PDA

View Full Version : disturbing


evil zach
06/12/03, 04:41 PM
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0612-10.htm

Published on Thursday, June 12, 2003 by Agence France Presse
UN Security Council Renews US Troop Immunity from War Crimes Court Despite Annan Warning


The UN Security Council renewed a one-year exemption for US peacekeeping troops from prosecution by the International Criminal Court, despite the opposition of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.

A resolution to renew the exemption for states that have not ratified the ICC's founding statute for 12 months from July 1 was adopted by 12 votes to none. France, Germany and Syria abstained.


Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations speaks to the U.N. Security Council Thursday, June 12, 2003. The Council approved another one-year exemption for American peacekeepers from prosecution by the new international war crimes tribunal. France, Germany and Syria abstained. (AP Photos/Ed Bailey)

The deputy US ambassador, James Cunningham, welcomed the vote, but said "like any compromise, the resolution does not address all our concerns."

Rejecting the claims of many speakers in an open debate which preceded the vote that the United States was seeking to put its nationals above the law, Cunningham declared that "the ICC is not the law" and described the court as "a fatally flawed institution."

He repeated US government concerns that it could be used for politically motivated prosecutions.

The first speaker in the debate, Annan warned the council that it would undermine its own authority as well as that of the ICC if the exemption became "an annual routine."

Established under the 1998 Rome Statute, the ICC is the first permanent international court to try cases of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. The court's judges and prosecutor were appointed this year, but no case has yet been brought before it.

No soldier serving under the UN blue flag had ever been accused of an offence "anywhere near the kind of crimes that fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC," Annan said.

The resolution "deals not only with a hypothetical case, but with a highly improbable one," he said.

Last year, the council voted unanimously for the exemption after the United States vetoed the extension of a UN police-training mission in Bosnia and threatened to do the same for all other peacekeeping operations as their mandates came up for renewal.

But the legitimacy of peacekeeping would be undermined if the council repeatedly renewed the exemption and gave the impression that "it wished to claim absolute and permanent immunity for people serving in the operations it establishes," he said.

Fifteen of the 90 countries which have ratified the statute asked to take part in the debate as non-members of the council.

They included the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where the council has authorized deployment of a heavily armed international force, led by France, to prevent further massacres of civilians by rebel militias.

Almost every speaker noted that the ICC can prosecute only when a crime is committed on the territory of a state which is a party to the statute, or where the person accused of committing it is a citizen of such a state.

They also remarked that a case can be brought before the court only if a country is unwilling or unable to prosecute in its national courts.

Jordan's ambassador to the United Nations, Prince Zeid Ra'ad Zeid al-Hussein, said the US-drafted resolution sought to "elevate an entire category of people above the law."

The prince is chairman of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute and presided over the election of the court's 18 judges and first prosecutor in March and April of this year.

"The Security Council should not be rewriting treaties that were negotiated by the entire international community," he said -- a point emphasized by Japanese Ambassador Koichi Haraguchi and other speakers.

Canadian Ambassador Paul Heinbecker said the ICC was "the logical extension" of the post-World War II Nuremberg tribunal and the ad hoc UN war crimes courts for Rwanda and Yugoslavia, all of which were set up with the active support of the United States.

The ICC had additional built-in safeguards to prevent frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions, he said.

It was set up to try "monsters," and "its deterrent character is crucial to saving the victims of future crimes," he said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"The US-drafted resolution sought to "elevate an entire category of people above the law."

Prince Zeid Ra'ad Zeid al-Hussein, Jordan's UN ambassador
Annan told council members he believed they were "acting in good faith" to protect the future of peacekeeping missions.

Ronin
06/12/03, 04:49 PM
That's fucking ridiculous

yeat182
06/12/03, 06:01 PM
what this article fails to mention is that it isn't only the US that has the exemption, but every nation that did not ratify the Rome treaty.

Justin_stacy
06/13/03, 07:36 AM
probably the best thing we can do is further ourselves from these "one world order" type groups....bush canceling clintons signature was a great start....but we need to take it further and send the UN packing to geneva or brussels...........

Ronin
06/13/03, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by Justin_stacy
probably the best thing we can do is further ourselves from these "one world order" type groups....bush canceling clintons signature was a great start....but we need to take it further and send the UN packing to geneva or brussels...........

If the US wants globalisation, then they have to answer to the world.

evil zach
06/13/03, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by yeat182
what this article fails to mention is that it isn't only the US that has the exemption, but every nation that did not ratify the Rome treaty.
but the US did, so they are (theoreticly) bound by it.

Justin_stacy
06/13/03, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by Ronin
If the US wants globalisation, then they have to answer to the world.


???

Justin_stacy
06/13/03, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by evil zach
but the US did, so they are (theoreticly) bound by it.

nope were not apart of it anymore.........

yeat182
06/13/03, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by evil zach
but the US did, so they are (theoreticly) bound by it.

yes but this article tries to paint it as if the US was the only country that recieved this exemption, as if we are some how imposing our will on the UN, when in fact, there are a number of countries that also recieve this exemption, because they also, did not sign the rome treaty.

