Article

2003-06-13 Europe

US threatens to boycott Belgium over war crimes law

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2003-06-13 01:07 am|| || Front Page|| [8 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 There is another aspect to the ICC which is it part of the fabric of the trans-national super-state so beloved of the Left. Where national sovereignty is subordinate to (easy to hijack and subvert) international institutions.

They look OK on paper, but are corrupt, incompetant and unaccountable in practice. You have to look no further than the UN for proof of this, or the truly disgraceful way WHO refused cooperation with Taiwan over the SARS crisis.

Posted by Phil B 2003-06-13 01:50:46|| 2003-06-13 01:50:46|| Front Page Top

#2 It's interesting and substantial to consider how and why subscribing to such an entity plays out in the legal realm, but I think the absurdity is obvious without it...

The "pending lawsuits" against Gen Tommy Franks, VP Cheney, et al, for "war crimes" clearly demonstrate what a fool's errand it would be to submit ourselves to any "international court" - and make me wonder why countries such as the UK would be foolish enough to have signed on to such a twit idea. This is, indeed, the age of PC-power (a.k.a. mob rule by those without sufficient mental capacity to reason for themselves) - and I guess our poor Brit cousins have become far more gullible than I would have otherwise thought. Sad.

Just like the UN, this is yet another multilateralist notion (definition: a joke dreamed up in a Parisian sidewalk cafe over espressos and croissants, I'd guess...) given substance through mindless repetition by the gullible (read: the PC Press; e.g. CNN - Conjecture, Not News).

There is no moral legitimacy to any organization or body, period.

Legitimacy is, like all grand notions, completely subjective - and doubly meaningless without discriminating among those who would presume to join and the absolute conviction to enforce whatever strictures are agreed upon. This is part of why the UN is a joke and should be given no claim or authority over the policies or actions of the US - or any government acting in concert with the wishes of its citizenry. Just consider that the UN includes every entity which presumes to call itself a nation.

Individual nations must decide INDIVIDUALLY what they do and do not believe in and what actions they must take. All other nations may, then, do what they will about it. I include "Fuck Off" as an option in the list, of course, and offer this as my first choice to Belgium, "Frawnce", Germany, et al.

Simply put, there is no universal body of law, therefore there can be no universal court.

Posted by PD 2003-06-13 02:16:13|| 2003-06-13 02:16:13|| Front Page Top

#3 "International Criminal Court" run by the PC-crowd reminds me of the days when the NAZIS ran INTERPOL (circa 1940-45). Scary stuff...then and now...

Posted by borgboy 2003-06-13 03:20:37|| 2003-06-13 03:20:37|| Front Page Top

#4 Ya know there are or were an awfull lot of people running around the ex-Belgian Congo with amputated hands because they did not work hard enough.Guess the Belgian court doesn't consider that a crime aginst humanity.

Posted by raptor 2003-06-13 07:03:42|| 2003-06-13 07:03:42|| Front Page Top

#5 See this post (http://www.lt-smash.us/archives/001441.html#001441) from L.T. Smash for more explanation of the importance of the U.S. Constitution and our general reluctance to go along with some of these international initiatives. (Hat tip to Instapundit.) I personally would just as soon see special courts convened when particularly egregious instances of war crimes have occurred, so that the whole international community is in agreement on the need. Otherwise, the countries involved need to handle it. The whole standing court idea gives me a creepy feeling. I think Sharon would stand trial long before Arafat.

Posted by lkl 2003-06-13 07:04:21|| 2003-06-13 07:04:21|| Front Page Top

#6 I can partially undestand the US fears for an international court which isn't backed by political structures they can trust.

However. At the same time we hear news like this here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2986446.stm
where the US puts pressure so that Serbia cooperates with just such an international court. (and I applaud US for so putting pressure - the EU has also done the same.)

So, what's the deal? Doesn't it seem self-contradictory to demand others cooperate with an institution you refuse to cooperate yourself?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-06-13 07:39:56|| 2003-06-13 07:39:56|| Front Page Top

#7 Serbia needs international help, and therefore it is important for them to have acceptance by the International Community(tm, which is why it's in there best interest (In the short term anyway)to join almost any international initiative.
It makes no sense for any leading nation to join in with a bunch of second rate countries that can and will do nothing but attempt to drag down great nations to there level.

