The only outbreak of exultant applause in five weeks came at the expense of the United States. It broke out during the final Committee of the Whole on Friday night, 17 July, after the United States had submitted a proposal concerning the issue of jurisdiction of the Court with respect to states not party to the statue. Jurisdiction would be allowed only if the State had accepted that jurisdiction. Norway proposed a non-action motion. Sweden and Denmark spoke in favor; Qatar and China spoke against. The non-action motion was adopted by a vote of 113 in favor to 17 against, with 25 abstentions and tumultuous applause.
"Yes, the United States pays for twenty-five percent of all United Nations efforts, but they also try to tell us all what to do. There are strings attached to that money. Let others pay more so that we can get the U.S. out of our business," stated an FAO manager for European operations during lunch Friday.
"The United States is a bully. They have tried to destroy this important effort by denying the prosecutor true independence from the superpowers' grasp. The P-5 [Permanent Five of the Security Council] will never turn over their own people and they are the criminals using weapons of mass destruction. They have twisted the words of the document. In French the words meant an opt-out within the initial seven years, not an opt-out for seven years, as it was translated," opined an advisor to the Lebanese delegation the Saturday morning after.
"The perpetrators get a license to kill by opting out for seven years. The superpowers have tried to browbeat everyone. They think they still have the trump cards. We are thinking of how many lives can be saved and they are thinking of how they can shield criminals. Sending investigations back to the Security Council, if the ICC is effective, is just sending criminals back to be protected by their friends," stated Amnesty International Friday afternoon.
"French intransigence, U.S. pressure, and British maneuvering have almost disrupted every procedure, but the ICC can proceed unless requested not to do so for twelve months (a renewable period) by a majority vote of the Security Council," stated a press conference participant Friday.
"The ICC defeats the P-5!" exclaimed the Convenor of the Coalition for an International Criminal Court. "This is a victory for the creation of the ICC which will seek individuals for the first time," Bill Pace concluded.
As it concluded in Rome five weeks of deliberation, the Conference adopted by a vote (not consensus) of 120 in favor to 7 against, with 21 abstentions. Only 148 of the Conference 160 States participated this final night. The non-recorded vote was requested by the United States. Later comments indicate that three of the seven who voted against the statute were the United States, China, and Israel.
"The United States will not support resolution 'e' in the Final Act. Including crimes of terrorism and drug crimes under the Court will not help the fight against those crimes. The problem is not one of prosecution but of investigation, and the court will not be well equipped to do that." The 'e' resolution does deal with terrorism and drug crimes. it "affirms that the Statute of the International Criminal Court provides for a review mechanism, which allows for the expansion in future of the jurisdiction of the Court."
Besides bringing into being the Preparatory Commission for the ICC, resolution 'F' states in "7. The Commission shall prepare proposals for a provision on aggression, including the definition and Elements of Crimes of Aggression and the conditions under which the ICC shall exercise its jurisdiction with regard to this crime. The Commission shall submit such proposals to the Assembly of States Parties at a Review Conference, with a view to arriving at an acceptable provision on the crime of aggression for inclusion in this Statute. The provisions relating to the crime of aggression shall enter into force for the State Parties in accordance with the relevant provisions of this Statute."
The U.S. issued this general statement after the plenary took note of the report of the Committee of the Whole: "We deeply regret that some of our concerns have not been addressed. The United States is committed to bringing justice to those who commit such crimes. We commend the tireless efforts of the Bureau and so many delegations. We hope we will work together in the future. The contributions of the United States to the Statute would stand."
"Since early 1995, we have spared no effort to draft and negotiate a statute for a permanent international criminal court that would serve the interests of international justice, be realistic in its objectives, and operate as efficiently and effectively as possible," began the prepared statement 15 July by Ambassador David Scheffer. Later, he stressed, "the United States and other
countries have critical responsibilities around the world that are crucial tothe protection of civilian populations. A scheme that ignores these responsibilities is not going to serve the vital interest of the court."
Well, a scheme that ignores these responsibilities has been delivered at Scheffer's feet. What now?
Is the U.S. posturing for the Helmses back home, our newest buddy, China, and our recently IMF-infused friend, Russia? Are we witnessing the latest creation of good-cop/bad-cop so that gullible Americans get to dream of Ambassadors who might just really have the good of the United States at heart?
Or, is this Statute really unacceptable?
