Rudd QC Ceases to Act

The last time the subject of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's bizarre promise to haul Iran's President Ahmadinejad before the International Court of Justice for inciting genocide and denying the Jewish holocaust surfaced in the corporate media was in The Australian of 14/5/08. Rudd was quoted as saying that his government was taking "legal advice" which he'd "study very carefully." In my then post on the subject (Kevin Bonhoeffer vs Adolf Ahmadinejad, 23/5/08), I speculated that Rudd was simply waiting for the kind of "legal advice" which would "allow him to wriggle out of his idiotic pre-election promise [described by former foreign minister Downer as a "ghastly stunt"] to the Israel lobby."

Well, the long-awaited legal advice has finally surfaced, with Foreign Minister Stephen Smith announcing in Parliament yesterday (15/10/08) that "'The Government has given exhaustive consideration to international legal action against Iran for [calling for the destruction of Israel and questioning the Holocaust]. Having now considered legal and other advice, the Government has decided not to pursue international legal action against Iran'." (Labor gives in on Iran court threat, Daniel Flitton, The Age, 16/10/08) To which I add this additional snippet quoted in The Australian: "'In doing so, we recognised the complexity of the issues involved and the high threshold required to bring forward a case'." (Rudd breaks pledge on Iran, Mark Dodd, 16/10/08)

Adolf Ahmadinejad can cease sweating. Certainly, the Israel lobby has apparently ceased salivating: "Jamie Hyams, a senior policy analyst with the Australia-Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), said he appreciated that the Australian Government had considered charges, but said stronger sanctions against Tehran were a more immediate concern." (Flitton) Makes you wonder, doesn't it? In the absence of the government tabling its alleged, presumably independent, "legal advice" on this matter, we could surely be forgiven for speculating that the name of the game all along was simply to await Israel's instructions. Of course, you may be sure no one on the opposition benches will be asking for it. The shadow foreign affairs spokeswoman, Helen Coonan, is lip-syncing the government line: "Australia should keep up its pressure on Iran over failing to adhere to UNSC resolutions, not agreeing to the IAEA's requirements for inspections of all facilities and full clarification of Iran's nuclear policy." (Flitton)

Unfortunately, while the Australian government may no longer be entertaining the ludicrous idea of advocating for Israel in the ICJ, its dubious backing for that country's push for regime change in Iran continues apace with Smith announcing support for economic sanctions against Iran: "... they would form part of a co-ordinated response by the international community to ensure Iranian compliance with 4 UN Security Council resolutions calling on Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment and allow UN nuclear inspections... 'The sanctions are targeted against 20 Iranian individuals and 18 organisations which contribute to Iran's nuclear and missile programs, or otherwise assist Iran to violate its Security Council obligations'." (Dodd)

One is entitled to ask why, given the fact that Iran denies wanting nukes and that there is no evidence that it wants them; that the US's National Intelligence Estimate on Iran has concluded that Iran "halted its nuclear weapons program" in 2003; that Iran is perfectly entitled under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which Iran, unlike Israel, has signed) to develop a nuclear energy program; that Ahmadinejad never said he was out to 'wipe Israel off the map'; that Israel is the only nuclear power in the Middle East; that Israel's nukes are off-limits to inspection; and that Israel holds the world record for defying UN resolutions, the Ruddies are even going this far.