USA Closing ICC Deals

[Piddzilla]

I just read a press item about USA and the International Criminal Court (ICC) on www.dn.se . It's in swedish so I tried to find it in english for y'all and this was the only one I found. The one I read was not about Zambia exclusively but also about Albania, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Djibouti and Mauritius, which apparently are the latest in the row of poor countries selling immunity before the ICC to USA:

http://www.bday.co.za/bday/content/direct/1,3523,1390977-6098-0,00.html

What are your opinons on this?

[Piddzilla]

the page seems to be loading a bit slow so here is the article:


Zambia signs US war-crimes deal

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON The US has signed a deal with Zambia to give US citizens there immunity from prosecution in the International Criminal Court in a move that restores suspended military aid to the African nation.
The US state department said yesterday that since July 1 when Washington suspended military assistance to 35 nations including Zambia because they had not granted immunity the US had signed "article 98 agreements" with two states, bringing the total number of agreements it has inked to more than 55.

"Zambia signed an agreement on July 1," said US spokeswoman Tara Rigler. "The other has asked not to be identified."

Zambia's decision to sign the agreement frees up the suspended portion of a $225000 international military assistance education and training grant the US was giving the country this year.

It was not clear how much of that aid had been withheld.

On July 1, the US suspended more than $47m in military aid to the 35 nations that did not give US citizens immunity from prosecution in the court, which Washington vehemently opposes.

The US fears that the world's first permanent international court to try cases of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide could become a forum for politically motivated prosecutions of US citizens. Washington has been on a worldwide campaign to sign immunity deals.

Because the agreements are controversial, eight nations have asked for their agreements be kept secret. Diplomats say secret signers include Egypt, Mongolia, the Seychelles and Tunisia.

The US says has publicly identified 47 signing nations.

They are: Afghanistan, Albania, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Cambodia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, East Timor, El Salvador, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Honduras, India, Israel, Côte d'Ivoire, Macedonia, Madagascar, the Maldives, the Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Micronesia, Nauru, Nicaragua, Nepal, Palau, Panama, the Philippines, Romania, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Tuvalu, Uganda, Uzbekistan and Zambia. Sapa-AFP

[Golgot]

What are your opinons on this?

Well, we shouldn't even be surprised in some ways. We all know america wants to "opt out" from the world on many levels. We are a constant inconvenience to them ;)

I didn't quite realise this was the mechanism for assuring this ridiculous immunity. Well, they are special. Perhaps they have special needs too? ;)

Any yankeedoodles who'd care to explain why this is alright are very welcome, i suspect. Bring on the one-rule-for-us/one-for-the-rest-of-the-world arguments. Should be fascinating ;)

[Caitlyn]

I really don’t know a lot about this but from what I understand, the United States (under Clinton) signed the International Criminal Court treaty in the late 90’s but pulled out of the agreement (under Bush) in 2002... And now, since the US is not part of the International Criminal Court, it does not think American personnel should be subjected to it because of concerns for politically motivated prosecutions… All the potential cuts are part of the American Service Members Protection Act passed by Congress last year which penalizes countries that do not exempt Americans from prosecutions before the ICC…

Virtually all the funds in question are for military aid… mainly for equipment purchases and training so in all honesty, I’m not sure what to say about this until I read a little more about it… but, I don’t understand where Golgot is coming from with his “opting out” comment…

[Piddzilla]

I've heard about this before but I don't know very much about it either. Ultimately it is up to each and every one if they want to take part in the developing of an international court system that deals with scum like Pinochet or Milosevic. But what I think is worrying is the fact that USA penalizes these poor countries for not playing it the way USA wants them too. And politically motivated prosecutions... USA knows that since they are the one country that engages the most in military operations abroad, the odds for any criminal acts being performed by some of its soldiers are pretty low compared to other countries participating in this ICC project. So what could happen is that USA goes to a 3rd world country, involves militarily, and some american soldiers lose it and kill civilians or rape women and ICC can't do anything about it. Because the 3rd world country that USA went to is not able to "press charges" because of the immunity that they had to agree on to save these funds or aids.

I think USA's most dangerous and fastes growing enemy is the thing called anti-americanism. I think it is so weird that the Bush administration doesn't realize that acts like this only increase anti-americanism and hostility and the threat of future terror attacks instead of protecting americans.

[Golgot]

but pulled out of the agreement (under Bush) in 2002...