Posted by Mike N. 2003-06-13 09:19:49|| 2003-06-13 09:19:49|| Front Page Top

#8 Ari, its pretty simple.

We have proven that our government works for us and have no need for external supervision of that sort.

You Continental Europeans, on the other hand, have been killing each other for centruies in large numbers in wars for rather stupid reasons. None of your national goverments is effective in stopping that. Look no further than the Balkans, or the ethnic tribal warfare that bubbles under the surface between Greece and Turkey (Cyprus is a prime example of nationalistic idiocy). Or look back at Hitler, Stalin, etc.

You guys need the short leash to stop your ethnicity-based politics and racist nationalism because your socialist governments are ineffective at doing it themselves, little better than most third world kleptocracies in that regard.

Posted by OldSpook 2003-06-13 09:27:45|| 2003-06-13 09:27:45|| Front Page Top

#9 We *continental* Europeans? As if the conflicts of Northern Ireland haven't been as vile as anything you've seen in Cyprus. Or do you think that Ireland belong to continental Europe just because it's not part of Great Britain? If there have been more conflicts in Continental Europe, that's just because there are more people and territory in Continental Europe to have these conflicts in.

Our "socialist governments"? You mean that the right-wing, USA-supported, military dictatorship of Greece that indirectly caused the Cyprus tragedy was a "socialist government"? News to me.

It seems to me that "socialist governments" are thought by you, OldSpook, to be the root cause of all evil everywhere. I assure you that blame goes to right-wingers also.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-06-13 10:08:30|| 2003-06-13 10:08:30|| Front Page Top

#10 Two words for the self-important French lap dogs in Antwerp:

Belgian Congo

Now, make me some damn fine chocolate.

Mmmmmm....Chocolate....nectar of the gods, mother of us all...

Posted by Tongue Boy 2003-06-13 10:15:31|| 2003-06-13 10:15:31|| Front Page Top

#11 The defining characteristic of a "socialist government" is not whether they are quote "left" or "right" but the degree to which they control the economy. A government that maintains strict controls is socialist, regardless of which class is running the show.

Posted by Ben 2003-06-13 10:29:42|| 2003-06-13 10:29:42|| Front Page Top

#12 Oh, please stop kissing these Belgian jerks asses. Let 'em institute their court, let 'em try and arrest a US general officer on active duty. Watch, fascinated, as the US Army lands in Brussels, marches to the jail, and blows the fucking doors off.

Idiots. Come get some.

Posted by mojo 2003-06-13 10:52:36|| 2003-06-13 10:52:36|| Front Page Top

#13 Ben> So you are using "socialist" where I'd be using "statist"?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-06-13 11:43:17|| 2003-06-13 11:43:17|| Front Page Top

#14 mojo:

From the Great-minds-run-in-the-same-channel Department:

The Belgians claim their courts have jurisdiction over our government officials and military officers. Fine. We should simply declare that we do not recognize this law and that any attempt to detain, abduct or arrest an American official -- current or former -- will be seen as an act of piracy and kidnapping and hence tantamount to an act of war. Who cares what laws they pass? If Iran said it has a law that justifies jailing Dick Cheney would we say "Oh, we didn't know that. Can we send him care packages?" No, we'd unload the Arsenal of Democracy on 'em. I don't think we need to declare war on Belgium or anything. But there's no harm in making it clear that if they lay a finger on one of our guys it will spell bad news for the Belgies. Period.

--Jonah Goldberg, "The Corner," National Review Online

Posted by Mike 2003-06-13 12:30:58|| 2003-06-13 12:30:58|| Front Page Top

#15 If the Belgians want to play this game fine. The street runs both ways. File an indictment against any surviving member of the Belgian government in power at the time of the colomial period. Run a special opps into Brusselspouts and grab them. Including the Queen. Try em and throw their asses in Marion. And give them the biggest, blackest cell mate we can find for them.

