When the dust finally settles on the 20th century, realisation will dawn that most of its most heinous crimes have gone unpunished. The great irony of our times is that while the assassins of individuals have been meticulously arrested and charged, the annihilators of whole communities of people, the mass murderers of the times, have eluded the gaze of a goddess called Nemesis. The Nuremberg Trial was a charade without Adolf Hitler in the dock, Hiroshima's dead received no posthumous justice, and didn't Pol Pot die peacefully in his sleep the other day? And where is Radovan Karadzic, the killer-in-chief of Bosnia? Stalinist terrors or the story of a Vietnamese village called My Lai may have shocked the world, but not stirred it out of its somnolence. It is to make some amends for this that representatives from 150 countries have congregated in Rome to explore the possibilities of setting up a Permanent International Criminal Court, with the world's mandate to investigate, prosecute and try those guilty ofgenocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.It is meant to be the last major international institution of the 20th century, evidence of the global community's desire to divest itself of a hateful legacy. The vision is lofty and valuable in an era that has seen an estimated 170 million die at the hands of tyrants in the post-World War II years. But will it work? The biggest obstacle towards realising it lies in a force that has come to replace religion in the power it has been able to exert on people's lives and emotions nationalism. By defining the Permanent International Criminal Court as an institution based on the universal nature of human rights, which transcends national barriers, its proponents may find themselves in a head-on collision with the grey-suited representatives of national sovereignty. As scholars of international law have pointed out, in practical terms an international court could prosecute, say a Robert McNamara, the US secretary of defence during the Vietnam years, for theexcesses committed by American soldiers in Vietnam. Little wonder then that the chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Jesse Helms, has already voiced his reservations on the move.There are other questions too. How are such crimes against humanity to be defined by such a court? Who will be the prosecuting agency? If it is to be the Security Council that is given this responsibility, wouldn't it reinforce the unequal nature of international relations? And what about nations which do not support such a court, can they be brought to book? Given these constraints, it is unlikely that an international court will be anything more than a splendid castle in the air. Which will be a great pity. The world needs its idealism, it needs to protect its people from the machinations of meglomaniacs. One of the most bitter lessons of the 20th century is that tyrants and tyrannical regimes don't disappear, they reinvent themselves and perpetrate their outrage in another corner of the world, on anotherhelpless community. A permanent International Criminal Court of Justice could be the international community's last chance to stop the holocaust clock.
