[ql06] CRIMINAL: International Criminal Court & USA
- From: "Ken Campbell -- LAW'06" <2kc16@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <ql06@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:16:22 -0400
We have the option of going to the castle and taking the International
Criminal Law course. Some from last year said they got to sit in the
court when Milosevic was on trial at the ICC.
The US has snubbed these courts in various ways for various reasons --
most notably because they flout international law and feel they will be
singled out for lots of cases in an ICC.
This remains a constantly disturbing trend for those who wish to pursue
an international law career.
Interesting development from yesterday is below.
Ken.
--
Wit is cultured insolence.
-- Aristotle
--- cut here ---
US Cuts Military Aid to Friendly Nations
by Jim Lobe
10/01/03: (OneWorld.net ) WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration today
cut over $89 million in military aid to 32 friendly countries because
they refused to exempt U.S. citizens and soldiers from the jurisdiction
of the new International Criminal Court (ICC)-- the world's first
permanent tribunal to prosecute the perpetrators of war crimes, crimes
against humanity and genocide.
Among the countries whose aid was cut were a number of new democracies
in Central and East Europe -- some of which have contributed troops to
bolster the U.S.-led occupation in Iraq -- as well as Brazil, Costa
Rica, Peru, Venezuela, Ecuador, South Africa, and several other Latin
American and African countries.
"This is the first sanction in U.S. diplomatic history targeted
exclusively at democracies," said Heather Hamilton of the World
Federalist Association (WFA), one of hundreds of non-governmental groups
around the world that have joined in a global coalition in support of
the ICC.
While the cuts were relatively small this year, they would come to just
under $90 million in fiscal year 2004, which begins today, October 1.
The cuts were mandated by the 2002 American Servicemembers Protection
Act (ASPA), the purpose of which is to ensure that the ICC, which began
operating at The Hague in the Netherlands last spring, can never gain
jurisdiction over U.S. citizens.
Among other provisions, the ASPA gives the president authorization to
use all necessary means, including force, to free U.S. servicemembers
held by the ICC.
The ASPA requires the president to cut off military aid to countries
that ratified the 1998 Rome Statute establishing the ICC unless they are
NATO allies, specially designated non-NATO allies (such as Argentina,
Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Israel). Or, if the
president determines that sanctions would harm the national interest,
countries may be given a "waiver."
The administration also determined that governments that sign so-called
"Article 98 agreements" with the United States, committing them not to
transfer any U.S. citizen to the ICC's custody, can receive a waiver.
The State Department said Tuesday that over 65 countries had signed
Article 98 agreements, although spokesman Richard Boucher declined to
name them. A number of countries have reportedly signed such agreements
but have not made them public. Several countries signed in the the last
few days to avoid an aid cut-off, according to Boucher.
With the exception of Turkey, all of Washington's NATO allies have
ratified the Rome Statute, as have Mexico, Costa Rica, all of South
America with the exception of Bolivia and, as of last week, Colombia.
Both countries are heavily reliant on U.S. military aid.
A number of new democracies in Africa, including Mali, Namibia, South
Africa, Tanzania and Kenya have publicly rejected signing an Article 98
agreement, insisting that doing so would violate their obligations under
the Rome Statute. English-speaking Caribbean countries have taken a
similar position, as have a number of Central and Eastern European
nations, including the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania,
Slovenia, Slovakia, Serbia, and Bulgaria.
Critics of the administration's campaign against the ICC stress that
most of the countries penalized by ASPA sanctions are young or emerging
democracies that have generally been friendly to U.S. interests and
values. They argue that Washington's position is counter-productive.
"The administration's ideological opposition to the ICC is compromising
other vital U.S. foreign policy priorities and putting allies and
friendly nations in a difficult position," said WFA's Hamilton. "These
nations cannot be expected to put U.S. nationals above the law that
their own leaders abide and live by."
The campaign against the ICC is widely seen as an example of the
administration's unilateralist approach, which has contributed to a rise
in anti-Americanism in many countries, according to foreign-policy
analysts.
Former President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute in December 2000,
just a few weeks before Bush became president. Last May the
administration renounced Clinton's signature and withdrew from all
negotiations to set up the ICC.
Shortly thereafter, it launched its campaign to undermine the ICC by
threatening to veto extensions of UN peacekeeping operations unless the
UN Security Council gave all U.S. citizens a one-year exemption from the
Court's jurisdiction. In June the exemption was extended for a second
year under U.S. pressure--critics call it blackmail.
The administration argues that the tribunal grants too much discretion
to prosecutors, who could bring cases against U.S. officials and
soldiers for political reasons. With some 120,000 U.S. troops currently
deployed in Iraq, another 9,000 in Afghanistan, and tens of thousands
more in scores of countries across Eurasia and in and around the Gulf,
the administration is worried that they could become a prime target for
politicized prosecutions.
But human rights groups, such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty
International, and the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, as well as
U.S. allies, including Britain, which has some 15,000 troops in Iraq,
say these fears are greatly exaggerated and that Washington should
ratify the Statute in the interest of expanding the rule of law and
making particularly serious human rights atrocities punishable by an
international tribunal.
Countries that have signed Article 98 agreements despite their adherence
to the Rome Statute include mainly poorer and smaller nations -- such as
the Central American nations of Panama, Honduras and Nicaragua; several
island states, such as Mauritius, the Dominican Republic, Nauru, and the
Marshall Islands; a few Central Asian countries, including Afghanistan
and Tajikistan; several Balkan states, including Albania, Bosnia, and
Romania; and a scattering of African countries of which Nigeria is the
most important--that depend heavily on U.S. and multilateral assistance.
A number of these countries also contributed token numbers of troops to
the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
On the other hand, several others, including the Baltic states, Bulgaria
and Slovakia, also contributed troops to the U.S.-led coalition only to
see their military aid cut off due to their refusal to sign an Article
98 agreement. Each of the five were due to receive between $7 million
and $10 million in military aid next year.
Ecuador, which is playing a key role in the anti-drug war in the Andes,
could lose $15 million in military aid next year, while Peru could lose
$2.7 million worth of assistance. South Africa, on which the U.S. has
relied for peacekeeping help in Africa, may lose $7.6 million, while
Slovakia has about $9 million at stake. Most of the other countries will
lose mainly training funds, although many of the Eastern Caribbean
states, which are considered important for drug interdiction, may lose
military equipment as well.
Like the U.S., a handful of countries have neither signed nor ratified
the Rome Statute, including China, India, Pakistan, and Iran. Russia has
signed the Statute but not ratified it.
Other related posts:
- » [ql06] CRIMINAL: International Criminal Court & USA