Action will speak. If the U.S. does what it has implied, it will not ratify this ICC. It will not fund this ICC. It will actively work against the ratification of this ICC by other states. It will pull its troops out of Europe and reduce its presence elsewhere in the world. If the U.S. is not just posturing, these actions will speak.
We are listening.
Note: The following reports were filed by Cathie Adams, representing Eagle Forum at the United Nations International Criminal Court meetings in Rome, Italy.
AGREEMENT REACHED to Establish an International Criminal Court
July 17, 1998
In an unprecedented action, the UN has completed a treaty that is binding on non-parties. And those who refuse to sign the treaty will have less say about the proceedings than those who sign. The US delegation, led by David Scheffer, attempted to offer two amendments, but Norway made a motion to not accept any amendments and 117 countries voted for the motion.
What can America expect from this new International Criminal Court (ICC)?
Benjamin B. Ferencz, a Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, has been one of the major advocates for the creation of the ICC. And his support is unwavering even though it will trample on America's sovereignty. He claims, "Antiquated notions of absolute sovereignty are absolutely obsolete in the interconnected and interdependent global world of the 21st century."
Ferencz' assertion ignores the fact that America would never have been a nation if this ICC had been in place. Our Revolutionary War would have been regarded as a "criminal act" by this Court.
Disregarding American history, the American delegation clearly supported the creation of the Court. They tried to appease the US military and Senator Jesse Helms by weakening the Court's original authority, but they know that it will be strengthened at later UN conferences.
The diplomacy of appeasement does not win favor with the liberals. Amnesty International, a member of the official coalition that lobbied and funded this conference, held a demonstration on the 4th of July in Rome that accused President Clinton of "genocide" because of the economic embargo against Iraq.
Former President George Bush was accused in the conference publication, "Terra Viva," of committing "the single worst blood bath of the war [against Iraq]: the massacre of some 100,000 retreating Iraqis on the 'Highway of Death' by US warplanes, a day after Saddam Hussein's government had accepted a Feb. 25 Soviet-brokered deal to withdraw from Kuwait." They claim that Bush "would also have to explain the bombing of the Ameriyya bomb shelter, where dozens of civilians, including women and children, had camped." They claim that, "if the makers of the ICC are forceful, and a bit lucky, this week can herald the start of a court for...a Bush or Yeltsin."
Closing ceremonies will take place on Saturday, July 18th. Clearly, the UN is the place where nations bring their "principles" to the table, but if they cannot reach "consensus" with their first set of principles--no problem--they substitute another set. The UN process exposes every nation's weaknesses.
At this point, the US can refuse to sign the treaty but it cannot stay out of its purview.
WHAT AMERICANS CAN DO: Pray that our American Senate will NOT ratify the International Criminal Court treaty and that it will muster the political courage to discontinue funding the UN.
July 14, 1998
Canadian Philippe Kirsch is chairman of the Committee of the Whole (COW) at this UN conference in Rome, Italy that is working to establish an International Criminal Court (ICC). At a press conference today, he said that "a lot of progress has been made and four-fifths of the draft Statute is complete, but serious differences still remain in areas dealing with the definitions and inclusion of crimes, including treaty crimes as well as the exercise of the Court." Discussions are continuing about when a State is bound by the Court: after a first or second act. Which and how many States have to be involved before the Court acts? How will the Court be funded? Will the ICC Statute have reservations (UN terminology for a dissenting opinion), and if so, how many? What will be the role of the Security Council; will it be the triggering mechanism for the Court. and if they decide the Court will prosecute crimes of aggression, must the Security Council act before individuals can be tried?
Asked whether the Court would be created with a vote or by consensus, Kirsch responded that he hopes for consensus and that he has always reached consensus in the past. He blamed current difficulties in the COW on States that have forgotten that the object of this UN meeting is to adopt the ICC (create the Court). Furthermore, he said the problem in the negotiations is that certain powerful States want a "particular Court for their situation." That was a backhand slap at the USA!
Kirsch's arrogance was appalling! When asked about the vote vs. the consensus process, he responded, "I'll reflect on what I think about that." He wants the ICC established because it is the "first Statute of worldwide application for prosecution and punishment of persons. This treaty would be universal and unique." Whether or not a nation signs the treaty!
There are 161 States, 1400 official delegates, 390 members of the media and 553 individuals with non-governmental organization (NGO) status participating in Rome.
I have not met any secular media here from Texas, why not? The eradication of national sovereignty, the "international" prosecution of individuals, trial without juries, the role of the Security Council and an $80 million annual cost of this Court should be newsworthy.
