As Norway Bids for Security Council Seat, It is Accused of Hypocrisy
June 15, 2020
Though it has a reputation of upholding international law, Norway has
refused to ratify an amendment that adds the crime of aggression to the
International Criminal Court.
Ferencz at the Nuremberg trial. (Wikimedia Commons)
Special to Consortium News
As Norway stands for election on Wednesday for a seat on the UN Security
Council, Nuremberg prosecutor Benjamin Ferencz has lambasted what he called
Norwegian hypocrisy for failing, so far, to support an amendment to the
statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) that would include the
crime of aggression, which the Nuremberg Trials deemed the worst of all war
crimes.
Ferencz, who led the prosecution of German Nazi leaders responsible for the
extermination of Jews during World War II, has been a fierce advocate for
the amendment to the Rome Statute that would grant the ICC jurisdiction to
prosecute leaders responsible for the crime of aggression. The amendment
entered into force in 2018 and has so far been ratified by 39 states,
including the majority of NATO member countries.
Norway, however, is notably absent from the list.
The maintenance of international peace and security is the central purpose
of the Security Council. In a letter sent to a Norwegian newspaper, Ferencz
expressed, in no uncertain terms, what he sees as the striking contradiction
of Oslo seeking to occupy a Council seat while failing to support the
amendment to punish the crime of aggression. That crime is defined as an
unprovoked attack on a nation, without the justification of self-defense.
Security Councils mandate is to uphold peace and security. (UN Photo)
It does not take much imagination to recognize that nations which profess
their support for criminalizing aggression but which fail to take the steps
necessary to apply such laws to their own citizens run the very real risk of
being perceived as hypocrites, or worse, Ferencz wrote.
Though Norway is generally perceived as a champion of peace and
international law, the country has drifted closer to the U.S. government
since 1999 when it began participating in a series of U.S. and NATO-led
wars.
Among them were military interventions against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and
most notably Libya, where Norway dropped 588 bombs and struck targets other
NATO countries were reluctant to attack because of a high risk to civilians.
Three years later, then Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg was
awarded the post of NATO Secretary General.
US Hostility to the ICC
The U.S. has refused to join the ICC. The courts treaty was signed by
President Bill Clinton but was never ratified by the Senate. President
George W. Bush unsigned it and since then the U.S. has taken measures to
undermine the court and protect itself from ICC prosecution.
Nations are liable to prosecution if they commit alleged war crimes, crimes
against humanity or genocide only if they are members of the court or if an
alleged crime is committed on the territory of a court member, even by a
non-member state. For instance, after a preliminary report found reason to
believe the U.S. committed war crimes in Afghanistan, which is a member of
the court, the ICC opened a formal investigation.
The Trump administration responded last week by imposing sanctions on
officials of the ICC. The executive order freezes the officials assets in
the U.S. and bars them from entering the country. The ICC responded by
calling the move an unacceptable attempt to interfere with the rule of
law.
Bush, who unsigned treaty. (Flickr)
During the Bush administration, the U.S. pressured nations with a cutoff of
aid if they did not conclude bilateral agreements giving immunity from
prosecution to U.S. military personnel. Congress at the time passed into law
the infamous Invade Hague Act, which gives the U.S. permission to intervene
militarily in the Dutch city that hosts the ICC to free any U.S. service
members being held by the court.
Unlike the U.S., the Norwegian government is a signatory to the Rome Statute
and proclaims itself one of the main backers of the ICC. In 2010 Norway
promised ratification of the Kampala amendment, granting the ICC
jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. But it has never followed
through. Ferencz declared to the Norwegian newspaper Dagsavisen that after
making such promises, states that fail to ratify the amendment look like
hypocrites.
Hardly anyone today speaks with more moral authority knowledge and
experience than Fernecz on how to protect human beings from the horrors of
war and how not to do it, which makes his attack on the Norwegian position
all the more remarkable.
In the Nuremberg trial, war of aggression was defined as the supreme
international crime, surpassing even the most heinous crimes committed by
the Nazis against their victims. Chief American prosecutor, Robert H.
Jackson, said at the time:
To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, 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.
While Western governments tend to portray military intervention as a tool
for preventing other crimes, Ferencz maintains that war of aggression is
more likely to provoke war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity than
to prevent them.
Avoiding Debate
Ferencz, who turned 100 in March. (Wikimedia Commons)
The Norwegian government has so far mostly shunned making public statement
revealing its stance on the criminalization of war of aggression. Hence,
Norway has avoided international debate about its hitherto failure to ratify
the amendment as the Security Council election nears. Norway is running
against Ireland and Canada for the two European seats on the Council.
This might change, however, as a proposal urging the ratification of the
amendment, was introduced in parliament just before the corona crisis hit
Norway and paralyzed most parliamentary activity. The private members bill
was drafted by MP Bjørnar Moxnes of the left-wing Red Party. When it comes
due for debate and parliamentary vote during the coming months, the bill
will force the government to show its hand, voting either in favor or
against ratification.
Asked by Dagsavisen earlier this year why Norway has still not accepted the
amendment prohibiting aggression, the state secretary of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs was non-committal. The question of Norwegian ratification
of the crime of aggression raises a series of questions of principle that
will have to be assessed thoroughly before Norway can decide on future
ratification, he said. Though ambiguous, the comment seemed to leave the
door open for ratification.
