[ICC again] US plays aid card to fix war crimes exemption

[Grojlach]

US plays aid card to fix war crimes exemption

Ian Traynor in Zagreb
Thursday June 12, 2003
The Guardian

The US is turning up the heat on the countries of the Balkans and eastern Europe to secure war crimes immunity deals for Americans and exemptions from the year-old international criminal court.
In an exercise in brute diplomacy which is causing more acute friction with the European Union following the rows over Iraq, the US administration is threatening to cut off tens of millions of dollars in aid to the countries of the Balkans unless they reach bilateral agreements with the US on the ICC by the end of this month.

The American campaign, which is having mixed results, is creating bitterness and cynicism in the countries being intimidated, particularly in the successor states of former Yugoslavia which perpetrated and suffered the worst war crimes seen in Europe since the Nazis. They are all under intense international pressure, not least from the Americans, to cooperate with the war crimes tribunal for former Yugoslavia in the Hague.

"Blatant hypocrisy," said Human Rights Watch in New York on Tuesday of the US policy towards former Yugoslavia.

Threatened with the loss of $73m (£44m) in US aid, Bosnia signed the exemption deal last week just as Slovenia rejected American pressure and cut off negotiations.

Of all the peoples of former Yugoslavia, the Bosnians suffered the most grievously in the wars of the 1990s, from the siege of Sarajevo to the slaughter of Srebrenica.

The Bosnians signed reluctantly, feeling they had no choice. Former Yugoslavia is particularly central to the US campaign to exempt Americans from the scope of the ICC because there are US troops in Bosnia and Kosovo.

Washington is vehemently opposed to the permanent international criminal court, arguing that US soldiers, officials and citizens will be targeted for political reasons, an argument dismissed by the court's supporters, who point out that safeguards have been built into the rules governing the court's operations.

Under President Bill Clinton, Washington signed the treaty establishing the court. But the US did not ratify the treaty and Mr Bush rescinded Mr Clinton's signature.

While the Slovenes have said no to the Americans, probably forfeiting $4m in US aid, Croatia, Serbia and Macedonia are now being pressed to join the 39 other countries worldwide with which Washington has sealed bilateral pacts granting Americans immunity from war crimes.

"While the United States rightly insists that the former Yugoslav republics must fully cooperate with the [Hague tribunal], it is turning the screws on the very same states not to cooperate with the ICC," said Human Rights Watch.

Croatia is sitting on the fence, refusing to accept what the prime minister, Ivica Racan, dubbed "an ultimatum", but still hoping to reach a compromise with the US. The American ambassador in Zagreb published a letter in the Zagreb press last week warning that Croatia would lose $19m in US military aid if it did not capitulate by July 1.

In Serbia, too, where the issue of war crimes is explo sive, the US pressure is being attacked as a ruthless display of double standards.

The EU has sent letters to all the countries in the region advising them to resist the US demands and indicating that surrender will harm their ambitions of joining the EU.

Regional leaders are waiting to see what kind of offers or promises this month's EU summit in Greece makes to the region before deciding on their stance towards the ICC. One idea being floated is that the EU could make up the lost US aid money in return for Balkan refusal to toe the American line.

Although the eight east European countries joining the EU next year are expected to follow the Brussels policy and reject the US demands, the Poles in particular are also being pressed to reach an immunity deal with Washington.

Sources in Warsaw say that the US state department has made several requests in recent weeks for a deal by July 1. Poland is the biggest American ally in the region but has not yielded to the US requests.

Source: Guardian

[spydar]

wow, the US has double standards, gee who'da thunk it??? of course they have double standards!!! thats the premise of everything the american government does: you can't do/say this, this, this, or this but if we do/say it then thats just fine. I don't see how the american government can be trying to make deals to exempt them from the international court when they themselves aren't a part of it. quite being a bunch of damn hypocrites and try to actually get along with the rest of the world, cause I can garauntee that the european union is not something you're going to want to have a grudge with in future years.

This isn't all about Grojlachs article some of it pertains to one I read about today. But starting with Grojlachs article....]

Actually that is an extremely biased and not all together accurate way to describe what is going on. What the US is trying to do is make US soldiers exempt from the ICC. It does not mean that they will not be punished and that they will not have to answer for war crimes...if any are to occur.

What it does say, is that if you wish to continue to use the US Military as a peace instrument, you will gaurentee that A. the US won't be hauled into the ICC by every shyster in the world looking to sue for $$$ and B. Let the US handle things when its commanders get out of line (if it should happen).

