Posted on 05/04/2002 5:56:01 PM PDT by Pokey78
WASHINGTON, May 4 — The Bush administration has decided to renounce formally any involvement in a treaty setting up an international criminal court and is expected to declare that the signing of the document by the Clinton administration is no longer valid, government officials said today.
The "unsigning" of the treaty, which is expected to be announced on Monday, will be a decisive rejection by the Bush White House of the concept of a permanent tribunal designed to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity and other war crimes.
The administration has long argued that the court has the potential to create havoc for the United States, exposing American soldiers and officials overseas to capricious and mischievous prosecutions.
"We think it was a mistake to have signed it," an administration official said. "We have said we will not submit it to the Senate for ratification." The renunciation, officials said, also means the United States will not recognize the court's jurisdiction and will not submit to any of its orders.
In addition, other officials said, the United States will simultaneously assert that it will not be bound by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a 1969 pact that outlines the obligations of nations to obey other international treaties.
Article 18 of the Vienna Convention requires signatory nations like the United States to refrain from taking steps to undermine treaties they sign, even if they do not ratify them. As with the treaty for the International Criminal Court, the United States signed but did not ratify the Vienna agreement.
A government official said the administration planned to make its decision known on Monday in a speech by Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman in Washington and in a briefing for foreign journalists by Pierre-Richard Prosper, the State Department's ambassador for war crimes issues. Representatives of human rights groups also said they expected the decision, which was first reported by Reuters news service on Friday, to be announced then.
The pointed repudiation of the International Criminal Court, while not unexpected, is certain to add to the friction between the United States and much of the world, notably Europe, where policy makers have grumbled ever more loudly about the Bush administration's inclination to steer away from multinational obligations.
Despite the strong stance by the United States, the International Criminal Court will begin operations next year in The Hague. More than the required number of 60 nations had signed the treaty as of last month, and the court's jurisdiction will cover crimes committed after July 1 of this year.
It will become the first new international judicial body since the International Court of Justice, or World Court, was created in 1945 to adjudicate disputes between states. Until now, individuals were tried in ad hoc or specially created tribunals for war crimes like those now in operation for offenses committed in Rwanda and the countries that formerly made up Yugoslavia, both modeled on the Nuremberg trials of Nazi officials following World War II.
Harold Hongju Koh, a Yale law professor and a former assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration, said the retraction of the signature on the treaty would be a profound error.
"The result is that the administration is losing a major opportunity to shape the court so it could be useful to the United States," Mr. Koh said. "Now that the court exists, it's important to deal with it. If the administration leaves it unmanaged, it may create difficulties for us and nations like Israel."
He described the opportunity as similar to the United States Supreme Court's 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison that courts could subject the other branches of government to its jurisdiction, decisively defining its role in the new nation.
"This is an international Marbury versus Madison moment," he said.
John R. Bolton, the under secretary of state for arms control, who has been a leading voice in opposing American participation in the International Criminal Court, wrote extensively about the subject before he took office, calling it "a product of fuzzy-minded romanticism" and "not just naïve, but dangerous."
Mr. Bolton, in an article in The National Interest in 1999, argued that the court would force the United States to forfeit some of its sovereignty and unique concept of due process to a foreign and possibly unrestrained prosecutor. He said that it was not just American soldiers who would be in the most jeopardy, but "the president, the cabinet officers who comprise the National Security Council, and other senior civilian and military leaders responsible for our defense and foreign policy."
Palitha Kohona, the chief of the treaty section for the United Nations, said it was unheard of for a nation that signed a treaty to withdraw that signature. David J. Scheffer, who was ambassador at large for war crimes and who signed the treaty for the Clinton administration, said that withdrawing the signature exceeded even the actions of the Reagan administration, which in 1987 decided it would not seek ratification of an amendment to the Geneva Conventions that the Carter administration had signed. The action concerned a document known as Protocol 1, which would have extended protections to soldiers of insurgent movements.
"There has never been an attempt to literally remove the document," he said.
Mr. Scheffer said the Bush administration's actions would not only undermine international justice but also damage American interests.
"The perception will be that the United States walked away from international justice and forfeited its leadership role," he said. "It will be a dramatic moment in international legal history."
One official said the Bush White House was prepared to say last September that it would withdraw the signature on the treaty, but the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that month delayed an announcement. Officials were not only occupied with the sudden fight against terrorism but also thought that renouncing the treaty would appear unseemly, the official said.
Most democratic nations and all European Union countries have ratified the treaty — except Greece, which is in the process of doing so — along with Canada, New Zealand and a number of African, Eastern European and Central Asian countries. Israel has signed it but not ratified. Egypt, Iran and Syria have signed. India, Pakistan and China have neither signed nor ratified. Russia has signed but not ratified.
Such wasteful energy, eh?
Doughty, get a clue ! The Europeans don't give a royal damn what WE do. They would have signed on to this anyway.
