 |
Thank You Mr. President ! |
Posted on 07/02/2002 12:19:49 PM PDT by B-bone
MILWAUKEE (Reuters) - President Bush said on Tuesday he would try to "work out" an impasse at the United Nations over the International Criminal Court but stuck to his refusal to submit U.S. soldiers to its jurisdiction.
Washington is waging a battle to obtain a loophole at the United Nations giving immunity to U.S. nationals serving overseas from the court, which came into force on Monday and was created to prosecute heinous wrongdoing like genocide, war crimes and gross human rights violations.
The United States fears politically motivated or frivolous prosecution of its peacekeepers and has threatened to kill off U.N. peace-keeping missions one by one until its concerns about the court are met. The White House denies it using the issue as a pretext to scale back its peace-keeping commitments.
Court supporters, including the 76 nations that have ratified the 1998 treaty creating the tribunal, argue the court provides sufficient protections and that United States hopes to undermine the court after failing to block the treaty itself.
Major powers Russia and China have also chosen not to join the court.
"As the United States works to bring peace around the world, our diplomats and our soldiers could be drug (dragged) into this court," Bush told reporters during a visit to Wisconsin, saying this would be "very troubling to me."
"We'll try to work out the impasse at the United Nations but one thing we're not going to do is sign on to the International Criminal Court," Bush added.
"The president thinks it is a vital matter of principle to protect American service men and women and peacekeepers," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters traveling with Bush to Wisconsin, where he pushed a welfare reform agenda.
In a sign of its determination on the issue, on Monday Washington said it was pulling all three U.S. soldiers out of a U.N. force in East Timor.
It also used its veto power in the U.N. Security Council to kill off the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Bosnia, only to relent within hours and agree to keep the mission alive until Wednesday midnight (0400 GMT on Thursday).
Fleischer said the global court was "fundamentally flawed because it puts American service men and women at fundamental risk of being tried (by) an entity that is beyond America's reach, beyond America's laws, and could subject Americans -- civilian and military -- to arbitrary standards of justice."
Asked if Bush was using the dispute as a pretext to get out of peacekeeping commitments, Fleischer said: "Absolutely not. This is on the merits of the trouble that the United States sees for (the) men and women who serve our country abroad."
Court supporters argue that the court charter already provides ample protections against possible abuse such as Washington fears.
But the United States says it still fears politically motivated or frivolous prosecution of its peacekeepers and other officials who might find themselves in a country that has ratified it.
Washington has threatened to withdraw from all U.N.-authorized peacekeeping missions around the world if the 15-nation Security Council fails to grant it assurances -- via council resolutions -- that U.S. nationals are safe from the court's grasp.
Fleischer said the dispute was being actively discussed at many levels, but added: "It's impossible to predict what the outcome will be."
"We are involved, deeply, globally, and the United States has a lot at risk," Fleischer said. "This is a threat to America's involvement (in peacekeeping)."
|
Thank You Mr. President ! |
But I'm sure there are others on this site who can more thoughtfully explain the thinking behind this world court concept....
In order to do something..anything..you weigh both the Pros and Cons before undertaking the task.
What do we get out of this? We are a Superpower. Do we need to bring people (or countries) before a court? No. That is what war is for.
Divide and conquer.
I don't have the exact quote here at work but Maddie Albright summed up her administration's foreign policy view:
Thank God the adults are back.
How about we just work out the timetable on the cessation of funding the UN and its eviction from U.S. Soil Mr. President?
This however is an issue I don't think we need to compromise with, hence my comment of 'stand your ground'
Only a severe loss of sovreignty.
This is exactly the kind of statement by Bush that disturbs me. How/why can/would Bush work out an impasse with an organization that would usurp American sovereignty? Any President who would turn over American sovereignty is not performing his mandated responsiblity to uphold our constitution.
Before we/you Bushbots give Bush attaboys for this one, why don't you ask him what he has done to rescind Clinton's signature? While you're at it, why don't you ask him what he has done to prevent a future globalistsocialistcommunist Democrat President from sending the Clinton signed treaty to a future sympathetic Senate for ratification?
Clinton loved this thing. He signed the treaty. Signing the treaty wasn't enough to subject the United States to the jurisdiction of this court – Senate ratification was still needed. But Clinton's signature gave the ICC legitimacy. President Bush undid that damage – or part of it – by removing the U.S. signature from this hideous document.
Now shut the hell up.
Bush has said that he won't sign onto the ICC... he doesn't have to, Clinton signed it. Ask Bush what he DID to unsign it besides say the nice pretty words that soothe your pea brain so.
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.