SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Ilaine who wrote (35976)8/5/2002 12:52:27 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Americans respond to hunger, but injustice?

By MARY MCGRORY
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST
Monday, August 5, 2002

WASHINGTON -- It isn't every day we hear that doing right means also doing well in politics. But the Alliance to End World Hunger has brought us just such a message in the form of a poll showing that Americans care deeply that some of their countrymen are hungry and that others around the world are starving, and that they will vote for candidates who agree with them.

Three political consultants, Democrats Bill Knapp and Tom Freedman and Republican Jim McLaughlin, conducted a survey of more than 1,000 likely voters to find out the good news. The poll was commissioned by David Beckman, president of Bread for the World, an organization that takes the position that no one should go hungry.

Surprisingly, 92.7 percent of the voters considered fighting hunger "an important issue," and 48.5 percent said it was "very important," meaning they would vote on it.

The figures are reassuring at a time when isolationism, known currently as "unilateralism," is making a comeback. The United States is busy emphasizing its uniqueness. President Bush has been vehemently opposing an International Criminal Court despite the fact that his fellow Americans think well of the United Nations. Sixty-nine percent declare "positive impressions."

The pollsters provide a good profile of kind-hearted and pragmatic Americans. They want to feed the hungry at home and abroad because, as 59.14 percent put it, "It is the moral and right thing to do." They do not want to be merely bleeding hearts, but want to show the needy how to help themselves by learning better farming.

Americans think that a combination of government and non-governmental agencies works best in delivering the food where it is needed most. They also feel that the United Nations does a better job than we do in famine relief.

Beckman organized a coalition of 26 "international partners" to participate in the project. His purpose? "To move the issue of hunger from the church basement to the White House."

He had a hunch about the potential political nourishment lurking in the hunger problem, but he was agreeably startled by its robust margins.

Beckman thinks that American attitudes toward foreign aid -- once the "rat hole" of rabid right-wing rhetoric -- have shifted markedly since Sept. 11. "They have been thinking again about what is really important."

If world hunger has made a significant penetration in the U.S. conscience, international law is a loser. A proposal for an International Criminal Court went down by a vote of 75 to 19 in the Senate. The Bush administration has been merrily demagoging the issue since May 6, when our ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, formally withdrew from the treaty.

Bill Clinton, in the face of much flak from the Pentagon, had reluctantly signed the treaty on his last day in office, while noting its flaws.

George Bush, made aware of right-wing opposition, announced with satisfaction that he was "de-signing" the treaty, which had the ardent support of our European allies, particularly Great Britain. Our neighbor to the north, Canada, is equally keen.

While both those staunch allies have been too polite to say so out loud, they have conveyed their disappointment in our stance that American servicemen just doing their duty would be at the mercy of villainous international shysters seeking to take out their resentment and envy of the world's only superpower by railroading our GIs into jail.

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., made an impassioned plea before the Senate Appropriations Committee for us to join the rest of the world in extending the rule of law. "Finally, the world stands up. We have been begging to do it for half a century. Any individual who commits genocide or crimes against humanity will be on notice that they will be prosecuted for those crimes."

But Bush was adamant. The United States was different, special -- not like any other nation on Earth. We would withdraw our soldiers from peacekeeping in Bosnia -- and elsewhere -- if the U.N. Security Council failed to take note of our difference. The Security Council gave in. For one year, we were not like anyone else.

President Bush got a big cheer from soldiers at Fort Drum when he gloated that he had saved "our military from international courts and committees with agendas of their own." Dodd pleaded with his colleagues to take up the cause of extending the rule of law. He begged Republicans to "be a Vandenberg" -- that is, follow the Michigan Republican who helped Harry Truman devise the Marshall Plan while World War II wounds were still open. He got nowhere.

The United States will give strangers tons of wheat, but those hungry for justice may have to wait longer. We won't give up an ounce of our sovereignty.

--------------------------------------------------

Mary McGrory is a columnist with The Washington Post. Copyright 2002 The Washington Post.

seattlepi.nwsource.com



To: Ilaine who wrote (35976)8/5/2002 1:03:25 PM
From: Karen Lawrence  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Actually, the US no longer wants to be held accountable for its "war crimes".
from the June 28, 2002 edition of the Christian Science Monitor.

GUN CRUSH: NATO-led peacekeeping troops in Bosnia destroy weapons collected from locals. US wants its troops in Bosnia granted immunity from a new criminal court.
AMEL EMRIC/AP



US balks at new war-crimes court

A war-crimes court starts Monday, to the chagrin of Washington, which wants US troops exempt.

PARIS – The United States is fighting a fierce last-ditch battle against the world's first permanent war-crimes court, threatening the future of United Nations peacekeeping missions in the Balkans and elsewhere, according to UN diplomats.
With the International Criminal Court (ICC) set to become a reality on Monday, US diplomats are waging a lone campaign to keep US peacekeeping troops beyond its reach.