This is actually called the price of doing business with the USA. You don't like that their help comes with strings attached...well ya gotta decide whats important to you.

Apparently Belgium wants to charge the US with crimes it wasn't even around to investigate so the US is saying screw off we won't participate in your new NATO building that is going up in Brussels...pay for it your selves....I hear Warsaw may like the Idea of having the NATO headquarters there...

ANyway...The article doesn't claim anywhere to be objective or unbiased [img]smile.gif[/img] And neither am I.

[the new JR Jansen]

Originally posted by MagiK: Apparently Belgium wants to charge the US with crimes it wasn't even around to investigate so the US is saying screw off we won't participate in your new NATO building that is going up in Brussels...pay for it your selves....I hear Warsaw may like the Idea of having the NATO headquarters there...

Oh brother . Belgium never charged the US. A complaint was made by a group of Iraqis in Belgium. Actually, the Belgian gouvernment said that because of the criteria, it would not be handeling the complaint and they send it to the US. If now the US is BS'ing about that, then they have nothing to BS about.

On topic. It seems sometimes to me that the US is afraid of having it citizens tried for international courts just because they might be found guilty. Would an American court really sentence one of their own soldiers (rethorical question) ? Maybe, probably. At least i'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. But if you, on the one hand say to someone that they should do something but on the other hand you refuse to do the same, it does make you look a bit hypocritical.

[Donut]

Originally posted by the new JR Jansen: On topic. It seems sometimes to me that the US is afraid of having it citizens tried for international courts just because they might be found guilty. Would an American court really sentence one of their own soldiers (rethorical question) ? .

It may be rhetorical but I'll answer for you. You're being too cynical. In 1971 Lt William Calley of the US Army was tried and convicted of the pre-meditated murder of over 22 unarmed South Vietnamese men, women and children. In fact up to 500 were killed in the My Lai massacr. He was not executed as most mass murderers would be but he did receive a life sentence. Eventually he had to suffer the anguish of three and a half years under house arrest before he was released by a federal judge.

That's why the US government don't need the ICC - they deal with their own dirty laundry.

[ 06-13-2003, 06:26 AM: Message edited by: Donut ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Ok Donut, now give me one that isn't 32 years old and didn't happen 6 presidents ago. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Donut]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Ok Donut, now give me one that isn't 32 years old and didn't happen 6 presidents ago. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

ONLY 32 years! I remember when it happened. I don't want to give another one Ronn. I believe this was a very rare occurence and that US forces rarely, if ever, commit war crimes. Which is why it is so curious that they want immunity.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Ok Donut, now give me one that isn't 32 years old and didn't happen 6 presidents ago. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

ONLY 32 years! I remember when it happened. I don't want to give another one Ronn. I believe this was a very rare occurence and that US forces rarely, if ever, commit war crimes. Which is why it is so curious that they want immunity. [/QUOTE]No one wants another, and no one is trying to arrange one, but the point is that it happened 32 years ago during the most F(%&ed up period in US military history, and a comparision to then and now isn't realistic.

Regarding the ICC, if the choice is not to participate, then securing immunity ensures that in every sense. Basically, those who need our money and forces, have to agree to let us police them.

On a flippant note, is the fact that Lt. Calley wasn't sentanced to death the good news or the bad news. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

[Donut]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: On a flippant note, is the fact that Lt. Calley wasn't sentanced to death the good news or the bad news. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

LOL - I plead the 5th! (er - am I allowed to do that if I'm not American?)

[Mouse]

On the subject of "War Crimes" vis-a-vis Vietnam, there is an interesting article here.

To quote an extract:-

Over the course of the Viet Nam war, there were 122 war crimes convictions: 95 in the army; 27 in the marines. Those defendants were adjudged by uniformed juries, and punished in accordance with their offenses. But war crimes are notoriously under-reported. The vast majority never come to light, owing to confusing conditions on the ground, loyalty among soldiers, and insufficient respect for the enemy. There is a further procedural reason that it is hard to trace this legal history: you do not find "war crimes" in the language of the UCMJ, which uses a penal code vocabulary: for example, "murder" (Section 918, Art. 118); or "rape" (Sec. 920, Art. 120). Moreover, the only records we have are appellate records. So if a case ends in acquittal, it is very hard to locate. If there is appeal on conviction (and appeals were virtually automatic), all you’ll find are the specific appellate issues: admissibility of a particular piece of evidence; admissibility of the defendant’s confession, etc. There is nothing about the substance of the underlying conviction.