The arrogance of the COW Chairman Kirsch and the extremely important issues concerning this
Court should be shouted from the rooftops!
The UN has until Friday, July 17th to finish its work in order to create the ICC. So much money
and work has gone into this "maximum circus" taking place across the street from the ancient
Roman Circus Maximus. If the ICC becomes reality, then this circus act will be perpetrated on
the entire world. Please pray for the demise of this conference goal. Thank you!
July 13, 1998
CRITICAL ALERT
A crisis is brewing over language being discussed for inclusion in the "statute" that would establish an International Criminal Court (ICC).
In a meeting today, a Swedish chairman allowed a German delegate to be excessively critical of a delegate from Qatar, probably because Qatar is leading the Moslem nations in their opposition to homosexuality and abortion. That could cause the 53 Moslem nations to be distracted during this crucial final week of the conference.
The liberal agenda is to use the ICC to impose legalized abortion on nations and mandate special
protection for homosexuals. Two different meetings are to be held simultaneously tomorrow to
take up those issues. We need every conservative delegate to be alert to this scheme and for the
countries with small delegations to be able to cover both meetings.
July 13, 1998
Several issues must be decided by the end of this week as the UN conference to create an International Criminal Court (ICC) that began June 15 is to finish its work by Friday, July 17.
* Crimes of Aggression - Ninety-two countries want to define aggression as "with the object of establishing a military occupation of, or annexing, the territory." Forty-four States want a clearer definition without clarifying what that may be. Twenty-eight States are still unsettled about the role of the Security Council. The "Transnational Radical Party" a non-governmental organization (NGO) with consultative status to the UN is lobbying that the Court "will only be able to operate at the discretion of the Permanent Members of the Security Council" which will in effect "further the supremacy of the permanent five and expose all other States to the blackmail of the activation of the Court by the Security Council." The five permanent members of the Security Council are the USA, UK, China, Russia and France. Crimes of aggression will be dropped from the list of crimes to be prosecuted by the ICC unless acceptable proposals can be developed by this evening.
* Treaty Crimes - Likewise, these crimes will be dropped unless acceptable proposals are developed by Monday evening (today). This is the category that could impose UN treaties on nations who have not even signed them.
* Making economic embargoes a crime - This proposal by Cuba (of course, against the USA) is still pending.
* War Crimes - The wording is still under discussion. The feminists are working for "gender justice" that would impose abortion rights laws and special protections for homosexuals in every nation.
* Weapons - At this moment weapons dropped from the document are nuclear arms, anti-personnel land mines and blinding lasers but, it is still being discussed.
* Security Council - The role of the Security Council is still uncertain. There are three options being considered; one would grant NO authority to the Security Council. The USA wants the Council to be the triggering mechanism for cases but opposition says that would politicize the Court and aggravate the unequal advantage the Council's members already have.
* Admissibility - "In principle, the ICC will only take up a case when a state is unwilling or
unable to do so itself." This position is too open-ended and is surely dangerous to national
sovereignty.
The draft document has accepted "an American demand that the states can challenge a case
before the prosecutor has even started to investigate. The prosecutor must notify all states that
may have jurisdiction, including non parties, before he or she starts an investigation. The state
has to take up the case within a month." In return for this concession to the USA, "the draft
would allow the prosecutor to be more proactive while the state is considering the case, and
receive periodic updates on the progress of a case."
July 10, 1998
Typical of the UN's lethargic and incalculable conduct, this five-week-long meeting in Rome, Italy that is supposed to establish an International Criminal Court (ICC) has hardly accomplished a thing. There is only one more week left to compose a treaty.
* Regarding the Court's jurisdiction of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity (these terms have yet to be strictly defined):
#1 Germany has proposed "universal jurisdiction" meaning that the Court's Prosecutor would be granted limitless power to investigate and prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in any country and against any individual. About 20 nations subscribe to this position.
#2 South Korea wants to add various degrees of State consent before the Court could prosecute. About 66 nations support this position.
#3 The UK proposed automatic jurisdiction with State ratification for every case before the Court. Only they and Tunisia agree on the proposal.
#4 France desires that the UN Security Council (USA, France, England, China and Russia) be given the right to veto only war crimes cases in order to protect their nation's soldiers. The ICC would have universal jurisdiction in the areas of genocide and crimes against humanity.
