Canada's efforts towards International law

As everyone is quite aware each day has many celebrations attached to them. One such day is 17 July. This day is International Justice day which takes special note of the Rome Statute and International Crimminal Court.

Mr. Donald Deya, CEO of the Pan African Lawyers Union (PALU) and Chair of the International Coalition for the ResponsibilitytoProtect, acknowledged how much we have done and how much we still have to do. “As we mark the 20th anniversary of the Rome Statute, the international community is provided with a timely opportunity to reflect on how far we have come, but also how far we still must go to end impunity and better protect populations from atrocity crimes, particularly in ensuring the transition from commitments to action. Experience has shown that seeking justice for victims is not easy, but it is vital to the prevention of their recurrence. With this in mind, we all must take advantage of this historic opportunity to reaffirm our commitment towards international justice by working together to strengthen national, regional, and international atrocity prevention tools to reinforce accountability for perpetrators and uphold our obligations under the Responsibility to Protect.”

For those in Canada, we have a very strong history in international politics yet very few of us know how much we have done. Philippe Kirsch was born in Belgium then came to Canada in 1961. In 1998 as a Canadian diplomat, he began the five year work to lead the world into the creation of international crimminal court. There was very little support for such a court at that time yet he pushed through.

Starting in 1996, Canada had seen a deep need for such a court due to Louise Arbour's work as the United Nations' chief prosecutor of International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda. As she fought to have war crimminal prosecuted she made it very clear that a permanent court was needed. This work made Canada stand up and push for such a court.

From those two efforts came the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. In 2001 Canada lead an independent group that produced the ideology known as the Responsibility to Protect.

Each of these efforts did not have major news coverage. Also each of these efforts shows how much work we have to do inside our own border. What these efforts do indicate are a true example of what defines Canada, peace is very difficult yet it is worth the efforts to accomplish, even when the world is against you.

Trump and Putin

There is no doubt that the world needs to have a peaceful relationship shared amongst the most powerful countries. However, at this point in time there is a major element of distrust. This distrust is given more credibility when leaders give different answers depending on the audience. For peace purposes these mixed messages are not helpful. Neither is it helpful to use strongman tactics just to get your own way. At present this is exactly what we have taking place with Trump and Putin.

For Trump, this reality of being president is like a child in a sandbox. Everyone is waiting for the next temper tantrum via twitter. What he says has no bearing on what he believes or does. Sometimes those three things are all completely different. Trump has discreditted himself more times than anyone can actually recall. This puts people in a position where we are shaking our heads wondering what the hell is going on, other than complete idiocy.

Then there is Putin, the classic example of strongman politics. For Putin he is in charge of a country that is deeply integrated with his power structures. What is troubling here is that such power structures usually lead to a violent transition from one leader to the next. In this case though there is a safety valve in the mix with Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. With this avenue there exist a person who has already been president and has a credible resume to transition from Putin.

Both Trump and Putin have issues of trust to deal with. Both are leaders of countries which forced other countries to bend to their will. The history books are there to read the realities of such actions. However, there is little we can do about past actions. What we are left with is blunt truth.

So here we are with everyone knowing that peace is better than war, we are face to face with how to get to that peace? Had Trump and Putin met as they did and in the media session put out a statement such as this:

“The history of our two countries relationship has been a very troubled one. Even to this hour there are events that cause both of us to be concerned for our own peace. Today, at this very minute we are committed to building stronger relations. We are going to sort out the many issues we face as we build for a greater global peace reality. The era of our fight with eachother is over. Today we begin the more difficult work of actually working together for a peaceful world.”

Such a statement would have been met with great fanfare. However a different media statement was given and once again we are left with frustration, even though the above statement would have said the exact samething as what was actually said. Of course that is the difference between a statesman and Trump. Putin just had to stand there and hand Trump back his balls.

There is a great benefiit to the world if world leaders could focus on peace rather than destroying eachother. At this point in time Trump is not able to be a peaceful leader and Putin has his own personal power dynamics to weave to worry about the rest of the world. As far as he is concerned, he just won a major battle.