Posted by Someone who did NOT vote for William Proxmire 2003-06-13 12:45:50|| 2003-06-13 12:45:50|| Front Page Top

#16 Steve- German constitution forbade the extradition of German nationals, so we had to change our constitution as well. Sometimes it's a bit easy to hide behind a constitution. You have amended it quite a bit in the last 200 years to meet modern requirements.
The ICC was instituted to deal with the worst crimes against humanity. I doubt that we will ever find an American to qualify. And if we did I suppose America would insist on trying him first. The ICC was created to try war criminals who would walk free otherwise. Fear of bogus political lawsuits? Well everyone can file a lawsuit against anyone. American judges at the ICC could make sure that these will be thrown out immediately. Or we could create an ICC section in the United States that deals with U.S. citizen (they could appeal at the Supreme Court). Lots of ways are possible, it's just the blunt NO that annoys me.
PD- If i understand it right these frivolous lawsuits against Tommy Franks and other Americans have already been thrown out and the Belgians amended the law to avoid exactly these abuses.
Old Spook- With all respect, but your statement sounds rather arrogant. First of all most European governments are not "socialist". Second, if you are looking for "ethnic tribal warfare" look no further than Los Angeles after another Rodney King gets beaten up by police. I might kindly remind you that the US still had racial segregation 40 years ago. "Racist nationalism" isn't an European privilege.
In Nurenberg judges representing a regime that killed millions (Soviets) judged a regime that killed millions (Nazis). And 25 years of forced labor in Siberia waited for witnesses who spoke out against Nazis and Soviets. I certainly have no interest in a court like that. But I do think that abuse of the ICC can be easily prevented. Much more if Americans participate than if they don't.
The ICC will mostly be a symbolic institution. I wish I could have told my torturers in Workuta: "You will never be safe."

Posted by True German Ally 2003-06-13 12:47:18|| 2003-06-13 12:47:18|| Front Page Top

#17 True German Ally: some valid points but assumes a US judge would have veto power, as in the Security Council.

And remind me why we should trust an institution which had the Iraq of Saddam Hussein slated to head its disarmament committee (he turned it down) this year?

The UN serves a good purpose in allowing smalling nations to, relatively cheaply, meet with representatives of other nations and interact, both hearing and expressing concerns. I doubt that Tuvalu could afford to have an embassy in every country having UN membership. And some of its subsidiary organizations (eg UNICEF, WHO, UNESCO) do [mostly] good work. But it is far from being even as coherent as the EU, which largely gets along, and in no wise do I regard it as a qualified supra-national government.

Posted by John Anderson 2003-06-13 15:08:48|| 2003-06-13 15:08:48|| Front Page Top

#18 TGA said "I doubt that we will ever find an American to qualify" I take that as a compliment to our people, however I will say this. It's not that we don't have anybody capable of the most horrible acts imaginable, it's that our system prevents them from getting the power they need.
Also, the waffles already have charged Americans, so don't expect this President or any other American President to join. Ever.

Posted by Mike N. 2003-06-13 15:40:43|| 2003-06-13 15:40:43|| Front Page Top

#19 Mike N- They haven't CHARGED any American, some leftist lawyer deposed a "plainte"... and the court threw it out.
You could go to your local court and ask it to prosecute George W. Bush... or the Tooth Fairy. This doesn't discredit your court, it only does if the court (after a good laugh) doesn't throw the case out.
Oh, an American isn't exempt from committing genocide per se but I meant he won't get away with it in the States. I see the ICC as a court that deals with cases that are ignored in the countries where they should be tried.
There is no need to extradite Americans to The Hague if they qualify, just send them back to America if they get caught in a third country to have them tried there. I believe that the ICC could very well live with that. An American court is not worse than the ICC. The important thing is that nobody enjoys immunity anymore.
But now it just looks that Americans are so special that they qualify for immunity. And that puts legitimate cases against non-Americans in jeopardy.

Posted by True German Ally 2003-06-13 16:32:57|| 2003-06-13 16:32:57|| Front Page Top

#20 TGA - I think you're assuming that the world NEEDS a permanent war-crimes tribunal, an assumption open to doubt. And even if there was such a need, why the belgians?

In any case, the only provision the US constitution makes for having our citizens tried by other countries involves extradition, both on the federal and (probably) the state level, unless they were apprehended in a foreign country.

