Military

July 3, 2002

ICC:  U.S. 'GOING IT ALONE' AND BOSNIA DISPUTE SPOIL COURT'S OPENING DAY

 

KEY FINDINGS:

 

**  U.S. objections to the ICC and its "threat" to veto the UNSC extension of the Bosnia peacekeeping mission were denounced worldwide as the ultimate in U.S. "arrogance."

**  Despite efforts to forge a deal on Bosnia, European critics balked at the bid for immunity, convinced that concessions would undermine the ICC and jeopardize UNPK missions.

**  Some, mainly in conservative European outlets, found the U.S. reservations "justified," but worried about this "row" widening the "gap" between both sides of the Atlantic.

  ** Arab writers interpreted the U.S. bid for immunity as Washington's attempt to remain unfettered in an anti-terror war against Arabs.

  **  Observers in Asia, Latin America and Africa saw the world embarking on a new era in international law without the increasingly "isolated" U.S.

 

REGIONAL VIEWS:

 

EUROPE:  U.S. 'alone' and putting itself 'above the law.' The most strident critics in Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Russia, Belgium, Greece, Norway, Spain, Sweden and elsewhere judged the U.S. action as the most "severe attack on international law so far" and as an affront to its "international obligations."  Many complained of "superpower hubris," troubled by what a Rome daily called a "new Bush doctrine of global impunity." Papers from London to Pristina portrayed the U.S. use of its UNSC power as tantamount to "blackmail" and echoed Moscow's reformist Vremya Novostev's conclusion that Washington was using its muscle "to dictate the rules of the game to the rest of the world."  Accusing the administration of "strangling at birth" a UN institution "for the defense of human rights," London's independent Financial Times led the common charge that the U.S. move was "politically short-sighted" since it would alienate its allies at a time when "unity is called for in the alliance against...terrorism." 

 

Most Say U.S. ICC worries unfounded.  A prevailing view was that there was nothing to "fear" about the ICC exerting "undue influence" on any country, suggesting that U.S. worries about subjecting its citizens to "random judgment" were "manufactured" and its sovereignty concerns "exaggerated."   On behalf of ICC defenders who believed that the "rules for a fair tribunal" were in place, Berlin's right-of-center Die Welt argued that the U.S. view was based on an understanding of sovereignty that "has probably been overtaken by historical events."  Critics on the left charged that the president's objections to the ICC were not "motivated by concerns over U.S. soldiers," but by his goal of "solidifying his power" ahead of the November elections. 

 

But some understand American opposition.  Countering the charges piling up against the U.S., some conservative and center-right dailies in Germany and Belgium aimed their criticism at European "self-righteousness."  These analysts contended that the U.S. was carrying the greater peacekeeping "burden" to keep the world "more or less stable," suggesting that Europe--"incapable" of putting out fires in its own backyard-- was in no position to complain.  They also  worried about the danger of a U.S.-EU divide.  As Brussels' Christian-Democrat De Standaard put it: "Americans can be blamed for many things," but argued that Europe's unbelievable self-complacency" was also at fault.

  

MIDEAST:  U.S. defender Israel squares off with Arabs.  Both Israelis and Arabs viewed the ICC issue as an extension of the U.S.-Israeli symbiosis in fighting terrorism.  From the Arab standpoint, the U.S. is directing its anti-terrorism war at Arabs and is backing regional proxy Israel in a race war against the Palestinians.  Consequently, the U.S. refusal to recognize the ICC's authority was seen as an attempt to help Israel escape prosecution for its "war crimes" in Palestine and for the U.S. to avoid its own "war crimes" in Afghanistan and those it "plans to commit in Iraq."  For its part, an Israeli daily ardently defended the U.S. concern about the court being a political entity as opposed to a judicial body.  Political prosecutions are entirely possible, the paper argued, "in the hands of bureaucrats that only the good lord knows who they actually represent."

 

EAST/SOUTH ASIA:  All critical, see U.S. 'losing moral authority.'  Observers in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Australia, Japan, Hong Kong (SAR) and Singapore saw a "doctrinaire" Bush administration" again in "unilateralist overdrive" following its standoff with U.S. allies over the ABM treaty and the environment.  The universal bone of contention was that Washington is "undermining" international principles pertaining to human rights, peacekeeping and the rule of law that the U.S. itself was instrumental in establishing.  Meanwhile, Karachi-based pro-Islamic unity Jasarat insisted that the U.S. "be tried for war crimes for killing scores of innocent citizens participating in a wedding ceremony in Afghanistan." 

 

AFRICA/LATIN AMERICA:  Disappointment in champion of human rights, rule of law.  Observers in Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Argentina and Brazil similarly saw "President George W. Bush's unilateralism" choosing a "new target" in the ICC.  All were dismayed by Washington's "obstructionism" of the global judiciary and the U.S.' "alignment" with the likes of Russia and China in opposing the world court.  A Nigerian daily joined those in other regions who accused the U.S. of pursuing a judicial "double standard" by supporting war crimes tribunals and extraditions and then demanding immunity for its nationals in the new ICC.

 

EDITORS:  Irene Marr and Gail Hamer Burke

 

*******************************************************************************************

 

EDITORS NOTE:  This analysis is based on 87 reports from 39 countries, July28 -July 3.  Editorial excerpts from each country are listed from the most recent date.

 

EUROPE

 

BRITAIN: "Justice For All At The ICC"

 

An editorial in the independent Financial Times stated (7/2): "The sight of the U.S. administration trying to strangle at birth a United Nations institution for the defense of human rights is deeply disturbing.... The U.S. has long feared that Americans, as citizens of the world's only superpower, might be singled out for malicious prosecutions... The U.S. move is politically short-sighted since it irritates the EU and other allies at a time when unity is called for in the alliance against global terrorism.... In the worst case, the treaty's supporters must go ahead without the United States. Perhaps a future American administration will treat the court with more respect and accept its jurisdiction.... The EU must not abandon its principles....  Justice has a price."

 

"America Is Not So Special That She Can Be Allowed To Shirk Her Obligations"

 

The centrist Independent commented (7/2): "Part of a diplomat's business is to reconcile the irreconcilable --or at least create the illusion that irreconcilables have been reconciled....  No, this is not about the safety of US peacekeepers.  Washington's obstinacy reflects its visceral opposition to the ICC, as a threat to the supremacy of its own judicial system.  That hostility is of the same coin as America's refusal to submit to other international treaties, including those covering global warming, nuclear testing, landmines, and chemical and biological weapons.... Certainly, the U.S. occupies a unique position, in which unchallengeable power brings unparalleled responsibilities.  That, however, makes it all the more important that America should play by the international rules--above all when Washington is exhorting all and sundry to join its 'war against terrorism'.... Washington's behavior is both arrogant and unacceptable.  Its attempting to use the Security Council to change a properly ratified international treaty would in itself set an appalling precedent...  With or without the United States, the peacekeeping operations must continue.  And so must the new international court."

 

"Court politics"

 

An editorial in the conservative Times stated (7/2): "The argument over the standing of the International Criminal Court (ICC) that has cast the UN mission in Bosnia into doubt will inevitably be presented as further evidence of the alleged 'arrogance' and 'unilateralism' of the Bush administration.... There are several reasons why, as the Foreign Secretary admitted yesterday, U.S. concerns about the ICC must not be dismissed lightly.  The first is the speed with which the project has been embraced and the extent to which the symbolism of a global dock into which to place tyrants and sadists has been put ahead of the hard detail of the law....  The Clinton Administration fought hard at first to limit the scope of the ICC and when that failed it moved into outright opposition.  Bill Clinton reversed his position in the dying days of his presidency when it became clear that George W. Bush and not Al Gore would be his successor, and out of regard for his own legacy, not legitimate American interests....  The choice for the United Nations now is between one abstract notion of international law and the very real needs of international order.  The United States (and others) will not participate in peacekeeping missions if the price of being the Good Samaritan is the retention of a legal adviser never more than a few yards away."

 

"Contempt Of Court"

 

An editorial in the liberal Guardian stated (7/2):  "U.S. opposition to the ICC is difficult to justify in law and in logic...  George Bush has no business trying to thwart this outcome now...  The U.S. should accept the ICC and work within or alongside it to advance its work and if necessary, improve or adjust its legal mechanisms. Washington's threats to wreck the UN peacekeeping mission in Bosnia because it has not got its way over the ICC look petty; but the implications for similar missions are serious....  The ICC is basically a permanent, global version of The Hague tribunal for former Yugoslavia which, as in Rwanda, the U.S. has supported and funded....  But attempts to understand or explain U.S. objections can travel only so far before colliding with the suspicious, slab-sided rightwing psyche that informs and so badly skewers Bush administration attitudes to most international issues.  This school of thought holds that an all-powerful U.S. is not required to explain its actions, is not bound by the rules governing lesser states, has no need to persuade or convince.  The business of American leadership in this view is essentially dictatorial, not inspirational.  In this regard at least, the administration is right to gear the judgment of its contemporaries."

 

"Lone Stand For Justice"

 

An editorial in the conservative Daily Telegraph stated (7/1): "It may seem odd that anyone could be against the establishment of an international tribunal to investigate war crimes and genocide....  Clare Short, the International Development Secretary, has described Washington's attitude as 'an enormous disappointment'.  Cherie Blair has called it 'a lost opportunity'.  Surely, they say, the Americans must accept that human rights apply to everyone. The dispute here is not about whether Washington supports human rights. America has an immeasurably better record on freedom and democracy than most of the nations that have ratified the ICC.  The issue, rather, is: who has the authority to bring cases to trial? After all, international judges are surely likely to be more impartial than the judiciary of some tin-pot dictatorship.  Don't be so sure.  Consider just a few of the recent high-profile cases that have involved extra-territorial jurisdiction. Seen against this background, Washington's belief that the ICC would become a vehicle for Left-wing jurists, radical Islamists and assorted anti-Americans suddenly seems rather more reasonable...  George Bush is quite right to stand up for the principle of national democracy.  We only wish our own Government had half as much sense."

 

"Human Rights, American Wrongs"

 

An opinion piece written by Kenneth Roth in the independent Financial Times stated (7/1): "The most important human rights institution in 50 years comes into being today, but its future is far from assured.... The move is the latest manifestation of the view in Washington that international justice is only for others, not for Americans.  Yet behind this breathtaking arrogance, the U.S. administration is trying to determine how far it can push its allies.... In short, the rules for a fair tribunal are in place.  The task now is to ensure that they are conscientiously applied... U.S. participation in UN peacekeeping is small.  Europe would be better off making up the funds than sacrificing the promise of international justice.... The [United States] crisis over the International Criminal Court is a manufactured one.... The real reason behind Washington's blackmail is the most troubling.  An increasingly influential faction in the Bush administration believes that U.S. military and economic power is so dominant that the United States is no longer served by international law.... No effective global system can rest solely on coercion.  Global order depends on most governments abiding voluntarily by shared norms.  Exempting America from the rule of law undermines those norms, leaving a more violent and inhumane world.  Europe must stand up to this superpower folly."

 

FRANCE: "America, Justice And Peace"

 

Right-of-center Les Echos asserted in its editorial (7/2): "Once again Uncle Sam has hit hard.  According to some it is self-defense.  According to others it is in order to attack.... Alone against the world, Washington opposed renewal of the UN-led Bosnia mission.... This is serious business, especially because, if the U.S. is set on pushing its logic to its limit, it could pull its forces from all peace operations around the world... America's position is 'hard to understand,' according to the French Ambassador to the UN.  It is also difficult to sustain. Can the U.S. demand that a choice be made between peace and justice? Is it in America's interest, in its crusade against the ICC, to jeopardize peacekeeping...in areas where its own interests are at stake?"

 

"Defending The ICC"

 

Dominique Bromberger commented on privately-run France Inter radio (7/2): "If the U.S. has adopted such a position against the ICC it is because it does not want too many laws, international institutions and agreements around that would hinder its freedom of action.... The U.S. does not mind consulting with its allies, but when it comes time to decide, it wants to do it alone, for the good of the U.S. and the world, without an ICC coming on top of the UN, Amnesty International, the EU and all those who keep America from managing irresponsible continents. This is why it is clear we need to defend the ICC come what may."

"The Four Handicaps Of The ICC"

 

Baudouin Bollaert in right-of-center Le Figaro (7/1): "In 'our global village,' traditional institutions are no longer enough.... With the creation of the ICC, one of the most important institutions created in the past fifty years, those who criticized the 'justice of the victors,' will have to revise their judgment... But the ICC is already suffering from four handicaps. The first is its weakness and limitations because of the non-ratification by nations such as Russia, the U.S. and Israel.... The second... is that the ICC can only try suspects belonging to a UN member nation... The third lies with the waivers which have already been granted... The fourth has to do with the open conflict the U.S. has entered into with the ICC about its role over peacekeeping soldiers... The American hyperpower rejects anything that might limit its sovereignty. It does not like the UN any more than it likes the ICC jurisdiction.... The ICC is nothing but an empty shell.  In spite of or because of the ideals it embodies, it will have a hard time becoming operational by 2003 if 'rogue states' continue to hide behind the U.S."

 

"International Justice and Peacekeeping Soldiers"

 

Right-of-center Les Echos in its editorial (7/1): "President Bush's latest offensive against the ICC revolves around the status of peacekeeping soldiers. To impose its view, the U.S. has threatened to withdraw all of its peacekeeping forces.... But this is nothing but a pretext, because many precautions have been taken to protect them....  Washington is driven by a different motivation. No jurisdiction should interfere with its international objectives. The State Department has clearly said that the U.S. is overseeing international security everywhere. The message is eminently clear."

 

GERMANY: "Unjustified?"

 

Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger noted in center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine (7/3): "The Bush administration is hearing a lot of criticism right now.  Some of those who are upset about the U.S. decision to request immunity for their UN soldiers are genuinely concerned over the fate of the ICC. Others, however, are interested in something completely different: keeping U.S. power in check.  These are often the same people who like to urge the United States to play the role of global cop, knowing that there can be no stable world order without the United States, and whose countries are only now taking their first steps on the global stage.  Of course, there is a double-standard at work here.  Didn't Great Britain insist that the members of the Afghan peace force be exempted from prosecution?.  The whole matter may be more complex than acknowledged, and the fear of politically motivated suits more real than imagined. Even members of the German army share many of the U.S. concerns.  Just another unjustified fear?"

 

"Strength Without Wisdom"

 

Jochen Siemens judged in an editorial in center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (7/3): "The ICC is a decisive step toward replacing arbitrariness with law, but it means the partial surrender of national sovereignty.  The United States is not willing to take this step.  The country is fully aware of its unprecedented global status, and its long-standing aversion to multinational politics is undergoing a renaissance.  This is both regrettable and dangerous.  After all, it is difficult to direct and influence global political processes without the superpower. Nevertheless, the Europeans need to stick to their efforts aimed at multinational policy-making.  It is the right decision historically. The transatlantic partners have drifted apart.  Their historical and cultural similarities are not about to disappear, but they are starting down different paths....  It will take strength and wisdom to keep this situation from getting worse."

 

"Self-righteous Europe"

 

Alan Posener observed in an editorial in right-of-center Die Welt of Berlin (7/3): "People in Europe like to describe the conflict between the United States and pro-ICC countries as a struggle between law and power, with the court representing legal and ethical concerns and the United States representing only the arrogance of power.  German Federal Justice Minister Daeubler-Gmelin said the U.S. desire to protect its soldiers from the court was aimed at openly establishing two kinds of law, two different standards, and special rights for the powerful.  Nothing could be further from the truth, apart from the minister's statement claiming that the ICC is no political institution....The most important argument against the court is that it claims rights the UN charter has reserved for the Security Council.  That is precisely the reason why the ICC is being supported by those countries which do not like the security council's privileged position, including the United States' veto right.

 

"Since the ICC can take action by itself if national governments are not able or unwilling to do so, the danger of a dictatorship of the law over politics, to use Henry Kissinger's words, is real.  That is why already the Clinton administration insisted that the ICC be allowed to act only after receiving permission from the UNSC.  This request was rejected for political reasons.  Anyone who is now hypocritically asking why the United States is afraid of the ICC's becoming a tribunal against its soldiers and policies should answer the question of who might be interested in delegitimizing the UNSC in this fashion.  The current confrontation is not the right tool for winning the United States cooperation.  What would it cost the Europeans to embrace the demand for the immunity of soldiers who make our world safer for democracy?  Nothing but a slight loss of face and the acceptance that, while there may not be two kinds of law, there are certainly various degrees of confidence in the work of judges."

 

"Bush's Foreign Policy Is Domestic Policy"

 

Holger Schmale maintained in in left-of-center Berliner Zeitung (7/3): "With his ultimatum, President Bush is pursuing only one goal: solidifying his power.  After all, the rejection of the ICC is not really motivated by concerns over U.S. soldiers being accused of war crimes.  The focus is on the Republican voters in the United States and their distrust vis-à-vis international institutions that cannot be controlled by Washington.  Bush is paying attention to these concerns right now, not by explaining to them court's rules, but by playing the strong world leader who will not blink.  After all, Congressional elections are coming up, and the mood in the country is far from good.... A crisis of trust is developing, and Bush is trying to contain it with strong words.  In addition, there is the weak dollar.  With respect to the ICC, Washington is in the process of cutting ties with Europe.  This means that the EU must take the lead.  The only problem is that the EU is not yet able to do so."

 

"In Danger"

 

Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger noted in a front-page editorial in center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine (7/2): "Is this power struggle proof of the United States' arrogance - a country whose leadership believes itself to be above any kind of legal restriction and claims the right to take global military action according to its own interests?....  Nobody with political experience and a sense of reality can seriously believe that Washington wants to undermine the ICC's authority in order to keep its soldiers from being bothered while committing war crimes.  U.S. resistance to the court is of a more fundamental nature. It is not unreasonable to believe that U.S. military campaigns could be followed by politically motivated suits--a situation that could arise for other countries as well....  It would nevertheless be disastrous if the UN Security Council did not manage to find a solution, one that will necessarily involve compromises. The situation in Bosnia does not yet allow the withdrawal of 16,000 soldiers.  The presence of U.S. soldiers plays a key role in efforts to contain aggressive regimes.  This is the lesson of the Yugoslav wars....  It is only logical that the United States wants to keep itself from being tied down.  Europe should weigh what it means to accept global responsibility."

