|
Author
|
Topic: European leaders hail birth of war crimes court
|
Kindgo
Advanced Member
Member # 2
|
posted
Hey John,
The ICC will not need a police force, it will have the strongest and biggest military force in the world, from a human perspective. If it is what I think it is, the EU, ICC, and finally UN & NATO, will be woven toghether in a tight fit, but will have loose strings. The US, has to be careful, this might be the push the EU needs to propel itself into king position. And if russia and china become part of this fatal atraction, it is gonna become a very forceful and fearful creature.
I always think of this verse....
Rev 16:13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.
When I think of Russia, Germany, and China. They all have a history of tortured and slaughtered souls.
Bush may pull plug on peace missions
By Toby Harnden in Washington and Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor
(Filed: 01/07/2002)
web page
America's role as the world's policeman was thrown into doubt last night as it threatened to withdraw support for peacekeeping operations in protest at today's birth of the International Criminal Court.
The Bush administration was poised to use its United Nations veto to pull the plug on missions in the Balkans.
It has set its face against the court because it fears that it could subject US and possibly British troops to politically inspired prosecutions.
President Bush wants American troops on peacekeeping operations to be be immune from prosecution.
The British Government believes that its troops will not be at risk because of the principle in the court's constitution that a case must be declared inadmissible if a nation state is "genuinely" investigating or prosecuting it.
This has brought Tory accusations of complacency.
Whatever America does, the court comes into existence in The Hague, although it will be a year before it starts investigating cases.
There was intense diplomatic activity at UN headquarters in New York as the 15 members of the Security Council met in full session to try to prevent a crisis that could lead to America withdrawing its troops from peacekeeping operations around the world.
Late last night senior UN sources said it appeared inevitable that Washington would veto new mandates for the Nato-led stabilisation force (Sfor) in the Balkans and a UN mission to train police in Bosnia.
It was likely, however, that John Negroponte, the American ambassador to the UN, would agree to a 48-hour delay before the vetoes came into effect so that further discussions over American objections to the scope of the court could take place.
Seventy-four countries, including all EU members, have ratified the Rome statute of 1998 that established the court. America, with China, Russia and Israel, has refused to do so, but its citizens will be subject to the court's jurisdiction if they commit war crimes in the territory of a state that has signed the treaty.
European diplomats have said that the row, which has pitted President Bush against Tony Blair, who strongly supports the court, is evidence of the president's unilateralism and deep distrust of international organisations.
"It is hard to see what the US is trying to do," a European diplomat said at the Security Council.
She said that at first Britain and other countries had shared US concerns. But they were now satisfied that national courts would be used to try most offences and that the International Criminal Court would be highly unlikely to consider accusations against peacekeeping troops.
The diplomat added: "The Americans have already got 99.8 per cent of what they want on this and they are ready to bring down all UN peacekeeping operations to get an extra 0.1 per cent.
"It is moot whether the Security Council would override the ICC, so even if we do what the Americans say, they are not going to get 100 per cent certainty."
Although Sfor does not need a fresh UN mandate to continue, Germany, Finland and the Irish Republic cannot commit their troops without such authorisation.
Failure to reach agreement on the court would almost certainly lead to America withdrawing its 3,300 troops from Sfor and call into question involvement in other peacekeeping operations. America could also withdraw its 27 per cent share of funding for UN peacekeeping.
Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, said recently that America should be exempt from its provisions to avoid "political harassment that can take place unfairly, particularly when you are fighting the global war on terror and the terrorist training books are encouraging people to make those kinds of charges and allegations".
The more conservative elements in Washington see the dispute as a "win-win situation": either the court will be damaged or there will be an end to involvement in costly peacekeeping operations that are highly unpopular in America.
Britain and other European countries have argued that the court would be rendered impotent if countries were allowed to pick and choose whether their citizens were covered by it.
The European diplomat said:"Rogue states and dodgy dictators of the world would be applauding if we agreed that countries somehow not party to the court would be completely out of reach."
In a letter to The Telegraph today, Bernard Jenkin, the shadow defence secretary, writes: "The United States is worried, just as we should be, that the propaganda operations of terrorist organisations will be constantly campaigning to get American and British soldiers in the dock for simply carrying out their duties."