Ronin
06/13/03, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by Justin_stacy
???

Sorry, I was tired.

What I mean is that the US wants to globalise, it's good for business yes? I.E. G-8

But if you're expanding so viciously into the world market, and by virtue the world culture, there has to be some type of governing body. The WHO for health care, the world bank for financial matters, and the UN for politics.

You can't pick and choose when to collaborate

Justin_stacy
06/13/03, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Ronin
Sorry, I was tired.

What I mean is that the US wants to globalise, it's good for business yes? I.E. G-8

But if you're expanding so viciously into the world market, and by virtue the world culture, there has to be some type of governing body. The WHO for health care, the world bank for financial matters, and the UN for politics.

You can't pick and choose when to collaborate

no there doesn't, if a country doesn't want to do business with us then they don't have to, much like the EU (france) is trying to do.......and the UN does nothing to promote a "free" market, they are basically a barrier...........

I'm all for global business.....but this one world order (socialist idea) is just wrong, and by us funding and supporting the UN we are only helping to cause this scary future.............

Ronin
06/13/03, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by Justin_stacy
no there doesn't, if a country doesn't want to do business with us then they don't have to, much like the EU (france) is trying to do.......and the UN does nothing to promote a "free" market, they are basically a barrier...........

I'm all for global business.....but this one world order (socialist idea) is just wrong, and by us funding and supporting the UN we are only helping to cause this scary future.............

So you don't think that there should be a body larger than the individual governments for nations to answer to?

In that scenario, larger more powerful nations have more control, and therefore can abuse the power.

Justin_stacy
06/13/03, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by Ronin
So you don't think that there should be a body larger than the individual governments for nations to answer to?

In that scenario, larger more powerful nations have more control, and therefore can abuse the power.

but this world authorty you speak of has already abused its power and has been proven to be totally corrupt.......so when should we stop placing all our trust in it?

Ronin
06/14/03, 05:48 AM
Originally posted by Justin_stacy
but this world authorty you speak of has already abused its power and has been proven to be totally corrupt.......so when should we stop placing all our trust in it?

I can't pretend like I'm really well educated on this issue, because obviously I'm not. I'll take your word for the corruption, but I have a hard time believing that it would be total. Kofi Annan did win a Nobel Peace Prize.

But for arguments sake, let's say the UN is completely and utterly useless. Instead of just ignoring it, the US should propose reforms (that don't just bolster the American foothold i the world) . If the UN is really corrupt, other countries should have the same concerns, yes?

Justin_stacy
06/14/03, 06:51 AM
Originally posted by Ronin
I can't pretend like I'm really well educated on this issue, because obviously I'm not.

pretending is the whole point of this site............:D

Justin_stacy
06/14/03, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by Ronin
I can't pretend like I'm really well educated on this issue, because obviously I'm not. I'll take your word for the corruption, but I have a hard time believing that it would be total. Kofi Annan did win a Nobel Peace Prize.

But for arguments sake, let's say the UN is completely and utterly useless. Instead of just ignoring it, the US should propose reforms (that don't just bolster the American foothold i the world) . If the UN is really corrupt, other countries should have the same concerns, yes?

Other countries dont want to reform the UN, because it fits there political idealogy, socialism and one world order, and thats something the USA has never stood for nor ever will, and that is why we shouldn't be apart of it, or provide the most funding for it, or really try to reform it........


{The Clinton Administration has announced it will use its veto power, if necessary, to stop the reappointment of United Nations Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali to a second five-year term. The United Nations is a bureaucratic swamp of corruption and mismanagement, according to a recent report.

The overpaid bureaucracy has grown to 50,000 worldwide -- not counting nearly 10,000 consultants and, at its height in 1993, 80,000 peacekeeping troops.

Tax-free salaries are often double comparable private-sector pay in New York City and payroll costs consume at least 70 percent of its operating budget.

But Boutros-Ghali estimates that half the employees do nothing useful.

The others are used inefficiently -- such as 500 stenographers who type dictated versions of translated documents, when the translators could do it themselves on computers.
Aid money is often lost or stolen and dozens of agencies duplicate efforts.

For example,

In Somalia, $369,000 was paid for fuel distribution services a contractor did not provide, and a relief project director pocketed $100,000 of agency money.

The U.N. Children's Fund lost $10 million to mismanagement in Kenya.

Nearly $4 million in cash was stolen from U.N. headquarters in Somalia.
Many of the problems stem from the structure of the U.N. Each of the 185 member-nations has one General Assembly vote, allowing Third World countries to dominate.

The U.N.'s $10.5 billion annual budget has never been independently audited.

The United States alone is assessed a contribution of 25 percent of the U.N.'s general budget and 31 percent to its peacekeeping budget.

But in 1992, a majority of members contributed a combined total of less than 1 percent of the general budget, while 14 members contributed 84 percent.
Some U.N. critics recommend a comprehensive, independent audit of the U.N., followed by drastic downsizing and reform, including privatization of many agencies. Others favor the U.S. just getting out. }

.................i also wouldn't put to much faith in the Nobel "peace" prize, either.