Graham on the aggression bill

Over on Frogblog, the Greens' Kennedy Graham blogs about his International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill, voted down last Member's Day. The bill would have made it a crime for any New Zealand political leader to "plan, prepare, initiate or execute an act of aggression" in violation of the UN Charter - something the government wasn't very keen on. The irony is that while they've just voted it down, when the International Criminal Court finally assumes jurisdiction over the crime of aggression next year, they are likely to have to put up and pass a bill to do exactly the same thing. At which stage we will no doubt hear speeches from National MPs saying how great it is and how they supported the idea all along...

But outlawing aggression wasn't the only aim of the bill. One clause required the government to obtain and table in Parliament a formal legal opinion from the Attorney-General on the legality of any proposed military action. The government wasn't keen on that either - something Graham is particularly scathing of:

Its refusal to do that displays a 19th-century mindset. The message to the public and to Parliament is – don’t worry your pretty little heads on these great issues of state. International law is too arcane for you to understand. It is best left to the high-priesthood – international lawyers closeted in the Foreign and Defence Ministries. We, the Government, assure you that anything New Zealand does is always in accord with international law. Now, no more questions – it is time for bed.

That doesn’t wash in the 21st century. The public, including many international lawyers outside government, know about international law and global security. They can follow matters as closely as diplomats and politicians. And it will no longer be fobbed off on that score.

The public has a right to know the precise legal basis on which our armed forces operate overseas. It is unpatriotic, and self-demeaning, for any NZ Government to talk down to the public on matters of such high importance.

I agree wholeheartedly. In case National hadn't noticed, we live in a 21st-century democracy, not an 18th-century absolute monarchy. What our government does in our name is our business, and any government which thinks otherwise deserves to be voted out of office. But I'd go further than Graham, requiring not just the tabling of a legal opinion, but a formal debate and vote in Parliament to approve any overseas deployment (as they did in 2001 over the SAS deployment to Afghanistan - but failed to do this year). That way there is clear accountability. If politicians want to wage war, they can formally put their name to it. And if we don't like that decision, we can hold them accountable for it at the ballot box - or, if needs be, in the courts.