Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- Begin Message ----Caveat Lector- After Abu Ghraib, world resists extending US immunity from war crimes prosecutions[The Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal has led to a situation in which the U.S. faces a diplomatic defeat in the U.N. Security Council if it presses ahead with plans to seek a resolution indicating an intention to demand yearly exemptions from war crimes prosecutions in the International Criminal Court. The U.S. will therefore seek a resolution that extends immunity from prosecution through July 2005 only -- one more serving of humble pie from the U.N. to an American president who once mocked it as an organization that risked acquiring the irrelevance of "a debating society." Three articles: (1) a piece by Jim Lobe provides relevant background, and is followed by reports from (2) the *New York Times* and (3) the *Washington Post*. --Randy Talbot] posted to the United for Peace of Pierce County, Washington website http://www.ufppc.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=866 1. WILL THE WORLD GIVE THE U.S. WAR CRIMES IMMUNITY? By Jim Lobe One World June 22, 2004 http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=2851 The willingness of the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush to show greater deference to the United Nations and international law will be severely tested this week as it tries to persuade the Security Council to extend its exemption of U.S. troops serving in peacekeeping operations from the jurisdiction the new International Criminal Court (ICC) for another year. To prevail, Washington must secure at least nine votes from the 15-member Council, but indications so far are that it is likely to fall short of that goal. In the past, the administration has threatened to veto UN peacekeeping operations if it does not get its way on the issue. Despite widespread unhappiness with the resolution, which is vehemently opposed by international human rights groups who say that the exemption violates international law and undermines the global struggle to end impunity for the most serious human rights abuses, it was considered likely to be approved until the photographs of the abuse of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq became public. Subsequent revelations of more widespread abuses, as well as high-level administration policy memos that appeared to sanction torture, have greatly bolstered opposition to the resolution, provoking UN Secretary- General Kofi Annan himself to criticize it more harshly than ever before. "For the past two years, I have spoken quite strongly against the exemption, and I think it would be unfortunate for one to press for such an exemption, given the prisoner abuse in Iraq," he told reporters last week before privately briefing the Security Council on his views. "Given the recent revelations from Abu Ghraib prison," said Richard Dicker, who follows the international justice issues for Human Rights Watch, "the U.S. government has picked a hell of a moment to ask for special treatment on war crimes." Debate on Washington's request, which appears to have the support of Angola, Britain, the Philippines, and Russia, is expected to begin this week, probably Thursday. To date, however, Benin, Brazil, Chile, China, France, Germany, and Spain have indicated they intend to abstain. Seven abstentions would kill the resolution. Romania has said it is prepared to abstain unless its vote is responsible for defeating the U.S. resolution, according to the *Washington Post*, while Algeria and Pakistan have not yet tipped their hands, although the latter is considered more likely to side with Washington. The vote, which is almost certain to take place before July 1 when the current resolution lapses, comes at a particularly sensitive time. In the wake of serious setbacks to the U.S. occupation in Iraq, Bush signaled a more conciliatory approach toward his international critics last month in agreeing to a Council resolution that vested more authority in Iraqi government that is supposed to gain "sovereignty" over the country July 1 than Washington had initially wanted. Bush's willingness to compromise in order to get UN backing for the continued U.S. presence in Iraq was interpreted by some as a shift from the strong unilateralism pursued by Bush since the 9/11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon to a more multilateral approach. But Washington's push for extending the ICC exemption will severely test that thesis. The proposed resolution prohibits the ICC, which formally opened for business one year ago in The Hague, the Netherlands, from investigating or prosecuting any current or former official or personnel from any country that has not ratified the Rome Statute, the international treaty that created the ICC, for acts committed by them during their participation in a mission authorized by the UN. Under the treaty, the ICC has jurisdiction to prosecute cases of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity in situations where the country that should be responsible for doing so is either unable or unwilling to pursue prosecutions on its own. ICC supporters have long made the argument that Washington has nothing to fear from the new tribunal so long as the U.S. government is willing to investigate and prosecute such crimes as it says it is currently doing in Abu Ghraib cases and several others that have since come to light. But the Bush administration insists that the ICC threatens U.S. sovereignty. They also argue that, given Washington's military predominance and the unique responsibilities for maintaining international peace that go with it, U.S. peacekeepers were particularly vulnerable to politically-inspired prosecutions by the ICC. Former President Bill Clinton signed the Statute just before Bush's inauguration, but in May, 2002, the administration formally renounced Clinton's signature and launched a campaign to persuade as many countries as possible -- about 80 to date -- to sign bilateral agreements with Washington forbidding them from transferring any U.S. national in their custody to the ICC. The administration has also cut off military assistance to about three dozen countries that so far have refused to sign such an agreement. Ninety-four countries, including virtually of Europe and most of the Caribbean, Latin America, and a substantial number of African states, have ratified the Statute. At the same time, it launched its effort to secure an exemption from the Security Council. In 2002, the Security Council reluctantly went along after Washington threatened not only to withdraw all U.S. personnel from UN peacekeeping missions, but also to veto the extension of existing missions or the creation of new ones. 2. U.S. REWORDS A RESOLUTION ON IMMUNITY FOR ITS TROOPS By Warren Hoge New York Times June 23, 2004 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/23/international/23NATI.html UNITED NATIONS -- The United States circulated a reworded resolution among Security Council members on Tuesday evening to try to overcome broad opposition to its effort to keep its troops immune from any prosecution by the International Criminal Court. The measure, introduced last month and then withdrawn, would extend such protection to American soldiers participating in United Nations-approved peacekeeping forces. The current expiration for such immunity is June 30. That same day, next Wednesday, Iraq regains sovereignty and the mostly American force there becomes a United Nations-mandated one. The United States is pressing hard for a vote beforehand. This is the third year in which the United States has sought the