When the war started, I expected someone to call on to Belgium's courts' declared universal competence for war crimes, crimes against mankind, etc. and try to sue Bush the way it happened to Sharon and to a variety of people involved in the Rwanda genocide.
I wondered how it was going to happen. Well, instead of waiting for something to go wrong in this war, people quite simply picked stuff from Oil War One, and are consequently sueing Bush Sr., Powell, Cheney, and Schwartzkopf[Le Monde, fr(eedom)] for the bombing of a shelter that killed 403 civilians.
I guess there will be political pressure for it not to be instructed, but I was surprised it happened this quick. Belgium is, after all, where NATO resides :)
How can anyone not see both these new charges and the charges against Sharon as being anything other than political?
Those in the US that resist signing on to the ICC treaty have been completely vindicated, in my opinion.
Someone is just now suggesting that Bush Sr., Powell, Schwartzkopf are guilty of war crimes now, after 12 years? How can anyone not see the timing as political?
Similarly, there is nobody who denies that the Sabra and Shatilla massacres were actually carried out by Lebanese Christian Militias. Are there any charges against any of these people? Here's an article that lays this obvious hypocrisy better than I could.
How about some charges against Syrian leaders for their massacres of their own people and Christians in Lebanon?
Where are the charges against the Jordanian leaders who were responsible for the Black September Massacres of Palestinians?
Re:So much for non-politicized War Crimes Courts
darobin on 2003-03-22T22:21:37
The fact that people will press charges has nothing to do with the court itself. Once charges have been pressed, it is up to the court to see if it will instruct. I hardly find the fact that people will try to use the court for political motives surprising, and fail to see how that affects the ICC. Any court will have people come to it for a variety of reasons, some good some bad. It doesn't impact the fact that a court may or may not be a good idea. It also seems quite logical to me that crimes of very high gravity are not limited by frontier -- they concern us all -- even though I disagree with part of how Belgium has been doing it.
I am not aware of all the charges the court has examined, some of those you suggest may have been submitted or may be currently explored. You are perfectly free to raise the court's attention on some of them. It proved quite efficient for Rwanda.
Re:So much for non-politicized War Crimes Courts
jordan on 2003-03-23T00:29:24
Many people see the Belgium statute a trial run for the ICC. A three judge panel in Belgium certified the charges against Sharon recently, so it's gone beyond the state of just bringing the charges.
The ICC is, or will be, an unaccountable institution that could be used for political punishment. It's clear that people will try to use it for that, based on the example of Belgium. Courts in the US have various checks on their powers to protect against tyranny.
I hope the US will continue to insist that Americans be subject to justice that has checks on its powers.
- You are perfectly free to raise the court's attention on some of them. It proved quite efficient for Rwanda.
Yes, it proved 'efficient' for Rwanda. After the UN failed to act, even after extensive pleading and in the face of mass genocide, we only have this court to try and pick up the pieces. Is there any wonder Americans are leary of these "just" International Institutions?
Re:So much for non-politicized War Crimes Courts
darobin on 2003-03-23T01:33:36
The Belgium statute has nothing of a trial run for the ICC. It works according to belgian rules exclusively, which are subject to control from Belgium only. As notes in my previous comment, I am not totally in agreement with their choices, if only because Belgium's legal system has a number of loopholes.
The fact that the charges against Sharon have been certified means that the judges consider there are reasons to investigate. Sharon remains presumed innocent, and it doesn't make other possible criminals involved in the same or similar actions innocent either.
International Institutions are imperfect, that's hardly shocking news. Do you really want to enter a discussion of why the rest of the world is leery of "just" American Interventions?
Re:So much for non-politicized War Crimes Courts
jordan on 2003-03-23T02:26:21
- The Belgium statute has nothing of a trial run for the ICC.
Many people view the Belgium statute as a model for how the ICC would operate.
- Sharon remains presumed innocent, and it doesn't make other possible criminals involved in the same or similar actions innocent either.
Somehow, there's no prosecutor who wants to go after the real villains in Sharon's incident. Justice isn't just courts, even handed prosecutors are also required. I suppose I could point out these villains to the Belgium court, but I wouldn't presume to dredge up this 20 year old case now, but somehow someone suddenly felt it was necessary to do so against Sharon.
- Do you really want to enter a discussion of why the rest of the world is leery of "just" American Interventions?
Not really. I will note that most of Europe applauds American assistance in Kosovo, without UN sanction. Nobody really questioned French Intervention in the Ivory Coast, which seems to have left a terrible mess of things, without UN sanction.
Everybody pretty much ignores International Institutions when it fits their own needs. I'm fine with the fact that the 'rest of the world' ( an exaggeration, but I suppose France think they speak for The World now) are leary of "just" American Interventions and I'll remain leary of "just" International Institutions.
