Gallic Stubbornness: France, Netanyahu and the ICC Arrest Warrants
The comity of nations, at least when it comes to international humanitarian law, took a rather curious turn with the announcement by France that it would regard Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s immunity as unimpeachable even before an arrest warrant approved by the International Criminal Court. This view was expressed despite France claiming to be a strong proponent of the ICC and international law.
On November 27, Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot had mooted the point on Franceinfo radio that France, while being “very committed to international justice and will apply international law based on its obligations to cooperate with the ICC” had to still consider the limits of the Court’s own statute, which “deals with questions of immunities for certain leaders.” Giving himself room to exit a potential legal tangle, he merely left it up to “the judicial authorities to decide”.
The central reason for not cooperating with the ICC on this point centres on the play of Articles 27 and 98 of the Rome Statute. The former makes it clear that, “Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of a person […] shall not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction.” The provisions of the latter prevent the Court from proceeding with a request for surrender or assistance requiring the requested State “to act inconsistently with its obligations under international law with respect to the State or diplomatic immunity of a person or property of a third State” unless cooperation had been obtained from that third state for a waiver of the immunity.
A statement from France’s Foreign Minister merely served to show that the warrant’s effectualness should be gauged by whether Israel was a member of the Rome Statute, an interpretation as disingenuous as it was inaccurate. “A state cannot be held to act in a way that is incompatible with its obligations in terms of international law with regards to immunities granted to states which are not party to the ICC.” It followed that Netanyahu and his ministers had the necessary immunities “and must be taken into consideration should the ICC ask us to arrest them and hand them over.”
Rather shoddy lip service to a proud legal and political tradition supposedly shared by Israel and France follows. Both shared a “long-standing friendship”. Both were “democracies committed to the rule of law”. Both showed “respect for a professional and independent justice system”. These were remarkable observations, given the provisional measures and opinions issued by the International Court of Justice about Israel’s operations in the Gaza Strip and, more broadly, the Occupied Territories.
These include the genuine risk that genocide is taking place in Gaza (the case begun by South Africa is ongoing), the deprivation of necessities, instances of famine and starvation, and the illegal status of the settlements that involve laws and practices of dispossession and separation constituting racial discrimination and apartheid. And what are we to make of Netanyahu’s authoritarian attack on Israel’s judicial system itself, intended to give more free rein to executive power?
The French approach waters down the effect of the warrants by effectively rejecting ICC jurisdiction over Israel’s officials and commanders, despite the court’s own finding that it had jurisdiction by virtue of Israel’s operations on Palestinian territory and the accession to the Rome Treaty by the Palestinians. This did not impress the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and its French member organisation, the Ligue des droits de l’Homme (LDH), which emphasised the importance of Article 27. Suspicion about the effectiveness of international law, according to Nathalie Tehio, President of the LDH, “dangerously undermines it at a time when it is urgently needed.”
Relevantly, Tehio noted that no arguments of any equivalent immunity had ever been raised regarding the ICC warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin, despite Russia not being a party to the Rome Statute. This revealed a “double standard” that damaged France’s reputation, “particularly in relation to the countries of the South.”
Other countries in the European Union are also flirting with the idea that arresting Netanyahu would simply not be advisable, adopting various slippery arguments. Italy’s Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani rather missed the point in suggesting that the warrant was not feasible as the Israeli PM would “never go to a country where he can be arrested.” (His colleague, Defence Minister Guido Crosetto, disagreed.) With this muddled reading of international justice, Tajani went on to declare that arresting Netanyahu was “unfeasible, at least as long as he is prime minister.” A closer reading of the Rome Statute would have put Tajani’s dim doubts to rest.
The issue of executing warrants for high-ranking leaders and commanders accused of violating international humanitarian law comes down to sometimes tawdry political calculation over diligent legal observance. France has merely confirmed this state of affairs, following previous approaches taken by Mongolia (towards Putin) and South Africa (towards Omar al-Bashir). Having been one of the key negotiating parties behind the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah that commenced on November 27, Emmanuel Macron and his diplomatic team will not miss out on posterity’s calling. As the ministry statement promises, “France intends to continue to work in close collaboration with Prime Minister Netanyahu and other Israeli authorities to achieve peace and security in the Middle East.”
The ABC’s Colonel Blimp: Why Kim Williams Misunderstands Joe Rogan
Joe Rogan (right) with guest Neil Young.
Like its counterpart in the United Kingdom, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation can count itself lucky to be given a place of such dominance in the media market. None of that gimmickry to boost subscriber numbers. No need for annual, or half-yearly fund drives.
