ZGram - 8/10/2002 - "More yet on the ICC - the International Criminal Court"

[irimland@zundelsite.org]

ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny

August 10, 2002

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

Today two somewhat overlapping news articles, followed by Zundelsite comments:

[START]

Number 1:  BBC News, Friday, 9 August, 2002, 21:31 GMT 22:31 UK

Norway and US clash over court

By Barnaby Mason
BBC diplomatic correspondent

Norway says it will reject a request by the United States to sign an 
agreement not to hand over Americans to the International Criminal 
Court, set up to try crimes against humanity.

Washington is trying to conclude bilateral agreements with as many 
countries as possible to prevent what it says is the danger of 
politically motivated prosecutions of American peacekeepers.

Norway has been a champion of human rights and regards the new 
International Criminal Court as a milestone in international justice.

The Norwegian Foreign Minister, Jan Petersen, said the government 
could not accept the United States request.

The Americans were exaggerating the problems with the court, he said, 
and there were many safeguards to reduce the risk of its being abused.

The Bush administration says there is no effective mechanism to 
prevent the politicised prosecution of American citizens.

And it condemns the court's assertion of jurisdiction over Americans 
even though the United States has rejected the treaty setting it up.

Washington failed to get the UN Security Council to give its 
peacekeepers blanket immunity.

Bilateral deals

So instead, it is trying to conclude deals under which individual 
countries will undertake not to hand over Americans to the court.

Romania and Israel have already signed up.

Such agreements are permitted by a provision of the court's own treaty.

And according to American officials, this course of action was 
actually suggested by some of the allies which opposed the United 
States in the Security Council.

The Bush administration is now pressing European Union countries to 
sign immunity agreements.

They will meet next month to try to agree on a co-ordinated response.

[END]

(Source:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2184203.stm )

=====

[START]

2.  Bush uses force on supporters of global court

U.S. threatens to cut off military aid to nations that join

Saturday, August 10, 2002

By ELIZABETH BECKER

THE NEW YORK TIMES

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration, making use of a provision of 
the new anti-terrorism law, warned foreign diplomats this week that 
their nations could lose all U.S. military assistance if they become 
members of the International Criminal Court without pledging to 
protect Americans serving in their countries from its reach.

The threat to withdraw military aid -- including education, training 
as well as help financing the purchase of equipment and weaponry -- 
could be felt by almost every nation that has relations with the 
United States, although the law exempts many of its closest allies. 
The law gives the president authority to continue military aid if he 
determines it is in the national interest.

This part of the new law, which passed Congress with broad bipartisan 
support and was signed last week by President Bush, provides the 
administration with its broadest and most coercive tool to keep 
Americans out of the hands of the new court.

Written by Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas, the majority whip, the measure is 
intended to force as many countries as possible to sign bilateral 
agreements not to extradite Americans to the new court for trial, 
according to a Republican congressional aide who worked on the 
measure.

Romania and Israel have signed such agreements.

The Bush administration opposes the court, the world's first 
permanent forum for trying individuals charged with genocide and 
other crimes against humanity, on the ground that it could subject 
Americans to politically motivated prosecutions abroad.

This week, the State Department invited foreign ambassadors in for 
briefings to lay out U.S. opposition to the court and to warn them of 
the prohibition against military aid to countries that are a party to 
the treaty establishing the court.

"That is a fact under the law; it's right there in the law," said 
Philip Reeker, a State Department spokesman. "The president welcomes 
the law -- I can't underscore how important this is to us to protect 
American service members."

Another provision in the law gives the president authority to free 
members of the armed services or other Americans who are in the 
court's custody by any "necessary and appropriate means," including 
use of the military.

Nations that are members of NATO and other major allies -- including 
Israel, Egypt, Australia, Japan and South Korea -- are exempted from 
the military assistance prohibition. The Pentagon said the measure 
could touch just about every other country on the globe.

"It is easier to list what countries do not receive U.S. military 
assistance than those that do," said Lt. Cmdr. Barbara Burfeind of 
the Navy, a Pentagon spokeswoman. "Virtually every country but Cuba, 
Iraq, Iran and the other countries on the terrorist list receive some 
military training or aid from us."

Jonathan Grella, a spokesman for DeLay, said, "This is just an 
effective tool, and we have said numerous times that we have to do 
whatever it takes to protect our service members from this rogue 
court." The United States has about 9,000 peacekeepers stationed in 
nine countries.

Military assistance programs that could be terminated include 
international military education that brings foreign officers and 
students here for professional military training and financing for 
the purchase of U.S. weapons and services. The goal of military 
assistance programs, the Pentagon says, is to "enable friends and 
allies to acquire U.S. equipment, services and training for the 
legitimate self-defense and multinational security efforts."

Threatening to end these programs appears heavy-handed even to some 
of those who share the administration's concerns about the court.

James Steinberg, vice president of the Brookings Institution and 
former security adviser to President Clinton, said he shared some of 
the administration's concerns about the court. Yet, he added, 
military assistance programs "reflect shared common interest between 
the United States and foreign nations and should not be used as a 
club to get these countries to sign agreements."

"It's a very awkward way to deal with allies," Steinberg said. "We 
ought to be able to persuade them rather than coerce them. This has a 
very heavy feel to it."

[END]

(Source:  http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/82153_court10.shtml )

3.  ZUNDELSITE COMMENTS:

Please keep in mind that this International Court was approved by 
over 100 nations - and now it has suddenly become a "rogue court"?

This is a very revealing development - for there has been a 
precedent.  The so-called "Nuremberg Tribunal", set up against the 
Germans at the end of World War II, was clearly political in nature! 
Remember that it had no safeguards whatsoever against the whims of 
the Allied government!  Its hand-picked judges and prosecutors relied 
on ex post facto law!  It ruled hearsay evidence and 
untested-by-cross-examination affidavits permissible and legal!

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the two powers - the Jewish 
state and the US - suddenly don't want their soldiers subject to the 
jurisdiction of an international court, which has far more safeguards 
than the defeated Germans ever enjoyed in 1946-48!

Poor USA!  Imagine having to rely on the war criminal Sharon 
government endorsement and Dracula-law-practicing, semi-Marxist 
Rumania!  Some partners! 

What a sad state of affairs indeed for once-proud America with its 
Anglo-Saxon legal traditions, which were defiled so shamefully in the 
post-war European kangaroo proceedings!  How transparent can it get, 
having to refuse to submit to international standards they themselves 
championed for over 60 years!