the noble 254 Lord referred. In those circumstances it is right and prudent to go along and progress the lines I have outlined.

§ Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords. does the Minister agree that any signing of a bilateral agreement by the UK would go a long way to weaken the moral strength and power of the International Criminal Court? Is it not sometimes appropriate to tell one's best friends that what they are doing is not particularly wise? Does she agree that the matter could be brought before the House of Lords again before the Government decide to sign the bilateral agreement?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, as we have discussed on a number of occasions, the fact is that the United Kingdom Government often take issue with the United States Government on a whole range of matters, not just the International Criminal Court—for example, the protocols around chemical and biological warfare and the important issue of capital punishment. We have taken issue over Kyoto. It is certainly not the case that the United Kingdom always agrees with the United States. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, says that signing an agreement would weaken the International Criminal Court. I put it to the noble Baroness that we shall be far more weakened in relation to the multilateral basis on which we are trying to operate in the United Nations if we reach a position where the United States simply will not take part in peacekeeping forces. That would be a far worse position for us to be in.