October 3, 2002
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT: U.S.-EU DIVIDE
KEY FINDINGS
** The EU compromise
permitting member states to reach bilateral agreements with the U.S. despite
its rejection of the ICC was seen as a result of Brussels' desire to preserve
unity.
** Many dailies argued that
the price of unity was too high, and that by giving in to U.S. pressure, the EU
had undermined ICC credibility and its own international influence.
** Many observers saw U.S.
rejection of the ICC as another example of the superpower's
"antipathy" to collective international solutions.
MAJOR HIGHLIGHTS
EU COMPROMISES TO PRESERVE UNITY
By
permitting its member states to go forward with bilateral agreements with the
U.S. exempting USG employees from ICC jurisdiction, many observers agreed, the
EU put the preservation of unity before principle. Liberal and left-leaning papers scorned the
EU's "cowardice" in the face of "American bullying" and
"blackmail." The Netherlands'
influential liberal DeVolkskrant questioned the wisdom of paying the
price of unity, saying that the ICC was being "undermined" even
before it could start operating. Liberal
British papers mocked that the EU's "common terms of surrender" had
"torpedoed" the principle of an independent, "universally
respected forum" in which crimes against humanity could be
prosecuted. More conservative papers
viewed the compromise as more agreeable or, as one Italian pundit saw it, an "unavoidable
victory of good sense."
EU 'AN ECONOMIC GIANT BUT POLITICAL DWARF' Many European editorialists agreed that adoption
of the compromise reflected the difference in the respective political
cohesiveness of the U.S. and the EU, stemming from Brussels' "ongoing
failure to construct a centrally directed, binding foreign and security
policy." Germany's business daily Handelsblatt
lamented the "shocking powerlessness" of the EU; the Stuttgarter
Zeitung said Europeans had again shown themselves to be "political
dwarves." This, said Portugal's
respected, center-left Diario de Noticias, was predictable: "Once the Europeans refused to spend
money on defense, they ceased to be credible partners of the United States...on
the international scene."
ONCE AGAIN, THE U.S. GOES ITS OWN WAY Diario de Noticias was one of the few
papers to support the compromise because "the truth is that no ICC is as
important as a strong America."
More typically, writers reproached the U.S. for "sabotaging"
the ICC and cited its unwillingness to submit its nationals to ICC jurisdiction
as another example of the U.S. "making its own plans as it does in many
other cases." Stockholm's social
democratic tabloid Aftonbladet argued that the U.S. stance on the ICC--a
"decisive" human rights issue--means that "the EU must dare to challenge
the U.S. monopoly of power."
EDITOR: Steven Wangsness
EDITOR'S NOTE: This
analysis is based on 31 reports from 19 countries, August 31-October 2. Editorial excerpts from each country are
listed from the most recent date.
EUROPE
BRITAIN: "Prejudicial
Conduct"
The liberal Guardian editorialized (10/2): "There can be little doubt that the standing
and credibility of the UN's International Criminal Court will be damaged by the
EU's decision to agree immunity for U.S. officials and armed forces. The fundamental idea of the court's founding
treaty.was after all to establish a universally respected forum in which the
most serious offenses in international law might be impartially and
independently prosecuted. By agreeing to
make an exception, the EU has torpedoed that principle. By insisting that it be made, the Bush
administration has again shown its haughty antipathy to the concept of an
international community of equals and democratically agreed collective action.
"Not content with refusing to support the ICC, the White House has
of late been actively undermining it....
This American bullying has embarrassed its friends. Britain worked hard to assuage U.S. fears
that its nationals would be unfairly singled out. Last month, it admitted it had failed. Now the government has taken the
ultra-pragmatic but nevertheless humiliating position of leading the push for
EU concessions to avoid further 'negative consequences' for transatlantic
relations. But there is no guarantee
that the U.S. will accept the terms on offer; it may demand more. This would hardly be surprising since at
bottom, its objections are political, not legal....
"Yet for all that, the EU climbdown and the resulting damage to
the ICC cannot simply be blamed on U.S. importunity. It is the familiar outcome of EU members'
ongoing failure to construct a centrally directed, binding foreign and security
policy and to eschew vain, contradictory national posturing. The EU did not have to bend the knee. It did not have to listen to Britain. Poor, battered Germany might have stood
firmer. The Bush administration will not
be around for ever. But this is mere
clutching at straws. While Europe's
disunity persists, it will continue to lose the arguments that matter."
