News and Document archive source
copyrighted material disclaimer at bottom of page

NewsMinecabal-eliteeuropean-unionicc-hague — Viewing Item


Us renounces tribual { May 7 2002 }

Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
   http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42842-2002May6.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42842-2002May6.html

U.S. Renounces Its Support of New Tribunal For War Crimes


By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 7, 2002; Page A01



The Bush administration formally renounced support of the International Criminal Court yesterday, declaring that the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal would be an unchecked power, able to prosecute U.S. soldiers and their superiors.

The State Department notified United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan that the administration will not seek ratification of the treaty creating the tribunal, and considers itself free of any obligation to comply with its terms. The government will seek agreements around the globe barring U.S. citizens from being extradited to the court.

"We believe that the International Criminal Court is built on a flawed foundation. These flaws leave it open for exploitation and politically motivated prosecutions," Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman said in announcing the administration's decision. After years of trying to repair the treaty, he said, withdrawal is "our only alternative."

The decision, telegraphed months ago, demonstrates anew the Bush administration's determination to act alone when dissatisfied with international agreements, despite criticism that such unilateral action undermines valuable partnerships and weakens efforts to establish universal norms.

Many of the United States' closest allies, including nearly the entire NATO alliance, opposed the administration's decision. They regard the tribunal as an important tool to fight war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. When the treaty enters into force in eight weeks, U.S. diplomats will not join efforts to define the court's jurisdiction and refine its rules.

Pierre-Richard Prosper, the U.S. ambassador for war crimes, said he could not envision a situation in which the United States would help the court build cases.

"We've washed our hands. It's over," he said.

Criticism came swiftly from backers of the court, which is intended to build upon the ambitions and procedures of the current war crimes tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda. The goal is a permanent, independent legal institution that can seek international justice when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute.

The decision by the United States means that U.S. expertise and personnel that have been central to the work of the other tribunals -- which will continue to exist -- will not be offered this time. It does not exempt from prosecution Americans accused of war crimes committed after July 1, when the international court is set to convene in The Hague.

The administration's decision is "irresponsible, isolationist and contrary to our vital national interests. We have also lost the opportunity to ensure that the court stays focused on its primary task: bringing to justice the world's worst criminals," Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) said.

"There are victims of human rights abuses all around the world who see the court as a place of hope, a place where justice could be done, even against the most powerful," said Elisa Massimino, director of the Washington office of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights. "The United States is now turning its back on those people."

But House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) praised the administration's decision. "America firmly supports efforts to hold tyrants, dictators and war criminals accountable for their crimes," DeLay said. "We do not believe, however, that creating an unaccountable new international legal bureaucracy is likely to accomplish that objective."

U.S. objections have been formidable since the treaty was negotiated in 1998 in Rome after years of ethnic atrocities in the former Yugoslav republics and genocide in Rwanda. President Bill Clinton, who signed the treaty on Dec. 31, 2000, expressed serious reservations about the court and did not send the treaty to the Senate for ratification.

The treaty establishing the court has been signed by at least 139 countries. Sixty-six nations ratified the pact by April 11, triggering the creation of the court. China and India have not signed the treaty; Russia has signed but not ratified it. The ratifying countries include Britain, France, Germany and Canada.

The Bush administration began gathering its forces against the treaty early last year. One of the strongest voices belongs to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who said the treaty would permit the prosecution of U.S. personnel by renegade prosecutors not responsive to the U.N. Security Council or any review body.

The "flaws" in the treaty are "particularly troubling in the midst of a difficult, dangerous war on terrorism," Rumsfeld said yesterday. He asserted that the potential prosecution of U.S. military personnel "could well create a powerful disincentive for U.S. military engagement in the world."

Rumsfeld said the United States will consider "illegitimate" any effort by the court to assert such jurisdiction. To prevent U.S. citizens from being called before the international court, the State Department has designated Marisa Lino to negotiate pledges against extradition. At any given time, U.S. armed forces are active in about 100 countries.

The administration's public case was presented by Grossman, who said there are no "meaningful" checks on the power of judges and prosecutors at the court. He maintained the court should be overseen by the Security Council, where the United States and other major powers have a veto.

"The treaty created a self-initiating prosecutor, answerable to no state or institution other than the court itself," Grossman said. Another senior U.S. official, referring to the controversial U.S. independent counsel law, said, "If you didn't like the independent counsel, just imagine it writ globally."

Grossman pledged that the administration would work to strengthen the ability of national courts to prosecute humanitarian abuse cases and would support other efforts when warranted.

Human rights groups reacted with anger to the administration's decision. They contended that high-profile prosecutions of American citizens were highly unlikely and that the United States is sending a poor signal.

The move is "an empty and self-defeating gesture," said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch. "This has no impact on the court. The only practical consequence is to remove the United States from a position of influence over the court." Massimino said oversight by the Security Council would make the court "more politicized, not less."

On Capitol Hill, Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), chairman of the House International Relations Committee, cheered the announcement, saying the decision recognizes that fundamental U.S. concerns "will never be satisfied." He noted that large majorities in the House and Senate voted to disassociate the United States from the court.

"It would be dishonest for the United States to continue to represent to other nations that we are on track to become a party to that treaty when nothing could be further from the truth," Hyde said. "The Bush administration should be praised for setting the record straight."



© 2002 The Washington Post Company


Attack hague
Belgium wavers to us pressure { June 13 2003 }
Columbia denies us { August 20 2002 }
Countries face loss aid over court
Court orders us to review mexican cases
Eu caves to us { September 30 2002 }
Eu warns immunity
Exempt troops { May 23 2002 }
Exemption rebuffed { July 10 2002 }
Former pres george bush for 1991 { February 12 1991 }
Hague invasion
Hrw hague invasion { August 3 2002 }
Int court
Israel shields { August 7 2002 }
Israel us pact
Peace keepers
Rights groups
US abandons bid for world court exemption { June 23 2004 }
Us cuts aid over immunity refusals
Us plays aid card fix exemption { June 12 2003 }
Us renounces tribual { May 7 2002 }
Us scourned court { April 12 2002 }
Us threatened new nato headquarters { June 14 2003 }
Us threatens cutting off military aid { July 2 2003 }
Use force { May 13 2002 }
War crimes treaty { June 17 2002 }
War tribunal starts without us
World court fear { July 2 2002 }

Files Listed: 28



Correction/submissions

CIA FOIA Archive

National Security
Archives
Support one-state solution for Israel and Palestine Tea Party bumper stickers JFK for Dummies, The Assassination made simple