You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
International-UN-NGOs
Annan Opposes Exempting U.S. From Court
2004-06-18
UNITED NATIONS, June 17 -- U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan on Thursday urged the Security Council to oppose renewal of a resolution that would shield U.S. troops serving in U.N.-approved peacekeeping missions from prosecution before the International Criminal Court, saying the "exemption is wrong."

Annan noted that the United States is facing international criticism for abuses of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan. He told reporters: "It would be unwise to press for an exemption, and it would be even more unwise on the part of the Security Council to grant it. It would discredit the council and the United Nations that stands for the rule of law."
I don't think the UN can discredit itself much further, but then I thought that before the Oil-for-Palaces scandel broke.
The U.N. chief's remarks added momentum to a campaign by supporters of the war crimes court to defeat the U.S.-sponsored initiative. Senior U.N. diplomats said Annan would press his case in a closed-door luncheon Friday with the 15 Security Council members. "Blanket exemption is wrong unless the UN is being investigated," Annan said. "It is of dubious judicial value, and I don't think it should be encouraged by the council."

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the United States is well aware of Annan's position but will press the council for renewal. The resolution, first adopted two years ago, applies to "current or former officials" from countries that have not ratified the treaty establishing the court -- which includes the United States -- and exempts them from prosecution before the court for crimes committed in U.N.-authorized operations. The council expressed an "intention" to renew the resolution each year "for as long as may be necessary."

"It should be renewed the way the council said it would," Boucher said. "And so we're still talking to other governments in New York and discussing this with them."

The United States faces fierce resistance within the council as the July 1 deadline for renewal approaches. China has threatened to veto the resolution, citing concern that it could be use to provide political cover for abuses. U.S. and other Security Council officials say that China -- which also has not ratified the court treaty -- is confronting the United States because it recently supported Taiwan's bid for observer status in the World Health Assembly. "This could have an impact," said one council ambassador, who spoke anonymously because of the sensitivity of the issue. China is sending a "signal" to Washington that this "will threaten the development of bilateral relations."
I think we could turn this around: remind China that Taiwan could get the latest AEGIS system unless we get their vote.
U.S. diplomats acknowledge that they are struggling to line up the nine votes required to pass the resolution. Six countries -- Russia, Britain, the Philippines, Pakistan, Algeria and Angola -- are expected to support the United States, according to council diplomats. France, Spain, Germany, Brazil, Benin and Chile have indicated they will abstain. Romania's U.N. ambassador, Mihnea Ioan Motoc, said his government will abstain unless its vote is responsible for defeating the U.S. resolution.

That [the past US] strategy has fueled resentment against the Bush administration at the United Nations. More than 40 countries have a standing request to discuss the resolution in a public debate. A senior diplomat said most nations will use the event to criticize the resolution, and to draw attention to U.S. abuses of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan. "We think the resolution is not compatible with the U.N. charter," one Canadian diplomat said. "It's harmful to international accountability for serious crimes and the rule of law."
I'm waiting for the Court to indict Saddam.
Posted by:Steve White

#18  China has threatened to veto the resolution, citing concern that it could be use to provide political cover for abuses.

Abuses? Abuses! China is worried about America committing abuses?

POT > KETTLE > BLACK

China is sending a "signal" to Washington that this "will threaten the development of bilateral relations."

And China's proliferation of nuclear technology to Iran is exactly what, a continuation of Mother Theresa's work?

What sort of world-class @ssclown do you have to be to hold a position in the UN? In-f%&king-credible!
Posted by: Zenster   2004-06-18 7:43:49 PM  

#17  Kofi's Court - one UN enterprise that truly is transparent.
Posted by: Super Hose   2004-06-18 2:23:43 PM  

#16  Sam, Sam, Sam. . . . What ever are we going to do with you! Tsk Tsk Tsk

(But you are right on target)
Posted by: BigEd   2004-06-18 1:43:02 PM  

#15  When the global court is used to prosecute real criminals (like Kimmie in North Korea, Castro, and Bob of Zimbabwae) instead of being used primarily to harrass Israel and the US I'll consider, talking, about the US joining the global court.

Until then we're watching the oil-for-food investigation Kofi, and your son may be in trouble.
Posted by: yank   2004-06-18 1:33:16 PM  

#14  "Blanket exemption is wrong. It is of dubious judicial value and I don't think it should be encouraged by the Council." (BBC)

Dubious judicial value...heeheehee. As if Kofi would appreciate anything other than dubious, as if he stands up for anything resembling justice.

Truth is folks that Kofi sees the US as the evil of the world and wants us to do serious penance for it (empty your wallet, get on your knees, and accept whatever they shove in your mouth). Then apologize for it and accept your jail term for the affrontery of being an American.

Posted by: jules 187   2004-06-18 12:35:43 PM  

#13  HEY KOFI!

Posted by: Yosemite Sam   2004-06-18 10:12:33 AM  

#12  Yea, that's what I meant. -- Thanks
Posted by: Capt America   2004-06-18 4:35:23 AM  

#11  So what's the problem here? We put panties on prisoner's heads and they think we are Attila the Hun. Grind up some people in Sammy's shredder and all you hear are crickets chirping. But aside from that, no exemption, no peacekeepers, and THAT includes airlift capability. Go charter the DeGaulle a tug and barge, Koffi, for all we care. BTW, you foot the bill for peacekeepers. We're outa here.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2004-06-18 3:51:55 AM  

#10  Capt America - like this?
Posted by: .com   2004-06-18 2:31:30 AM  

#9  Another step in UN irrelevance.
Posted by: Capt America   2004-06-18 2:08:18 AM  

#8  And after that... [click link]
Posted by: .com   2004-06-18 2:04:50 AM  

#7  Oh, and Anon? Give us back our MONEY!
Posted by: .com   2004-06-18 1:55:58 AM  

#6  Find someone else to do your dirty work and finance your corrupt operation, Kofi, and get it the hell OUT of New York and OFF American soil. The sooner, the better.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2004-06-18 1:51:47 AM  

#5  The solution seems simple to me: no waiver from political prosecution, no troops for UN adventuring. Let's see how long the rest of the world can/will support Koffi and gang when it's mostly their blood and treasure on the line rather than ours.
Posted by: AzCat   2004-06-18 1:31:59 AM  

#4  I voted for Kerry before I voted against him. Err...no, that's not right. Hmmm, I voted, and perhaps just a few votes were near Kerry. No, that's not right either.

I don't vote for traitors. That's it!
Join the Imperialist Warmonger Party today! No signup taxes!
Posted by: Silentbrick   2004-06-18 1:15:09 AM  

#3  SH - He'd have to back Anon, I'd bet - but would toss in some thoroughly-nuanced Get Out of Jail Free bits to let him flop his flip later, when the stupidity of it caught up to him. I can't think of a more weasley gutless manipulative fuck - even Carter has his deluded idea of principles, and swings a 16 oz hammer like a kid to back them up. Skeery's a pure vacuous politician. He has been all his life and has planned his path very carefully, climbing over the dead bodies of others and the crispy dead husks of what might've been principles, but I doubt it, all to reach this moment in time.

But I don't have any strong opinions about him.
;-)
Posted by: .com   2004-06-18 12:55:13 AM  

#2  The exemption is symbolic. If Kosovo is under NATO control, I can't imagine that Americans will be sporting blue hats anytime soon. NATO participation is probably a bad idea for the US as well, due to the political views of Belgium. Kerry needs to be asked for an immediate expression of his opinion on this subject.
Posted by: Super Hose   2004-06-18 12:44:11 AM  

#1  
"exemption is wrong"
Except for himself and his cronies, of course.

FOAD, Coffee.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2004-06-18 12:34:55 AM  

00:00