"Another Unnecessary Concession To U.S. Bullying"
The liberal Independent editorialized
(9/30): "Foreign ministers of the
European Union seem likely to decide today that, rather than give in
individually to U.S. arm-twisting, they will agree to common terms of
surrender.... Today's meeting is to
decide what to do about U.S. demands that its citizens be granted immunity from
prosecution by the new International Criminal Court.... The response of Jack Straw, the British
Foreign Secretary, to this bullying is appeasement. He proposed that the EU agree a joint
position of giving the U.S. what it wants.
Never mind that today's deal is hedged with conditions that the U.S. may
still not find acceptable, the idea of making special concessions to one nation
simply because it is so powerful is odious....
If the U.S. eventually comes around to joining the International
Criminal Court--just as it rejoined UNESCO this month--it will not be because
the EU made some craven concessions today."
FRANCE: "The EU
Safeguards Its Unity"
Philippe Gelie wrote in right-of-center Le Figaro
(10/1): "The Europeans are happy with
their decision, but it is doubtful whether the Americans are similarly
happy.... The EU compromise on the ICC,
if it is respected to the letter, will not make Washington's task any easier
when it comes to negotiating bilateral deals with individual EU members."
"Europe Gives In To Washington"
Jean Quatremer opined in left-of-center Liberation
(10/1): "By giving in to Washington, the
EU has essentially tried to preserve its own unity.... France's position, somewhere between Great
Britain and Germany's positions, was to avoid a major confrontation with the
U.S. over the ICC. First because Paris
understands Washington's dilemma, but also so that the U.S. does not undermine
the work of the ICC."
GERMANY: "Common
Foreign Policy"
Jochen Hoenig stated in an editorial in business daily Handelsblatt
of Duesseldorf (10/2): "The common
foreign policy of the EU lies in ruins.
At the beginning of this week, the EU members again caused a lot of
harm. The debacle about a common
position in the Iraq policy was followed by the bad compromise over the
ICC.... The 15 EU members hide again and
again their shocking powerlessness behind the smallest common
denominator.... The EU, the economically
second biggest economic power in the world, knows quite well why it suffers one
fit of weakness after the other. The big
nations France, Britain, Germany, Spain, and Italy are simply unwilling to use
the most powerful weapon which the EU would have if it spoke with one
voice. Javier Solana, the EU's foreign
policy representative; he has disappeared from the international stage looking
after the minor trouble spots in Serbia, Montenegro, and Macedonia. But with respect to the controversial issues
of Iraq and ICC, he does not show his true colors, since he likes to keep in
with Schroeder, Chirac, and Blair. These
three do not tolerate a secretary of the EU Council of Ministers right next to
themselves.
"This is not the way the EU should continue its work. It must finally establish a more effective
foreign policy. This requires a total
rethinking of the government leaders. If
this does not happen, the great showdown will happen at the NATO summit in
Prague. In his first meeting with the
Europeans following the outbreak of the Iraq crisis, President Bush will give
the Europeans a dressing down and present his security doctrine as the only
effective concept in the preventive fight against security policy risks. The Europeans could say much to the Bush
doctrine, but it is likely that they will again not speak with one voice. In the European Convention where the members
discuss the draft of a new EU treaty by 2003, many concrete ideas of improving
the common EU foreign policy will be presented.
As long as the foreign policy is not shifted to a greater extent to
Brussels, the EU will remain powerless."
"Cowardice In The Face Of The Enemy"
Center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of
Munich (10/1) argued: "The EU is not as
courageous as the Swiss. Even Germany
which considers itself a trailblazer of global justice prefers to hide behind a
common EU position. This could not be
criticized if there were a common position but this does not exist.... Italy is faltering, while Great Britain
demonstrates its transatlantic loyalty to the United States. In this situation, it would have been honest
to avoid a common answer to Washington.
The 13 other EU members should have rejected a common answer and send a
signal to the community of nations: special agreements create special rights,
privilege the strongest, and destroy the credibility of the world court. Instead cowardice in the face of the
Anglo-Saxon friends gained the upper hand....
Many nations, which back the world court and pinned their hopes on the
EU, will now no longer be able to withstand U.S. pressure, unless they used
Switzerland as an example."
"Capitulation In The Small Print"
Rolf Paasch judged in left-of-center Frankfurter
Rundschau (10/1): "The United States
has come a step closer to its goal of undermining the work of the ICC. The declaration of the EU foreign ministers
cannot obscure the fact that the exemption for U.S. nationals will damage the
integrity of the ICC.... In the end,
Joschka Fischer and his twelve jurors were more interested in a common EU
position than in a unanimous EU view.
