U.S., RUSSIA, CHINA, ISRAEL REFUSE TO RATIFY WORLD COURT
by DEBKAfile
1 July 2002
The international war crimes court was born in The Hague Monday, July 1 amid serious challenges to its authority. A few hours earlier, Sunday June 30, the United States announced its withdrawal from the international peacekeeping force in Bosnia unless the UN Security Council could, within 72 hours, produce safeguards for the immunity of US troops from prosecution.
Three Security Council permanent members, the United States, Russia and China,
as well as Israel, are among the half of the 130 UN members states who have
declined to ratify their signatures on the 1998 Rome Statute that established
the court. They fear its judgments will be politically tainted. They also question
the right of European nations to judge the rest of the world.
The Europeans, led by Britain and France, say they will not let the Bush administration
undermine what they view as a historic advance in international justice and
human rights. International human rights groups are accusing the United States
of tactics designed to undermine the worlds first permanent tribunal for
prosecuting war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity.
Under the covenant, any individual may be prosecuted on the basis of a complaint
from a government or the UN Security Council by a court whose 18 judges and
chief prosecutor are still unknown.
Israel withdrew its signature because it claimed it had been treated unfairly
from the outset by a tribunal whose charter addresses a wide range of war crimes,
but not terrorism. On the other hand, the establishment of Jewish settlements
in the West Bank and Gaza is judged a priori a war crime. Israels non-membership
of the international court mitigates the threat of arbitrary prosecution facing
top-level Israeli government officials, army personnel and civilians, but does
not altogether remove it.
In endorsing the court four years ago, former President Bill Clinton, his secretary
of state Madeleine Albright and national security adviser, Samuel Berger, believed
the new tribunal would be useful for advancing the administrations two
prime foreign policy objectives:
1. Promoting the national aspirations of ethnic Muslims in the Balkans, especially
in Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia, at the expense of the Serbs. According to DEBKAfiles
military sources, the Clinton administration secretly funneled US arms, funds
- as well as allowing Americans of Albanian decent to join Muslim ranks - to
support the establishment of three independent Muslim republics in the heart
of Europe centering on Albania. The Milosevic regime was to be discredited and
smashed and Serbia, then considered the sharp edge of Russian and Chinese influence
in the Balkans, reduced to a strategic nonentity hemmed in by four strong Muslim
states
2. The Balkan precedent was to have provided leverage against the Israeli political
camp opposed to a Palestinian state and acted as an inhibitor for Israeli military
operations against the Palestinians. Behind this thinking was the assumption
that holding the IDF on a tight leash would lend Israeli policy-makers the freedom
to make profound and sweeping concessions to the Palestinians.
Earlier this year, during a visit to Tel Aviv, Clinton declared wonderingly
that he could not understand why Muslims hate America, when he, an American
president, sent troops to fight for equal rights and better living standards
for the Muslims of Bosnia and Kosovo.
Eager to meet Clintons expectations, the Israeli prime minister of the
day, Ehud Barak, signed on to the Rome Covenant in December 2000, two months
after the outbreak of the Palestinian armed confrontation. He did not heed attorney
general Elyakim Rubinsteins warnings that he was making Israeli officers
and men fighting Palestinian terrorists and Israelis living on lands not included
in the 1947 UN partition resolution liable to prosecution.
Article 8, Clause viii) of the Rome Statute defines as a War Crime The
transfer directly or indirectly by the Occupying Power of part of its own civilian
population into the territory it occupies or the deportation or transfer of
all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside their
territories.
Since the new court is not subject to a statute of limitations, Tel Aviv university
(built over a pre-1948 Arab village), no less than the Jewish inhabitants of
Jerusalems French Hill, could be charged as war criminals.
There are enough similar applications in other parts of the world to awaken
a whole pack of sleeping dogs.
The great advocate of the International War Crimes Court is the European Unions
external affairs executive Javier Solana. This cause fits in with his ardent
sponsorship of Yasser Arafats demand to internationalize his
dispute with Israel, echoed by the peace activists of Israelis Labor party,
Shimon Peres, Yossi Sarid, Yossi Beilin, Haim Ramon. If Arafats wish had
been granted, international peacekeepers would have been in the
country and theoretically, according to the Bosnian precedent, in a position
to detain most of Israels generals, its military personnel and many of
its civilians as war criminals.
Sunday, June 30, the Sharon government, sheltering behind Americas broad
back, heeded the advice of attorney general Rubinstein this time and recalled
Baraks signature.
In any case, the 9/11 terrorist atrocities and subsequent US anti-terror offensives
in Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia - and the coming strike against
Iraq and possible the Hizballah in Lebanon - make an international war crimes
court that fails to recognize terrorism as such outdated and irrelevant. It
is not surprising that Russia and China, like the US, refuse to join.
Unlike president Clinton, George W. Bush will not tolerate international control
over Americas military actions and will never subject US military peacekeepers,
mandated for their mission by the world body, to an international crimes court.
By applying to its veto power to block the extension of the Bosnia peacekeeping
force, the United States is leaving the conflict in the hands of the Europeans
and their new Hague court. According to DEBKAfiles military sources, expecting
the European peacekeepers to cope unaided is the recipe for a fresh flare-up
of Serb-Croat hostilities against Bosnian Muslims.
Last week, America and Europe locked horns at the G-8 summit over whether Yasser
Arafat was fit to lead the Palestinian people. The US-EU confrontation over
the international war crimes court and the peacekeeping force in Bosnia is the
second transatlantic set-to in as many weeks. Both sides seem to be digging
hard into their positions, a manifestation that will no doubt color the coming
events in the Middle East."