exemption, and though there were three abstentions last year and several more expected this year, American diplomats in May said they felt confident they could obtain support for a "technical rollover" of the measure. The Bush administration says the protection stops people from using the court to bring politically motivated war crimes prosecutions against Americans abroad. Last week, Secretary General Kofi Annan called on the Security Council to turn back the American move, saying it was "of dubious judicial value" and particularly objectionable in the aftermath of the prisoner abuse cases in Iraq. Mr. Annan said that passing the measure would discredit the council, the United Nations and the "primacy of the rule of law," and he appealed to the 15 members to maintain the common purpose they had shown earlier this month in voting unanimously on a resolution affirming the arrangements for transferring power in Iraq. That appeal caused several nations to rethink their backing of the original resolution and of their reluctance to be seen as defying the United States. The version that American diplomats circulated on Tuesday dropped language in the original proposal that expressed the intention to renew the one-year exemption each July 1 for further 12-month periods "for as long as may be necessary." Mr. Annan had protested that the clause would perpetuate United Nations approval of what was meant to be a temporary emergency departure from international law. The new language pledges that this request for a one- year exemption is the last. James B. Cunningham, the American deputy ambassador, said the ambassadors would consult with their governments overnight and that the United States would wait to hear how the compromise was received before deciding whether to put it to a vote. Richard Dicker, director for international justice at Human Rights Watch and an opponent of immunity for American troops, expressed doubt that the compromise would change enough minds. "I wonder how one reconciles support for even one year's exemption with the very strong words of the secretary general," Mr. Dicker said. But Abdallah Baali, the Algerian ambassador, said he thought otherwise. "A number of countries have been looking for a gesture from the Americans," Mr. Baali said, "and this could be that gesture." 3. U.S. ALTERS ITS PLAN FOR FOR EXEMPTION AT COURT By Colum Lynch Washington Post June 23, 2004 Page A13 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61941-2004Jun22.html UNITED NATIONS -- The Bush administration has abandoned its plan to seek a Security Council resolution providing an open-ended exemption for U.S. personnel serving in U.N.-authorized peacekeeping missions from prosecution by the International Criminal Court, senior U.S. and Security Council diplomats said. The United States, under increasing criticism for U.S. abuse of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, was facing a diplomatic defeat in the 15-nation council over the U.S.-sponsored text. The United States is pressing instead for a resolution that would shield U.S. personnel from prosecution only through June 2005. The court was established under a 1998 treaty to prosecute individuals responsible for the most serious crimes, including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Since the court began its work, in July 2002, the United States has demanded that the council grant its personnel an exemption from prosecution to carry out its global peacekeeping obligations. In reducing that demand, senior U.S. officials said Tuesday that they have obtained written assurances from 90 countries that they would not to surrender U.S. personnel to the court, which is based in The Hague. Still, without a Security Council exemption, there is a possibility that U.S. troops accused of engaging in massive human rights violations could be subject to prosecution by the court if U.S. authorities refused to try the cases. In such cases, the crime must have been committed on the soil of a country that has ratified the 1998 treaty but has not signed an agreement with the United States. Afghanistan, for example, has ratified the treaty but also has signed an agreement with the United States pledging not to hand over U.S. personnel to the court. Iraq has not ratified the treaty. At the request of the United States, Philippine U.N. ambassador Lauro L. Baja Jr. said he intends to introduce an amendment calling for a final one-year extension of a July 2002 resolution that shields troops from countries, such as the United States, that have not ratified the treaty. "This is a suggestion that will address the concerns of some Security Council members that this not go on in perpetuity," said Stuart Holliday, the U.S. representative to the United Nations for political affairs. The Philippines is "consulting with other council members to see whether this in fact would accommodate their positions." Last week, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan urged the Security Council to oppose the U.S. resolution seeking an open-ended exemption. In a confidential memo, Annan told the Security Council that it would discredit the United Nations and undercut efforts to "promote the rule of international law." Annan's remarks have hardened council opposition. Several key council members -- including Chile, Algeria and Pakistan, which recently considered supporting the U.S. resolution -- say they are now undecided. "Everybody is watching to see what the others are going to do," said Algeria's U.N. ambassador, Abdallah Baali. Chile's U.N. ambassador, Heraldo Munoz, said that Annan's remarks "created a new political context" for the debate. "We do not want to slap the secretary general in the face," added German U.N. ambassador Gunter Pleuger. Germany, like France, indicated that the latest U.S. concession was not sufficient to win its support. The treaty establishing the court has been signed by 135 countries and ratified by 94. President Bill Clinton signed it in December 2000, but the Bush administration renounced it in May 2002, cautioning that it could be used to carry out frivolous trials against U.S. troops. A month ago, the administration was confident that the council would adopt the resolution. But the initiative began to unravel after Chile decided to abstain, and China warned that it was considering abstaining, or even vetoing the resolution, citing abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. U.S. officials said China, which has not ratified the treaty, opposed the United States because it had recently supported Taiwan's bid for observer status in the World Health Assembly. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz acknowledged at a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee that the abuse at Abu Ghraib had taken a diplomatic toll. "The damage is enormous," he said. _______________________________________________________ portside (the left side in nautical parlance) is a news, discussion and debate service of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. It aims to provide varied material of interest to people on the left. For answers to frequently asked questions: <http://www.portside.org/faq> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change settings: <http://lists.portside.org/mailman/listinfo/portside> To submit material, paste into an email and send to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (postings are moderated) For assistance with your account: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To search the portside archive: <http://people-link5.inch.com/pipermail/portside/> www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
--- End Message ---
