Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kumar who wrote (4678)	2/26/2003 9:04:55 AM
From: zonder	Respond to of 15987

I said "something similar..." Indeed, you did. Sorry about that. In the current situation neither defendant nor plaintiff are US citizens, so I dont understand why ICC is not approached. Can a court be really "universally accepted" in the way you (and I) wish it to be if the US denies the authority of the court? Last I heard ICC agreed for immunity to US citizens on the basis that US constitution has the mechanisms to determine a process to try an accused person(s). I don't think so. This is the last on the subject: During the speech and subsequent questions answered by Ambassador for War Crimes Issues Pierre Prosper, the administration asserted that it would respect the decision of nations that have chosen to join the ICC; seek agreements from such nations exempting US personnel from the Court's jurisdiction; and not attack, seek to undermine, or wage war on the Court. Prosper also made it clear that the Court should not expect the US to cooperate in any way. iccnow.org Here's the Q&A session that follows his speech: Q Good afternoon, Ambassador. My name is Paul Koring. I'm with the Globe and Mail of Canada. I realize hypotheticals are always difficult, but I'm trying to understand the degree to which Washington intends to have nothing to do with the ICC. In some of the ad hoc tribunals on war crimes, Washington and U.S. service personnel have been instrumental in providing either documents, evidence or witness testimony against those charged, both with respect to the Balkans and in Africa. What would happen, for instance, if a third-party national brought before the ICC and the case rested, or rested in part on evidence gathered by either U.S. service personnel or the U.S. government; will you have nothing to do with this, even, for instance, in terms of the provision of witnesses and evidence? Thank you. AMB. PROSPER: I believe he ICC should not expect any support or cooperation from the United States government. If the prosecutor of the ICC seeks to build a case against an individual, the prosecutor should build the case on his or her own effort and not be dependent or reliant upon U.S. information or cooperation. We have detached ourself from the process; we have divorced ourself from the process and do not intend to contribute in that regard. Q Anne Toulouse with Radio France Internationale. Could you explain why technically you had to withdraw from the treaty instead of simply not ratifying it? AMB. PROSPER: Yeah. What we did today is, we made our intention clear to the United Nations as its depository. Under the treaty law, if you will, when one is a signatory, the person, they -- the state commits to not taking actions that would be designed to defeat the object and the purpose of the treaty. We, in order to maintain our flexibility -- not only to protect our interests but to pursue alternative judicial mechanisms -- decided to make clear that we will not be part of this treaty and thus be able to take different approaches that may be different to the object and purpose the ICC treaty. And in short, what we have now is flexibility -- not only to protect our interests in U.S. service personnel but to look elsewhere, to take alternative approaches to attack this problem. wfa.org