Mapp Wayne: International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill — First Reading 
Mapp Wayne: International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:656;Page:5742] 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 The International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill demonstrates Dr Graham’s deep commitment to the progressive development of international law. Its ultimate trajectory would be to fundamentally change the contemporary international legal order. The wars of the 20th century led to a general recognition that aggressive war was a fundamental breach of the norms of international law and that all those who committed that crime would be held to account. The Nuremburg trials were the precise incident of that principle. Individuals were held to account for their actions. 
More recently the International Criminal Court has provided a general international statute to hold the perpetrators of aggressive war genocide and other war crimes to account. We have seen its effectiveness in the trials of the various perpetrators of war genocide and war crimes in the former Yugoslavia. There are also special tribunals in relation to genocides in Rwanda. Most recently the President of Sudan has been indicted by the International Criminal Court. Dr Graham’s bill is intended to continue that process. So he will be wondering why National is opposing it given what I have just said. 
There are two fundamental reasons. The first reason is that it would effectively hand our foreign policy to the whims of a United Nations Security Council veto. This would be the case under clause 7 of the bill. I refer members to an important recent situation where this was the case. Under the proposed legislation New Zealand and other Western democracies could not have defended the people of Kosovo against genocidal aggression because their Prime Ministers Presidents and indeed chiefs of defence forces would have been prosecuted in the courts. There would have been no authorisation for their actions by the Security Council because Russia and China vetoed the proposed resolution. I cannot believe that Dr Graham would expect or desire that as an outcome. But in reality in the way the bill is written—at its very heart—that would have been the outcome. I also note that the intervention which this whole House universally supported did not initially have United Nations approval. That is why it was called an intervention. It was only later that it had UN authorisation. I note that it is essentially the same with most situations in the Pacific as well. They subsequently get UN approval. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Such as where? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Well in the Solomon Islands. So in National’s view that is a fatal flaw of this bill. 
The second point is that I believe the bill has the potential to deeply divide our nation. It is worth recalling that yesterday this House debated the deployment into Afghanistan of the New Zealand Special Air Service. Irrespective of where particular parties stood on that issue they all stated directly including Dr Kennedy Graham’s colleague Keith Locke that we needed to support our servicemen and servicewomen when we place them with huge risk to their lives when they defend the interests of New Zealand. 
It is the view of Dr Kennedy Graham that the actions in Afghanistan do not meet the test of the United Nations. I say to him that he is wrong on that point. The United Nations Security Council resolutions both in 2001 and 2003 and the annual resolutions provide full authorisation of the NATO International Security Assistance Force mission. But the other key part of Mr Graham’s bill is the establishment of the office of a Special Prosecutor and the ability—this is the key point—of anyone to make a complaint to the prosecutor with the intent that Prime Ministers Ministers of Foreign Affairs Ministers of Defence and chiefs of the defence forces would then be prosecuted. That is the objective. 
It is certain that if this bill were passed members of the Green Party would seek to do precisely that in that particular case. Imagine I ask Dr Graham how deeply divisive that would be to our country and how it would deepen the risk between our peoples in situations that I understand are challenging. I think that passing this legislation is simply the wrong way to deal with this issue. I recognise that it is motivated by the best of intentions; I suggest to Dr Graham that there is a better way to deal with his concerns. He did in part recognise a pathway towards that. 
New Zealand is committed to the universality of the International Criminal Court. At present it does not have that status and a number of nations are not signatories to the court. It has been an objective of the Parliamentarians for Global Action of which I have been a member to get as wide a sign up as possible to that particular convention; it is the principal objective of the Parliamentarians for Global Action. I know that Dr Kennedy Graham has been directly involved in that process. It is a national goal for New Zealand that we should have universality of the International Criminal Court. I suggest that in deepening the global commitment to providing a more consistent basis to hold to account those responsible for the conduct of war crimes and aggressive war then it should be the case that the International Criminal Court becomes the principal and primary place for people to be held to account. 
National understands the underlying motivations behind this bill but fundamental parts of the bill are deeply flawed. There is another way to develop this process and I suggest to the House and to Dr Graham that those parts can be pursued and that there are mechanisms in select committees to advance that case. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker.