International Criminal Court (ICC)

Since July 2003, when the International Criminal Court (ICC) became a reality, the curious events surrounding its formation made some of the hottest news stories circulating the globe... except, that is, within America. Curiously, the American media rarely mentions the ICC nor does it cover these unfolding events, events of earthshaking import. Therefore, with Americans having been kept in the dark, this webpage will be addressing the matter which will include pointing out the highlights. The biggest reason the ICC became such a hot news story is because the Bush administration has been frantically trying to undermine it. Is 'frantic' a fair depiction? It would seem so, if Bush is willing to burn every bridge America has built in the last 100 years in order to stop the ICC from having total jurisdiction in war crime cases. What's going on?

During the Clinton administration, the U.S. was one of 139 countries which signed the Rome Statue, a treaty to establish the ICC, but on May 6, 2002, the Bush administration refused to consider ratification and announced to the UN of the U.S. decision to nullify its signature and thus withdraw its support. The U.S. then began threatening to cut-off military aid to any country in the process of ratifying the Rome Statue which did not exempt U.S. citizens and military personnel. In other words, giving Americans immunity (see the September 2003 article The U.S. Government Position on the ICC [external link]). Only six countries had voted against the Rome Statute originally... China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar and Yemen.

While the official reasons why the U.S. withdrew are noted below, there is a greater reason which the administration won't admit to... one which apparently even the pundits have yet to recognize. It's all about becoming the only worldwide ruling authority... a necessary requirement before a 'one-world government' (globalization) can become a reality. But to begin with, one must first become 'the most influential' before any claims can be made. Insiders surely know this and that includes European insiders... but none of them will publicly admit it either. No, not even the Europeans will admit it... that's because everyone is jockeying for position. Although whether the Europeans are just trying to stop America from gaining ground or whether they wish world domination for themselves is unclear however. Meanwhile, I have no idea what China or Russia are up to. More on this follows.

It shouldn't be necessary to elaborate on why an International Criminal Court was necessary. The world simply needed an institution outside the influence and control of powerful people who might be responsible for genocide and other horrendous war crimes. Such an institution would be an international court with the jurisdiction to bring them to justice... from whatever country they may reside. We all know the history of war crimes, and we all know who committed them, and we all know most of them got away scot-free.

From the 1948 Genocide Conventions, the long-running idea of an International Criminal Court was to undergo serious study
From the 1998 Rome Statute, an International Criminal Court was formally and legally described
After being ratified by the required number of states (60) the International Criminal Court became a reality in July, 2003 and is based in The Hague, Netherlands

It seemed an International Criminal Court was bound to happen since it appeared almost everyone agreed it was needed, but it wasn't to be so easy. If anyone would have fought the idea, one would think, resistance would have come from a rogue state with a guilty dictator. That's not who protested the idea however, it was the United States and did so vigorously and underhandedly, threatening to cut off military aid to any county (even allies) that ratified the accord without giving American military personnel and its citizens immunity. In the name of justice, for such an unbelievable stance, there must be more to it. Just the same, many countries (45) refused to be intimidated by the Bush administration, went ahead and signed the accord anyway without the bilateral immunity agreement (BIA) and subsequently, at least 22 had their military aid cut-off. Their were some exceptions of course, NATO allies primarily (for political reasons) while independent-minded South American, Asian and African countries bore the consequences.

The Bush administration claims the ICC would become a platform for filing unwarranted charges against American military personnel, frivolous charges, without foundation or merit. Those who support the ICC claim those concerns are unwarranted, that safeguards are in place, that it would automatically determine the merits of a case before proceeding. This all leads to speculation as to Bush's real reasons because even if he has no confidence in the safeguards the ICC provides, do these concerns justify all that Bush did trying to obtain immunity? Bush effectively destroyed our relationship with every country in the world in his failed attempt... it doesn't make sense that price would be worth it even if he had succeeded. While many countries (40) did sign the BIA, most were under pressure to do so because of their financial need. Because of this, sour feelings over the matter are sure to linger.

While the price wouldn't seem worth it, far from it, as to Bush's contentions I suppose we'll soon see... over England's involvement in the Iraq war, war-crime charges were recently filed against Tony Blair by the Athens and Istanbul Bar Associations. The charges filed are for 'illegal aggression'... see Definition of Aggression (external link). In that I support the action taken by Tony Blair and George Bush (the invasion of Iraq), I ask myself... will this be quickly thrown out of court or will it be investigated? Will Tony Blair be subjected to months of interrogations and drug through the mud? While the idea of an International Criminal Court was a good one, a way to prosecute truly despicable evil men otherwise untouchable... but Tony Blair? Unwarranted in light of the reality of the situation, the Athens and Istanbul Bar Associations are demonstrating they have another agenda and in the process, are wasting the court's time. If however, the court proceeds to investigate this case unnecessarily too long before throwing it out, Bush, to some degree, will be vindicated. As to the Tony Blair case, the credibility of the ICC may hang in the balance

Note: If the Principle of Complementarity exists, that national jurisdictions would have primacy, why then are the Athens and Istanbul Bar Associations involved? Shouldn't it only be England at this early stage? While 'aggression' was established as a war crime in 1974, the ICC States still need to agree on a definition which apparently may not occur until 2009.

While the spotlight will be on what the ICC does with the Tony Blair case in the months ahead, George Bush's reasoning for trying to undermine the ICC will be speculated upon for some time to come. There may be many well-placed people around the world who know what George's real reasoning is, but I'm not sure if the American people will soon know. For the sake of immunity, the price Bush paid just doesn't compute, until you consider the ramifications, that beyond simple immunity. One glaring greater reason would be over jurisdiction. It seems the only possible reason worthy of such a price a leader might be willing to pay to obtain or retain. Over his actions, I'm not condemning George Bush entirely just yet, even though his tactics were outrageous and despicable and that he completed destroyed whatever confidence the world had left in America. He would have surely been more effective if he hadn't used strong-arm tactics.

This is surely a matter concerning the inevitability of a one-world government, it can be nothing less. The makeup of anything that important (jurisdiction) with such far-reaching consequences will naturally be fought over, even amongst allies. It is over who controls its design is where the lines in the sand have been drawn. America, of course, would want its say if not its way, while the EU probably also has designs. Could it be that George Bush believes the ICC would later serve as an instrument for the EU to undermine America's influence? The ICC, while necessary to handle war-crimes, it's not hard to imagine why it could be considered a threat... that it might try to expand its jurisdictional authority. While many would argue that the ICC has not the intention or authority to go beyond its current mandate of just prosecuting war criminals, it's not hard to imagine another Rome Statute could be created to do just that. Against this George would have support, or any American President, as most Americans would be totally against more authority beyond that for war-crimes.

Who knows what might be going on behind the scenes... who knows yet whether the price George Bush paid for that monkey-wrench was worth it. While it could be Bush is trying to force America's will upon the world, but in fairness to George W. Bush, he may have reasons to believe others are trying to force their will instead by positioning themselves behind the ICC. And since we are talking about allies jockeying for position, neither would publicly accuse the other if they're both trying to do the same thing. The EU is now a powerful world player and could, just like America could, become a de facto one-world government. Other governments surely have designs as well. I don't think we'll see an 'official' one-world government within 200 years though, there's just too much that stand in the way, so until then, it will be a matter of jurisdictional jockeying, and jurisdiction means control. Meanwhile, another Rome Statute would cause great alarm in America... maybe hearing of Rome for 2,000 years is enough.

Addendum: In that every single member of the European Union refused to sign a BIA with the U.S., a political anomaly, unlike the rest of the world whereby it has been a case of a country's political self interests, individually, regardless of what their bordered neighbors might have done, the EU's unified action (as a bloc) is somewhat suspicious.

ICC HIGHLIGHTS (noteworthy news events)...

Note: For more comprehensive reporting, publications and for the very latest news on the International Criminal Court (ICC) see http://www.iccnow.org or get on their mailing list at icc-info-subscribe@yahoogroups.com (free).

July 1, 2003: The US Congress cut off military funding to 47 countries for refusing to sign an agreement with the US on exempting US citizens from prosecution at the International Criminal Court. Four US Congressmen later submitted an amendment to the decision, that the seven NATO candidate countries, including Latvia, should be taken off the list.

August 25, 2003: More war-crime charges are now pending against Tony Blair by the Istanbul (Turkey) Bar Association (atop the war-crime charges already filed against Tony Blair by the Athens Bar Association). Note: It looks like Bush was right, that the ICC would be used for political prosecutions. Bush isn't being charged because the United States didn't sign the treaty. England, on the other hand, did, placing Tony Blair under the jurisdiction of the ICC.

August 29, 2003: Contention seems to be growing over the ICC and opinions are surfacing about its down side. There's a great article written by David Davenport (research fellow at the Hoover Institution) called "ICC - New Threat to U.S. Sovereignty" at Newsmax.com (external link)

Noteworthy (Sept 22, 2003): In a Reuters article, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan was quoted as saying "Terrorism will only be defeated if we act to solve the political dispute and long-standing conflicts which generate support for it," Also "If we do not, we shall find ourselves acting as a recruiting sergeant for the very terrorists we seek to suppress." In the same article, Reuters quoted Norwegian Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik as saying "The rule of law and respect for human rights are the first and the best way to counter terrorism," the Norwegian said. "We must provide outlets for human ambitions, for hopes and beliefs, but also for anger and grief."

October 9, 2003: So far at least 50 member countries of the ICC have refused to sign immunity agreements with the U.S., as a result, the U.S. plans to cut off military aid to 32 of those countries. The number of counties losing military aid changes for various political reasons, in July it was to be 47. Conversely, 68 countries have signed these immunity agreements with the U.S..

October 22, 2003: The Panafrican News Agency (PANA) reported that at the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, which convened recently in Rome, adopted a resolution whereby those ACP (African-Caribbean-Pacific) countries which had their U.S. military aid cut-off will be compensated in some fashion by the EU.

November 3, 2003: The following 'presidential determination' is interesting enough to display (as an example)...

Noteworthy (Nov 6, 2003): In his speech today to the National Endowment for Democracy, George W. Bush said "Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty."

January 20, 2004: As of December, the U.S. has negotiated immunity agreements for American servicemen and citizens with 74 countries, 32 of those are of the 92 countries which have ratified the Rome Statute.

March 28, 2004: For a typical bashing the U.S. is getting over Bush's ICC policy, see Asia Times. This isn't unique, much the same is being written in newspapers all over the world... except that is, curiously, in America. Only a few commentaries have surfaced. Such worldwide condemnation, on-going for months, remains center-stage as the ICC tries to gain legitimacy without the U.S. onboard.

April 30, 2004: Canada signed the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the ICC (APIC) today, becoming the 50th signatory.

July 26, 2004: A speech made by Bill Clinton at the Democratic National Convention:

“Americans long to be united. After 9-11, we all just wanted to be one nation. Not a single American on September 12, 2001 cared who won the next presidential election. All we wanted to do was to be one country, strong in the fight against terror, helping to heal those who were wounded and the families of those who lost their loved ones, reaching out to the rest of the world so we could meet these new challenges and go on with our democratic way of life. The President had an amazing opportunity to bring the country together under his slogan of compassionate conservatism and to unite the world in the struggle against terror. Instead, he and his Congressional allies made a very different choice – they chose to use that moment of unity to push the country too far to the right and to walk away from our allies, not only in attacking Iraq before the weapons inspectors had finished their work, but in withdrawing American support for the climate change treaty and for the International Court on War Criminals, and from the antiballistic missile treaty and from the nuclear test ban treaty.” Bill Clinton

July 27, 2004: A great argument put forth about the ICC by John Shattuck, Former Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor in an interview with the Center for American Progress...

July 29, 2004: For its first case, the ICC will investigate alleged atrocities in Uganda. Among other crimes, the BBC reports that "The world court has begun an investigation into war crimes allegedly committed by Ugandan rebels. The Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) is accused of abducting some 20,000 children, forcing the boys to become fighters and the girls sex slaves. The investigation comes a day after Uganda's army said it had nearly captured LRA leader Joseph Kony."

August 5, 2004: A fact sheet from the U.S. State Department dated August 3, 2004 summarizes the new US-UK extradition treaty now before the US Senate for ratification. It specifically addresses the issue of ICC extradition thusly: Article 18(2) provides that a person extradited under the Treaty may not be the subject of onward extradition or surrender for any offense committed prior to the extradition to the Requesting State unless the Requested State consents. The Treaty's use of the term "surrender" (the operable term in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court) makes explicit that the United Kingdom will not surrender to the ICC any person extradited by the United States. The United Kingdom has recorded in a separate letter its understanding that the Treaty continues the protection implicit in the current treaty against surrender to the ICC of fugitives extradited by the United States and states in its letter that it will contest any request from the ICC for such surrender as being inconsistent with Article 98(2) of the Rome Statute. See http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/34885.htm for the entire fact sheet and UK-USA extradition (external link) to see the treaty itself although subject to ratification.

October 23, 2004: An unusual development... Bill Richardson of New Mexico was the first Governor to endorse the Court in his UN Day proclamation on October 8, 2004. It is remarkable because the U.S. federal government will not endorse the ICC, in fact, stands opposed. Also noteworthy, Gov. Richardson was once Clinton's representative to the UN and delivered the United States opening statement at the Rome diplomatic conference on the ICC in 1998. Whether New Mexico will be the only U.S. state to do this remains to be seen.

November 19, 2004: The common use of child soldiers is finally getting the publicity it deserves, perhaps destined to become a 'war-crime'. See the Christian Science Monitor article entitled New Push to Stop Child Soldiers

December 8, 2004: Of the nearly 140 countries which have signed the Rome Statute which established the court, 97 have ratified it. Of these 97 countries, 57 have not signed a BIA with the United States of which 45 have refused ... leaving 40 which have. Of the non-signers, at least 22 will lose American aid.

