I'll try to clarify a number of things.
I agree with Kevin. I would have thought his conclusions might have followed from this premise, his initial premise, that this is the most horrific call that any leader can propagate. I agree with you. In fact, this is the only leader who has consistently.... That's why I gave you background evidence. And since I gave you the background evidence on December 12, regrettably Mr. Ahmadinejad and some of his associates have repeated the call to wipe Israel off the map--with impunity.
Now, you've said that it's an unprecedented move to ask the International Criminal Court to intervene on this. I have to correct you both, if you'll permit me. Number one, Canada supported the reference to the International Criminal Court of atrocities committed by Sudanese officials. Sudan is not a member or state party to the International Criminal Court. So this is not unprecedented, nor is it related to the fact that Iran, for example, may not be a party to the International Criminal Court. Canada supported it. I supported it. I was in the government. I can tell you that was exactly what we did as the government of the time, which I suspect your government would have done as well, namely to call on the UN Security Council to refer the matter to the International Criminal Court.
Mr. Sorenson mentioned properly formed policy considerations. My answer to that is, what message are we sending if we say that you can advocate genocide with impunity? What kind of human rights, foreign policy, international law implication is that? Mr. Sorenson also spoke to the issue of the development of nuclear weapons by Iran. I'm trying to make the connection here. At the UN we have taken the position--and indeed the UN has taken the position--in fact to pass resolutions calling upon Iran to stop the enrichment of nuclear weapons.... Iran has said it will use these nuclear weapons to “eliminate” Israel, in their words, “in one single storm”. We have to say to the UN that it's not only the enrichment of nuclear weapons, it's the genocidal intent that is linked--by their own words--to the use of nuclear weapons.
Finally, you mentioned speaking about Iran in other contexts and forums. This doesn't preclude our speaking to Iran about anything else. But if we can't speak about enforcing the genocide convention, if we can't, at a very minimum, refer the matter to the UN to consider it.... I mean, this is a minimalist motion that we are speaking to.
I want to get to Denise's comments. She's correct that it's a matter of style. Let's put it this way, I accept her friendly amendment that would state “Therefore, it is recommended that”, in the fourth line.... After the words “for the prevention and suppression of the public and direct incitement to commit to genocide”, I would add the words “by senior Iranian government officials”. It's in the preamble and it was intended to be incorporated in this specific recommendation. I accept the friendly amendment that it would read better by putting, in both number one and line two of number two, the same words, “by senior government officials” after “genocidal incitement”.
As to the matter of investigation of prosecution, she is correct as well. I did not intend to suggest that we should necessarily prosecute or that we don't need to investigate in order to prosecute. I'm saying that we refer the matter to the UN Security Council and they make that determination. In other words, it's a reference where, as with Sudan, they refer the matter to the International Criminal Court for investigation and prosecution. Those are the words. The International Criminal Court will make that determination.
I'm basically asking for a very minimalist thing. Let's just send this to the UN. Let the appropriate agencies of the UN discuss this. Let the matter be before the UN. Let the matter of incitement to genocide be before the UN. I would not want, in 2007, that we did not at the very least recommend that the incitement to genocide be discussed by the UN. They determine whether it should go to the International Criminal Court for investigation and prosecution.
I'm not recommending that Ahmadinejad be prosecuted; I'm recommending that the UN consider it and make that determination. It's so minimalist...you can't get more minimalist.