Re:So much for non-politicized War Crimes Courts
darobin on 2003-03-24T10:25:23
There are reasons why Kosovo was different, and one of them is that the Clinton administration never said they would take over and administrate the country, and use it for US companies to make money. Giving the opposition 30 million dollars is also a better way to get democracy.
The Kosovo intervention was very very far from perfect though. You may wish to remember that at one point the Russians openly threatened to attack the Americans, and started moving troops in that direction. That the US bombed the Chinese embassy and used fragmentation bombs in civilian areas, killing many innocents. All this participates in the fact that a large part of the european public would like to see such interventions under sane control. With simple rules, such as "no fragmentation bombs on civilians". Everyone wants Saddam out, but very few trust W to do it with sanity. I wish it goes well, I just have very little hope.
The Ivory Coast governement asked France to intervene. This is very different from invading a country (there are co-defense agreements). France had UN blessing and backing from the international community, notably neighbouring countries and the US. The country is still politically unstable, but much of the early warring has been put under control. We are far from a solution, but I think that the peace-keeping forces present on site -- because that's what they are, they're not a colonial army -- are helping.
By the rest of the world I didn't mean France, I meant much of Europe, much of Asia, and most of Africa, the Middle-East, and South America. I'm probably forgetting some.
Re:So much for non-politicized War Crimes Courts
jordan on 2003-03-24T17:18:14
- Clinton administration never said they would take over and administrate the country, and use it for US companies to make money.
The Bush administration said they would take over Iraq and use it for US companies to make money? I don't recall that announcement. Please don't confuse your hysterical rhetoric for facts.
So, basically, you are saying that UN sanction is only necessary when it's for a good cause? I don't know who would determine whether it is a good cause or not.
Now, here's a question. Why did NATO not try to get UN backing for the Kosovo mission? Because Russia would certainly have vetoed.
Similarly, France can hold up the action against Iraq, even after signing on to Serious Consequences for Iraq for non-compliance and not doing anything. I would hope that France and Russia would, at the very least, abstain due to obvious conflicts of interest, but...
- The Ivory Coast governement asked France to intervene.
From what I was given to understand, the Ivory Coast Government didn't request assistance until after the French troops arrived.
Now, I understand that the Ivory Coast Government resents the peace that is being forced on them. I would think that if you asked for assistance, you could also ask for that assistance to leave, but perhaps not...
- By the rest of the world I didn't mean France, I meant much of Europe, much of Asia, and most of Africa, the Middle-East, and South America. I'm probably forgetting some.
'much of Europe'. Well, most of Europe was in support of US help in Kosovo. The UN and the 'rest of the world' seem to want the US to handle the North Korean mess, where the UN approach of inspections left such a mess of things. The whole UN Security council, including Syria, signed on for Resolution 1441.
As I said, they are sometimes leary of US Institutions and sometimes not. It depends if they see it in their immediate best interest.
Re:So much for non-politicized War Crimes Courts
darobin on 2003-03-24T18:09:07
I would be suspicious of "intelligence reports" that filtrate to the press at the exact right time, but anyway it has been a well known fact for ages that there are very high-profile weapon smugglers smuggling French weapons. They've been at it for years, some are probably French, some probably are not. A few years ago some of their leaders were caught but obviously there is enough money in that business that the network probably survived. As far as I'm aware, similar problems have occured in all major weapon-producing countries, and the French government and secret services seem to have been doing an honest job at stopping this. I can't comment on Russia as I am as yet insufficiently documented on that.
All the stuff about so-called conflicting interests is propaganda, to call it something polite.
What you call my "hysterical rhetoric" is based on the fact that US Army engineers are already talking with US oil biggies about who will get oil contracts, without asking anything to even their allies (source: LA Times). In the same time frame Grossman, of the W administration, has made profuse comments on who will control various things in Iraq, but refuse to answer regarding oil and construction, which is suspicious. London is working on two UN resolutions the prevent that, and it has caused some diplomatic turmoil between the two countries.
As for the "take over" part, I don't believe you can be indoctrinated to the point that you are not aware that the US are pushing for Pentagon administration -- the Pentagon itself thought it suboptimal.
I fail to see how you reach your "good cause" argument, it doesn't seem to relate to something I've said.
Russia would not have vetoed the Kosovan war, they said so themselves. They were part of the negotiations to attack since day one, and they agreed on the principle. No one was stupid enough to think that it could be done without Russian agreement, UN veto or not. What they strongly objected to were American methods, which were causing way too much collateral damage. The point where they threatened to attack was when the Chinese embassy was blown up by three missiles coming from different directions (ie, not a guiding system problem but a deliberate hit at that position even if not at that building).
