Posted on 06/23/2003 3:37:17 AM PDT by kattracks
By PAUL AMES .c The Associated Press
BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - Facing a U.S. threat to force NATO's headquarters out of Brussels, the Belgian government agreed Sunday to change a war crimes law used to target President Bush and other prominent Americans.
The amendments would reduce the law's global ambitions, limiting the reach of Belgian courts to cases with a direct link to the country, such as when victims or suspects are Belgian citizens or residents.
As it stands, the unique 1993 law allows charges to be brought regardless of where war crimes took place. First applied against Rwandans implicated in the 1994 genocide there, the law since has been used by human rights campaigners, political groups and disgruntled individuals to file complaints against a score of international figures.
Government officials said proposed changes would prevent more cases like those lodged recently against Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Secretary of State Colin Powell, or an earlier complaint against Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that provoked outrage in Israel.
``It's not up to Belgium to decide if its justice is better than American justice, or Israeli justice or that of European countries,'' Foreign Minister Louis Michel said. ``We have fine-tuned the law to avoid abuses.''
It was unclear whether the changes would placate Washington, which insists the law be dropped. Targeting of Americans intensified in recent weeks after the Iraq war, leading to lawsuits against Bush, Powell, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other senior U.S. officials.
Responding to an earlier complaint filed by a left-wing lawyer against U.S. Gen. Tommy Franks, Rumsfeld on June 12 froze funding for a $352 million new NATO headquarters in Brussels and warned that the United States could boycott alliance meetings at the current headquarters.
Even before Rumsfeld's threat, the Belgian government had introduced changes to the legislation to allow the authorities to block cases brought against citizens from countries judged to have fair legal systems.
Using those changes, it quickly rejected the recent cases against U.S. officials. Washington, however, said more was needed to prevent the filing of complaints in the first place.
Belgian officials said the new changes should satisfy U.S. concerns by limiting complaints to cases involving Belgians and introducing further safeguards to ensure courts swiftly reject complaints filed against citizens from democratic countries.
Michel said the changes would end ``rash and annoying complaints that wrongly target figures from partner countries.'' The foreign minister himself fell foul of the law Friday when an opposition group filed a complaint concerning arms sales to Nepal.
The new amendments likely will be approved by parliament, where the governing Liberal and Socialist parties have a majority and the main opposition party has proposed similar changes.
Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt denied charges his government was folding in the face of U.S. pressure, insisting the changes were in response to the recent spate of politically motivated complaints.
``It's not American pressure. If anything, that would have the opposite effect,'' he said. ``We wanted to find a solution that allows us to keep the law.''
He said past and present atrocities in Rwanda and Congo - both former Belgian colonies - showed the need for maintaining the law in its revised form.
Human rights campaigners criticized the changes but were relieved the government had not decided to drop it completely.
``They've gone a little too far in reducing the scope ... of the law,'' said Reed Brody, counsel with Human Rights Watch in New York. ``It could have been worse.''
06/23/03 06:21 EDT
AP did their best to bury the real story in this article.
Human rights lawsuits were fine when filed against Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld, US General Tommy Franks, Tony Blair, Ariel Sharon, but when a human rights lawsuit was filed against the Belgium Foreign Minister, the law was changed within a few days.
This is an example of why it’s so important that the US not surrender its national sovereignty to these supranational organizations that would love to tear America apart.
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.