A war crimes tribunal

The world has waited more than 50 years for a permanent war crimes tribunal. It will have to wait a few years longer, as the agreement signed in Rome last week is far from complete. The statutes signed by 120 nations must now be ratified by at least 60 signatories before the International Criminal Court can be established, a process expected to take up to five years. Yet the weekend agreement must be applauded as the partial realization of a noble ambition. Human indignation demands that justice should be meted out for the evils perpetrated under many guises.

The biggest blow is the failure of the United States to sign. Some of its objections are justified, including the concern that troops may be brought before the court on politically motivated charges. Yet the demand of some U.S. negotiators of a "100 percent guarantee that no American would be tried under such a system" suggests extraordinary arrogance, even though it may just be a clumsy defense of U.S. sovereignty.

The best possible outcome would be that a war crimes tribunal is unnecessary, and many have dreamed that it would be so by the new millennium. Sadly, regimes continue to be willing and capable of carrying out horrific offenses against their own people and others. The new court must do more than simply act as an expensive salve to international guilt at failing to act to prevent such crimes.

-- The Australian