#5 The USA Ambassador and head of its delegation in Rome, David Scheffer, warned yesterday that "there are too many governments which would never join this treaty and which, at least in the case of the US, would have to actively oppose this Court if the principle of universal jurisdiction or some variant of it were embodied in the jurisdiction of the Court." The left-wing, mostly American non-governmental organizations (NGOs) became irate over Mr. Scheffer's threat to actively oppose the ICC.
#6 Human rights, treaty crimes, drug trafficking, compensation for victims, the death penalty, the use of chemical and nuclear weapons, and whether only States that sign the treaty or whether ALL States and ALL individuals come under the purview of the ICC are still unresolved.
* The cost of this Court is estimated at about $80 million annually. Whether it would be funded as part of the UN or as a separate entity is undecided.
* Last December, VP Al Gore addressed the Plenary at the UN Climate Change Conference in Kyoto, Japan and proclaimed that he was directing the US delegation to be "flexible." While there was no immediate understanding of what he meant by "flexible," its definition soon became evident: COMPROMISE! Today, the coalition of NGOs lobbying for creation of this Court called for the USA, Sweden, Denmark, Germany and India to be flexible. The implications of that flexibility are still a mystery.
* The number of judges on this Court will probably be 18, but that is not definite. They are to have either criminal or international experience and there is to be fair representation of male and female judges. It is still unclear what the feminists are demanding for "fair representation."
* When and if a document is ready for signatures on the 17th of July, it is still undetermined how
many nations will have to sign it in order to create the ICC. Between 40 and 60 nations'
signatures are being discussed out of the possible 161 present for deliberations in Rome.
July 9, 1998
The USA is not in Rome, Italy to oppose the establishment of the sovereignty-usurping International Criminal Court (ICC). Instead, they are actively pursuing the creation of a weak Court because they know that after it is set up, it will become increasingly more powerful. The American delegation is negotiating as though the UN can be trusted and that the "world body" has our nation's best interests at heart even though that has never been true during the UN's 50-year history. The UN's record is abysmal.
The "poster boy" of this conference was to be the evil Pol Pot, but he died before the UN could muster their non-elected busybodies for a meeting. Furthermore, the UN tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda have not lived up to expectations; many of those indicted in 1993 are still at large.
But never mind the UN's failures, it continues to pressure the delegates by claiming that the "global community has failed to uphold its promise" that "never again" would the world see another Holocaust as suffered during World War II. It claims that the imposition of sanctions, embargoes or collective military force (peacekeepers) responses are "blunt instruments" because such responses "often hurt innocent civilians more than the offending individuals."
The bloated and irresponsible bureaucratic UN even claims that this Court will prevent horrors like the centuries-old Bosnian civil war and the Rwandan genocide. They sermonize that this Court could have prevented an estimated 14 million civilian war-related deaths (an unsubstantiated number) that have supposedly happened since the Nuremberg trials were held 50 years ago. Delegates in Rome are not challenging that absurdity.
Those who support establishing the ICC even subscribe to the "psycho-babble" that "cycles of violence continue so long as the people involved feel that justice has not been served." It ignores the fact that the basic nature of man is desperately wicked while it promotes Marxism During the opening day statements, Cuban delegate Jose Peraza Chapeauhey said, "The ideal of justice is eternal and will only be achieved when the philosophy of plunder disappears, which will lead to the disappearance of wars and injustice." He further claimed, "Cuba has been victim of a genocidal economic war for 40 years in an attempt to force it, through hunger and disease, to change the political and economic system it chose to follow in 1959 in an exercise of self-determination."
Americans are being blamed for Cuba's woes during this conference in Rome while Marxist Dictator Fidel Castro is admired as a hero because he stands up to the Americans! Every 1960s war protester should be proud that their philosophy has arrived on the global stage: wars are caused by social and economic inequities rather than by bad people. Marxism is alive and well at this UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court.
Yesterday, I spoke with a member of a German non-governmental organization (NGO) asking
about his insights and observations regarding the progress toward establishing the ICC. He
passionately responded by expressing his views regarding a desperate need for the Court's
establishment. I followed by asking him if he believed that this Court is the only source for future
world peace. He glared at me and asked, "What else do I have to offer?"
I told him that there is no Court or government that will bring world peace. But, there was a Man
who walked the earth nearly 2000 years ago who will bring peace to the world. He asked if I
could guarantee that. I told him I was most certain of it and that that Man's name is Jesus. He
then immediately rose from his seat and responded, "I don't have to listen to that."