U.S. Obstructs Global Justice
By Jonathan F. Fanton
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-fanton29mar29,0,4
400554,print.story
03/29/05 "Los Angeles Times" - - When a United Nations commission of
inquiry recommended this year that gross human rights abuses in
Darfur be referred to the new International Criminal Court,
Pierre-Richard Prosper, the U.S. ambassador at large for war crimes
issues, made headlines by rejecting the idea. "We don't want to be
party to legitimizing the ICC," he said.
But why not? Ninety-eight nations have signed the Rome Treaty, which
created the court that the United States now opposes. President
Clinton signed the treaty too, in the final days of his term, but the
Bush administration quickly said it had no intention of seeking
ratification.
The ICC, which is already up and running in The Hague, has
jurisdiction over crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war
crimes committed after July 1, 2002, if and when the justice system
of a signatory country is unwilling or unable to act. What's going on
in Darfur seems exactly suited for the court, but the U.S. has said
it would rather pursue those who have committed atrocities in Darfur
by creating a separate court in Arusha, Tanzania - even though such
ad hoc tribunals are slow to organize and costly to run. "We don't
want to be in a situation where we see the question of African
justice being exported, or outsourced, to The Hague," Prosper said,
in an obvious attempt to play the Southern Hemisphere against the
northern.
But African opinion is more complex than that. The reality is that
the ICC has already won wide support among Africans and that people
there are looking to it for help and hope.
Today, 27 of the 98 countries that have signed the Treaty of Rome are
from Africa. Four African countries have invited the court to
investigate atrocities committed within their borders: Uganda, the
Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic and Ivory
Coast. Each is looking to the court for assistance where its own
legal system has failed or fallen short.
As the first permanent criminal court with potentially worldwide
jurisdiction, the ICC is designed to deter future Pol Pots and
Pinochets. The year 2005 will be crucial in the ICC's early history.
Its first two investigations, one in Uganda and one in Congo, are
moving forward. Despite U.S. opposition, there is strong support in
the U.N. Security Council for referring the Darfur situation to the
court as well. A vigorous discussion underway this week will
determine that outcome.
The court's first-ever round of indictments may soon be made in
Uganda against key leaders of the Lord's Resistance Army, which has
waged a war against the government by targeting civilians in the
north. More than 20,000 children have been abducted and about 1.6
million people have been displaced. Tens of thousands more have been
killed or wounded.
Already, the ICC's investigation has brought greater pressure on both
sides to end the conflict there and has concentrated international
attention on the abuses. If indictments do come and senior leaders of
the Lord's Resistance Army are prosecuted at the ICC, that will not
keep other perpetrators from being tried in traditional courts, nor
will it impede the work of reconciliation mechanisms like truth
commissions.
The Bush administration strongly opposes the ICC apparently because
of concerns that the court might engage in political show trials
against American soldiers and citizens. These fears are misplaced:
Only countries whose legal systems cannot or will not adjudicate
cases involving genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity are
within the reach of the court.
Manipulation of the kind feared by some U.S. officials is virtually
impossible. A sound system of checks and balances keeps the ICC's
procedures from being abused. The prosecutor, for instance, must
obtain permission from a pretrial chamber of judges before he can
initiate investigations or serve indictments. States can appeal these
decisions if they believe their own courts have adjudicated matters
properly. Because the United States has a functioning criminal
justice system capable of addressing allegations of gross abuse, U.S.
citizens have nothing to fear from the International Criminal Court.
Dictators, corrupt armies and armed groups in failing states do.
The ICC and a robust system of international criminal justice will
disrupt the culture of impunity that often protects architects of
massive human rights violations and will deter others from committing
these crimes.
For most of its history, the United States was in the vanguard of
setting democratic and humanitarian norms. People I spoke with during
a recent trip to Nigeria took heart when I cited a national poll
conducted by the Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs: 69% of Americans
support the ICC. The Bush administration should get in step with the
American people, who understand that our failure to join the court
puts us on the wrong side of history.
It is time for the U.S. to reverse its stand, support the
International Criminal Court and back the call to refer the gross
human rights abuses in Darfur to The Hague.
Jonathan F. Fanton is president of the John D. and Catherine T.
MacArthur Foundation.
Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/