The transatlantic row will continue.
But in the name of Blair and Berlusconi the EU capitulation to the Bush
government has begun in the small print."
"Political Dwarves"
Center-right Stuttgarter Zeitung (1/10)
had this to say: "What is considered a
rule of law in a democratic state, equality before the law, is now being
relinquished in the international arena by the Europeans and by all those who
will conclude a special agreement with the United States. We must fear that this will have consequences
not only for the reputation of the Europeans, who again proofed to be political
dwarves, but, unfortunately, also for the credibility of the IC and the still
inadequate international law."
ITALY: "ICC: EU- U.S. Agreement"
Alberto Pasolini Zanelli reported from Washington in
pro-government, leading center-right Il Giornale (10/1): "A sad, obvious, unavoidable victory of good
sense.... Europe has practically decided
to forget its dream...of becoming the backbone of an international criminal
court of war crimes. It did not announce
it, nor did it raise its white flag, but this is the substance of the
agreement.... As the U.S. military
preparations for the war against Iraq are hastening, and the dispute between
the two sides of the Atlantic mounts, European unity is also eroding. Great Britain, Italy and Spain broke the ice,
but it was clear that many others were going to follow their example."
"European Compromise On The Criminal
Court"
Adriana Cerretelli reported from Brussels in
leading business-oriented Il Sole 24 Ore (10/1): "Despite American pressures, from a
formal point of view Europe was not divided on the ICC. It maintained its position. In practice, it did not divide itself, simply
authorizing its member states to strike separate deals with the United States,
providing they respect a series of common rules. This compromise, which was reached yesterday
in Brussels by the Foreign Affairs Ministers, is a masterpiece of ambiguity
which allows the 15 to say that their unity has been preserved while taking
U.S. concerns into account."
RUSSIA: "U.S. Prevails
Over Europe"
Georgiy Bovt held on page one of reformist Izvestiya
(10/2): "Whatever little hope there
was that Europe would firmly stand up to a U.S. military operation--regardless
of who authorizes it, the UN or U.S. Congress--must have been dashed, as the
foreign ministers of EU countries yesterday, without much ado, ended a slack
tug-of-war with the United States. The
Americans prevailed. The EU allowed its
members, individually, to agree with America on immunity for its servicemen and
officials to ICC. This move is glaringly
at variance with one of the EU's fundamental rules that all its major decisions
need to be made on the basis of a consensus.
Obviously, it has been made with an eye to the upcoming war on Saddam
Hussein."
AUSTRIA:
"EU Immune Deficiency"
Senior editor Jörg Wojahn stated in liberal daily Der Standard
(10/1): "With their attempt at
arriving at a common position regarding the ICC, the EU members will not
strengthen the Criminal Court, but end up playing into the hands of the
Washington unilateralists. It looks like
the European Union as a whole is no longer unanimously supporting the ICC's
jurisdiction. Apparently, they have
become the victims of a certain immune deficiency. At the ministerial in Denmark a slight change
in EU phraseology began to take shape.
The current motto is that the EU will examine each and every bilateral
agreement and then decide whether it's compatible with the ICC statute."
BELGIUM:
"Divided, The Fifteen Give In On The ICC"
Hague correspondent Jean-Jacques Frank reported
in left-of-center Le Soir (10/1):
"The Council of EU Foreign Ministers which was gathered in Brussels
yesterday has yielded on the International Criminal Court: Washington will be allowed to negotiate a
conditional impunity with EU member countries.... The credibility of the ICC had to be
preserved, knowing that the dynamics has started and that it will not stop,
rather than running the risk of jeopardizing this Court. This is how Louis Michel defended the
agreement reached at the Council of EU Foreign Ministers yesterday.... 'One cannot overlook the fact that the United
States is militarily much more involved in the world than others. One needs a minimum of understanding,' Louis
Michel pleaded. But he added: 'I
seriously doubt that Belgium will sign a bilateral agreement with the United
States.'"
HUNGARY:
"The Invasion Of The Hague"
Renowned sociologist Csaba Gombar opined in liberal weekly 168ORA,
usually noted for its pro-American sympathies (9/19): "Blocking of the operation of the
International Criminal Court could hardly be described as other than a prestige
issue [for the United States].... In
this sense, it is the scandal of globalization.