Why, then, did the ABC chairman, Kim Williams, do it? And by doing it, this involved attacking US-based podcaster Joe Rogan in an address to the National Press Club in Canberra, a foolish, bumbling excursion into the realms of broadcasting and podcasting the ABC might do well to learn from.
In the question session, when asked about the influence of Rogan (“the world’s most influential podcaster”, sighs the ABC journalist), Williams shows little interest in analysis. Rather than understanding the scope of his appeal, one that drew Donald Trump to the microphone in a meandering conversational epic of waffle and disclosure lasting three hours, he “personally” found “it deeply repulsive, and to think that someone has such remarkable power in the United States is something that I look at in disbelief.” He further felt a sense of “dismay that this can be a source of public entertainment when it’s really treating the public as plunder for purposes that are really quite malevolent.”
Williams makes a point of juxtaposing the weak, impressionable consumer of news – one who will evidently be set straight by the likes of his network – and those of Rogan and his tribe of entrepreneurial podcasting fantasists who “prey on all the elements that contribute to uncertainty in society”, suggesting that “conspiracy outcomes” are merely “a normal part of social narrative”.
It is worth noting here that Williams is a former chief executive of an organisation that loved (and still loves) preying on anxieties, testing the waters of fear, and pushing absurdly demagogic narratives in boosting readership and subscriptions. That most unscrupulous outfit is a certain News Corp, its imperishable tycoon Rupert Murdoch still clinging to the pulpit with savage commitment.
Once Williams crossed the commercial river to become ABC chair, he had something of a peace-loving conversion, all part of a festival of inclusivity that has proven tedious and meretricious. The public broadcaster, he said in June this year, should become “national campfire” to enable a greater understanding of Australia’s diverse communities.
It did not take long for the Williams show of snark to make its way to Rogan Land and his defenders, notably Elon Musk, who spent time with Rogan in the lead-up to November’s US presidential election spruiking the credentials of Trump. Showing how Williams had exposed his flank, and that of the organisation he leads, the tech oligarch, relevantly the director of X Corp (formerly Twitter), was bound to say something given his ongoing skirmishes with Australian regulators and lawmakers in their efforts to regulate access to social media.
From such infantilising bureaucrats as eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant to the spluttering Williams who bemoans the “Joe Rogan effect”, Musk is being given, rather remarkably, a whitewash of respectability. Their efforts to protect Australians from any prospect of being offended, mentally corrupted, unduly influenced and one might even say being excited, is of such an order as to beggar belief. With little imagination, Musk retorted with boring predictability: “From the head of Australian government-funded media, their Pravda.”
Williams remains truly dumbfounded by this. “You make a comment in response to a legitimate question from a journalist, you answer it concisely and give an honest answer in terms of what your own perception of what [Rogan] is and suddenly I get this huge pile-on from people in the most aggressive way”. Accusations include having “a warped outlook on the world”, being “an embarrassment” and showing signs of being “unhinged”. Ignorance would be the better distillation here.
There is something to be said about Williams being hermetic to media forms that have prevented him from getting to the national campfire he championed. He speaks of communities and users as vague constructions rather than accessible groups. He also ignores, for instance, that Rogan was open to allowing Trump’s opponent, the Democrat contender, Kamala Harris, to come onto his program conducted in his Texas podcast studio during the campaign. This offer was eventually withdrawn given the conditions Harris, ever terrified by unscripted formats and lengthy interviews, demanded Rogan follow. The strategists and handlers had to have their say, and for their role and for Harris’s caution, she paid a price.
For a man with a News Corp pedigree and one no doubt familiar with the Murdoch Empire’s creepy techniques of influence and seduction exercised over the electorates and political processes of other countries – the United States, the UK and Australia immediately come to mind – Williams has shown himself the media iteration of a bamboozled, charmless Colonel Blimp.
Williams might best focus on the problems at his own broadcaster, the organisation the Australians call Auntie. It boasts, constantly, that it is the place where “news” can be found, but more importantly, “news you can trust”. But the current iteration of news remains bland, benign and pitifully regulated. It is clear what the talking points are when it comes to reporting on such areas of the world as the Middle East. Killings by the Israeli Defence Forces, even if they do involve the liquidation of whole buildings and villagers, are never massacres but measures of overzealous self-defence. Hamas and Hezbollah, being Israel’s adversaries, are always prefaced as indulgent terrorists. The list goes on, and, it would seem, the problems Williams is facing
No comments:
Post a Comment