New war crimes court a reality despite US hostility Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn't Fit [The establishment of a real International Criminal Court is, of course, the only civilized solution to 911, the Anthrax attacks, the abhorrent crimes and abuses in Afghanistan, the Middle East, Iraq. This is the only solution that people who care about crimes by and against US citizens and their government should accept, one that Fidel Castro has been urging the planet's governments to accept for many years. The United States, of course, and its puppetmaster Israel, would rather wage the Terror Crusades.] The Independent - 12 April, 2002 http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=284036 New war crimes court a reality despite US hostility By David Usborne NEW YORK, April 12--The United Nations declared in New York yesterday that the world's first permanent international war crimes tribunal will formally come into being on 1 July this year and begin operating next year, despite deep-seated opposition to the entire project from the United States. The announcement came during a brief ceremony at UN headquarters, held to coincide with 10 countries submitting their ratifications of the Rome treaty, which was negotiated in 1998 to create the International Criminal Court, to be based in The Hague. For the treaty to come into effect, a minimum of 60 countries had to ratify it in their parliaments. The 10 countries that came forward yesterday took the number of ratifications to 66, ensuring that all of the treaty's provisions will come into effect in less than three months. "A page in the history of human kind is being turned," said Hans Corell, the Undersecretary-General of the UN, to loud applause from supporters of the treaty. "May all this serve our society well in the years to come." The court represents a milestone in international diplomacy and is regarded by many as the long-delayed offspring of the Nuremberg trials 56 years ago, when Nazi leaders were prosecuted for new categories of crimes against humanity during the Second World War. With no permanent tribunal in place, the UN had been forced to set up two ad hoc courts in the last decade to try individuals charged with atrocities during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda and the 1992-1995 Bosnian war. The latter is now trying the former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic. Richard Dicker, of Human Rights Watch, said "signs are good" that between 90 and 100 countries will have ratified the treaty by early next year. When the Rome treaty was first negotiated, some thought it would take between 10 and 20 years for the triggering threshold of 60 ratifications to be reached. "The International Criminal Court is potentially the most important human rights institution created in 50 years. It will be the court where the Saddam Husseins, Pol Pots and Augusto Pinochets of the future are held to account," Mr Dicker said, referring to Iraq's President, Cambodia's late Khmer Rouge leader, and the former Chilean dictator. While America has always expressed its distaste, the drive to encourage countries to ratify the treaty came mostly from Europe, where enthusiasm for the court has been strongest. The legislation wended its way through parliament in Britain last year and was ratified last November. Bill Clinton, when he was president, added his signature to the treaty after it was first adopted, but never sent it to Congress for ratification because of stiff opposition from both sides of the political fence. The current White House, under President George Bush, is even more fiercely opposed and has even considered withdrawing the US signature from the Rome text. The notion of another international legal institution chills most people in Washington. There is concern that the court could be abused and defendants brought to trial for political reasons. Moreover, the White House worries that as anger at the US deepens in many parts of the world, some regimes would attempt to capture American soldiers and send them to the court. Behind the scenes, Britain has been trying to allay American fears, but with no noticeable effect. "We recognise they have concerns, but we believe there is full protection against malicious use of the court," a British official said. "We hope that the Americans will come to recognise this themselves". Such is the antagonism in Washington, however, that some Republican members of Congress have discussed passing legislation to forbid all contact between the US and the new court and even to punish countries, including allies, who support it. Under the treaty's provisions, the court will step in only when countries are unwilling or unable to dispense justice themselves for the most serious crimes committed by individuals, such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. A state can send a case to the court only if it has ratified the treaty. Otherwise, cases can be submitted by the UN Security Council or by the court's prosecutor, who must get the approval of a three-judge panel. The work to set the court up is now left with a commission chaired by Philippe Kirsch, Canada's ambassador to Sweden. He said that he expects the court to become operational in 2003. Its first order of business will be to appoint its prosecutor and its judges. ================================================================= NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us 339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org e-mail: nyt@blythe.org ================================================================= nytact-04.22.02-17:05:47-19276