'You be open, you do not lock yourselves behind your primitive state
borders. My sovereignty, however, is
inviolable. My word is the law',
Washington now says."
NETHERLANDS:
"Meager Triumph"
Influential liberal DeVolkskrant opined (10/2): "The European Union created room for
individual countries to sign bilateral agreements with the United
States.... Some European ministers
welcomed the compromise as a triumph.
After all, European unity has been maintained... but what is the price
paid for this unity?... The conditions
set provide that the bilateral agreements should not conflict with the ICC
statutes.... There is nothing wrong with
the conditions. Nothing should be done
to affect the statutes. But still, or
rather, particularly that is why one should regret the fact that the option for
bilateral agreements was created. The EU
said that the integrity of the ICC should be maintained. But why are the agreements necessary?... The European Union sets the wrong
example. Other countries will now feel
they can sign bilateral agreements too...before the ICC could start operating,
it is already threatened to be undermined."
"U.S. Makes Europe Look Like A Fool"
Left-of-center Trouw had this front-page editorial
(10/2): "Compare it to a super
powerful company which puts the smaller companies within the same sector under
pressure to violate the laws concerning unfair competition, and you have the
right picture for what the Americans have done to the European Union concerning
the ICC.... This past weekend it became
clear that the Americans have been successful... important countries such as
the UK and Italy are considering signing individual agreements with the
U.S. They simply claim that such an
agreement would not affect the authority and jurisdiction of the Court at
all.... That is nonsense. Because what is the value of such a Criminal
Court if individual countries commit themselves to the U.S. that they will put
aside possible ICC requests? Nothing, of
course.... One would hope that England
and Italy would not give in to the near-blackmail of the Americans. Being the host country, the Netherlands
cannot afford to give in--and will fortunately not do so, Minister De Hoop
Scheffer has assured us. The most
amazing thing is that the Americans are playing the ICC issue very hard now
that they need the NATO allies which means also the EU. Tensions about a possible attack on Iraq are
increasing. One would expect that under
these circumstances, the U.S. would have all interest in working together with
its allies on one line. But that does
not seem to be the case. In the ICC
issue as well as in the Iraq issue, the U.S. is making its own plans as it does
in many other cases. This is not a good
sign for the future."
POLAND:
"In A Trap"
Dawid Warszawski opined in liberal Gazeta
Wyborcza (9/18): "Ambassador for
human rights David Scheffer suggested the establishment of a special tribunal
that would be able to try Saddam Hussein and his aides in the future.... But why should a special tribunal be
needed? The Rome Treaty that took effect
on July 1 provides for the establishment of the International Criminal Court to
try persons such as Milosevic or Hussein....
Hussein's trial would make a perfect start for this tribunal. The point is that the Americans do not want
the ICC and are sabotaging it in every way possible.as they demand that U.S.
citizens should be exempted from the jurisdiction of the ICC."
PORTUGAL:
"America And The ICC"
Deputy editor-in-chief António Ribeiro Ferreira penned this in
respected center-left daily Diário de Notícias (10/2): "The Bush Administration is not disposed
to become the object of some irresponsible action simply because, for example,
it attacked the Taliban regime following the barbarity of September 11.... More than this, it does not wish to be
dependent upon the more-than-questionable decisions of a group of states
incapable of not only defending themselves, but of attacking the regimes that
put those much-discussed human rights at risk.
Like it or not, the U.S. is the only power capable of bringing a little
order into the world.... The agitation
stirred by the agreement of the [EU] Fifteen contains, in addition, the usual
dose of anti-Americanism, which shows up...on any other issue where Washington
does not line up with the always politically correct positions of the European
Union....
"As is well known, the United States is a democracy that
needs no lessons from anyone on many subjects, including justice.... Let the agitated types go ahead now and push
the usual folklore, with petitions, human chains and lots of wailing on what
passes for the media. The truth is that
no ICC is as important as a strong
America."
"Those Who Can, Rule"
In his daily column in respected center-left daily Diário de
Notícias, former PSD (center-right) finance minister Francisco Sarsfield
Cabral opined (10/2): "The
concession by the countries of the European Union on the question of the
International Criminal Court was predictable.... Once the Europeans refused to spend money on
defense, they ceased to be credible partners of the U.S., becoming lesser
figures on the international scene....
This is a probably fatal stroke for the ICC. It is a blow to efforts to create a minimum
of international justice worthy of the name....