They have run up against strong opposition from their European allies on the UN Security Council, who say Washington's proposals would weaken the court.

The "collective EU (European Union) position ... is clear not just on the maintenance, but also on the promotion of the court and all it stands for," British ambassador to the UN Jeremy Greenstock said earlier this week.

US deputy ambassador Richard Williamson, however, warned when he introduced a resolution seeking immunity from the court for peacekeepers that "the whole spectrum of United Nations peacekeeping operations will have to be reviewed if we are unsuccessful at getting the protections we demand."

Most immediately at risk is the UN peacekeeping mission in Bosnia, whose Security Council mandate runs out on Sunday. US negotiators are threatening to veto a renewal of the mandate unless their personnel in Bosnia are given immunity from the ICC.

More broadly, according to a source familiar with the backroom discussions currently under way, Washington is threatening to withhold its contributions to the UN peacekeeping budget – 27 percent of the total – unless it is given satisfaction.

The Bush administration has strongly opposed the creation of the ICC, which will try cases of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Although President Clinton signed the treaty creating the court just before his term ended, Washington "unsigned" it last month, saying the United States would have nothing to do with the new institution.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said last week that the United States should be exempt from the court to avoid "political harassment that can take place unfairly, particularly when ... you are fighting the global war on terror and ... the terrorist training books are encouraging people to make those kinds of charges and allegations."

Under the ICC treaty, US soldiers could be brought before the court even if the United States is not a signatory, if the alleged crime were committed on the territory of an ICC member. Sixty-nine countries have so far ratified the treaty.

Supporters of the court, including all of Washington's European allies, say that US troops serving abroad have no reason to fear the ICC, since it will hear only cases that the accused person's home government has refused to try in a reasonable manner.

"In practical terms, it wouldn't make a huge difference, but it is considerably magnified through a certain political lens," says one European Security Council diplomat. "It is hard to imagine how UN personnel could ever be involved in the sort of crimes that the ICC will try, such as genocide," the diplomat adds. "And because the ICC will hear cases only if national governments refuse to prosecute them," the Americans are 99.9 percent protected anyway," she says. "They are knocking themselves out, using a lot of political capital and putting a lot of effort into getting that extra 0.1 percent."

Supporters of the ICC, however, see Washington's bid to exempt its soldiers as a further attempt to undermine the court itself. "They are trying to use the Security Council as a battering ram against the integrity of the court," argues Richard Dicker, head of the international justice program at Human Rights Watch, the New York-based human rights group.

"They are looking to punch a hole in the legitimacy of the ICC by getting the Security Council to do what the Americans couldn't do four years ago [when the treaty was negotiated]: give a 100 percent ironclad guarantee that no US citizen would ever be investigated by the court," Mr. Dicker adds.

The waters of the diplomatic battle in New York have been muddied by the revelation that Britain and other European nations providing peacekeeping troops in Afghanistan negotiated a deal last year with the interim Afghan authorities that their nationals would be immune from arrest or surrender to any international tribunal.

That appeared to open European governments to the charge of hypocrisy. European diplomats, however, point out that the ICC treaty allows for bilateral agreements, and that the Afghanistan accord requires that anyone accused of a crime be handed over to his own government. That would also be the first step in any ICC procedure.

The current wrangle at the UN is not the first time the United States has sought to win immunity from the ICC for peacekeepers: It lost a similar fight last month when the mandate of the UN mission in East Timor was extended.

Washington does not contribute many staff to UN peacekeeping operations: A total of 712 American policemen and 35 soldiers are stationed with UN missions around the world, in such places as the Kuwait–Iraqi border and Western Sahara. Nearly 8,000 US troops serve in Kosovo and Bosnia in NATO-led forces that operate with UN authorization.

The UN discussions have clouded the celebrations that ICC supporters had planned to mark the creation of the court, which they say is one of the most important human rights tools of the past half century.

"But you can't obscure the fact that on Monday the world will be different," says Dicker. "There will be less room for impunity for those responsible for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Justice will be strengthened and accountability will be reinforced."



To: Ilaine who wrote (35976)8/5/2002 5:18:22 PM
From: Suma  Respond to of 281500
 
Thank you for your reply.

I agree with you. Hate was once a word seldom used. Today it is common place. What has happened to our humanity when the hate is so fierce that one is willing to sacrifice ones life in suicide bombings. This is just so difficult to comprehend...for me. I was reared to believe that life,
people, nature, animals,were precious. This is all encompassing.... everyone. It is difficult to fully digest how hated in the world we are as Americans... I don't think our children will ever know the world as it once was and will be able to live without fear of reprisals, germ warfare, suicide bombings and hate. So very sad.

And yes, this was going on in the fifties when I spoke with service men who committed atrocities... on Koreans.
Mai Lai was to come later. Cognitively it is all explainable
but it is in the heart that it hurts...War is and indiscriminate killer ...and respects no one or anyplace.

Keep up your posts,

Suma