There are other nations around the world besides Europe. Japan and other nations were waiting to see what the US was going to do. I read an article on it last year. If even two or three nations signed as a result of our waffling on the issue, then we made a hell of a mistake.
It didn't take President Bush 15 months to decide to withdraw from this, it was in the works ( per above article ) many, many, MANY months ago. A little invasion and
a few thosand MURDERED citizens , sort of got in the way of the announcement.
It is with sadness that I read some of the comments on the forum these days. 09/11 took place over seven months after Bush was elected. During that time Bush had more than ample time to make a determination regarding this issue and make a public statement to the effect that we would be withdrawing our signature.
Is this really an issue that is so devoid of clarity that it takes seven months to make a determination as to what should be done?
Trashing President Bush over the time frame, of this, is utterly pathetic. You better grow up, stop complaining about him doing the RIGHT thing, and come to your
senses. What has happened to the old Doughtyone ? You used to be so somewhat intelligent.
You may view it as utterly pathetic, I do not. I view defending the flawed policies of Bush to be pathetic. Where he has done good, I'm willing to admit it. Speaking out on the ICC "AFTER" it has been ratified by the United Naiton's members, is like closing the barn door after the horse has left the barn.
As for my intelligence, you are welcome to come to any conclusion you like. Had Bush spoken up about this issue right away, I would have been more than willing to congratulation him on his actions. Now it's too little too late.
Whether Bush withdraws the signature or not, the ICC is an official entity, we WILL be subject to it's edicts or viewed as a pariah by the world's nation states. This should have been avoided at all cost. Now it's too late.
31 posted on 5/4/02 11:22 PM Pacific by nopardons
Oh, well I guess my opinion isn't as sacred as yours. Just when did you Bushbots determine that my first ammendment rights were revoked? Great way to defend the man, I must say.
Hmm, where did I say you were not "allowed" to speak? My how "victim" minded you are.
32 posted on 5/4/02 11:22 PM Pacific by Texasforever
LOL. Victim minded? You have the gaul to call me victim minded? You guys are a riot. If anyone doesn't figuratively slap Bush on the back every time he takes a dump the Bushbots make victim status look like a conservative core value.
Bush waffled on this issue for fifteen months. Now that the ICC is ratified, he finally found some backbone on the issue. Now he's your hero. Tell me oh brilliant one, when nations were signing up in support of the ICC, did our President make statements suggesting the ICC was a ill-advised idea which should NOT be ratified? Of course the answer is no, he didn't.
Quit defending the indefensible and wake up.
Stop calling those who say anything , even remotley nice about the president, a Bushbot. It's getting stale, Doughty, and in this case, much like a kindergartener calling someone who got the correct answer ( when he didn't ) a " poopyhead ". You're being childish.
33 posted on 5/4/02 11:25 PM Pacific by nopardons
I myself have said nice things about Bush. Does that make me a Bushbot? LOL. You guys are grasping at straws. Defending the indefensible qualifies anyone to be called a Bushbot. It's indefensible to excuse our President for taking roughly fifteen months to find the courage to withdraw Clinton's signature. Tell me how long it took you to know that Clinton's signature should have been withdrawn.
If you're like me, you were pi--ed that Clinton was going to sign even before he did. You probably wanted it retracted within the first thirty days, hopefully to dampen support from any other nation states for the ICC. Well that didn't materialize and I'm ticked off about it.
President Bush didn't sign onto Kyoto, and that didn't stop the noise / other nations from doing so . Bovine excrement, that the Euros were waiting to see what we did ! Clinton signed on to it . Blame him, if you think that the Euros were playing " follow the leader "; whic they were NOT doing !
There are enough African , Middle Eastern, and Asian countries, to have made up the required 60 , to pass this things, so please stop saying that without US, it would have failed to come into existance.
Gee, Doughty, did it ever occurr to you, that just maybe , should the ICC try to prosecute a nonmember ( the USA ) , they'd fail, because we wouldn't comply ? How about trying to give credit, where credit is due, for a change ? Pesident Bush deserves to be cheered, by EVERYONE , for doing this !
You've become an unappeasable , and it isn't a pretty sight. Would you be happier if Gore had won and signed this as well as Kyoto ? Maybe , just maybe, you aren't happy, unless you can moan and groan and heap scorn and calumny, deserved or not, on everyone. That's about what it's beginning to look like. You and I go back a looooooooong way, my dear, and my esteem , for you, is falling; sorry to say.
If it happens when George W. Bush is president, I would say the answer is yes. It wouldn't require a "war"; they'd just send in a Navy SEAL team or something to break the guy out and get him onto an American ship.
DoughtyOne felt that his keen analysis of George W. Bush's betrayal of our military was worth a thread almost a year ago. You remember ... when all the keyboard heros on FR were apoplectic because of Bush's "appeasement" of the ChiCom's during the detention of our "Spy Plane" crew. He was full of sheet then, he's full of sheet now.