We get first crack at 'em, in other words. Belgium wants to wait 50 years or so until they get out of the US prison system, they're certainly welcome to...

Posted by mojo 2003-06-13 18:23:40|| 2003-06-13 18:23:40|| Front Page Top

#21 The whole concept of the ICC smacks of the old Soviet Union. Well hell, communism doesn't work, so we better start a Party Control Commission. Damn, the Control Commission isn't working too well, so we better boot up the Cheka. There's still corruption and sloth, so how about Rabkrin? Nope, no improvement... maybe a General Secretariat will solve the problem... Likewise, we have the UN, The World Human Rights Commission, the World Court, and now the ICC and still atrocities are being committed, still the weak are preyed upon by the strong. TGA, last night you asked what it would take for Americans to accept an ICC. After a lot of thought, here is my answer: 1. World-wide universal suffrage. 2. World-wide independent judiciaries. 3. World-wide respect for property rights of individuals. 4. >90 percent literacy world-wide.

The first step in finding a solution is defining the problem correctly. The problems are tyranny, corruption, and illiteracy. Fix those and you won't need an ICC. The ICC is just a band aid.

Posted by 11A5S 2003-06-13 18:28:54|| 2003-06-13 18:28:54|| Front Page Top

#22 I hope I don't sound obnoxious but this is a matter that concerns me personally (I didn't have a court that would hear my complaints).
An American who commits a crime in Germany and is caught in Germany will be tried there.
An American who commits a crime in Germany and is caught in France will probably be extradited to Germany as Germany has the most legitimate rights to try him.
An American who commits a crime in Germany and is caught in the USA will probably not be extradited to Germany but tried in the USA (he might prefer to be tried in Germany as we have no death penalty).

Follow me? I guess up to now you see no problem, right? That's the procedure.

So let's assume an American commits genocide, he's most likely to do so in a foreign country (if he does it in his own, no need to worry as he will be tried there for sure). Now let's assume he is caught outside the USA and extradited to The Hague (because the country he committed the genocide in has no appropriate fair legal system). The Hague serves in lieu (pardon the French) of the people in the country who suffered the genocide and can't get judicial satisfaction. That's what the ICC is all about.
Now let's assume the USA joins the ICC, formally recognizing that Americans are not immune from prosecution. The ICC picks up the case, assesses it and when it doesn't throw it out but thinks the case has merits it sends the case (and the defendant) to the USA. The United States guarantees that it will prosecute the case, follows the appropriate legal procedures (which can of course end in a conviction or not). And the defendant can appeal at the Supreme Court. No sovereignty gets hurt.

But you never tried to find a compromise. A blunt NO was easier. And no 11A5S, we can't wait until all problems are fixed.

Well some people might still complain about that special treatment but it would silence those who complain that Americans have "immunity" while others are prosecuted.

What's the real message of the ICC. It means that dictators and political mass murderers won't be safe after they lose power. No more safe havens (in France or elsewhere). But only if the Americans join will the ICC have the authority it needs...because NOBODY has immunity.

And nowhere do I see America's sovereignty challenged. After all the United States does accept WTO decisions. Don't these violate "US sovereignty" as well? But you accept them because you favor free trade. Being member of WTO is in America's interest, even if it comes with a certain loss of sovereignty. Being member of the ICC would also be IMHO. America should lead the process of going after the worst criminals in the world, not obstructing it. With the ICC the Belgian law is obsolete. But right now Brussels seems to be the only place people can go if they don't get their right anywhere else. And better a band aid than nothing.

Posted by True German Ally 2003-06-13 19:28:07|| 2003-06-13 19:28:07|| Front Page Top

#23 TGA you prove my point. You can't join the WTO until you meet certain criteria, i.e until you've proven yourself "capitalist" enough. Memebership in the EU also comes with preconditions: no capital punishment, public debt less than 3% of GDP, universal adult suffrage, etc. What I'd like to see is an International Criminal Posse. The free nations banding together and shedding their blood and treasure in proportional measure to go get these monsters. I want what's happening in Iraq, not the posing that is going on in the Congo. I believe in revolutionary measures, not bureaucratic ones.

Posted by 11A5S 2003-06-13 20:05:34|| 2003-06-13 20:05:34|| Front Page Top

#24 "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the Governed."

