Europe obstructs the USA's attempts to, er, obstruct the ICC.

Shinji

From another forum I frequent - thought this was very interesting, and funny in a sad sort of way.

"U.S. Confronts EU On War Crimes Court
Immunity Pact Issue Threatens Relations
By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, June 10, 2003

UNITED NATIONS, June 9 -- The Bush administration charged the European Union with actively undermining U.S. efforts to shield Americans from prosecution by the International Criminal Court and warned that the impact on transatlantic relations will be "very damaging" if the EU does not stop.

The unusually tough warning, which was issued in a confidential note to EU governments last week, threatens to complicate the United States' relations with its European allies as a June 25 summit in Washington approaches. It also comes as the United States formally tabled a Security Council resolution today that would extend immunity for at least one year to Americans serving in U.N.-authorized military operations from prosecution by the world's first permanent war crimes court."


Sooo.... the USA is threatening Europe if we don't stop obstructing their attempts to obstruct the International Criminal Court. It's a bit of a tacit admission of guilt over war crimes, isn't it?

Yet another nail in the coffin of transatlantic relations, as if any more were needed. Disputes over Iraq split people's opinions; disputes over things like Galileo and the Euro are little known and most people don't care. A dispute like this could run and run and run... A lot of Europeans, presented with this kind of argument, will have a "bring it on" kind of reaction. America seems determined to harden these battle lines.

DadaKopf

There's been talk in the lead-up to the EU Summit in Athens that the EU may match the costs of withdrawn US financial support in the Balkans. Given the political climate, I wouldn't be surprised if this is attempted (I'm reaching here but those costs may be traded off with money saved in the proposed CAP renegotiations).

All the same, in the long run, is it going to make any difference because Poland and all those other mad countries will be joining the EU soon enough and they'll have to comply with all kinds of juristictional obligations.

PHB

Anyone else think its going to be a United States of America vs. the United States of Europe situation?
I think in a round about way, its the eventual lead up to a world government.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Shinji
Sooo.... the USA is threatening Europe if we don't stop obstructing their attempts to obstruct the International Criminal Court. It's a bit of a tacit admission of guilt over war crimes, isn't it?

Yes, the USA is attempting to obstruct Europe's attempt to obstruct the USA's attempt to obstruct the ICC.

Victor

"If you are not with us, you are against us." takes on yet more ominous meanings.

Shinji

So, hang on.... if Europe refuses to give in to these veiled threats, will that mean that Europe is obstructing America's attempt to obstruct Europe's attempt to obstruct America's attempt to obstruct the ICC?

Lordy, I think I need to lie down. International politics, eh!

Hobbes

From what I have read. A lot of what would bring you up against the ICC you would have to be one evil mofo to get brought in front of it.

Something America hasn't even come close to in the list of things.

The only thing I can see that would bring the US in front of the ICC is the use of pre-emptive strikes against another nation (eg. Iraq, and it's new world policy).

Dawg

It also comes as the United States formally tabled a Security Council resolution today that would extend immunity for at least one year to Americans serving in U.N.-authorized military operations from prosecution by the world's first permanent war crimes court.

I'm guessing then that the U.S. immunity doesn't cover the Iraq situation as it wasn't authorized by the U.N..

It seems as though the U.S. are imposing themselves as police for the world, without shouldering the responsibilities that it entails. A police force without accountability for its actions is a dangerous thing indeed. As far as I'm concerned, if they cant handle/dont want that accountability then they're not up to the job. If they want to send troops into another country then they have to follow international laws and practises, and if they dont they should get the book thrown at them.

Thing is, the U.S. are so keen to put themselves across as a world leader and so forth, but seem to be completely blinkered to the fact that without approval from abroad, it doesn't mean a thing. A shephard is nothing without a flock. Dubya and his chronies are making the list of allies not currently pissed at them smaller and smaller by treating them with anything from disrespect to contempt. Now they're threatening Europe because its standing up for principles of humanity and accountability. Madness.


Hobbes, if thats the case (and I'm not argueing either way) then they have nothing to be worried about. The important thing in my eyes is that the structure be put in place. If the worlds leaders shrug off the responsibility of international law, then thats a lead I'm not prepared to follow. To threaten the people who stand up for said laws?? Thats just reckless.

Diarmuid

Originally posted by Hobbes
From what I have read. A lot of what would bring you up against the ICC you would have to be one evil mofo to get brought in front of it.

Something America hasn't even come close to in the list of things.

The only thing I can see that would bring the US in front of the ICC is the use of pre-emptive strikes against another nation (eg. Iraq, and it's new world policy).

Well you might be interested in this judgment of the ICJ( International Court of
Justice, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations)

http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/Icases/iNus/inusframe.htm