 

"The United States - An Island"

 

Stefan Kornelius observed in center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (7/2): "The United States has established a direct link between the ICC and UN peace missions....  This comes close to blackmail: Either you fulfill our conditions concerning the ICC or the entire system of UN peacekeeping missions will collapse....  The logic of the U.S. argument takes aim at the whole system of UN missions....  Ultimately, the United States' threat to veto amounts to the most severe U.S. attack on international law so far, on the sophisticated idea that modern countries rely on law in dealing with one another, not on strength.  Mistrust in Washington vis-à-vis this idea has been growing for years.  It is based on a deep aversion to all multinational organizations that the United States cannot control or whose procedures appear too alien or too complicated to the U.S. political establishment.... The United States' fear of the ICC borders on hysteria and does not hold up under careful scrutiny.... The United States is not interested in fine-tuning international relations; it wants to reduce its degree of dependence.  Washington is systematically reducing its international obligation, because it perceives them as a burden.  The Bush administration wants options, not commitments; it wants ad hoc alliances, not allies....  There has been much speculation about the truly significant consequences of 9/11.  For the modern world and western values, these consequences are U.S. mistrust and self-importance.  Both are very dangerous, because they make the world less predictable.  A final decision against the Bosnia mission...would destabilize the entire region.  The United States will pay the highest price in that case, because it destroys the very system that used to legitimize its strength and authority."

 

"The Evil Can Also Sit In the Court"

 

Michael Streck opined in leftist Die Tageszeitung of Berlin (7/2): "This is an outrageous attempt, since the United States does not make anything else than using its participation in peacekeeping missions as a weapon -- a new low of unilateralism under a nagging President George W. Bush.  This is causing enormous political damage, and, with their outspoken attitude, the Americans are burdening tense relations with Europe even more, since the United States puts the right of the stronger force before the strength of the law.  It will be dangerous if the only remaining superpower withdraws from international commitments.... Parts of the U.S. elite have been infected with condescension. There are people in the White House who are convinced of their extremely moral superiority of their actions, mainly in the fight against terrorism -- and that is why there can be no subordination for them....  President Bush has been seized with biblical zeal to free 'God's own country' and the world from evil.  Legal limits, international commitments and consideration for others only jeopardize victory."

 

"Diplomatic Blackmail"

 

Rolf Paasch argued in an editorial in left-of-center Frankfurter Rundschau (7/2): "The Bush administration realized its threat and is now blackmailing the 75 member states of the ICC to veto the extension of the Bosnia mandate.  This is the hitherto low in George W. Bush's presidency that is so rich in diplomatic affronts.  Domestically, it is nurtured by ultra-conservative conspiracy theories and as far as foreign policy is concerned, by the hubris of a superpower for which there seems to be no more international binding rules since September 11....  In Brussels and in Berlin, everybody pretends that there is hope for a compromise, but the situation is clear: Europe's democracies will have to find a new legal form and additional soldiers for the mission in the Balkans.  Every further day of concessions will continue to damage the newly molded foundations of international law."

 

"No World Order Without The Superpower"

 

Michael Stuermer maintained in an editorial in right-of-center Die Welt of Berlin (7/2): "The United States is caught up in a serious contradiction.  The shock of 9/11 worked as an antidote to the unilateralist experiments which the Bush administration indulged in for the first eight months. Nevertheless, the ideological roots supporting unilateralist thinking still run deep in the country.  At the same time, the United States is forced to look for allies in all corners of the globe in its fight against terrorism - a United States that has overextended itself militarily and financially.  In this situation, it must be the United States' top priority to stabilize everything contributing to a world order, including the ICC and the United Nations....  The rest of the world faces the painful realization that a world order cannot be had without the United States."

 

"Internationally Isolated"

 

R. Flocken stated on regional radio station Westdeutscher Rundfunk of Cologne (7/1): "By using the UN Security Council as a tool in its fight against the ICC, the United States has isolated itself internationally.  The country also risks triggering a crisis in transatlantic relations.  Unilateral withdrawal of U.S. troops from Bosnia would be a disastrous signal.  With its rigid position, Washington has joined countries like China, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen - countries which also oppose the ICC and are hardly supporters of international law.  Even though the United States may be putting up a fight against the court right now, the overall course has nevertheless been set. In the long run, even the superpower will have to put up with the ICC."

 

ITALY:  "ICC: Bush Looking For A Deal"

 

Mario Platero filed from New York in leading business Il Sole 24 Ore (7/3): "George W. Bush said he will do his best to avoid a break with Europeans on the withdrawal of American troops from Bosnia.... But the President made clear that he would not sign off on the Court. Washington will not agree on granting the Court an extraterritorial mandate that might affect American soldiers.  A compromise is in the air, in part because of the close mediation effort by the UK.... The court came into effect on July 1st and Washington fears that political agendas motivate possible investigations, or, even worse, incriminations, against the U.S. For this reason, the Pentagon prefers to rely on martial court to judge alleged infractions of the code of conduct at war times.  The deadline for an agreement is today at midnight....  If the British mediation fails, Blair fails, and the Western Hemisphere will be perceived as increasingly closed-off, especially since it will not even heed its traditional ally."

 

"The Embarrassing Battle Of U.S. Against ICC"

 

Gian Pietro Caliariu opined in center-right Il Tempo (7/3):  "The ICC was born and the American Administration could only play the card of boycotting it and unilaterally withdrawing from the UNSC authorized peace-keeping missions.  The mission in Bosnia is the most evident case, because it also involves NATO and the EU.  But there are also missions in Lebanon, Western Sahara and Sierra Leon, ... and the continued presence of American representatives in East Timor, Kosovo and Rwanda might become at risk.  From a formal point of view, the Western Hemisphere claims its citizens' constitutional rights to be judged by a court from his/her country....  Indeed, the United States shows that 'international justice' is a (judicial) complement, which can be assessed and adapted on a case-by-case basis in their foreign policy and that it is not a necessary instrument of the international order. "

 

"The World Court And Europe's Courage"

 

Guido Rampoldi opined in left-leaning, influential La Repubblica (7/3): "Two different ways of

looking at the world are at stake, and this creates a dangerous conflict within what we call the Western world."

 

"Bush:  We Will Try To Find A Compromise On Bosnia"

 

Paolo Mastrolilli reported from New York fpr centrist, influential La Stampa (7/3): "'We will try to solve the stalemate, but, we will not join the ICC.'  This is President Bush's reply to the polemics surrounding the peace-keeping mission in Bosnia. If a compromise is not reached by midnight today, (the U.S.) will end their mission in the former Yugoslav Republic....  Perhaps, a compromise might solve the stalemate on Bosnia.  But, American opposition to the ICC will continue to be a problem that is likely to resurface every time the UN seek to renew a peace keeping mission, beginning with the UNIFIL in Lebanon, which will expire in one month....  The signatories of the Rome Treaty, including Italy, maintain that the statute of the new Court pledges the prevention of any instrumental attacks against the United States.  If this is true, the only plausible political possibility that remains is that Washington is using the peace keeping missions to disrupt a court that it does not want before it begins operating."

 

"The Era Of Human Rights"

 

Co-managing editor Gianni Riotta argued in centrist, influential La Stampa (7/2): "Like in all marriages, one should try to understand the motives of their partner.  The Europeans should accept the fact that the U.S. superpower is paradoxically affected by a feeling of psychological and military vulnerability....  But, in the nervous Washington of these days, the most rational members of the Administration should make President Bush consider that even loyal friends such as Great Britain and Italy, as well as France and Germany, have approved the International Criminal Court.  It is difficult to imagine, that, under the aegis of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, European leaders may be plotting against their allies across the Atlantic.....  The Americans were the first to promote the strength of international law with the United Nations and the Nuremberg tribunal, inaugurated among general skepticism. Why forget that lesson?"

 

"This Is How The Bush Doctrine Has Humiliated The United Nations"

 

An analysis by Washington correspondent Vittorio Zucconi in left-leaning, influential La Repubblica (7/2):  "Less than a week after the umpteenth G-8 tragic comedy...the lie of multilateralism and Western collaboration was dealt another deadly blow by Washington.  Bush pitted himself against the United Nations to an unprecedented extent...in order to prevent U.S. troops and officials engaged in U.N. missions--such as the one in Bosnia--from being under the jurisdiction of the new ICC.  In sum, this...has become the new Bush doctrine of global impunity.  Should a compromise ever be achieved, it will be dictated by Washington, in line with the law of the strongest."

 

"Global Justice Is Still Far Away"

 

 An analysis by Alberto Negri in leading business Il Sole-24 Ore (7/2):  "It is legitimate to wonder whether the ICC can survive without the United States, without the support and the participation of the only superpower capable of carrying out military operations and possessing the indispensable information which allows for the proper functioning of international justice.  Perhaps it is useful to recall that Milosevic was brought to The Hague as a result of the pressure exerted by the Americans, and not of the feeble pressure of the Europeans. It is easy to say that the U.S. decision is a result of the September 11 tragedy and the ghost of bin Laden.... The United States is in a state of emergency, and therefore invokes special laws against terrorism and full immunity for U.S. soldiers engaged in missions abroad.... But, September 11 cannot explain it all.  U.S. opposition to the ICC also stems from a visceral hostility to a Court that goes beyond the authority of the United States and risks interfering in international relations....  This Court - which Russia, China and India also do not like - is seen as a European creature.  The United States counts on its generals, the Europeans count on their judges."

