The fictitious survey, according to the anonymous author, failed to elicit the right answers. But, more importantly, the worldwide response - or rather non-response - reflected the realities of the real world we live in.

In Africa, they did not know what "food" meant (because most of the drought-stricken continent is perpetually plagued with famine and starvation). In Western Europe, they did not know what "shortages" meant (because Europeans are known for their extravagance and overconsumption).

In Eastern Europe, they did not know what "opinion" meant (because some of the Eastern Europeans still live under repressive regimes even in a post-Cold War era). In the Middle East, they did not know what "solution" meant (because the ongoing crisis in that region seems never to be resolved).

In South America, they did not know what "please" meant (because most Latinos are perceived to be rude). In Asia, they did not know what "honest" meant (because most Asian leaders, their political cronies and family members are corrupt to the core).
And, best of all, in the United States of America, they did not know what "the rest of the world" meant (because most Americans are insular in their outlook while their leaders are unilateralist in their political thinking and don't really know what world public opinion means.).

Last month, the Bush administration once again re-affirmed its contempt for multilateralism when it announced its decision to "unsign" a treaty which had already been signed by the previous Clinton Administration. By all standards, it was a once-in-a-lifetime event. The United Nations frankly admitted it just did not have a precedent to go by.

The treaty at dispute was one that created the International Criminal Court (ICC) which is going to try war criminals of the future accused of genocide and civilian killings.
The treaty setting up the ICC was adopted at a meeting in Rome in July 1998. Since then, 139 countries have signed the treaty which required 60 ratifications to come into legal force.

Last month there were 66 ratifications - six more than the required majority. The treaty comes into force on July 1. The United States has refused to join dozens of international treaties and conventions ratified by the "rest of the world". These include key treaties such as the Law of the Sea Convention, the Anti-Landmine Convention and the Climate Change Convention.

The "unsigning" of the ICC treaty could also undo three other treaties which the United States has signed but not ratified: the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The United States has expressed fears that the ICC could subject American military personnel to prosecution in future wars around the world. But Secretary-General Kofi Annan has made it clear that the court is not directed against citizens of any particular country.

"The court is directed against criminals, and it will prosecute in situations where the country concerned is either unable or unwilling to prosecute." Those who commit war crimes, genocide or other crimes against humanity, however, will no longer be beyond the reach of justice, he warned. And these include the future Pol Pots and Agusto Pinochets of the world.

The 139 countries which have signed the treaty, however, do not include most South Asian nations - India, Nepal, Maldives, Bhutan and even Sri Lanka. Palitha Kohona, chief of the UN Treaty Section, says the widespread belief in the intrinsic value of the ICC - in a world traumatised by large scale human rights violations, whether in Yugoslavia, Rwanda or Cambodia - facilitated its early entry into force.

Asked what advantages Sri Lanka could accrue by joining the treaty, he said that Sri Lanka would join a major global tendency demonstrated by a prominent group of states, including the European Union countries, to emphatically recognise the importance of the war crimes court.

Meanwhile, there has been speculation whether Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is a prime candidate for the Court particularly for his role in the killings of civilians in the West Bank and Gaza.

The court only has jurisdiction over events that occur after its entry into force, namely July 1, and would not be able to take up any events that occured before its creation.
Secondly, it is nearly inconceivable that Israeli leaders could be tried before the ICC in any case.

The ICC only has jurisdiction if a covered crime is committed by a national of a member state (one that has ratified the ICC treaty); if a crime has been committed on a territory of a member state; or if a specific case is referred by the UN Security Council .
To qualify for the first category, Israel or an internationally recognised Palestinian state would have to ratify the treaty. Israel has neither signed nor ratified it.

Back to Top

Back to Columns

Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.
Webmaster