But victors' tribunals are what the Bush Administration likes.... The border between justice and vengeance is
becoming very tenuous.... It wasn't
always like this, but the American leaders are not facing in that direction now. Those who can, rule."
"Capitulation"
In an op-ed in influential moderate-left daily Público,
Marxist historian and Left Bloc Party politician Fernando Rosas railed
(10/2): "The Bush Administration's
campaign of threats and blackmail, developed with an arrogance and
shamelessness without precedent in recent history, has not only worked with the
defenseless governments of small countries.
This Europe, proud of being the fortress of human rights and
international law, collapsed like a fragile house of cards when faced with the
American pressures spearheaded by the Blairs, the Berlusconis and the Aznars,
the new carrier pigeons of the Empire.
Any way you look at it, this is a dramatic decision for Europe, for
Europeans and especially for the EU....
The U.S.' new imperial doctrine of legitimizing 'preventive wars' has
been strengthened by the hand of the EU with this guarantee of international
penal impunity: a kind of advance writ of absolution for crimes committed by
the U.S.' new crusade 'against terrorism', which is to say, against anyone they
want."
"Tribulations Of The ICC"
Left-wing University of Coimbra law professor
Vital Moreira vituperated in influential, moderate-left Público
(10/1): "The ICC's fate is being
strongly threatened by the campaign of the United States to obtain immunity for
its nationals.... If the states that
ratified the ICC agree to this privilege for the Americans, violating an
elementary principle of equality and non-recognition of special privileges,
with what legitimacy will they then judge or send to The Hague citizens of
other nationalities accused of these crimes (including their own
nationals)?... If European capitulation
to United States' blackmail is confirmed, we will be faced with yet another
shameful concession on questions of principle, one that not only calls into
question the strong EU position of support for the ICC since the very
beginning, but also the treaty obligations of all states that ratified the
Statute of Rome."
ROMANIA:
"EU Has Complicated Situation"
Political analyst Raluca Rotaru Stefan commented
in the opposition daily Romania Libera (9/5): "The dispute between the two parties [the EU
and the United States] is thus reduced to the old problem: the Union, an economic giant, lacks the
necessary force to make joint foreign policy decisions, as it happened in many
cases. The Union is very united when it
criticizes something, but it has problems when it tries to propose a positive
solution. The 'angry' reaction of the EU
and it's 'divide et impera' [divide and rule] type of attitude has so far only
led to a dilemma for the candidate countries to the two organizations [EU and
NATO], making them feel 'between a hammer and an anvil.' Therefore, so far, instead of proposing a
solution, the EU has managed to complicate the whole situation."
SPAIN:
"A European Swipe At The ICC"
Independent El Mundo declared
(10/1): "The EU came to an
agreement yesterday which gravely weakens the recently created ICC.... In practice it may kill the spirit with which
the law was created: that no war crime can stand with impunity.... Even though the favor that the EU makes to
Bush is huge, for the U.S. it seems nothing.
The U.S. believes the court affects all its citizens and wants to reject
the accord."
"The EU Genuflects To The U.S."
Conservative ABC stated (10/1): "Without a doubt the U.S. had sufficient
safeguards to ratify the ICC without fear that its citizens would by submitted
to politically motivated campaigns of defamation. Perhaps in practical terms the functioning of
the Tribunal will not feel the effects, but it will act from a position of
weakened authority because of being torpedoed by the U.S. The world leader has refused to set an
example by refusing to submit itself without conditions to an impeccable
historical project which unites the values that the U.S. says it defends."
SWEDEN: "Say No To
Bush"
Stockholm's Social Democratic tabloid Aftonbladet
editorialized (8/30): "The U.S.
has, ever since George Bush became President, tried to, by the use of heavy
pressure, make governments of other countries give American soldiers and
citizens immunity against trial before the ICC.... The conflict over the ICC is all about the
decisive issue on the right of the international community to uphold human
rights, and make it possible to overrule the national sovereignty that until
now has protected dictators and oppressive systems. The EU must dare to
challenge the U.S. monopoly of power. The Union has the support of
international legal experts who have declared unlawful the U.S. attempts to sign
bilateral agreements with countries that have signed the ICC agreement.... The EU must stick to international law, even
when the U.S. says no."
TURKEY: "Europeans Bowed to
America"
Izzet Sedes argued in mass appeal Aksam (10/2): "The privileges given to American
peacekeeping troops as well as diplomats clearly show that the European Union
has bowed to U.S. demands on the ICC issue.