 

"U.S. Vetoes Extension Of U.N. Mission In Bosnia"

 

New York correspondent Maurizio Molinari writes in centrist, influential La Stampa (7/1): "The International Criminal Court becomes fully operational beginning today, but its inauguration is characterized by a tug-of-war between Washington and the United Nations that first caused an American veto, followed by a 72-hour extension of the mission by UN peacekeepers in Bosnia.... Secretary Powell's decision to go to an all-out fight with the UN is born from the shift made by the Bush Administration last May, when President Bush announced that he would withdraw Bill Clinton's signature accepting the Rome Treaty.  U.S. opposition to the Court stems from the Pentagon's fear that, in the future, its troops may be tried by the Court for participating in military interventions abroad which were decided by the U.S. Government."

 

RUSSIA: "A Case For The ICC"

 

Yulia Petrovskaya stressed in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (7/3): "Bombing a wedding crowd in Afghanistan makes a perfect case for the ICC....  Tragically, the United States, the chief opponent of the ICC, did that but, symbolically, it will go unpunished....  Washington has rejected the ICC, hating to think of any law as prevailing over the U.S. law.  At the same time, the United States engages in arm-twisting with respect to countries that attempt to hedge against 'alien' laws. Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) is the most egregious example."

 

"They Can Get Away With Anything"

 

Yevgeniy Bai in Washington remarked on page one of reformist Izvestiya (7/3): "The United States won't have its military on trial.  Its pilots in Afghanistan will get away with any errors."

 

"What It Takes To Become A Real Force"

 

Gennadiy Sysoyev emphasized in reformist business-oriented Kommersant (7/2): "The ICC won't become a real force, unless recognized by all of the world's leading powers."

 

"Washington Is Its Own Judge"

 

Vladimir Bogdanov contended in official government Rossiyskaya Gazeta (7/2): "While there is an ardent desire for the world to have a legal agency to punish international criminals, few really need it.  The United States is a striking example of opposition to the idea.   Formally refusing to take part in this historic project is quite legitimate.  Yet this is without precedent in the history of international law.  The U.S. Congress is going to adopt a law that is unparalleled in its arrogance.  It permits the U.S. administration to apply fines and sanctions not only to countries that have ratified the ICC's rules but also to non-members that, while not being involved in the project, cooperate with the Court, say, by extraditing persons accused of having committed crimes."

 

"U.S. Out To Dictate To All"

 

Reformist Vremya Novostey (7/2) front-paged this by Katerina Labetskaya and Andrey Zlobin: "Washington, acting in a way that is really tough, has made it perfectly clear that it will dictate the rules of the game to the rest of the world.  This is all the more obvious because it concerns the very fundamentals of the post-Cold War world order--humanitarian operations and the supremacy of international law over a national one....  Washington does not like Europe seeking to model the world on the EC where law takes precedence over military might."

 

"Price Of Justice May Prove Exorbitant"

 

Sergey Strokan held in reformist business-oriented Kommersant (7/2): "The ICC idea looks attractive but it may remain on paper--implementing it, among other things, means that great powers will have to change tack and 'forego their principles.'  The United States is far from the only country to strongly oppose the ICC....  To make a long story short, the price of 'justice without frontiers' may prove exorbitant to the powers that be in the world."

 

"U.S. Seeks Exemption"

 

Andrey Poskakukhin filed from the Hague for reformist Vremya MN (7/2): "The United States supports the International Tribunal for former Yugoslavia, stressing that the purpose of the tribunal is to make sure that no war criminal gets off scot-free.  But Washington wants an exemption for the Americans....   Russia signed the treaty on the ICC on September 13, 2000, and has yet to ratify it.  Moscow's position on this matter is very important, and politicians and lawyers in many countries are hoping that it will soon join the treaty.   Doing so would enhance Russia's reputation as a champion of the pre-eminence of law in international affairs."

 

AUSTRIA: "Going It Alone Again"

 

Foreign editor Christoph Winder opined in liberal Der Standard (7/3): "Regarding the ICC, the current US policy is deplorable, but it's not without reason.... No other country in the world has got such a massive number of soldiers stationed outside its territory - so consequently more than anyone else they might be exposed to politically motivated prosecution.... On closer inspection it turns out that the actual or alleged U.S. arbitrariness is a lot more limited than many US critics would have us believe. International terrorism cannot be dealt with by one single country, even if that country is a superpower.... No matter how ugly the controversy over the ICC might be, no matter how many indications there are that the US is trying to go it alone again, it is unlikely - simply for the sake of their own interests - that the Americans are going to exclude the rest of the world."

 

BELGIUM:  "Europe Could Learn From America's Deeds"

 

Foreign affairs writer Axel Buyse in independent Christian-Democrat De Standaard opined (7/3):  "Nothing is currently easier than making the Americans the scapegoats for everything that goes wrong in our international order. However, Europe could learn something from America's deeds.... To a high extent, the United States is mistaken about the heart of the matter.  The guarantees built-in in the statute of the new ICC are sufficiently solid to preclude biased anti-American abuse of the new instrument....  Washington carries the largest part of the burden to keep entire regions more or less stable.  It is a fact that the Americans make the difference --everywhere international intervention is needed....  [T]he Americans are active in parts of the globe that are of strategic importance to the Europeans.  It is true that the EU countries' efforts to build a constitutional world order are very laudable, but something is really wrong when they are militarily incapable of putting an end to uproar in their own backyard.... The gap between the United States and its main NATO allies is becoming wider....  The manner in which Washington turns away from all forms of international cooperation--that it cannot control completely to defend its own interests--is serious and dangerous.  The Americans can be blamed for many things, but Europe's unbelievable self-complacency with which it (blames the U.S.) routinely barely brings us one step further."

 

"More Guarantees Than The U.S. Constitution"

 

Foreign affairs writer Frans De Smet observed in independent Christian-Democrat Het Nieuwsblad/Het Volk (7/2):  "The United States is a great advocate of international tribunals - as long as there are no Americans involved.... However, as soon as there is a theoretical possibility that Americans can be brought to such international courts, Washington gets angry.... In 1998, the treaty that founded the ICC was signed in Rome....  The treaty guarantees that there cannot be politically motivated investigations or prosecutions of Americans.  In this respect, it contains even more guarantees than the U.S. Constitution.  Yet, the Bush administration views the ICC as a strike against America's sovereignty.... The Bush administration is colliding with its allies more and more seriously."

 

CROATIA: "Supermen In Invasion"

 

Zagreb-based mass-circulation Vecernji list carries a commentary by deputy editor-in-chief Visnja Staresina (7/2):  "Must American Ambassador to the UN Negroponte, really fear that some future Carla Del Ponte will try to reach American officers with an indictment because of a crime committed during a peace intervention?   Of course, he doesn't.   'Del Ponte' will always know the desirable candidate for an indictment.  However, by requesting an exemption from international law for Americans in UN peacekeeping missions, Ambassador Negroponte offhandedly also kills an already deadened UN peacekeeping role.  What choice does the rest of the world have?  Publicly recognize that the U.S. is above international law in order to save dead UN missions?   Or allow the missions to die with the U.S. departure and tacitly accept the U.S. as the true owner of peace and international law?   Both choices are awkward.  However, in a duel with the U.S., the rest of the world no longer has a suitable and principled solution."

 

"American Veto"

 

Zagreb-based Government-owned Vjesnik military correspondent Fran Visnar judged (7/2):  "The super-power, whose hypocrisy and respect for human rights could be discussed in a well-argued manner, constantly reproaches others for falling to the lowest moral and ideological levels for this or that reason.   George Bush Jr. pictures very simple and conservatively clear relations:   Americans are opposed to everything they cannot control with their veto in the Security Council, or, looking from our perspective, when America sneezes everyone else must get a bad cold."

 

FINLAND: "ICC Born In Midst Of Bitter Quarrel"

 

Leading independent Helsingin Sanomat editorialized (7/2): " The world's strongest  and politically most important nation, the United States does not want to have anything to do with the new court of justice in The Hague. Those who have ratified the treaty say it is almost impossible to make  concessions. Washington is also rejecting the treaty with a similar attitude, on the grounds that it is a question of principle. Washington's arguments are not without foundation. U.S. interests are  worldwide and it has soldiers in almost every crisis area.  There is a lot  of hate directed towards the U.S. and the will exists to inflict harm to the  US.  Before long there surely will be an attempt to misuse the court in  The Hague against the US.  Therefore the worst aspect to Washington's attitude is not the understandable doubts, but the hypocrisy in its infliction of double standards- treating others differently than it expects to be treated itself. Since Nuremberg the United States has been one of the leading actors in expanding the international court.  It has been active in campaigning to bring war criminals of the former Yugoslavia to justice.  Yet the U.S. keeps citizens of other nations in prison in Guantanamo without clear charges and due process. It seems apparent that the United States is only interested in applying the doctrine of a state's right to protect its citizens to itself."

 

GREECE: "Europe Is One Thing, the U.S. Is Another"

 

The main editorial in popular, pro-government and anti-American Eleftherotypia (7/3) said:  "The EU's call yesterday to all the countries of the world to ratify the Rome Treaty for the creation of the International Criminal Court uncovers the huge gap between Europe and the US regarding respect of law and human rights...The function of the EU is dominated by rules of law which it respects and follows, and it is important that all 12 candidates for accession co-signed it.  The US, on the other hand, does not respect international law as long as it does not serve its interests.  Washington wants immunity for its diplomats and military who commit war crimes, but reserves the right to send others to special criminal courts.  The UN, which the US has already undermined, and the EU, that the US attempts to guide, can no longer yield to the US attempt to impose its domination and arrogance.  The US may well limit itself to war missions that will be referred to by their real name, and exempt itself from peace missions which, after all, don't befit it."