December 9, 2004: A milestone for the ICC was established when, on December 2, 2004, the UN General Assembly voted to adopt a resolution concerning the ICC. It provides that the ICC may submit reports to the General Assembly and will be on the agenda henceforth, with the Court invited to attend and participate.

April 1, 2005: For the first time, the UN Security Council approves a measure allowing the newly established ICC to prosecute war crimes in Sudan. It is believed the ongoing conflict in Sudan has claimed some 300,000 lives.

April 29, 2005: Top Sudanese officials including President Omar el-Bashir have stated Sudan will not deliver any national indicted for war crimes to the ICC in The Hague, Netherlands to stand trail. (Comment: As the ICC looks to establish a track record, the political atmosphere in both Sudan and Uganda may force the ICC to look elsewhere for its first prosecutable case. Perhaps the DRC [Democratic Republic of Congo]? What seems to be lacking is muscle behind the ICC... seemingly powerless without substantial UN or NATO forces on the ground)

May 17, 2005: As a result of their meeting in Tripoli, the presidents of Chad, Egypt, Eritrea, Gabon, Libya, Nigeria and Sudan have rejected any military, political and judicial intervention by non-African countries in the Darfur region (Sudan). They suggest instead an African solution. Comment: Such an influential joint statement further dampens the prospects the ICC will be able to successfully prosecute any Sudanese war criminal.

May 21, 2005: Comment: The U.S. and the pro-ICC camp are beginning to place more importance on the precise number of their alliances (and successes)... by handing out virtual scorecards. The U.S. now proudly claims to have 100 signed BIAs (but the ICC camp says only 30 are in force) while the ICC camp proudly claims 99 States parties (but 42 signed a BIA). Who's winning? It depends on which statistic is the real 'score' but if we're to consider 139 ICC treaty signatures versus 100 BIAs... then it means the ICC is leading the game by 39 points. While it may have a silly aspect to it, it also has a way of drawing the lines deeper in the sand. The future makeup of political alliances?

July 19, 2005: Comment: Mexico will soon be the 100th States party to the ICC... apparently lacking only to file the necessary papers with the court. It is not so much the milestone of being the 100th, but the interesting part is that America's southern neighbor is not planning to sign a BIA with the U.S. The question is... will the U.S. retaliate by withholding assistance as it has done with other countries who have refused to sign? What did the U.S. do with its northern neighbor, Canada, who also refused to sign a BIA? Since Canada is a NATO member, it is now exempt from any retaliatory action by the U.S. (as were all NATO members later exempted). Any retaliatory action against Mexico will surely be seen by the Mexicans as a U.S. double standard. Historically however, the U.S. has always had a double standard when it comes to its two neighbors as compared to the rest of the world. The U.S. invariably looks the other way when it comes to what Mexico does. Will Mexico again get special treatment or will this be a case that America's northern neighbor carries more weight than its southern neighbor?

October 30, 2005: On October 28, Mexico filed its ratification instrument with the ICC becoming 100th States party. Importantly, Mexico refused to sign a BIA with the U.S. which puts at risk its $11.5 million in economic and military aid. It is unknown to date whether the U.S. will cut off this aid.

March 17, 2006: The ICC makes its first arrest since its founding (July 2002) in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, a Congolese national, accused of "conscripting and enlisting children under the age of fifteen years and using them to participate actively in hostilities" was arrested and transferred to The Hague.

June 21, 2006: On June 20, former Liberian President Charles Taylor, having been in custody in Sierra Leone, was transferred to The Hague to face war crime charges. The ICC has offered the use of its facilities (but is not in charge of this case).

January 29, 2007: The International Criminal Court (ICC) has confirmed charges against Thomas Lubanga Dyilo who will now stand trial. It will be the very first case (against an individual) for the ICC since its inception in July 2003.

May 2, 2007: The ICC issued arrest warrants for the Sudanese citizens Ahmad Harun and Ali Kushayb over the situation in Darfur... although the Sudan government has rejected any ICC authority.

Note: The preceding updates were based on information made available to us courtesy of ICC Now

These incredible books by A.O. Kime are available here!
~ purchase through Amazon, Barnes & Noble or Authorhouse ~

Although STD LEX is primarily metaphysical in nature, it extensively addresses human-rights issues

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (ICC)

~ ICC: located in The Hague, Netherlands ~

A commentary by A.O. Kime

ICC HIGHLIGHTS (noteworthy news events)...

NEW... (Dec 18, 2007) see our latest article The Search for Neanderthals in North America

Send email to allen@matrixbookstore.com with questions or comments about this website.

Last modified: 05/05/08