The only fact is that EU did not accept all of the U.S. conditions
regarding the ICC, which prevented all U.S. citizens from acquiring immunity
from ICC mandate. However, there is not
enough clarity on how the U.S. citizens will be tried at home when they commit
crimes within the ICC jurisdiction. It
is unknown yet what would happen if Washington declines to accept the ICC
authority."
EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC
AUSTRALIA: "Canberra
Correct To Back Washington Against Global Court"
An op-ed in
the national conservative Australian by foreign editor Greg Sheridan
stated (9/1): "We have told the
Americans we are quite happy to make such an agreement [not to hand one
another's citizens over to the ICC], and it should emerge within weeks rather
than months.... The Howard Government is
absolutely right to take this decision.
It is right in principle and right for practical reasons.... By being among the first to act Australia
will show leadership and give comfort to other nations about to join in to help
keep the key stabilizing factor in the international system--the U.S. security
role--functioning. Of course the very
fact that the U.S. has made such a fuss means it is much less likely the ICC
will engage in politicized prosecutions.
Canberra was wrong to join the ICC.
But by negotiating a reciprocal agreement with the U.S. it will
contribute to finding a workable way forward."
"American
Money Talks And Uncle Sam Walks"
Former
Washington correspondent Cameron Stewart wrote in national conservative Australian
(8/31): "Since September 11,
international law has been molded, reinterpreted and--at times--brazenly
ignored to prosecute the war on terror.
The U.S. and Australia insist that there is nothing cheeky, much less
illegal, about signing a side deal to protect the other's nationals from the
ICC. They argue that Article 98 of the
ICC statute allows for such deals....
Regardless of who is right, the ICC affair is further proof that when it
comes to the war on terror, the new vision of global justice is squarely in the
eye of the beholder."
PHILIPPINES:
"Unbelievable"
Columnist Marit Stinus-Remonde wrote in the independent Manila
Times (9/20): "President Bush
is opposed to the creation of the ICC because he reportedly doesn't want
Americans to be held accountable for the atrocities they may commit in a war in
some foreign land.... Knowing America's
history of democracy, justice and freedom, it is unbelievable that America
would be afraid to facing up to and taking responsibility for possible crimes
committed by its citizens.... The
Philippines is hesitant to ratify the Rome Statute. Of course, the country's political, economic
and social weaknesses make us susceptible to U.S. pressure. However, this should not preclude the
nation's leaders--and citizens--from discussing the ICC...and its potential
role in promoting peace and justice."
WESTERN HEMISPHERE
CANADA: "EU Grants
Americans Immunity From War Crimes Prosecution"
Steven Edwards wrote in the conservative National Post
(10/1): "Canada is under pressure to
match a controversial European Union ruling yesterday that allows member states
to offer U.S. troops and officials limited immunity from the new international
war crimes court. Supporters of the
International Criminal Court say the ruling leaves Canada largely isolated
among Western nations in opposing U.S. efforts to place its citizens beyond the
reach of the tribunal. U.S. officials
are now expected to demand that Canada follow the European compromise, which
accepts Washington's pledge that Americans accused of war crimes will be
prosecuted in U.S. courts. But adopting
a similar position will be difficult for Bill Graham, the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, who made a special appearance at the United Nations on Sept. 9 to slam
the United States for its "ad hoc and often unilateral pursuit" of
international justice. The Department of
Foreign Affairs yesterday refused to comment on the European compromise, saying
it must be studied first. "[Foreign
office officials] were not particularly keen on the idea [of granting
immunity]," said one source close to the Canadian officials trying to decide
the issue. "But they may go back and propose changes."
COLOMBIA:
"Justice Or Peace"
Op-ed by military affairs expert Alfredo Rangel in El Tiempo
(9/13) entitled: "The members of
the late (insurgency) groups M-19, EPL, PRT CRS, and Quintin Lame received
amnesty.... The price for peace is
impunity. If critics of Colombia's
decision (to exempt people who commit crimes in Colombia from ICC jurisdiction)
were consistent, they would publicly express disagreement with the
aforementioned amnesty.... Amnesty
is...unjust in a just cause....
Regardless of the commendable goals the ICC has, perhaps Colombia should
have agreed to ICC only after reaching peace.... Now our sovereignty and our (chances of)
achieving internal peace could be affected by a defense of universal justice."
##