 

HUNGARY: "Free Choice Of Justice"

 

 Foreign affairs writer Orsolya Ruff indicates in conservative Magyar Nemzet (7/3):  "The ICC could have started its first official day with work, if the United States  had approved to the new international court. Why? Because America fighter  planes bombed a wedding ceremony in Afghanistan on July 1st...by  accident, it was said. As a matter of fact hundred-twenty civilians lost  their life in the military action.  The United States, it seems, considers the 1998 Rome Treaty a catch.  The US has already received sharp criticism from Europe. But it would have  tragic consequences if the United States withdrew its soldiers from the  Balkans. The hidden extremists in the region might feel encouraged to  act."

 

IRELAND:  "Out Of Step"

 

The conservative, progressive populist Irish Independent maintained (7/3): "The decision by the United States to veto the renewal of the UN peace mission's mandate in Bosnia is a serious setback to global peace-keeping and to the principle of equal and shared responsibilities for the world wide policing of military excesses. The U.S...is putting unacceptable pressure on the UN with the use of its veto.  This is a convoluted and questionable strategy.  No nation should be above, or outside, the law.... In world wide peace keeping the Americans play a disproportionately high role, and therefore are more open to action by the new International Criminal Court.  Also, their position is of their own choosing.  To create from these circumstances a justification for placing themselves outside the controls, which other countries accept, is a retrograde step for world peace."

 

"U.S. Break Is Arrogant In The Extreme "

 

The centrist Irish Examiner editorialized (7/2): For America to put itself beyond the realm of such a court is arrogant in the extreme. There can be no justification for claiming its soldiers would be the victims of what it calls 'political prosecutions'. Arguably, its global presence makes it all the more important that the US should recognize the jurisdiction of this international judicial body."

 

"Irish UN Force May Have To Leave Bosnia"

 

Deaglán de Bréadún declared in the liberal Irish Times (7/2): "Irish troops and gardaí on UN duty in Bosnia could be ordered home on Thursday morning unless the UNSC resolves a dispute with the United States over the powers of the new International Criminal Court (ICC)....Ireland voted with 12 other members of the Security Council to renew the SFOR and UNMIBH mandates, with the U.S. voting against and Bulgaria abstaining. The U.S. veto ensured the mandates were not renewed.....Ireland's UN ambassador, Mr Richard Ryan, said Ireland 'supported absolutely' the extension of the mandates. 'We understand the concerns of the U.S. regarding the ICC and U.S. personnel serving on UN missions; however we cannot share the decisions of the U.S. regarding these concerns at this point."

 

KOSOVO: "Washington's Dangerous Game"  

 

The leading independent, mass circulation Koha Ditore had a comment by the U.S. educated political analyst Besnik Pula (7/3):  "The opponents of the ICC within Bush administration are showing themselves too shortsighted and with the blackmailing behavior of the United States towards the international institutions they are damaging the American credibility in the world.  Instead of considering the ICC as an instrument in the American attempts for global peace and stability, the Bush administration has made it an ideological problem by turning it into an issue of inviolable principles.  As a consequence, it has decided to wage a policy that will rather damage the American long-term interests.  The calculations made by the 'military heads' in Washington are that the United States, as a military superpower does not need anyone else and can do its foreign policy however it wants to.  But such a thought will just damage the American image, especially by damaging the relations with the European and other allies, without who the achievement of the American objectives for a peaceful world is unattainable....  If developed and used properly, the ICC will be an institution...that will add a new quality to international law.  It offers a unique opportunity in the world's history for dumping into the past the heavy crimes such as the war crimes and genocide....  The Bush administration must review its policy again and see whether it is a productive one, especially with respect to the current war against the global terrorism."         

 

"Bush Administration Does Not Believe In 'Nation Building'"

 

Washington correspondent of independent Zeri, Isuf Hajrizi wrote (6/28): "It is still not known what effect will have on Kosovo the possible withdrawal of American forces from Bosnia, but the administration of President Bush has continuously sought ways to quit peacekeeping operations in the Balkans. His administration does not believe in such operations nor it believes in the so called the policy of 'nation building' like the previous administration of President Clinton did.... If the internationals refuse to grant America immunity before the ICC, then the American administration could use that refusal as a technicality to withdraw its forces from the peacekeeping operations in the Balkans, something that this administration wanted from the beginning but did not succeed in presenting it to the NATO members."

 

THE NETHERLANDS:  "Power And Justice"

 

Influential liberal De Volkskrant asserted (7/2): "The U.S. demands that U.S. soldiers participating in UN peace missions be exempted from being brought to trial before the ICC has been strongly criticized by Europe.  However, this European criticism is not totally free of hypocrisy given the fact that the Europeans themselves made a similar exemption for their participation in the peace mission in Afghanistan....  Nevertheless, it would not work well if the Americans were to get their exemption because that would undermine the authority of the International Criminal Court from the very beginning....  The United States is concerned about political prosecutions...for, under whose authority will the judges operate? This is a problem that needs to be resolved--and it can only be resolved through participation not through opposition....  As a strong supporter of international legal order, the United States cannot just arrogantly withdraw from the ICC.  That will damage its credibility.  Moreover, the United States cannot withdraw from international peace missions....  After all, power and justice do not necessarily have to clash, sometimes they can operate together."

 

NORWAY: "U.S. Does As It Likes--Again"

 

In conservative Aftenposten, "Washington correspondent Morten Fyhn observed (7/3):  "There is no reason to be surprised that the United States used its veto in the Security Council.  By now we should have been used to the fact that the superpower dislikes everything that can limit its freedom of action... We are dealing with a superpower that does not want anyone else to decide for them....  European concerns for the United States' unilateral behavior do not meet with any understanding in Washington.  After the terror attacks, the U.S. feeling of being extra vulnerable has increased.  This feeling seems to strengthen even more the need to liberate itself from everything that might limit freedom of action....  That others believe that this is the height of arrogance does not change the fact that the United States is notoriously capable of doing what it wants, and moreover believes that it has the right to do what it wants."

 

"Laws And Rights"

 

The social democratic Dagsavisen commented (7/2): "Yesterday the treaty on a International Criminal Court came into force... The United States is sabotaging the Court out of fear that it might limit the country's sovereignty.  To force through its view, the United States is using the UN efforts in Bosnia as a lever.  This is not worthy of a serious foreign policy actor."

 

"The Right Of The Strongest"

 

In independent Dagbladet, foreign affairs editor Halvor Elvik held (7/2): "The treaty regarding a permanent International Criminal Court has come into force after that more than 60 countries, including Norway and the EU-countries, signed it.  President George W. Bush has led the USA in the opposite direction.  He made the historic move of withdrawing the USA's signature of this treaty. The USA has never done this before and it is in itself a serious encroachment upon the further development of a world that is regulated through agreements and treaties instead of the right of the strongest based on military and financial power....  It is becoming more clear that the Bush administration opposes international cooperation when the United States is compared with other countries."

 

"Unreasonable Of The US"

 

The regional newspaper Stavanger Aftenblad opined (7/2): "That the United States doesn't accept the ICC that is now being established is bad enough. That they are stopping the UN operations in Bosnia in order to press through immunity for their own personnel against criminal prosecution by the Court, is unreasonable."

 

POLAND: "Blackmail"

 

Dawid Warszawski wrote in liberal Gazeta Wyborcza (7/2): "America's reservations are not unjustified-justice is fallible and can be manipulated.... But I cannot imagine a situation in which some police force would say that if they have to comply with the provisions of a penalty code this would impede them from catching criminals. This exactly is what America's blackmail toward the Security Council boils down to-either the Court has no jurisdiction to try U.S. citizens, or we will sabotage the international security system in the Balkans. Milosevic should pay his respects to President Bush. After all, he also...does not 'want to be tried by the Tribunal whose jurisdiction he does not recognize.'...  In the future, any of Hussein's soldiers or a Burmese oppressor will be able to use Washington's position toward the Tribunal as his alibi. Washington's blackmail is a blow also to those in Bosnia who now know that from that time on their security will depend on the security of potential American criminals.... July 1 has become the black day in the history of international justice. It would be good if July 4, American Independence Day, were an occasion to reflect on it."

 

"The White House Does Not Reckon With Anyone"

 

Lukasz Warzecha wrote in center-right Zycie (7/2): "The U.S. behaves in a way we cannot help but call arrogant. It seems that differences of opinion between the Bush Administration and its European allies as well as other countries-those concerning the Middle East, an attack on Iraq, the role of NATO, the method of conducting the war against terror, relations with Iran, relations with Russia, an interpretation of free trade, and many other issues-only increase President Bush's determination to carry out his plans at all cost and without any subtlety....  Some claim that America by throwing the odium of a 'rogue state' upon others has become a 'rogue super power' itself. For them, the chaos around the ICC will be a perfect confirmation of this view. One can hardly think about a more blatant example of employing the 'double standards' policy."

 

"The International Court Is Coming"

 

Marcin Herman wrote in center-right Zycie (7/1): "Washington threatened last week that if it did not obtain guarantees that U.S. citizens be excluded from the jurisdiction of the ICC, the U.S. would first torpedo the UN peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. The U.S. troops make up the core of the 17,000-strong peacekeeping contingent in this country.... If a compromise has not been reached, not only will the UN mission in Bosnia be questioned. Washington also threatens to withdraw from all UN peacekeeping missions. The withdrawal of troops, though, would be less severe than suspension of funds as 25 percent of the peacekeeping missions' budget comes from the U.S. taxpayer."