--------------------
God bless,
Kindgo
Inside the will of God there is no failure. Outside the will of God there is no success.
Posts: 4320 | From: Sunny Florida | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
john_powell
unregistered
|
posted
Hello Kindgo,
I've been following the wildfire story so closely that I've lost touch with other news taking place. This world war crimes court on the surface seems like a good thing. Do you know why our government is so adamantly opposed to it? I know it's not because they think the EU is the forerunner to the re-establishment of the old Roman Empire as described in Revelation ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
IP: Logged |
|
|
Kindgo
Advanced Member
Member # 2
|
posted
web page
Its all coming together, and the final stage is set......guess whats next? ![[uhoh]](graemlins/uhoh2.gif)
By Carola Hoyos, United Nations Correspondent
Published: July 1 2002 5:00 | Last Updated: July 1 2002 5:00
In spite of massive US opposition, the first world court for war crimes came into being at midnight last night.
July 1 is being hailed by European leaders as the most important date in recent human rights history - the first day on which war crimes will become subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. However, for many US leaders - in the White House and on Capitol Hill - today marks the beginning of a dangerous time for US politicians and soldiers, who Washington fears could become ensnared in witch-hunts launched by the court's prosecutor.
The passionate transatlantic disagreement reached fever pitch at the weekend, with the US pitted against some of its closest allies, and finding itself fighting a lonely battle against every other country on the 15-member United Nations Security Council.
All the European Union members are among the 73 nations that have ratified the Rome Treaty, which was agreed in 1998 and forms the basis of the court.
The horrific genocide in Bosnia and Rwanda in the 1990s gave new life to the idea of the court, which was conceived more than 50 years ago in the aftermath of the Nazi Holocaust but which had been sidelined by the Cold War. On April 11, the treaty gained the 60 ratifications needed for the court to become a reality.
The court, whose 18 judges and prosecutor will be chosen by the court's member nations in January, will be based in The Hague. For its first five years, however, the institution will have to make do with temporary accommodation while a former army barracks is converted.
Boudewijn Van Eenennaam, Dutch ambassador to Washington, said at a recent celebration for the ICC: "No less than [73] states have made it perfectly clear that they will no longer stand for impunity, that they are willing and able and ready to prosecute those responsible for the gravest crimes imaginable: war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. That, in my view, is a reason to celebrate."
But this weekend's fireworks have come in the form of the heated, down-to-the-wire discussions in the UN's grey Security Council chamber rather than at parties in gilded halls across Europe.
UN diplomats said they could not remember a time when an issue divided the US and its close allies, France and Britain, so much. All three countries, together with China and Russia, are permanent members of the council and have the power to veto any resolution.
In its most recent attempt to extricate itself from the jurisdiction of the court, the US has threatened to withdraw its personnel from all peacekeeping operations and refused to renew the mandate of Nato and the UN's peacekeeping operations in Bosnia, unless peacekeepers were given immunity from the court. "The US is using this as a way to puncture the integrity of the treaty and therefore undermine the court," said Richard Dicker, director of the international justice programme of Human Rights Watch.
As pro-ICC demonstrators gathered outside the UN, the 15 Security Council ambassadors were due to meet yesterday afternoon, just eight hours before the expiry of the operations' mandates, to try again to find a compromise that has eluded them for more than a week. Human rights, superpower wrongs, Page 19
Remit of the ICC explained
*
The court will try those accused of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and, once defined, crimes of aggression. Heads of state as well as civilians and soldiers could be tried.
* The court will take on cases that have not been investigated or tried by the country of the accused. Only crimes committed after July 1 2002 can be tried.
* Countries that have ratified the court will elect 18 judges of different nationality and one chief prosecutor, each serving nine-year terms.
* Cases can be referred to the court by: a) any country that has ratified the Rome treaty and has had crimes committed on its soil by foreigners or by its own nationals; b) by the court's prosecutor after gaining the approval of a three-judge panel; c) by the United Nations Security Council.
--------------------
God bless,
Kindgo
Inside the will of God there is no failure. Outside the will of God there is no success.
Posts: 4320 | From: Sunny Florida | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
