BRITAIN wants to be another America. Like America, it wants to make its armed forces safe from prosecution. A controversial piece of legislation called the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, which does just that, is now making the final rounds of the British Parliament.
The most controversial provision of the bill is the presumption against prosecution of British forces for crimes after five years unless deemed exceptional.
The world is still smarting from the sanctions imposed on officials of the International Criminal Court (ICC) by former United States president Donald Trump (presently lifted by President Joe Biden) and now this. Perhaps British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is readying himself to do a Trump on the ICC.
We say Britain is turning its back on international humanitarian law. A YouGov Direct poll commissioned by Britain's Law Society appears to share the view. The New Law Journal, a British legal magazine, puts it thus on Wednesday: "94 per cent of the people think it is important the United Kingdom is seen as a country that upholds the law."
An overwhelming majority of the British (96 per cent) want the military to be held to the same (71 per cent) or higher (21 per cent) legal standards as the average citizen. Well said, we say. Thankfully, the peers in the House of Lords are doing a battle with the members of parliament in trying to restrict the government's effort to limit British soldiers' accountability for war crimes.
Many view the peers' amendments to be extensive. One such is the House of Lords' exclusion of genocide and war crimes from the presumption against prosecution. When the peers' amendments were debated in the Commons, Britain's lower house of Parliament, it added amendments to the amendments.
Criticisms by the peers seem to be working. Word has it that torture, genocide and crimes against humanity will be dropped from the presumption. We will know when the bill becomes law.
Johnson's government seems bent on getting the bill through to law to the extent the peers allow. With or without the amendments, the bill must not become law. Johnson will do well to drop it.
There are four reasons he must do so. One, the Overseas Operations Bill will undermine Britain's commitment to international treaties.
The four Geneva Conventions of 1949, which have been adopted by every nation, calls for equal application of the law and not for victor's justice. There is no reason why a British soldier should be treated more favourably than an enemy soldier.
Two, as a Chatham House analysis of the Overseas Operations Bill has it, the British government's move will "lead to victims being discriminated against their ability to see justice done, depending on the nationality of the perpetrator".
Three, Johnson is sending a wrong signal to other nations around the world: be a Britain and pass laws to keep the ICC away. Britain, the power of your example is mislaid.
Finally, Britain will have no high moral ground to stand on when asking others to fulfil their commitment to international treaties when it so easily breaks it. The English call it hypocrisy. So do we.