 

PORTUGAL: "Whom Do The Judges Answer To?"

 

In a signed editorial, influential center-left  Público editor-in-chief José Manuel Fernandes mused (7/2): "I am among those who still believe that countries...should be governed by elected statesmen who must answer to their voters, and not by unremovable judges who by definition cannot be held to account for their decisions.  I am also among those who believe in the separation of powers....  It is not possible to conceive of a court that does not apply laws, and laws have to be debated and approved in accordance with democratic criteria.  This is far from the case with the ICC as one can verify by noting that it considers the installation of civilians in illegally occupied territory to be a 'war crime'.  'War crime'?  Surely an illegality and an affront, but this classification only comes up because the anti-Israel 'lobby' made a conquest among the signatory states and managed to transform the Jewish colonies in the Occupied Territories into 'war crimes'....  Because of all this I must say that I understand American opposition to the ICC.  In the end, it was the Americans who in the last few years always took on the risks of intervening to resolve dramas like Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan....  All they need now is for some unaccountable prosecutor to try to do what some were calling for the Hague Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to do during the Kosovo crisis: judicially prosecute the chiefs of state of all the NATO countries, with Clinton at the top. This is why I insist, despite being aware that it is an ultra-minority and politically very incorrect idea: the ICC is not only a false good idea, it could turn into a dangerous idea."

 

SLOVENIA:  "Americans Do Not SeeThemselves Contradictory"

 

Left-of-center Delo U.S. correspondent Ervin Hladnik Milharcic opined (7/2): "The Americans have made a step forward.  So far, no UN member has formally requested immunity from a law or an institution established by the United Nations.... The Americans threaten to also stop other thirteen UN peacekeeping operations.... As far as the Americans are concerned...they find their steps neither contradictory nor controversial. The United States is economically, politically, and militarily the strongest country in the world.... In the eyes of the Americans, this means that they have also renounced their right of judging the legality of what [the United States] does and will do. The Americans are not bothered by the fact that they themselves participated in establishing of the [ICC] and that they were among the signers of the agreement on the court's establishment. They are not embarrassed with their being steadfast supporters of the tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. They still consider international tribunals useful institutions. [These tribunals] only may not try Americans because only American laws apply to them. Europe is in an embarrassing situation. It will be difficult for it to find a reasonable [explanation] about what it has been doing for the past ten years if the Americans find it natural that laws passed by all European countries do not apply to them."

 

SPAIN: "The Atlantic Cracks Open" 

 

Conservative La Razon reflected (7/2): The great empire that Bush governs with a firm hand... has set out to squash the enemy that has dared to attack it in its own house, and nothing, and nobody, will impede its soldiers from acting the way they believe they should.  The unilateralism that had been made evident in foreign policy and economy also imposes itself on the military field and will do everything it can to overcome an obstacle to the plans for battle against an enemy that could attack them again at any moment...  The new NATO could have suffered a serious blow as far as the military alliance goes, since it would not be acceptable that European soldiers have a different juridical status than their American allies. Europe looks at the new situation with worry...  NATO cautiously analyzes the consequences of the American veto of the mission in Bosnia, with the suspicion that, if it widens to other UN missions, NATO would see itself affected and transformed more into a political alliance than a military organization that helped to win the Cold War...  It not only is a blow for the progressive aspirations of universal justice.  It also could end up seriously damaging the image of the United States, which should remember that all empires meet their doom, and their self- absorption could be the cause." 

 

"Blackmail For The Court" 

 

Left-of-center El País wrote (7/2): "The Bush Administration, supported by the majority in Congress, defends itself by its military interests and a global military presence, but it does not want to have obstacles.  It defends itself, in addition, by saying that the ICC will not be able to function without or against the US, even though it especially tries to shield itself with unilateral legislation against this tribunal...  If the signing countries give in to the blackmail of Washington, the new Court will lose credibility and the power to develop.  The EU has a 'common position' that requires its States to defend it and promote it, like it did again yesterday.  This tribunal is a sign of hope in a world full of unsettling signs.  The US cannot be allowed to extinguish it." 

 

"The U.S. Lets The World Down"

 

Conservative ABC wrote (7/1): "The U.S.'s allies, beginning with the Europeans, did not hesitate in supporting the campaigns in Afghanistan and fostering the most dramatic measures in the international arena in order to fight terrorism beyond any borders.  The reasons that grounded such support remain untouched and it would be a mistake to weaken or question them because of the U.S. reluctance to ratify the Agreement of Rome....  The U.S. leaves solidarity aside by not taking into account that the International Criminal Court is also a part of such global justice....  The U.S. is not requested to assume any commitment other than those whose allies, and among them Spain, have already undertaken."

 

"Bush Wants To Go It On His Own"

 

Centrist La Vanguardia wrote (7/1): "The International Criminal Court will get off to a bad start.  It is an ambitious, necessary and in-line-with-the-new-times project....  But the Court will be born with serious limitations, and the most shocking thing is that most of these limitations, although not all of them, come from the most globalizing country of the world -- the U.S.....  What is Bush afraid of?  The U.S. is not Pinochet's Chile.  The bottom line is that Bush wants to go his own way through the world.  He rejected the Kyoto Protocol and has announced that he will veto the U.N.'s mission to Bosnia if he does not manage to keep his blue helmets outside the ICC's jurisdiction....  The most severe thing is that an ICC without the U.S.'s participation will be born with severe limitations, which is a step backwards for all."

 

SWEDEN: "The World Policeman Opposes The International Community"

 

Independent, liberal morning Dagens Nyheter noted (7/2):  "The U.S. veto of the resolution to extend the UN peace-keeping mission in Bosnia is said to be because of principle....  It is true, on one level that the country's decision must be regarded both as logical, and for reasons of principle; as a part of the U.S. disinclination to enter binding multilateral agreements: In order to take part in peace-keeping missions the U.S. demands immunity from prosecution of its personnel by the International War Crimes Court, whose authority the U.S. does not recognize....  The U.S. action appears as clumsy and also has a clear streak of blackmailing.... It is very sad to observe that the institution--which so many had put great hopes in and which was set up to try international war criminals and therefore would pose a threat to international perpetrators of violence--lacks the support of one of the greatest democracies of the world.  And even worse is that the U.S. now is using this institution of hope as a crowbar to defend its own position of power.  George W. Bush has entered a dangerous and irresponsible path."

 

"The U.S. In The Corner"

 

The independent, liberal tabloid Expressen editorialized (7/2):"Seldom have U.S.- EU relations been as frosty as they are now. Last week one could notice an Atlantic rift over the Mideast conflict, and now the U.S.' rejection of the new International War Crimes Court in The Hague has stirred up feelings. Everyone was aware of the fact that the U.S. would oppose the ICC, but few had expected that the U.S. would go as far as to use sabotage.... The ICC would have provisions against political trials and it is unlikely that court would put the bar so low that a country like the U.S. would not dare to liberate a terrorized people because of fear that civilian casualties would be subject to prosecution. War cannot be brought with surgical precision, but at the same time it is extremely important that also the U.S. will be subject to international law. The principle of legal equality must be absolute, and it would be a step forward for humanity if, in the future, not only despots in the third world, but also NATO strategists would have to consider the legal consequences of their decisions. It is a matter of course that Europe holds its own and maintains that no one--not even the only superpower in the world--can be above the law."

 

TURKEY:  "ICC Will Be An Issue For Turkey, As Well"

 

Izzet Sedes draws parallel between EU-Turkey relations and the ICC in mass appeal Aksam (7/3): "The US did not ratify the ICC, and it also stands against Europe by trying to prevent the ICC from functioning.  China and Russia are two allies of the US in this, but they are not very active. However, none of these countries will face the issue that Turkey is about to face.  The EU membership process will be a part of Turkey's agenda in connection with the ICC, because Turkey is the only candidate country that is not part of the ICC while other European candidate countries are.  Just watch.  As soon as the EU is done with the US on the ICC issue, it will turn to Turkey and bring it up as one of the conditions."

 

"The First Of July For US"

 

Turgut Tarhanli commented in liberal-intellectual Radikal (7/2): "The date signifies the International Criminal Court becomes official.  The ICC mandate covers a wide range of serious crimes, including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.... Currently, the number of countries recognizing the ICC-authority is 74, and interestingly enough the list includes Bosnia-Herzegovina, Yugoslavia, South Africa and Argentina. The ones who do not recognize the ICC are less in quantity, but more powerful.  Therefore the future of the ICC is not very promising at the moment.... The reason the US is stopping the ICC from functioning stems from its intention to be able to dominate the UN Security Council.... As a Human Rights Watch representative noted, the United States wants to manipulate the UNSC and weaken the ICC's capability, i.e. turning it into a stillborn baby.  If this sounds too pessimistic, here comes the optimistic comment: The US wants ICC to function only if and when the

United States desires."

