| • | Coalition for the International Criminal Court |
| • | Amnesty International |
| • | Human Rights Watch |
| • | OneWorld Full Coverage of Justice/Crime |
Posted on 06/30/2002 4:15:51 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
Rights Groups Assail U.S. Efforts to Win Exemption from International Criminal Court
Fri Jun 28,11:00 AM ET
Jim Lobe,OneWorld US
United States and international human rights groups are calling on members of the United Nations ( news - web sites) Security ( news - external web site) Council to reject U.S. efforts this week to exempt U.S. citizens and others serving in UN peacekeeping operations (PKOs) from the scope of the new International Criminal Court (ICC), the world's first permanent tribunal to prosecute war crimes, genocide, and other crimes against humanity.
|
Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International have urged Security Council members to oppose resolutions submitted by Richard Williamson, U.S. ambassador to the UN for political affairs, which would accord blanket immunity from prosecution by the ICC for all personnel serving in the UN-approved mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and exempt all government officials, including soldiers, from countries which contribute troops to all UN-authorized or -mandated operations from being subject to ICC rules.
"The U.S. is trying to get at this treaty through the back door," said HRW's executive director Kenneth Roth. "It's using the Security Council as a battering ram to attack an institution that dozens of countries regard as a fait accompli." HRW and other rights groups consider the ICC to be potentially the most important human rights body to be created since the Nuremberg tribunals after World War II.
The Court, which will be set up in the Hague ( news - web sites), Netherlands, early next year, is being created under the 1998 Rome Statute, an international treaty signed by almost 140 countries, that takes formal effect Monday, July 1. Despite strong opposition by the administration of President George W. Bush ( news - web sites), 69 countries have ratified the Statute to date.
Britain and France, permanent members of the Security Council with veto powers and leaders in the European Union ( news - web sites), all of whose member-states have ratified the ICC, have vowed to uphold the Court's integrity against Washington's efforts. They both played a key role last month when an earlier U.S. attempt to get its nationals involved in the East Timor ( news - web sites) PKO exempted from ICC jurisdiction was soundly rejected.
But the Bush administration has upped the ante considerably since then, with U.S. officials suggesting that it will withdraw all 2,500 troops and scores of trainers involved in UN-authorized operations in Bosnia and elsewhere or possibly even veto an extension of the Bosnia PKO, due to end Sunday, if it does not get its way. It has even been rumored that Washington will veto all future PKOs and extensions of current ones.
Less drastically, Pentagon ( news - web sites) chief Donald Rumsfeld this week hinted that Washington will no longer take part in any multilateral peace-related operations without a guarantee that its troops will be exempted from ICC jurisdiction. Meanwhile, some of the administration's right-wing allies in Congress have warned that they will withhold all U.S. contributions to UN PKOs in the future if the exemption is not granted. The U.S. currently pays about 27 percent of the UN's peacekeeping budget.
The rights groups claim that these tactics are all designed to undermine the ICC contrary to U.S. assurances in early May when, in an unprecedented action, it formally renounced former President Bill Clinton's signing of the Rome Statute, that it was "not going to war" against the Court.
"If the Security Council were, in effect, able to amend the ICC's jurisdiction simply by adopting a resolution, it would set a dangerous precedent for future amendments of the Rome Statute and possibly other international treaties by means that circumvent the process and safeguards provided in each treaty," according to an open letter sent by Amnesty International Thursday to all Security Council members.
"We believe that this is one of the most important decisions that you can make for the future of international justice," the London-based group said.
The Bush administration argues that the ICC lacks adequate safeguards against frivolous or politically-motivated prosecutions for which the U.S., with military personnel in more than 100 countries at any time, may be a particularly attractive target.
"We ought to be exempt from [this court] so that there isn't any kind of political harassment...particularly when you know you're fighting the global war on terror and you know the terrorist training books are encouraging people to make...charges [of war crimes] and allegations, and you know the press prints them instantaneously," Rumsfeld told international reporters earlier this week.
ICC supporters insist, however, that there are so many safeguards in ICC procedures, as well as in Status of Forces Agreements that are routinely negotiated with host countries before U.S. troops are deployed abroad, that the chances of any U.S. soldier being prosecuted by the ICC are extremely remote.
"The Rome Statute of the ICC already contains ample safeguards that would protect any United States troops against politically motivated or frivolous prosecutions," Amnesty said in its letter.
The stakes are very high not only for the Court and UN PKOs, but for international law as well, according to the rights groups.
"If the U.S. resolutions were adopted, it could force all countries that have ratified the Rome Statute to breach their treaty obligations" to cooperate with the ICC, according to William Pace, the convener of the international Coalition for the ICC. "This would set a disastrous precedent under which the Security Council could, in effect, change any treaty it wished through a Security Council resolution."
You see, we didn't sign on to that silly farce. I think we just ignore them. If you make a big deal about it, you just give them more credibility than they deserve.
True. But if you happen to be a US soldier, for whom the ICC has issued a warrant, you become an international fugitive.
You can never again show your face out side the borders of the United States.
With all due respect, you are incredibly naive.
Okay, I'm waiting patiently for you to explain the DOWNSIDE to all this.
Well if you’re a Grunt it may not be bad. You don’t have to go to another Heck Hole of a peace keeping post. You serve out the rest of your tour at a state side post.
But when your done being a Grunt and want to revisit some of the better spots in the world out side the US, being an international fugitive could put a damper on your travel options.
I think you may find, when all is said and done, that cooler (more politically savvy) heads will prevail. We have a LOT of enemies outside the U.S., just as we do inside. But they usually don't get the upper hand because they're too stupid.
It isn't worth p*ssing us off, and the U.N. powers-that-be know that quite well.
The U.N. can't even control two little p*ssant countries in Africa. They are the ultimate Keystone Kops: Inept, stupid, feckless, clueless.
I'm as afraid of the U.N. as I am the "bogey man".
Just can't wait.
Hmm, is it what one calls a "silver lining"?
I guess if PETA came out with a press release, wanting to charge the Japanese prime minister for "whaling crimes," the Japanese press might say "the Americans are making these ridiculous charges..." but it'd be highly inaccurate.
It's the subtle, not the overt MO that is frightening.
LOL! Hardly.
Dubya told you guy's right where to get off in his typical, sometimes semi backwards way and you make it sound like he's sneaking into the UN and operating under the cover of darkness or something.
It's plain as day to everyone involved, the ICC sucks and we rejected it. No US soldiers will be subjected to your kangaroo court and there is exactly no stealth involved here.
What's really going to be interesting is if they try to force their little court down our throat. They can file appeals and make motions, but at then end of the day they won't be doing a thing we don't lend our express approval to.
And everyone knows it.
(Which makes me a little worried actually. I can see some of these power crazed zealots conspiring against us militarily given enough time. )
True the danger isn't from black helicopters, but there is substantial danger, nevertheless. Much of the world, not surprisingly, would like to restrict the freedom of action of the US. They see "international" bodies and treaties as an important method of control. European socialist elites are currently engaged in a massive surrender of national sovereignty to EU bodies ever more remote from the political will of the people. They feel if they can tie up the US in a similar web, they can gain economic and political advantage against us, impossible if we maintain a free economy and political system. There are many forces in the US pushing the same agenda. It is a great blessing on this nation that we have leadership which will stand up for our Constitution and oppose the "internationalists." Ultimately this fight in the UN is good because it weakens our political ties to the European elites which have made a Faustian bargain for security at the cost of individual liberty and national sovereignty. They will end up with neither security, liberty, nor sovereignty. We must not go down this road, but must expose those institutions, organizations, and individuals who would lead us in that direction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.