U.S. Bans Military Aid to Almost 50 Countries

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"Germans with delusions of grandeur"

I thought that were the French?

The French are just deluded. I wouldn't insult Germany by comparing them.

[HershOstropoler]

Ah, Monsieur Ruuumsfeeld. Now it all makes sense.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH
How strange! The US government is opposed to having a kangaroo eurocom court decide criminal matters pertaining to US citizens.

Get a grip.

So we act on this by cutting military aid to future members of NATO and the main battleground for the "war on drugs"?

Oh, how very intelligent..get a reality check.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap


So we act on this by cutting military aid to future members of NATO and the main battleground for the "war on drugs"?

Oh, how very intelligent..get a reality check.

here's some reality for you its a grand total of $48M spread across these countries

'In addition to Colombia, the following countries were declared ineligible to receive U.S. military assistance, according to a State Department announcement Tuesday night:

Africa: Benin, Central African Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Namibia, Niger, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia.
Europe: Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia.
Western Hemisphere: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Brazil, Costa Rica, Dominica, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, St. Vincent and Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela
Asia: Fiji, Samoa'

'Only about $5-million of the $600-million in this year's Colombian aid is at risk. Most of the remaining money has been already spent or was part of an anti-drug fund that is not considered military aid, even though some of the money goes to Colombian armed forces.'

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030702.wcour0702/BNStory/International/

Another liberal tempest in a teapot

[GePap]

And what about Colombia's aid NEXT year, since even the article posted makes it clear that most of Colombia's money was spent as it was for this year? That is when Washignton will have to put up or shut up, if these states have refused it.

Oh, and I am glad it is a small amount of money: this way the admin. is likely to fail in its attempts to undermine the ICJ this way.

[JCG]

Originally posted by GePap
And what about Colombia's aid NEXT year, since even the article posted makes it clear that most of Colombia's money was spent as it was for this year? That is when Washignton will have to put up or shut up, if these states have refused it.

At least in the case of Colombia, they haven't refused the US request in itself; they just consider it's already covered by a previous agreement.

Anyways, it will only be a real problem if they haven't sorted it out by the time next year's budget is decided and approved by the US Congress, which would be unlikely (unless both sides really screw themselves up).

You should be more worried about those countries that really did have profound reasons to refuse...

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap
And what about Colombia's aid NEXT year, since even the article posted makes it clear that most of Colombia's money was spent as it was for this year? That is when Washignton will have to put up or shut up, if these states have refused it.

Oh, and I am glad it is a small amount of money: this way the admin. is likely to fail in its attempts to undermine the ICJ this way.

No thats not what that article said. Of the $600M we will give to the Columbians in 2003, $130M is 'Military aid' that would be cut. Of that only $5M hasnt been spent. Next year the military (not anti-drug) aid is budgeted for $110M in a total budget of $530M.

As for undermining the ICC, I'm for anything we can do to block it. If I wanted to live under european laws I'd live there (again).

Although the ICC will try cases against individuals, not states, Mr Bush and many American congressmen fear that it will be used to bring trumped-up, politically motivated cases against American troops and even senior government officials. They say it will produce a similar but far worse situation to that produced by the law on genocide and crimes against humanity that Belgium passed ten years ago. This allows non-Belgians to bring cases against other non-Belgians for crimes allegedly committed anywhere.

Earlier this year, some Iraqis brought cases in Belgium against ex-president George Bush (the current president’s father) and two of his top officials, Colin Powell (now America’s secretary of state) and General Norman Schwarzkopf, accusing them of responsibility for the deaths of some Baghdad children during the first Gulf war in 1991. America says that as a result of such cases, its officials may stop attending meetings of NATO, which is based in Brussels, or it may even insist on moving NATO elsewhere. The Belgian government has realised that the law goes too far, and it is now being changed: plaintiffs will have to show they were directly affected by the alleged crimes; and the Belgian government will gain the power to send non-Belgian cases either to the ICC or, in America’s case as a non-member, to the American courts.

Those that support the ICC insist that there are enough checks and balances in its founding treaty to ensure that it operates responsibly. The officials preparing the ICC to take its first cases say they will apply the lessons learned from the Yugoslav and Rwandan war-crimes tribunals, which America and others have criticised for staging long, expensive trials and spending too much time chasing the small fry.

So far, Mr Bush refuses to be reassured by such arguments. Fearful that America’s troops and officials risk being arrested and handed over to the ICC whenever they step outside their homeland, his administration has been applying severe pressure on many countries to sign agreements granting immunity to American citizens. The European Union tried to stop America pressuring its current and prospective members to sign, but some, such as Britain, insisted on letting countries do so if they wished.

The Bush administration says more than 50 countries have given in to its pressure and signed immunity agreements, though it has not named all of them because some have asked for the agreements to be kept secret. The measure to stop military aid to those that do not co-operate was inserted into an anti-terrorism bill that Congress passed last year. Mr Bush’s officials say around $48m in aid will not now be paid this year to the 35 countries affected. Colombia has already received and spent most of the $100m in aid it was due to receive this year. However, unless America can be persuaded to change its mind, the Colombians will receive no aid in future years—and America will have undermined one of its own key policies to curb drugs-trafficking and stabilise Latin America.

America’s withdrawal of military aid is also unlikely to help its current efforts to persuade more countries to help share the burdens of policing post-war Iraq. Its hard line on several prospective EU and NATO members may also boost the French-led campaign to develop a new European defence front as a “counterweight” to American hegemony.

In all, it might have been better if Mr Bush had stuck to his predecessor’s line of positive engagement with the process of creating the ICC, and pressured the court’s other member countries from within, to strengthen the checks and balances against politically motivated cases. Given Mr Bush’s steadfast refusal to consider this, perhaps the best that can be hoped is that, after a few years, the ICC proves its worth in bringing genuine war criminals to justice, avoids hearing unfounded accusations against democratic leaders and their law-abiding officials, and thereby encourages America eventually to sign up.

from the economist

[GePap]

It's nice to see the economist basically agrees broadly with my points.

No thats not what that article said. Of the $600M we will give to the Columbians in 2003, $130M is 'Military aid' that would be cut. Of that only $5M hasnt been spent. Next year the military (not anti-drug) aid is budgeted for $110M in a total budget of $530M.

You know, this backs what i said:I said most of this years money was already spent, as does the quote above, and also makes it clearn that next year, if Colombia has not backed down, we will be talking about 110 million, an just for Colombia alone.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by SpencerH


As for undermining the ICC, I'm for anything we can do to block it. If I wanted to live under european laws I'd live there (again).

Funny, considering that the ICC statute does not provide for extraterritorial effect, in contrast to many US laws.

[chequita guevara]

Actually, I imagine that the defense contractors will be calling Bush right about now, since all that military aid is usually spent buying American weapons.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler

Funny, considering that the ICC statute does not provide for extraterritorial effect, in contrast to many US laws.

By 'does not provide for extraterritorial effect' you must mean not on the earth?

Given our non-compliance and non-support of the ICC who do you think supports it, the Ugandans? Its an EU (eurocomm) mouthpiece. You want it, you keep it. Why is it that the EU blocks our attempts for exemptions do you think?

[HershOstropoler]

Well, Mr knowledge, tell me what extraterritorial effect the ICC has on the US.

[SpencerH]

Why dont you go to the ICC webpage and read it for yourself?

[HershOstropoler]

Well smartypants, I've read the Rome statute. I don't see an extraterritorial effect. Care to point it out to me? You know, I'm just teaching law so I might not get it...

[SpencerH]

I do love to be insulted by Germans. Its a pity I cant have you here in front of me.

I guess you dont. The ICC is an international org. It has no territory. Therefore, 'extraterritorial' is a meaningless term. You may be refering to the fact that its rulings only apply to signatories of the Rome statute.

We have declared our signing of the Statute of Rome nullified. I cant speak for the US government, but I think it's likely that they wont accept prosecution of American citizens by the court.