MIDDLE EAST

 

ISRAEL:  "A New World Disorder"

 

Foreign news editor Arik Bachar opined in popular, pluralist Maariv (7/2): "There is no wonder that the center of gravity of support for this new institution [ICC] is in Europe, while the United States is leading the opposing camp that threatens the shaky stability of world order.  Europe is in no hurry to send its finest sons to distant parts of the world in order to make peace.  Uncle Sam is doing it consistently.... Uncle Sam is now demanding that...his sons have immunity against prosecutions in the new court.  And if the world doesn't like it, then the world can manage without them [the U.S.]....  In a world so complicated and conflicted, it would have been worthy to leave the situation as is; where the international community discusses each case of genocide to the point...and doesn't leave it in the hands of bureaucrats that only the good lord knows who they actually represent."

 

WEST BANK:  "War Crimes Court"

 

Independent Al-Quds opined (7/2):  "Amidst feeling of joy and satisfaction expressed by the international community regarding the establishment of the War Crimes Court, which will fill a major gap in the international legislative system, two countries, the United States and Israel, have expressed extreme objection and reservations toward the court.  They both claim that the tribunal will turn out to be a political entity instead of a legislative body, which will, in turn, reflect bias against their citizens.  The United States said its military personnel and citizens must receive full immunity from any charge filed against them through this court.  Israel, on the other hand, expressed concern that the court may pass a ruling deeming Israeli settlements and its occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights as war crimes, which will eventually lead to putting its soldiers, officials and settlers on trial.  These American and Israeli objections reflect their attitude of superiority and dominance.  They also show their heedlessness toward the international community."

 

JORDAN:  "What Can We Do About The U.S.?"

 

Columnist Bater Mohammad Ali Wardam wrote in center-left, influential Arabic-language Al-Dustour (7/3), "Since the first day of talking about the international war crimes tribunal, the United States started its attempts to evade responsibility towards it, thereby proving that the United States is an outlaw state that does not respect any of its commitments, and that wants to protect its soldiers from responsibility when they commit war crimes, such as they did in Afghanistan, and plan to commit in Iraq. Confronting American policy will require worldwide popular coordination that pressures effective governments, such as those of Europe and Japan, to create a new world ruled by some elements of morality, not Washington's law of the jungle.  Perhaps modern technology and globalization will be among the effective means to achieve liberation from the United States that is leading the world to destruction, and that has no compunction against committing the worst crimes against humanity."

 

LEBANON:  "The New Rome"

 

Sahar Baasiri commented in moderate, anti-Syrian An-Nahar (7/2): "There is no clearer proof for the inclination of the Bush administration to perform single-handedly than...its position on the new International Criminal Court and its decision to put American peacekeepers beyond the reach of this court.  The American justifications for taking this position are not convincing....  This position even surpasses the U.S. double standard policy.  The United States has approved in the past the establishment of criminal courts in Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and Yugoslavia.  Why is it vetoing the establishment of an international criminal court today?  America wants the whole world to cooperate with it in its war on terrorism, but opposes the establishment of an International Criminal Court that would deal with individuals that are no less criminal than terrorists....  This is the new empire that only wants to put itself above the law."

 

SAUDI ARABIA:  "Opposition To Law"

 

Jeddah-based, moderate Saudi Gazette held (7/2):  "Despite vociferous opposition from the several countries, the ICC became a reality on Monday.  The opponents of the ICC include countries like the United States, Israel, Russia, China and India. Clearly, their opposition gives the impression they are involved in activities which they themselves believe will be ultimately classified as genocides, crimes against humanity, and war crimes....  The United States wants peacekeeping missions outside the ICC's jurisdiction.  This raises the question about the intent and purpose of peacekeeping, and whether the peacekeepers' crimes should be ignored.  A civilized world would say no.  Peacekeepers involved in war crimes must be dealt with more harshly.  It's time the opponents of the ICC review their military policies in Palestine, Chechnya, Xinjiang and Kashmir, as well as in the superpower's world."

 

"Peacekeeping"

 

Jeddah-based, moderate Arab News editorialized (6/30):  "Washington's opposition to the International Criminal Court, which comes into being tomorrow, is well-known. No less well-known is the Bush administration's readiness, to use America's superpower weight to bulldoze the world into its way of thinking--whether the issue is fighting terror, or fighting peace. That latter is what Washington seems to be set on doing in its battle to fashion the court in a way that would negate the fundamental principle of justice--equality before law. It wants to judge, but not be judged. It wants all war crimes to be punished, but not those committed by its soldiers.  President Bush's threat to veto the renewal of the mandate of the UN mission in Bosnia, due to expire today unless there is a promise by the new court of immunity from prosecution for any peacekeepers the U.S. contributes to UN missions is nothing less than blackmail. The UN mission in Bosnia is an issue separate from that of the international court.  Bush is threatening one to force the result he wants on the other.  This is misuse of America's privileged position as a permanent member of the Security Council.... What Washington has a perfect right to do is to say that it will not participate in UN missions until the matter is sorted out. That would be an honorable position. But to take the position that threatens a third party--in this case, Bosnia together with its security and welfare--is beyond understanding."

 

TUNISIA:  "Who Is Against The Globalization Of Justice?"

 

Manoubi Akrout wrote in independent, French-language Le Quotidien (7/2):  "Why have the two ex-superpowers (USA and Russia) and the first demographic power (China) joined with the main zealots of the world (Israel) to take a position against this institution (ICC) in its new, permanent form?...   Led by the United States, this pro-globalization clan is spreading terror in the developing countries, weakening them and making their position weaker and their efforts tougher.  Don't we know that many countries will find themselves without any markets and without any future in the coming years?  Don't we realize that those who will not accept injustice will be referred to as terrorists?  Don't you know that only those cherished by America will reap the benefits in this situation?  Don't you remember the violent Israeli attacks on the UNCR?  Don't you recall the latest American 'pearls':  the rejection of Kyoto agreement and the unilateral 'adjustment' on steel....  Won't the Israelis be the first to be sued in this court for what they have done to the Palestinian people?  And who makes the important decisions in the States when Israel finds itself involved? The American Israel Public Affairs Committee."

 

SOUTH ASIA

 

INDIA:  "America's Dubious Dissent"

 

The centrist Hindu opined (7/3), The United States has once again revealed its unilateralist agenda on the international stage by exercising a veto at the UN Security Council as regards an issue with far more serious implications than meet the eye.  The Bush administration has now set its face against the extension of a peacekeeping mission which the United States itself had in the first place endorsed quite enthusiastically with reference to Bosnia.  However, America's latest action concerning Bosnia is hardly related to the direct issues of war and peace there....  It is apparent that the United States wants to be a law unto itself as the sole superpower on the global stage....  Washington tends to believe that it cannot prevent its detractors in the international arena from dragging American peacekeepers to the Court in spite of their UN mandate....  Overall, a doctrinaire Bush administration is in no mood to listen to political counsel from its allies, although the movement for the International Criminal Court had at first received support from the United States itself under an earlier President, Bill Clinton.  America's current tendency to see itself in a 'hyper-power' league of its own is certainly not limited to the issue of human rights.  Some recent examples of America's 'unilateralist overdrive' (a West European critique) relate to several important issues such as the abrogation of the U.S.-Soviet Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty or the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol on global climate.  It is a trend that does not bode well for the global community."

 

"Towards One Law"

 

The centrist Telegraph asserted (7/3), "Universal justice sounds like an impossible abstraction.  But a quiet attempt is being made in The Hague, from this month, to turn the concept into some sort of a reality.  Bill Clinton had signed the Roman treaty, but his successor is now steadfastly refusing to ratify it.  And the American state and military establishments are squarely behind him in this, afraid that their soldiers might be the subjects of politically-motivated or frivolous prosecutions in this court.  The American contrariness could wreak deeper havoc.  Washington has threatened to pull out of UN peacekeeping in Bosnia if U.S. forces are not exempted to intervene only when national authorities cannot or will not prosecute.  It can only complement, and not displace, a nation's legal system, and cannot really be a threat to its sovereignty.  Surprisingly, Tony Blair understands this. A global concept therefore confronts a divided world."

 

PAKISTAN:  "U.S. Must Be Tried"

 

The Karachi-based right-wing pro-Islamic unity Urdu-language Jasarat insisted (7/3), "The United States must be tried for war crimes for killing scores of innocent citizens participating in a wedding ceremony in Afghanistan.  The fact of the matter is that the United States has no value for Muslim lives.  It does not even avoid killing them for the sake of sport.  The question is if the September 11th attack was terrorism, then isn't the attack on a wedding ceremony of the villagers terrorism and aggression?"

 

SRI LANKA:  "The Judge, The Jury, All In One"

 

The independent Daily Mirror opined (7/2):  "On Monday the UN was plunged into one of its gravest crises after the all powerful United States used its veto authority to block the practical implementation of the International Criminal Court....  The key factor in this crisis as in so many other issues during the past decade is the U.S. insistence that its self interests must take priority over all others.  It is not a request but a command....  The self righteousness, hypocrisy and sanctimonious humbug are seen in more than one area.  For instance, the U.S. State Department annually takes the liberty to appoint itself as a world judge and issues human rights reports on more than one hundred other countries. But the same United States is unwilling or afraid to subject itself to trial by the ICC in instances where there might be accusations of human rights violations against U.S. troops."

 

EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC

 

AUSTRALIA:  "Peacekeeping Needs U.S. Help"

 

The national business-oriented Australian Financial Review opined (7/3), "The practical consequences of the U.S.' repudiation of the International Criminal Court have been swift to emerge.  A 1,600-strong United Nations police mission in Bosnia, which among other duties trains Bosnia's domestic police force, may have to be withdrawn within days because the UN has, quite rightly, refused a U.S. demand for immunity from the new global war crimes court.... The sad thing about the latest impasse is that it reinforces opponents of U.S. foreign policy in their view that the world's only superpower wants one set of rules for it and another for everyone else. This is going to lead to disagreements between the United States and its closest allies that will not be easily resolved....  The United States cannot always be right, and the time will come when even a superpower needs its friends."