Serious Consequences isn't listed as a synonym in my thesaurus. Maybe I need an American thesaurus.
The French troops were pretty much already there before the crisis, IIRC much if not all of them are permanently stationned (France has close defense links with the Ivory Coast). They assisted civilians that were evacuating before being called for help, but only deployed as a peace-keeping force afterwards. At no time were they in breech of existing agreements with Ivory Coast.
The current Ivorian government isn't the same one that asked for help, it's a national coalition more or less trying to keep the country stable. Some there resent the French, others don't. Most of the time it depends on whether they're happy with the outcome of the Marcoussis negotiations or if they think that continuing the war would have brought them more.
I don't think the rest of the world wants the US to handle the NK issues, certainly not the way it's handled Iraq.
Your "best interest" argument is specious, and about as fertile as a "why Iraq and not (endless list of possibly dangerous countries)?"
Re:So much for non-politicized War Crimes Courts
jordan on 2003-03-25T00:02:44
- I would be suspicious of "intelligence reports" that filtrate to the press at the exact right time, but anyway it has been a well known fact for ages that there are very high-profile weapon smugglers smuggling French weapons. They've been at it for years, some are probably French, some probably are not. A few years ago some of their leaders were caught but obviously there is enough money in that business that the network probably survived. As far as I'm aware, similar problems have occured in all major weapon-producing countries, and the French government and secret services seem to have been doing an honest job at stopping this. I can't comment on Russia as I am as yet insufficiently documented on that.
I suppose it is going too far suggesting a conflict of interest and knowing French involvement here.
However, I believe it is unusual to be able to smuggle aircraft parts so easily. After all, the countries Military and Intelligence apparatus' do know who have their aircraft. It's a simple matter to follow up on these sales to make sure they are used in places that are not banned, especially so close to the outbreak of a major War.
A careless attitude toward this sort of thing is suggested.
- What you call my "hysterical rhetoric" is based on the fact that US Army engineers are already talking with US oil biggies about who will get oil contracts, without asking anything to even their allies (source: LA Times). In the same time frame Grossman, of the W administration, has made profuse comments on who will control various things in Iraq, but refuse to answer regarding oil and construction, which is suspicious. London is working on two UN resolutions the prevent that, and it has caused some diplomatic turmoil between the two countries.
As for the "take over" part, I don't believe you can be indoctrinated to the point that you are not aware that the US are pushing for Pentagon administration -- the Pentagon itself thought it suboptimal.
This is all long on innuendo and short on facts. An alternate explanation is that the US will use the Iraqi oil money for rebuilding of Iraq itself. This position is not very popular in some parts of the world who feel that the Allies should pay for the rebuilding, not unlike Americans paid for rebuilding Europe after WWII. This can hardly be done while honoring things like the very favorable contracts for TotalElfFina signed personally with Saddam Hussein.
If you are right, that the Americans will just be stealing the Iraqi oil, then we'll all see it and I'll stand up and complain bitterly with you.
Personally, I don't know how you can interpret the TotalElfFina contracts as anything but stealing Iraqi oil. Just a coincidence that France had it's Security Council veto to use in exchange, I suppose.
- I fail to see how you reach your "good cause" argument, it doesn't seem to relate to something I've said.
Elsewhere you have said this War was completely illegitimate because it did not have UN SC Sanction. That makes most Wars similarly illegitamate, but nobody seems to notice there.
You seemed to be developing some exceptions based on whether it was a "good cause" such as Kosovo.
- Serious Consequences isn't listed as a synonym in my thesaurus. Maybe I need an American thesaurus.
Come on, your English is excellent. What would you think Serious Consequences might mean and how had the UN exercised them as required by Resolution 1441?
- I don't think the rest of the world wants the US to handle the NK issues, certainly not the way it's handled Iraq.
The UN and East Asian regional interests have asked the US to enter into direct talks with North Korea. And, the US has pledged to no unilateral attacks on North Korea.
- Your "best interest" argument is specious...
Be more specific. I pointed out how 'the rest of the world' that you say is so leary of US Institutions often works with them, when it suits their interest. I can and have argued at length the "why Iraq and not (endless list of possibly dangerous countries)" argument, so that needs no elaboration.
Re:So much for non-politicized War Crimes Courts
prakash on 2003-03-26T17:46:29
Washington Post reports on March 11th: Companies Selected to Bid on Iraq ReconstructionThe Bush administration said they would take over Iraq and use it for US companies to make money? I don't recall that announcement.Not exactly an official announcement though, if that's what you are looking for.
/prakash
