As reported in The AIM Network on the 11th of January, Australia’s former Prime Minister John Howard has been accused of war crimes before the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
Australia’s “man of steel“was honoured by US President George Bush for his role as a staunch ally in the fight against terrorism and received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2009.
A document titled Complaint against John Howard to the International Criminal Court was sent to The AIMN by a member of the SEARCH Foundation. ‘The Complaint against Mr John Winston Howard, former Prime Minister of Australia, is for sending Australian military personnel into war, and into waters of, the Republic of Iraq, pursuant to a 17 March 2003 decision of the Australian Cabinet to join in the invasion of the Republic of Iraq. As a result of this decision, the document claims that offenses were committed, and that these offenses are punishable under Article 6 Genocide, Article 7 Crimes against Humanity, and Article 8 War Crimes of the Rome Statute.’ The document claims Mr Howard should stand trial for War Crimes! Full report from The AIMN here.
What would Mr Howard’s defense be? Embarrassment? Mr Howard said he was “embarrassed” intelligence he used to take Australia to war in Iraq was inaccurate, but denied it was a “deliberate deception“.
A comment by ‘Loz’ (below the The AIMN article) sums it up: “If anything comes of this we will enter a brave new world.”
Howard said 4 months ago that “the suggestion that Bush made it up [WMD] is nonsense.”
Well fat chance, but if he is charged, can’t wait to see what legal team he will select: The Righr Honourable Malcolm Turnbull back to the bar? Julian Burnside? Jeffrey Roberts? Jon Faine could go back to law and be the instructing solicitor.
Could be a great TV series and out do ‘Rake’. There would be a great cast of characters to make it interesting. Who will play GB , Cheney, Armitage and Condi. The most interesting characters wille be ‘Curve Ball’ and Powell and how Powell was bowled Middle stump.
Poor Americans, they should have learned to play cricket and know how to deal with spin. Brilliant; darken up Warney and we have curve ball!
Poor Johnny, just a cricket spectating tragic, Mr. Bean could use the role. Now that will be his defence; ‘I be just a spectator and not very alert!’
Any of the great powers can veto Howard’s referral.
Article 16 of the Statute of Rome (which established the ICC): “No investigation or prosecution may be commenced or proceeded with under this Statute for a period of 12 months after the Security Council, in a resolution adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, has requested the Court to that effect; that request may be renewed by the Council [year after year] under the same conditions.”
This requires nine votes in the 15-member Security Council, which must include US, UK, Russia, France, and China. (An abstinence by the Great Powers is OK, but not a veto.)
Hmm, the word ‘abstience’ looks funny there.
The UK (but not US) is a member of ICC. However the UK has passed a domestic act to deal with its own peeps if they commit one of the three of the ICC’s 4 crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes (not the crime of aggression).
Now I am confused.
Please note that I am Dutch.
This was published in Holland, in june 2008.
I heard nothing about it ever since.
I only missed the news yesterday
May I add that former VP of the Netherlands, J.P. Balkenende experienced the very same thing?
[…] Complaint against Former PM John Howard to the International Criminal Court […]