35 posted on 5/4/02 11:35 PM Pacific by ArneFufkin
Let me see Arne, the Chinese knocked our plane out of the sky. They claimed we were in Chinese airspace. It's a miracle the P3-Orion didn't crash, our whole crew lost. Instead they were pirated over the open seas and forced down on Hainan Island. There they were detained. China demanded that we appologize. As part of a deal to get our men out, we did offer statements of sorrow over China's lost pilot, who died. If I remember correctly we even stated we were sorry he died.
Then our men were freed. But China made no concessions whatsoever. Even our P3-Orion had to be shipped back aboard a third party aircraft. The US was not allowed to pick it up with it's own aircraft.
China gained access to more technology. We were humiliated on the world stage and China was given a false impression that it could stand down the United States.
Perhaps you can name even one negative impact on China for it's treachery. Since there weren't any negative impacts, I'm not sure what grounds you base your comments that my comments at the time weren't keen.
According to you, if someone disagrees with Bush's policies he's apoplectic. If they agree with Bush they're good Americans and just the kind of people we want on this forum. Heaven forbid I refer to this as another fine example of Bushbotism.
I'm no damned drooling sycophant, and no, I don't agree with everything the president has said or done. Unlike YOU and the bloody unappeasables, I don't come here and demand that the president be impeached, hung from a tree, nor call him silly names. No president is going to do or say 100 % of what I want him to. When he does do the right thing, he should be praised for it. Calling anyone, sycophant or not, names, for saying a " well done, Mr. President " , when he does something we like, is childish, offensive, and makes YOU look stupid ! No, Doughty, it doesn't help you one bit; nor does it make the name called, wrong / bad / or sycophantic.
What it IS doing, is turning your old friends against you. You've lost me ; I'm now your sworn enemy.
His "indignation" about Bush and this issue is not the fact that it took "15 months to do it" it is that he did it. That puts him completely off balance. So like any good
contrairian he makes lemonade out of lemons and balances himself with "yeah but it took too long and now its too late". That is the very essence of "conspiracy theory"
theory. No matter what, the "facts" are fluid and easily applied to both sides of the "conspiracy" in question and still have a conspiracy.
37 posted on 5/4/02 11:44 PM Pacific by Texasforever
I have been advocating that Bush revoke Clinton's signature since Clinton provided it. Therefore it's non-factual that I'm upset about Bush revoking it. I'm downright pi--ed that he waited until roughly thirty days after the ICC was ratified to announce that he was going to revoke Clinton's signature, and I said so.
That you can't see why I might be reflects more on you that it does on me. Are you in essence saying that you think it was a good idea that Bush didn't show any leadership on this issue and waited until after the ICC was ratified to revoke Clinton's signature? If so, I'd find that a rather interesting position to defend. Of course that's if you truly didn't want the ICC to become a reality in the first place.
I'm sure a self-indulgent guy like you has archived all your brilliant treastises over the years.
Tex, you and I could bitch about Bush's REAL missed opportunities and administrative defecits all night long. Legitimately. But ... that convo would be based in truth. These folks don't care about truth.
39 posted on 5/4/02 11:48 PM Pacific by ArneFufkin
Is it true that the ICC has been ratified? Is it true that Bush didn't speak out before the ICC was ratified? Is it true that Bush waited too long before making his announcement? The answers are yes, yes and yes. In this instance you are unwilling to admit what truth is. So let me see, who is it that doesn't care about truth?
I would suggest you stop looking for a corner in a round room. You are looking pathetic.
Why don't you just link that editorial thread you initiated? With all those bullet points, that IMO were bullshit from numero uno to numero endo? Let everyone judge, one year later, the truth of your judgements and intent. I do believe I was responsive in that discussion, and I'll admit if my immediate take to your commentary was wrong. Bush was out to undermine our military, remember Ron?
I'm sure a self-indulgent guy like you has archived all your brilliant treastises over the years.
52 posted on 5/5/02 1:11 AM Pacific by ArneFufkin
You know Arne, I've been debating people online for about 12 years now. One of the first telltale signs a guy is on the ropes is when he tries to morph the subject to inlude anything but the original disagreements. So far you've criticized my method of posting, my comments on Bush's handling of China's downing our aircraft and now that I am self-indulgent and probably archive my previous comments.
That you find my former and current comments to be B.S. is okay by me. I've seen your logic on this thread and I'm not that impressed by it.
Thanks for trying though.
Is it true that Bush waited too long before making his announcement? The answers are yes, yes and yes. In this instance you are unwilling to admit what truth is. So let me see, who is it that doesn't care about truth?
I would suggest you stop looking for a corner in a round room. You are looking pathetic.
55 posted on 5/5/02 1:18 AM Pacific by Texasforever
Impressive.
Could you post that commentary here? I'd like to see it again, if anything is true, I'll step up like a man and say I'm wrong.
I didn't think anything you posted that night was honorably presented, much less true. I probably was wrong ... ya think? How to judge ... how to judge?
I'll admit, the blue font kept me off balance ...
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.