 

"The New American Unilateralism"

 

The liberal Sydney Morning Herald maintained (7/3), "The potential damage from the Bush Administration's opposition to the International Criminal Court can hardly be underestimated. This latest and most grave manifestation of the new American unilateralism has not prevented the opening of the ICC.... Washington continues to press for a blanket exemption for U.S. citizens from its jurisdiction. This impossible demand implies a two-tier system of justice, one for Americans and one for the rest of the world.... The Bush administration's use of the U.S. veto in the UN Security Council on Sunday to refuse an extension of the 1500-member UN police-training mission in Bosnia was a grave step.... The numbers of American peacekeepers in Bosnia are nowhere near as important as the sinister principle behind the threats to withdraw them."

 

CHINA (HONG KONG SAR):  "Courting Trouble"

 

The independent English-language South China Morning Post commented (7/2):  "The administration of U.S. President George W. Bush is making a mockery of its supposed respect for international law through expressing its disapproval of the International Criminal Court by vetoing a renewal of the United Nations police force in Bosnia.  That the world's most powerful nation should have resorted to frustrating a peace mission in order to impose its will on others is a big shame....  Americans have to realize that their country will lose the moral authority to be the world's policeman if they refuse to subject their nationals to the jurisdiction of a properly constituted court that aims to deter war crimes.  It is thus disturbing that a bill asserting the U.S.' rights to use 'all means necessary' to free any Americans detained in the court's prison is even making its way through Congress.  Should the bill become law, the U.S. will lose all credibility as a nation that stands for human rights.  Even  though it is not ready to embrace the court, the Bush administration should at least stop its campaign to undermine it."

 

JAPAN:  "U.S. Bid To Weaken ICC's Jurisdiction Regrettable"

 

Liberal Asahi editorialized (7/3):  "It has long been a dream of the international community to bring to justice war and other inhumane crimes, including genocide. We welcome the effectuation of a treaty that will lead to the opening of an international criminal court under the United Nations. But it is regrettable that the U.S., which refuses to join the treaty, is trying to weaken the proposed court's jurisdiction. Washington has been opposed to the ICC's opening on the grounds that its troops deployed overseas may be tried for political reasons.  Both the U.S. insistence that it withdraw its troops from peacekeeping operations and its veto of a UNSC resolution calling for a six-month extension of peacekeeping operations in Bosnia are too self-righteous and violent."

 

"ICC Treaty, Peacekeeping Operations Should Go Hand in Hand"

 

Liberal Mainichi observed (7/3), "The United States' withdrawal from [Bosnia peacekeeping] operations and its isolated move [vetoeing a UNSC resolution calling for an extension of peacekeeping operations in Bosnia], would pose a serious problem to the world community.  The fact that only 74 nations have ratified the ICC treaty and that Russia, China, India and Japan have yet to join it is another serious problem.  The United Nations should wise up to measures to make the significance of UN peacekeeping operations and the ICC compatible."

 

SINGAPORE:  "U.S. Tries New Tack"

 

The pro-government Straits Times opined (7/2), "The United States has refused to be a part of the ICC....  The Bush administration appears fixated on the world's America-hatred.  Why? It has not had a convincing response to the ICC's counter of multi-level safeguards, such as a treaty state's jurisdictional right to prosecute an alleged war criminal first.  As constituted, the ICC would not invoke its prosecutorial powers in such a scenario.  The consistent line that U.S. sovereignty must remain paramount betrays an emerging attitude far more disturbing:  that America would not be bound by the rules of 'others', whether this is out of hubris or legitimate concern.  It is looking like the former.   On Sunday, it challenged the ICC's founding purpose through the devious route of the UN Security Council....  It should reflect on the consequences of this astounding display of provincialism.  In trying to sideline the ICC, it appears prepared to jeopardize the peacekeeping role of the UN, one core element in living up to its charter as the basis of international law. Those nations which have ratified the ICC's founding Rome Statute, which include all of the European Union, cannot fudge the immunity issue without effectively rewriting the statute and render null certain national laws that accept the ICC's 'prosecute or surrender' jurisdiction. To cut through the thicket, the United States ought to ponder this: If it is implying that not one among its legion of armed men deployed overseas, now and in the future, is capable of acts that are beyond the pale, can it expect to be believed?" 

 

 

 

AFRICA

 

NIGERIA:  "Double Standard Policy Laced With Arrogance"

 

The Lagos-based independent Anchor opined (6/30), "On July 1, the International Criminal Court (ICC) will take off signaling the dawn of a new international judicial order....  But the United States would rather wish that the ICC did not take off, even if the bulk of the international community has insisted it should.... It is amazing how a country that is a bastion of democracy can stoutly oppose the internationalization of the rule of law, which the ICC idea symbolizes.... The same country would, in 2001, brow-beat Nigeria to deport Lanre Shittu, a prominent Nigerian auto-dealer to face alleged drug trafficking charges in American courts.  But this country, ever ready to impose its will on others cannot bear its citizens to be bound by ICC jurisdiction.  Certainly, America's conduct is double-standard laced with arrogance.  We realize there is little anyone can do about that, since the sole surviving superpower has the force to exert its will.  But since we believe in the rule of law, and not the threat of force, we call on our own government not to have anything to do with this American gambit.  We say no to any anti-ICC pact with America."

 

SENEGAL:  "The ICC And The African Court Of Human Rights--The African Struggle"

 

Abdoulaye Seye wrote in semi-independent Le Soleil (7/3) that "while the United States has systematically rejected the ICC, and the French are asking for a 7-year extension...there are 17 African countries, including Senegal, who adopted the International Criminal Court.  And yet, the African Charter implementing an African Court for Human Rights needs 15 signatures in order to enter into effect.  This situation shows once again the irresponsibly of the African countries who are always eager to reinforce the international instruments but who ignore those of their continent."

 

"Double Standard Of Justice?"

 

Abdoulaye Seye wrote (7/3) in semi-independent paper-of-record Le Soleil  concerning the African human rights NGO RADDHO's press release:  "The press release notes 'a concern over Bush Administration attempts to kill the jurisdiction of international justice while it is still in the womb in order to avoid having American citizens accused of war crimes or crimes against humanity brought before the International Criminal Court. This goes for the French as well, authors of ICC's Article 124, which authorizes French soldiers to commit war crimes with impunity for seven years.  For this reason, the Secretary General fo RADDHO is asking that international opinion, especially in America, rise up and demand that the United States respect the principals upon which it was founded: freedom, justice and equality."

 

SOUTH AFRICA:  "New World Court"

 

In the view of the liberal Natal Witness (7/2): "The new International Criminal Court opened it doors for business in The Hague yesterday....  The United States has so far refused to ratify the treaty....  Other nations regard [its]  fears as unfounded....  The effect of the veto, however, could be the end of the UN mission to train a new Bosnian police force.  So one has the irony of the world's only international policeman halting an international police operation.   The United States under the Bush administration has been increasingly chauvinistic and unilateralist, putting what it perceives to be its own interests against what is manifestly the international good.  It claims that is own vaunted democracy is built upon a bill of rights but it does itself no good by obstructionism premised on the unspoken assumption that it and its citizens are somehow on a higher moral plane than the rest of humanity and cannot be brought to account for the violation of the rights of others."

 

WESTERN HEMISPHERE

 

BRAZIL:  "Undermined Court"

 

Liberal Folha de S. Paulo opined (7/3), "President George W. Bush's unilateralism has just chosen its new target:  the International Criminal Court....  The United States has never liked the idea of an autonomous global judiciary.  It fears that such a court could be used politically against Americans....  Strangely, the United States aligns itself with Russia and China [in opposing the ICC], nations whose records in terms of democracy and human rights certainly are not among the best...  In retaliation...some have mentioned that the White House might not pay the U.S. share of the cost of UN peacekeeping missions.  This attitude can only be seen as a badly disguised operation to undermine the ICC.  Bush seems to believe that he has the power to dictate global affairs.  It is a risky step.  He still needs some international cooperation to win the war against terrorism."

 

ARGENTINA:  "Above The Nations"

 

Independent Jornal do Brasil held (7/3), "The same day the International World Crimes Tribunal was enforced in  The Hague...the Americans threatened to veto the renewal of UN's mission in Bosnia.  Washington wants to guarantee that the tribunal...won't punish its soldiers....   The U.S. has sent the wrong message on a significant day.  There would be no war in Afghanistan or even the Gulf War, if U.S. allegations, based on human rights defense  (and the twin towers' destruction in New York, and the Kuwait invasion) were refused by the international community.   There is not enough punishment for genocide. The Hague Court cannot even condemn some one to death penalty.  Prisons chosen by it, by the way, are comfortable, as Milosevic himself--the first big fish caught by the Court--was able to testify.  Accusations against violence in Burundi, Congo, East Timor continue.   Atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia in the seventies may  be examined some day.  Other cases that should be examined are Chile, Myamnar (Former Burma), Cambodia, places from Cold War and Sierra Leone.  We are in the era of globalization and of law.  The British, the greatest supporter of the ICC Court in the face of the U.S. objection, joined the international tribunal without hesitation."

##