The International Criminal Court fails on every count. IT is NOT a part of government whose "just powers" are derived from the consent of the governed, but imposed by an international agency. The purpose of the ICC is NOT to "secure the rights" of free men. I could go on for hundreds of pages. In the end, it still comes down to an unaccountable bureaucracy over which the sovereign individual has no power and no authority - in essence, a tyranny.

It would take a lot more than just changing our Constitution to accept the ICC: it would require our complete rejection of the basis on which our entire government is founded. I doubt any significant portion of our population would go along with that. The same reasoning holds true for many of the "declarations" presented by the United Nations: an alien body attempting to impose its rules upon the people of the United States without our consent. We tend to get a bit touchy about things like that - touchy enough to send several million well-armed, well-trained, and dedicated people to change some minds.

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-06-13 20:39:21|| 2003-06-13 20:39:21|| Front Page Top

#25 An alien body? Didn't the United States join... or rather co-found it? Doesn't the United States have veto powers that ensure that the UN can't really do anything against its will?

"WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations."
-----
Yes I know reality looks different. But the U.S. constitution started as a dream as well. How would a black man (or woman) in Alabama in the 50s have seen the U.S. constitution? A native American 100 years ago?
We need to work together to make these principles of the UN charter a reality, not just a dream. It worked for the U.S. Constitution. But it took more than 50 years.

Posted by True German Ally 2003-06-13 21:17:32|| 2003-06-13 21:17:32|| Front Page Top

#26 TGA: for 13 years I've had the opportunity to compare Europe and USA/Canada first-hand. At the end of these 13 years I can conclude that the mentality of the people, and the way things are done in Europe and America, do not converge. (I've had this opinion ever since I tried to open a simple savings account in Poland.)
Just as much as you find the American "isolationist" attitude puzzling, I find the European love affair with bureaucracy incomprehensible. Perhaps if both systems and the mentality were similar, you would find no reluctance on the part of the Americans.
Therefore, the answer to your annoyance and puzzlement is simple: mistrust. And after 13 years I must say I don't blame the Americans. Europeans (some) are great friends, but, you do things your way, and we do things our way.

Posted by RW 2003-06-13 21:26:27|| 2003-06-13 21:26:27|| Front Page Top

#27 11A5S> Nitpick: The financial precondition you mentioned had to do with membership in the euro, not the EU. And I think the number's wrong.

But other than that I kinda agree with what you said. Build a Global Council which unlike the UN will admit only free democracies that defend human rights. Have a court to ensure said human rights and punish violations thereof.

*g* But I kinda think that the US would either not be admitted to such a council unless it banned the death penalty, or it would not want to enter it. Or both. :-)

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-06-13 21:38:17|| 2003-06-13 21:38:17|| Front Page Top

#28 Yes RW, I got the same impression when I moved to the States for a while and applied for a US credit card.
With a guaranteed monthly five digit US income. As a holder of 4 European credit cards (including a Platinum AMEX).
It was refused on the grounds that I never had any debts in America. By American Express as well.
Yes indeed you do things different in America.

Posted by True German Ally 2003-06-13 21:41:19|| 2003-06-13 21:41:19|| Front Page Top

#29 "WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED....
And what a damn fine job it does,for example the Balkins,Iraq,N.Kor,Rawanda,Zimbobwi,DCR,Saudi Arab,Cambodia ad infinitum.
Hell the UN refuses(not can't,refuses) to protect thier own peace keepers how in hell can they do anything.

Posted by raptor 2003-06-14 08:31:35|| 2003-06-14 08:31:35|| Front Page Top

13:02 Subotai Bahadur
09:07 raptor
08:49 raptor
08:31 raptor
01:33 Becky
23:54 Dick Saucer
23:47 Fred
23:27 Watcher
23:26 whitecollar redneck
23:21 Watcher
23:08 Watcher
22:39 True German Ally
22:35 True German Ally
22:33 Old Patriot
22:31 Old Patriot
22:13 Barbara Skolaut
21:41 True German Ally
21:38 Aris Katsaris
21:26 RW
21:17 True German Ally
21:14 Old Patriot
21:11 Frank G
20:57 Celissa
20:57 11A5S