… but, I don’t understand where Golgot is coming from with his “opting out” comment…

Sorry Caitlyn, but that's how i see it. You have opted out of most international movements. All the climate treaties and the UN are two important examples ;)

You're probably all about to go head-to-head with the IMF/WTO and World Bank too now (quite intriguingly - seeing as two are "based" in washington i believe ;)) who will have to establish certainty of government to allow trade to begin, and hence go against america's basically illegal stance on how much control the US (and in theory Britain) should have over regime change. See this link for more on this:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1008495,00.html

Caitlyn, can it be right to ignore and opt out of systems of international law in this way?

Piddz has covered all the other stuff nicely. You see, unfortunately, for various reasons, america is making itself increasingly unpopular. It's not just about Iraq by any means.

[Steve]

Shameful. :#

[Golgot]

Jus checking stevo, but r u saying my comments are outrageous, or the actions of the recent american administrations etc?

[Steve]

It's an outrage that the US hasn't signed up. It's indefensible...there's probably a myriad of reasons for this, but it's my own personal opinion that it's connected to the war criminals we've so diligently sponsored over the years - Mobutu, Idi Amin (for awhile), Suharto, Clinton, Kissinger, et al. If we sign up, it blows the gates wide open. This shows an obvious contempt for justice.

[Golgot]

Unfortunately so. Glad you agree stevo. (And i dare say your right. I suspect future actions may be in their mind too. Not that britains' innocent of extreme dodginess - hence the creation of iraq etc, but we lost our super-powers a long time ago - we don't have the power to make the world glow with the to-and-fro of dodgy power deals. Heigh ho - we'd be bad if we could but we dropped out of the flow ;))

[Kong]

Disgusting.

Kong, for one, is ashamed.

[Golgot]

The most unfortunate thing is that it's yet another blow to "the world's" perception of america. And, especially meaning no offense to guys like yourselves, it just means the opinions of world-wide populaces, and even politicians, will shrink yet further, and indeed turn further towards the area of "hate". Which we can all agree is the last thing anyone wants right now. No-one wants to see you guys get more insular or defensive mentally - or indeed to encourage the perception [and, quite possibly, the reality] that america's basically empirical expansionism (tho in a new pseudo-economic/military/industrial form to old varients) is starting to ignore/cost the rest of the world too much. I'm very worried. I've said it before and i'll say it again, i love you guys (well, especially your counter-culture ;)) - but there's some bad trends afoot. Soz for any offence (and for any exaggerrationist-tendancies within me, this is after all just one issue - but the view from outside the US seems to be considerably at odds with that on the inside. I speak as someone who teaches international students every day. They definitely don't all agree with me on everything - but even the most ferverent advocate of american-style industry/politics/living are getting frustrated)

[Henry The Kid]

It's an outrage that the US hasn't signed up. It's indefensible...there's probably a myriad of reasons for this, but it's my own personal opinion that it's connected to the war criminals we've so diligently sponsored over the years - Mobutu, Idi Amin (for awhile), Suharto, Clinton, Kissinger, et al. If we sign up, it blows the gates wide open. This shows an obvious contempt for justice.

I don't even have to post when you're in threads. Perfectly put.

[Piddzilla]

It is actually off topic really (or is it?), but I just read that USA is threatening Iceland with trading sanctions because of Iceland's catch of their first whale since the whale fishing stop in 1989. The whales, who have grown in numbers in icelandic waters, are threatening the fishing in Iceland since the whales eat massive amounts of fish (according to icelandic sources). I don't know what I think about Iceland hunting whales again, I am not informed well enough on the subject. But the fact that USA are thinking about sancitons because of "the Pelly amendment", the President's right to ban products from a country that "sabotages international measures to protect the environment" is a bit puzzling to me. Excuse me?? The Kyoto Protocol?? Anyone??

[Golgot]

most peculiar. Perhaps there's whale-assassin plans afoot? (well hell, they've done dolphins. And spy-cats :yup: )

(also off topic probably...today the Guardian newspaper says....)

The US has tried to get the WTO to force the EU to drop the ban on GM food. The EU's used their one-off permitted "block" (however, they intend to "create confidence amongst citizens for GMOs" - so really they're just slowing the process down. Nothing wrong with a bit of caution. I'd just like to see more. Even the EU's appraisal is based on public problems, so they still think the food doesn't present any serious potential health risks - the naive fools ;))

[Golgot]

It's an outrage that the US hasn't signed up. It's indefensible...there's probably a myriad of reasons for this, but it's my own personal opinion that it's connected to the war criminals we've so diligently sponsored over the years - Mobutu, Idi Amin (for awhile), Suharto, Clinton, Kissinger, et al. If we sign up, it blows the gates wide open. This shows an obvious contempt for justice.

just thought i'd bump this, as it's so relevant, and also add Saudi Arabia to the list of helped-out terror-helpers.