[Nettime-bold] Re: U.S. Might Refuse New Peace Duties Without Immunity

["Ivo Skoric" <ivo@reporters.net>]

"The administration worries that the new court could be driven by 
politically motivated prosecutors and that American military 
personnel would not have the constitutional rights granted all 
Americans in criminal proceedings — for example, the right to be 
tried by a jury of peers and to have access to evidence."

1) This is the same argument Serbian "administration" has about 
ICTY. Aren't we endlessly hearing even from Kostunica that The 
Hague is driven by politically motivated prosecutors? So, what's the 
difference between the U.S. and Serbia in that respect? They both 
hold their 'sovereignty' more sacred than the human rights law.

2) It is besides the point to argue that ICC is a fair court with all the 
protections built in - in fact many judges would be American and 
the rules would be the same, save for absence of trial by jury, as 
they are in the US courts - I would like that some big media US 
journalist ask Rumsfeld what of those protections are guaranteed 
to non-citizens in the U.S. detained on suspicion of connection 
with terrorists? Do they have access to evidence?

I understand that I merely continue to state the obvious: that the 
U.S. wants to set the rules for the world, but wants itself to be 
exempted from them, but I think that sometimes repeatedly stating 
the obvious may be helpful.

After all the discussion whether should we live obeying the law or 
obeying the brute force is as old as human civilization itself.  I 
wonder what would Socrates tell Rumsfeld, and would he be given 
lethal injection for that....

ivo

Date sent:      	Wed, 3 Jul 2002 09:42:46 -0400
Send reply to:  	International Justice Watch Discussion List
             	<JUSTWATCH-L@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU>
From:           	Thomas Keenan <keenan@BARD.EDU>
Subject:        	U.S. Might Refuse New Peace Duties Without Immunity
To:             	JUSTWATCH-L@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU

Cross-posting of commentary only permitted

The New York Times reports on this morning's front page about the shape of
a possible compromise on the peacekeeping vs. ICC issue, the day after
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld energetically defended the U.S. position:

        One proposal was being discussed late tonight at the United
        Nations, where diplomats are working against a deadline of
        midnight Wednesday to resolve the United Nations dispute
        over the Bosnia mandate. It would give 12 months of
        immunity in cases involving peacekeepers from any country
        that had not yet ratified the treaty establishing the war
        crimes court. The immunity could then be renewed by the
        Security Council.

The Times also provides a helpful chart, enumerating just exactly how
limited U.S. contributions to U.N. missions are:

        http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/03/international/03FORC.html

Thomas Keenan
Human Rights Project
Bard College
==========================================================================

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/03/international/03FORC.html

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company
The New York Times
Wednesday, July 3, 2002, A1

U.S. Might Refuse New Peace Duties Without Immunity
By THOM SHANKER and JAMES DAO

WASHINGTON, July 2 - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld warned today
that America might not send its forces to join future peacekeeping
missions without a grant of full immunity from the jurisdiction of the new
International Criminal Court.

Mr. Rumsfeld aggressively defended the administration's demand that
American troops and government officials be exempt from the court, two
days after the United States vetoed a Security Council resolution
extending the United Nations' peacekeeping mandate in Bosnia. The veto,
which was based on American perceptions that the court violates American
sovereignty, has generated sharp criticism from Britain and other American
allies, which see it as further evidence that the administration is
adopting a go-it-alone, unilateralist stance.

Mr. Rumsfeld and senior administration officials insisted that the United
States would not withdraw wholesale from its current peacekeeping
commitments overseas. But they did say that without promises from the
international community or host nations that American troops would not be
handed over to the court, the United States would carefully review the
importance of its international missions, case by case.

"It would be inaccurate to say that the United States would necessarily
withdraw from every engagement we have in the world," Mr. Rumsfeld told
reporters at the Pentagon. "We have no plans to do that. In other words,
we're engaged. We have forces in countries all over the globe. We have no
intention of pulling back."

The administration worries that the new court could be driven by
politically motivated prosecutors and that American military personnel
would not have the constitutional rights granted all Americans in criminal
proceedings - for example, the right to be tried by a jury of peers and to
have access to evidence.

A senior Defense Department official said the United States was seeking
three types of protections for its military personnel and civilian
government officials: a Security Council resolution granting blanket
immunity to Americans taking part in United Nations peacekeeping missions;
bilateral agreements with countries around the world guaranteeing that
Americans on their territory would not be transferred to the court without
American consent; and adjustments to current Status of Forces Agreements -
pacts negotiated with nations accepting American military personnel - to
reflect Washington's wishes on the court.

One proposal was being discussed late tonight at the United Nations, where
diplomats are working against a deadline of midnight Wednesday to resolve
the United Nations dispute over the Bosnia mandate. It would give 12
months of immunity in cases involving peacekeepers from any country that
had not yet ratified the treaty establishing the war crimes court. The
immunity could then be renewed by the Security Council.

The administration's concerns about the International Criminal Court
extend beyond protecting American soldiers:  it is also worried that the
court could prosecute police officers or civilian officials involved in
formulating peacekeeping policies and American combat operations.

"The I.C.C. is broad enough to not only prosecute those within the
military chain of command, but also people in the political and policy
chain of command," a senior administration official said.

"When you look back to Nuremberg, to Yugoslavia and Rwanda, there are
people that need to be prosecuted for their decisions and policies," the
official said. "But the broad end of the spectrum is that the process
could be politicized."

The administration policy toward the court says much about how the lone
superpower will project force abroad. It also presents America's partners
and the world with a stark choice: If American military power is needed to
quiet international trouble spots, the rules of that operation will be
written by America.

"The very fact that countries do want to cooperate with us and do want our
protection and do want our participation in peacekeeping and other
missions gives us the ability to go and talk with them and be listened
to," a senior Defense Department official said.

The official said the administration was trying to defend the nation's
sovereignty from subjugation to a treaty that carried neither a
president's signature nor Senate consent.

Over the objections of the Pentagon and Congressional Republicans,
President Bill Clinton signed the treaty that brought the court into
being. But he expressed deep reservations and did not submit it to the
Senate. His argument for endorsing the treaty was that Washington's
ability to improve it from inside would be strengthened.  The Bush
administration revoked Mr. Clinton's signature on the treaty this year.

"The United States is not attempting to impose its will on other
countries," a senior Pentagon official said. "In this debate, it is the
parties to the International Criminal Court Treaty who are attempting to
impose their treaty on non-parties."

The international lawyer who was chairman of the committee that wrote the
court's statutes said today that it was "far-fetched" that a prosecutor
was "going to run away with the process and target some poor American
service member holding a peacekeeping function in some remote part of the
world, just because that prosecutor dislikes the United States."

The lawyer, M. Cherif Bassiouni, a professor at DePaul University's law
school in Chicago, said prosecutors for the court were selected by its 75
member-states.

He said the court's statutes also "contain all of the due process
guarantees available in the U.S. legal system, and even go beyond that."
He added, "The only thing it does not have is a trial by jury."

At the State Department today, officials acknowledged that the
administration had taken a hard line on the criminal court precisely
because the United States' unmatched military, economic and diplomatic
power made it unique in the world.

"We're going to end up having to deal with this issue for Americans all
around the world, because we do have a special role," Richard A. Boucher,
the State Department spokesman, told reporters. "The United States plays a
role in the world unlike any other, and therefore this affects us unlike
any other nation."

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell has spoken on the subject to more than
half a dozen European ministers over the last three days, including,
today, the European Union foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, and the
British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, Mr. Boucher said.

============================================================================

_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold