Tweet
Many of you have been condeming the US in the threads about the world court, saying the US request that it's UN peacekeepers being exempt for it was both unreasonable and a treaty breaker.
Hope you enjoy this crow, it's well earned:
This is not a troll post, I'm only showwing how many of you lack objectivity.
The ol "he who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones" seems to apply.
Hope you enjoy this crow, it's well earned:
European Countries Cut Deal to Protect Afghan Peacekeepers
By Colum Lynch
Special to The Washington Post
Thursday, June 20, 2002; Page A15
UNITED NATIONS, June 19 -- The United States' leading European allies, who have opposed U.S. efforts to limit the powers of the new international war crimes tribunal, quietly obtained written assurances that their troops serving as peacekeepers in Afghanistan would be immune from arrest or surrender to the court.
Britain, acting on behalf of 19 countries with peacekeepers in Afghanistan, negotiated the guarantees in January in a "military technical agreement" between the British-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Afghanistan's interim government. Under the terms of the accord, Afghanistan agreed that all members of the force, including U.S. liaison officers, "may not be surrendered to, or otherwise transferred to, the custody of an international tribunal or any other entity or state without the express consent of the contributing nation."
The agreement was reached in "a great rush" and with no public debate, a U.N.-based European diplomat said. Troops from France and Germany also were covered by it.
News of the agreement put the United States and its allies sharply at odds today as the Bush administration formally introduced a draft Security Council resolution that would exclude personnel in all U.N. missions -- military and civilian -- from the reach of the new International Criminal Court (ICC).
European governments, which have been among the court's most prominent backers, announced they would try to block the U.S. proposal. The Bush administration has opposed the creation of the court, which will come into effect on July 1 as the first permanent tribunal for prosecuting genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
European officials at the United Nations said the agreement between the peacekeeping force and the Afghan authorities does not undermine Europe's commitment to the new court. "We believe in the ICC," a British diplomat said. "We see no threat from the ICC."
But a U.S. official cited the agreement as evidence of a double standard by the allies, arguing that the United States is seeking the same guarantees of immunity that Britain and other countries secured for their own forces.
"Sovereignty is a two-way street," Richard W. Williamson, the U.S. representative to the United Nations for political affairs, said in an interview. "We have the same concerns that other members of the council had at the time that ISAF was authorized."
Williamson warned the Security Council today that Washington may withdraw more than 700 U.S. nationals serving in U.N. missions if those concerns are not resolved. He raised the prospect for the first time of a withdrawal of nearly 8,000 American troops serving with NATO forces in U.N.-authorized missions in Kosovo and Bosnia.
"We will not have American men and women serving in peacekeeping operations where they are vulnerable to the reach of the ICC," he said.
The Bush administration renounced its support for the court last month, citing concerns that it could prosecute Americans serving in military or other missions overseas. The administration announced it would seek agreements barring U.S. citizens from being extradited to the court, which will be based in The Hague.
The U.S. resolution faced overwhelming resistance from the council, making it unlikely the administration can garner the nine votes required to force council action. Twelve of the 15 council members said they could not support the resolution, citing concerns that it would undermine the international tribunal.
"We are bound by the ICC," said Norway's U.N. ambassador, Ole Peter Kolby. "This is a problem for us because we have ratified the court."
Advocates of the court have argued that it is designed to prosecute dictators and alleged mass murders, not U.S. soldiers. France and Britain have urged the United States to invoke a provision from the ICC treaty that allows the United States to secure immunity for its troops through bilateral agreements with countries that host U.S. forces.
The Clinton administration signed the ICC treaty but did not send it to the Senate for ratification.
European diplomats said U.S. military commanders insisted that the Afghan peacekeeping force, which operates under U.S. military command and includes American military liaison officers, receive assurances that its personnel would not be handed over to an international tribunal. They maintained that the decision to secure the exemption for their forces should not raise doubts about their commitment to the new court.
"It's completely different thing to negotiate a one-off exemption from prosecution in the midst of a chaotic situation than to pass resolution that gives blanket exemption for everyone," a European diplomat said. "It's a ludicrous comparison."
But a U.S. official challenged that account, saying the British actively sought the exemption to "cover their own butts."
"They did what they felt they had to, and we are doing what we feel we had to," the official said.
Maj. Brad Lowell, spokesman for U.S. Central Command, which oversees the U.S. war in Afghanistan, said there is no similar agreement for U.S. forces there.
© 2002 The Washington Post Company
By Colum Lynch
Special to The Washington Post
Thursday, June 20, 2002; Page A15
UNITED NATIONS, June 19 -- The United States' leading European allies, who have opposed U.S. efforts to limit the powers of the new international war crimes tribunal, quietly obtained written assurances that their troops serving as peacekeepers in Afghanistan would be immune from arrest or surrender to the court.
Britain, acting on behalf of 19 countries with peacekeepers in Afghanistan, negotiated the guarantees in January in a "military technical agreement" between the British-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Afghanistan's interim government. Under the terms of the accord, Afghanistan agreed that all members of the force, including U.S. liaison officers, "may not be surrendered to, or otherwise transferred to, the custody of an international tribunal or any other entity or state without the express consent of the contributing nation."
The agreement was reached in "a great rush" and with no public debate, a U.N.-based European diplomat said. Troops from France and Germany also were covered by it.
News of the agreement put the United States and its allies sharply at odds today as the Bush administration formally introduced a draft Security Council resolution that would exclude personnel in all U.N. missions -- military and civilian -- from the reach of the new International Criminal Court (ICC).
European governments, which have been among the court's most prominent backers, announced they would try to block the U.S. proposal. The Bush administration has opposed the creation of the court, which will come into effect on July 1 as the first permanent tribunal for prosecuting genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
European officials at the United Nations said the agreement between the peacekeeping force and the Afghan authorities does not undermine Europe's commitment to the new court. "We believe in the ICC," a British diplomat said. "We see no threat from the ICC."
But a U.S. official cited the agreement as evidence of a double standard by the allies, arguing that the United States is seeking the same guarantees of immunity that Britain and other countries secured for their own forces.
"Sovereignty is a two-way street," Richard W. Williamson, the U.S. representative to the United Nations for political affairs, said in an interview. "We have the same concerns that other members of the council had at the time that ISAF was authorized."
Williamson warned the Security Council today that Washington may withdraw more than 700 U.S. nationals serving in U.N. missions if those concerns are not resolved. He raised the prospect for the first time of a withdrawal of nearly 8,000 American troops serving with NATO forces in U.N.-authorized missions in Kosovo and Bosnia.
"We will not have American men and women serving in peacekeeping operations where they are vulnerable to the reach of the ICC," he said.
The Bush administration renounced its support for the court last month, citing concerns that it could prosecute Americans serving in military or other missions overseas. The administration announced it would seek agreements barring U.S. citizens from being extradited to the court, which will be based in The Hague.
The U.S. resolution faced overwhelming resistance from the council, making it unlikely the administration can garner the nine votes required to force council action. Twelve of the 15 council members said they could not support the resolution, citing concerns that it would undermine the international tribunal.
"We are bound by the ICC," said Norway's U.N. ambassador, Ole Peter Kolby. "This is a problem for us because we have ratified the court."
Advocates of the court have argued that it is designed to prosecute dictators and alleged mass murders, not U.S. soldiers. France and Britain have urged the United States to invoke a provision from the ICC treaty that allows the United States to secure immunity for its troops through bilateral agreements with countries that host U.S. forces.
The Clinton administration signed the ICC treaty but did not send it to the Senate for ratification.
European diplomats said U.S. military commanders insisted that the Afghan peacekeeping force, which operates under U.S. military command and includes American military liaison officers, receive assurances that its personnel would not be handed over to an international tribunal. They maintained that the decision to secure the exemption for their forces should not raise doubts about their commitment to the new court.
"It's completely different thing to negotiate a one-off exemption from prosecution in the midst of a chaotic situation than to pass resolution that gives blanket exemption for everyone," a European diplomat said. "It's a ludicrous comparison."
But a U.S. official challenged that account, saying the British actively sought the exemption to "cover their own butts."
"They did what they felt they had to, and we are doing what we feel we had to," the official said.
Maj. Brad Lowell, spokesman for U.S. Central Command, which oversees the U.S. war in Afghanistan, said there is no similar agreement for U.S. forces there.
© 2002 The Washington Post Company
This is not a troll post, I'm only showwing how many of you lack objectivity.
The ol "he who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones" seems to apply.
Comment