[ALBSA-Info] NYTimes.com Article: War Crimes Tribunal Becomes Reality, Without U.S. Role

[jetkoti at hotmail.com]

This article from NYTimes.com 
has been sent to you by jetkoti at hotmail.com.


Just in case any one interested in the subject missed it. I was inspired to forward this article I read yestrday after attending a lecture this evening by the 1987 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, Oscar Arias. 

jetkoti at hotmail.com

/-------------------- advertisement -----------------------\


Enjoy new investment freedom!

Get the tools you need to successfully manage your portfolio
from Harrisdirect.  Start with award-winning research.  Then
add access to round-the-clock customer service from
Series-7 trained representatives.  Open an account today and
receive a $100 credit!

http://www.csfbdirect.com/b4.htm

\----------------------------------------------------------/


War Crimes Tribunal Becomes Reality, Without U.S. Role

April 12, 2002 

By BARBARA CROSSETTE


 

UNITED NATIONS, April 11 - More than half a century after
it was proposed in the ruins of World War II, the world's
first permanent court for the prosecution of war criminals
and dictators became a reality today as the United States
stood on the sidelines in strong opposition. 

The treaty that established the court, which is expected to
take shape in The Hague over the next year, went into
effect after the 60th nation had ratified it. The court
closes a gap in international law as the first permanent
tribunal dedicated to trying individuals, not nations or
armies, responsible for the most horrific crimes, including
genocide and crimes against humanity. 

Until now, just ad hoc courts like the Nuremberg trials
after World War II and the Balkans tribunal that is now
sitting in judgment on Slobodan Milosevic, the former
Yugoslav president, have done that work. 

"The long-held dream of the International Criminal Court
will now be realized," Secretary General Kofi Annan said at
a news conference in Rome, where 120 countries first agreed
in 1998 to set up the tribunal. "Impunity has been dealt a
decisive blow." 

But the Bush administration again demonstrated its
readiness to go it alone when it deems necessary,
boycotting the ceremony here that celebrated the birth of
the court. That attitude has prompted concern in Europe and
elsewhere over a new American unilateralism. 

The establishment of the court has been broadly welcomed by
most democratic nations, American lawyers' associations and
human rights groups. But it has an implacable foe in the
Bush administration, which argues that the court will open
American officials and military personnel in operations
abroad to unjustified, frivolous or politically motivated
suits. 

The court will assume jurisdiction over charges of
genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed
after July 1 of this year. Washington fears that a country
as powerful as the United States, with its unchallenged
military might and troops around the world, would be
uniquely vulnerable to prosecutions. In theory, any
American, from high-ranking officials like the Secretaries
of Defense or State to soldiers in the field, could be
accused of a crime. 

President Bush appears to be on the verge of not only
renouncing the tribunal, but also removing the signature of
the United States from the treaty. 

Even so, no country is deemed to be outside the court's
jurisdiction. American participation would strengthen the
court considerably, and by not taking part the United
States will lose influence over court proceedings. 

The United States signed the treaty for the court in
December 2000 in the last days of the Clinton
administration. Bush administration officials say it will
never be sent to the Senate for ratification. 

Congress has passed a law to forbid Americans at all levels
of government to cooperate with the new court, and the
United States is trying - so far without success - to
insist on exemptions for Americans from its jurisdiction. 

Today, five members of Congress, led by Henry J. Hyde,
chairman of the House International Relations Committee,
sent a letter to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
requesting that he ask the Security Council to write into
every future peacekeeping resolution a grant of absolute
immunity from the court for Americans who take part in
operations. That would start with a renewal of the
international force for Bosnia in June. 

The New York City Bar Association was one of many
organizations that wrote to Mr. Bush this week urging a
reconsideration of what is apparently a decision to
renounce the court treaty. The action, the president of the
lawyers' group, Evan A. Davis, said would "weaken U.S.
international standing at the very time we need
international cooperation for the war against terrorism." 

The United States ambassador for war crimes, Pierre-Richard
Prosper, said in a conference call from Washington with
reporters that Mr. Bush had not decided to "unsign" the
treaty. But all his comments on the relations, or lack of
them, between the United States and the court point to that
end. Symbolically, the American seat at the ceremony today
was empty. 

It was a ceremony, Mr. Prosper said, "that we felt there
was no need for us to attend, and there was no role for us
to play." 

Mr. Prosper seemed to rule out allowing the treaty to
remain in limbo, perhaps to be reconsidered by a future
administration. 

"Our position is that we continue to oppose the treaty and
do not intend to become a party," he said. "It is important
that our position is made clear and that we operate here in
good faith and not create expectations in the international
community that we will be a party to this process in the
near term." 

Asked whether the United States would cooperate in handing
over war criminals or information for prosecutions, Mr.
Prosper said, "We have no obligation to the court." 

David J. Scheffer, who signed the treaty for the United
States as the ambassador for war crimes in the Clinton
administration, said in an interview today that backing out
now was "a very ill-advised strategy." 

"The only reason you would unsign the treaty is if your
intention was to wage war against the court," Mr. Scheffer
said. "If your intention is not to wage war against the
court but rather to try to preserve American interests,
defend American interests, protect American interests, then
the best strategy would be to remain as a signatory." 

Michael Posner, executive director of the Lawyers Committee
for Human Rights, said in an interview that unsigning the
treaty would set a terrible precedent. "No American
president in 200 years has unsigned a treaty, as far as we
can find," he said. "It would also send a signal to other
governments around the world that treaties they signed are
unsignable." 

Most democratic nations and all European Union countries
have ratified the treaty - except Greece, which is in the
process of doing so - along with Canada, New Zealand and a
number of African, eastern European and central Asian
countries. Israel has signed it but not ratified. Egypt,
Iran and Syria have signed. India and Pakistan have neither
signed nor ratified. 

Besides the United States, other powerful nations have held
themselves aloof, as well. Russia has signed but not
ratified. China has done neither. 

European allies have been among those trying to convince
the United States that many safeguards are built into the
court that can prevent frivolous or politically inspired
prosecutions. Most cases will be brought by a chief
prosecutor or the Security Council. A pretrial review panel
will be able to throw out charges. Moreover, the court will
be required to allow national courts to handle cases in the
first instance. 

Mr. Prosper said today that those steps were not enough.
"The point is that we do view the safeguards as being
insufficient," he said. 

Mr. Annan tried to calm American fears today. "The court
will prosecute in situations where the country concerned is
either unable or unwilling to prosecute," he said.
"Countries with good judicial systems who apply the rule of
law and prosecute criminals and do it promptly and fairly
need not fear. 

"I don't think this a court that is going to run amok."


http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/12/international/12COUR.html?ex=1019761140&ei=1&en=7368a4132c524d09



HOW TO ADVERTISE
---------------------------------
For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters
or other creative advertising opportunities with The
New York Times on the Web, please contact
onlinesales at nytimes.com or visit our online media
kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo

For general information about NYTimes.com, write to 
help at nytimes.com.  

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company