Posted on 06/10/2003 5:58:16 PM PDT by blam
US clashes with Europe over war crimes
By David Usborne in New York
11 June 2003
The United States and several European countries are once again on a collision course at the United Nations, as Washington manoeuvres to renew controversial provisions that shield its troops from prosecution for war crimes.
The US is trying to keep its troops beyond the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court whenever they participate in international peace-keeping operations.
The Security Council is set to vote as early as tomorrow on a US-drafted resolution that will extend for another 12 months a one-year exemption for American soldiers serving as UN peace-keepers. The text is likely to be adopted, but not without extensive grumbling.
Tensions over the issue have been escalating sharply. Last week, Washington accused European governments of undermining its efforts to negotiate bilateral agreements with foreign governments, under which those governments would individually undertake not to use the new court to prosecute US soldiers.
In a formal diplomatic letter, Washington accused EU governments of lobbying states not to accept its appeals for bilateral agreements. "This will undercut all our efforts to repair and rebuild the transatlantic relationship just as we are taking a turn for the better after a number of difficult months," the letter states. A copy of the note was obtained by The Washington Post.
Diplomats predict that the new UN resolution, which is the same as the one passed amid much controversy a year ago, will be passed, precisely because of a desire not to reopen wounds inflicted in the run-up to the war in Iraq. But France and Germany, stalwart supporters of the tribunal, may register their disapproval by abstaining.
Some UN members not represented on the Security Council were pressing for a special open meeting of the Council at which any UN ambassador could speak. Tentatively scheduled for tomorrow, it would be an opportunity for governments to voice frustration with Washington. Supporters of the tribunal argue that special treatment for the US would weaken the court. Paul Heinbecker, Canada's ambassador to the UN, who is among those calling for the open session, said: "We would like to have the opportunity to register our support for the court.We see it as bringing accountability to the worst tyrants and the perpetrators of the crime."
The new court will have jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide committed after 1 July 2002. It was established by the Treaty of Rome in 1998 and a total of 90 nations have so far ratified the treaty, while 139 have signed it.
The US at first signed it under Bill Clinton, the former president, but the Bush administration then rescinded it. The tribunal is set to begin working later this year.
Yeah.
Care to take a vote on that issue?
That's the strangest post I've ever seen you type.
Everybody knows there is no single world opinion about anything except the desirability of a permanent immigration visa to the United States.
Besides, this war criminal stuff is primarily Old World material. They've certainly got more than their fair share of them and if they did nothing beyond prosecute their own they'd be busy enough.
That goes for Germany and France as well. Not all the bad guys went down. People got off with light sentences because no one could find any witnesses. Now that the evidentiary trail has been substantially improved over the years, it's time to take some of those 80 - 100 year old war criminals and give them an end of life conviction of some consequence.
International Court Jesters"I condemn the American pressure," George Soros thundered yesterday in Podgorica, Montenegro. He was referring to Washington's insistence that its Balkan peacekeepers are not subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court . A year ago President Bush withdrew the U.S. from participation in the treaty that created the ICC -- a pact Bill Clinton had signed at the 11th hour of his Presidency, even though Mr. Clinton said it had "significant flaws" and urged his successor not to seek Senate ratification.
If any doubt remains that Mr. Bush did the right thing, the Athens Bar Association -- that's Greece, not Georgia -- should put it to rest. The association announced Monday that it plans to file a complaint for "crimes against humanity and war crimes" in connection with the Iraq conflict. The target of the complaint, naturally, is not Saddam Hussein but Tony Blair and other British officials. The Athenians say they may also seek charges against Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, even though Madrid sent no combat troops to Iraq.
Yet the Greek complaint excludes the U.S., probably because the lawyers anticipate that they would lose any direct confrontation with the Bush Administration. The ICC claims jurisdiction even over countries that aren't party to the treaty, but Mr. Bush has made clear that the Constitution authorizes him "to take actions" -- presumably including military action -- "to protect U.S. nationals from the purported jurisdiction of the treaty."
Questions of "international law" often turn on arcane procedural matters. Mr. Blair's Attorney General is reported to have advised the Prime Minister in March that while military action in Iraq was justified under the 17 existing U.N. resolutions, it would be illegal if the Security Council rejected an 18th. Under this theory, Jacques Chirac's decision to veto would have made a criminal out of Mr. Blair. The Greek lawyers, of course, think ending Saddam Hussein's oppression was a crime with or without France's veto.
When Saddam or his henchmen are captured, they must face justice -- either in a reconstituted Iraqi court system or in a special international tribunal set up for that purpose, a la the former Yugoslavia. The unaccountable ICC, however, is looking more and more like a venue for political grandstanding -- a means for harassing U.S. allies while letting real criminals like Saddam get off on a technicality.
Boy howdy, I hadn't thought of that.
I'll admit it's tin-foily now, but I put nothing past the slimy socialist weasels turning Western Europe into the 21st Century's Soviet Union. Especially if Bush continues to gain strength and the Left thus grows ever more desperate.
OK, the US didn't sign the Kyoto agreement. I'm driving an M1A2 Abrams tank for peacekeeping duty in Kosovo. It is belching out hydrocarbon loaded exhaust and drips some fuel in the forest.
The UN charges the tank crew as criminals for violating 'World Environmental Regulations' and wants each member of the tank crew to pay fines of $20,000 to the UN Environmental Fund.
Does that sound like what you want? I can guaran-damned-tee you that is exactly what will happen!
Except that in the ICC you do not have the protections of the US Constitution, nor even a Common Law priviledge of a jury of your peers!
Do you want to see Geo. Bush and the pilots of the stealth fighters who bombed Saddam's hidey-hole charged as war criminals because Libya, Chad and Syria happen to be heading the 'UN Human Rights Commission'?
Is that what you want?
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.