EU candidates defy US on war crimes court

Bahrain Tribune ^ | June 25 2003

[knighthawk]

ATHENS: Countries set to join the European Union have opted to defy the United States and follow the EU in supporting a controversial international war crimes court, the Greek EU presidency said yesterday.

The move comes as Washington continues to seek bilateral agreements exempting Americans from prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC), notably with former communist and developing countries.

In the face of a US boycott of the court, EU leaders meeting in Greece last week reaffirmed their commitment to the ICC, the first permanent international court for cases of warcrimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

A statement from Greece, which holds the rotating EU presidency, said yesterday that the 10 countries set to join in 2004, plus Bulgaria and Romania, had signed an agreement to ensure their national policies on the ICC meet the line set by the EU.

Those 12, plus members of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), including Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway and Switzerland, promise “to ensure that their national policies conform to the common position”, the statement said.

EU leaders released a joint statement on Saturday in Greece saying: “The European Union strongly supports the ICC as an important step forward in the implementation of international law and human rights.”

Although Romania signed a deal with the United States last August exempting US nationals from prosecution by the ICC, the Romanian parliament refused to ratify the deal in the face of criticism from the EU.

The United States, which strongly opposes the court, has so far secured such deals with at least 39 countries. Washington fears the ICC could become a forum for policitally motivated prosecutions of US citizens.

Judges and prosecutor at the Hague-based ICC were appointed this year, but no case has yet been brought before it.

Washington is expected to make public the full list of countries to grant them exemptions after July 1, the deadline for ICC member countries to agree to the pacts or suffer US aid cuts.

The question of ICC jurisdiction and bilateral immunity agreements are expected to figure prominently in Wednesday’s EU-US summit in Washington.

The 10 countries due to join the EU in 2004 are the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia.

n Belgrade: The United States will not approve military aid to Serbia and Montenegro if Belgrade does not agree to exempt United States citizens from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, local media reported yesterday.

They quoted the US ambassador in Belgrade, William Montgomery, as saying that refusal to sign a bilateral treaty with Washington would disqualify Serbia and Montenegro for the aid.

Belgrade officials said earlier that they would decide on the US request following last week’s summit of the European Union and Balkan countries in Greece.

[knighthawk]

A statement from Greece, which holds the rotating EU presidency, said yesterday that the 10 countries set to join in 2004, plus Bulgaria and Romania, had signed an agreement to ensure their national policies on the ICC meet the line set by the EU.

No more UN for US-list

If people want on or off this list, please let me know.

[DoughtyOne]

[Cicero]

Interesting. I wonder if this is true, or just wishful thinking. It's still not clear where this dispute will end.

[AntiGuv]

It's a safe guess that the dispute will not end with either Romania or Bulgaria jeopardizing its chance of joining the EU..

[telebob]

Hi! I'm the US dollar. I'm feeling weak...very weak. I'm feeling so weak that I may have to forego all the wonderful stuff I would have imported from Europe if I were feeling stronger.

I may have to go to bed for awhile, at least until my GDP is up about 3.5% or so. How is your GDP, EU? I hope my weak dollar isn't causing you any inconvenience...

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"...the ICC, the first permanent international court for cases of warcrimes, crimes against humanity and genocide..."

Yes, interesting how many bullets it takes to kill a UN official in NY city if they ever manage to get their hands on any US citizen. I suppose I would not encourage such killing if they arrest Clinton, but he is no more a genuine US citizen any more than Benedict Arnold was. But what if they arrest some drunken sailor who causes an oil spill? Would US militias have the stomach to kill UN officials over that? The UN would be crazy to start off arresting the Little Old Lady from Pasadena because she flipped the switch during an execution. So they might start off with someone less well liked and creep in incrementally.

If GW is willing to cave on ABA approval of judicial nominees and the largest domestic spending increase in 40 years, would he stop the UN from arresting a sleazy toxic waste polluter? Rather than cross my fingers on what the DC dancers do, I hope people have their guns ready. This matter is far too serious to have some Poison Ivy League College clowns tell us what is best for us. WE CONVICT OUR OWN. UN STAY OUT OR ELSE.

[AntiGuv]

Just out of idle curiosity: if we intentionally bankrupt the EU, how do you suppose they'll pay for the 21.8% of American exports that they currently consume??

[telebob]

I don't think the gov will allow them to slide into bankruptcy. They'll just keep the dollar weak long enough to teach them a lesson about Big Dog diplomacy.

[AntiGuv]

Desperation is the word you're looking for; diplomacy has nothing to do with these rock-bottom Fed rates. The dollar will strengthen whenever the ECB decides they want to cut rates to match ours..

[Maceman]

I think that's spelled: "E-e-e-e-e-w-w-w-w-w."

[DoughtyOne]

Heh heh heh, you'll get no arguement from me.

[bjcintennessee]

Thanks for the ping.

[UnBlinkingEye]

Please explain why war criminals from any nation should be exempt from prosecution.

[DoughtyOne]

In truth they shouldn't. The problem is nations like Belgium and others who make that charge at the drop of a hat. Some nations have never approved of the US using military power at all, and we'd deal with them in the Hague or some other convenient forum ever time we used any force whatsoever.

When one thinks of as war crimes, is not in exercising their right to defend themselves. Hussein was a pariah to the whole world. Ignoring this, Belgium has already sought to indict British subjects and US citizens for war crimes. That's absolutely outlandish. Truth be known, those courts would probably convict if we gave them half a chance. Well, we shouldn't and can't.

Note that Iranians want to be liberated now too. Imagine a Belgium court calling us "war criminals" for real, but citizens next door to the state we liberated are now begging us to do the same for them.

Belgium is both a laughing stock and a dangerous entity. So is the ICC. Both should never be recognized by the US. If they do arrest some of our citizens, it's not as crazy as it seems if our people travel there, we should use military force to get them back. Arresting our citizens for trumped up charges ought to be an act of war.

[mark502inf]

Please explain why war criminals from any nation should be exempt from prosecution.

War criminals are not exempt from prosecution. This measure simply states that Americans will not be turned over to the ICC. Americans who commit crimes can still be prosecuted in American courts or in the courts of the nation where they committed the crime. Normal international measures and agreements in regard to extradition, status of forces and so on are all still in effect.

The main reason for not putting Americans under jurisdiction of the ICC is to prevent politically motivated charges, not to shelter American criminals.

The ICC is an independent court established by the Rome Statute and is composed of international jurists with universal jurisdiction over war crimes, etc. Not a bad idea in concept, but the problem is that its independence also makes it unaccountable, there are no checks or balances. It does not answer to the UN or the Security Council or any other body. It is supposed to defer to nations that conduct their own investigations, trials, etc; but the ICC can claim jurisdiction at any point if they themselves determine that an investigation came to the wrong conclusion, the trial was unfair, or the sentence inappopriate. That is the crux of the problem with this court for the USA. Obviously there are people on the international legal scene who harbor substantial anti-Americanism or whose ideology is hostile to American principles or who may disagree with an American foreign policy decision. Many of these people will be on the ICC and doubtless some would use the authority invested in the ICC to pursue their anti-American agenda. A potential fix would be something of the nature of UN Security Council authority to review ICC decisions.

[DoughtyOne]

I would add in one caviot, the United Nations and it's Security Council are not answerable to anyone either. Even if the ICC was answerable to them, it would still be problematic.

Government bodies whose members do not stand for election directly by the people they attempt to govern are not answerable to anyone.

When does the Secretary General stand for election? When do any of the officials at the UN stand for election? Right now we have a situation where Lybia can head up the Human Rights Commission and Iran can head up the Disarmament Commission.

Geez Louise, now that's representative government...

[mark502inf]

Agreed, overall. However, the USA is a permanent member of the Security Council with veto power. So if the Security Council had the right of review over ICC decisions, it wouldn't bother me too much if we were part of it.