UNMIK ON AIR

10 June 2003

US CONTINUES CAMPAIGN AGAINST INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

(Sputnik Kilambi)

John Palmer: I do frankly find it outrageous that an ally, and an old ally as the US is of the European Union would be lobbying in such a way as to undermine a key policy of the European Union.

John Palmer, political director of the European Policy Centre in Brussels.

Hello and welcome to UNMIK ON AIR with Sputnik Kilambi.

Several Balkan countries are finding themselves caught between the EU and the US in the row over the International Criminal Court, which came into being last July.

The Hague based ICC is the world’s first permanent court to try cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, and has been ratified to date by 89 countries. But the continued pressure being put by Washington on countries to sign bilateral immunity agreements or face a cut off in military and other aid has sparked concern and condemnation both from the EU and human rights groups.

Jonathan O’Donohue: I find it totally unacceptable that there should be a process of arm-twisting, some might even say blackmail going on by the US administration, telling countries which are about to join the EU or seek to join the EU, that if they want good relations with Washington they should exempt the US from the provisions of the criminal court.

Strong words too from Amnesty International, which says the US arm-twisting is not restricted to the Balkans. Jonathan O’Donohue, legal advisor for Amnesty International’s international justice project says its part of a worldwide campaign ahead of a US imposed deadline of June 30 for states to sign impunity agreements.

Jonathan O’Donohue: AI believes these agreements are illegal, they provide for impunity for the worst crimes against humanity which is against international law and go against the international trend that has been in place setting up the international criminal court to ensure that nobody could ever again plan and commit these crimes knowing that they would be held accountable for their actions.

Romania, Albania, Bosnia and Georgia have already signed accords with the US granting impunity; Croatia and Serbia are under intense pressure to follow suit. Only Slovenia has said categorically it would follow EU guidelines. Cooperation with the ICC is one of the benchmarks for accession to the EU, even if Brussels is unlikely to take strong action against countries that enter into exemption deals with the US. John Palmer of the European Policy Centre.

John Palmer: I am quite confident that if they hold firm, they will have the support of the EU and frankly the US will not want before the int. public where it has protested its adherence to the principles of the rule of law and the need for the war against terrorism and criminality, that they would not want to be seen to be arm twisting in this public way.

But despite the tendency to ignore questions of legal accountability since the Bush administration took over, the US position isn’t as absolute as it seems, says Amnesty’s Jonathan Donahue.

Jonathan Donahue: Its important to note that while the US is saying it will automatically withdraw military assistance, the legislation that allows them to do also includes very broad discretions for allowing wavers for the withdrawal so they wouldn’t withdraw assistance. It certainly is by no means a foregone conclusion that they will lose any assistance.

And there is resistance to what many observers are calling US blackmail, though many Balkan countries are walking a fine line while urging the big players to resolve the issue first. What worries many is the obvious double standard that emerges from the controversy – pushing counties such as Serbia and Croatia to send suspected war criminals to the Hague while exempting the US from any such prosecution. Vojin Dimitrijevic is an international law expert in Belgrade.

Vojin Dimitrijevic: the fact is that we have to cooperate with ICTY, and that our authorities have to cooperate, otherwise they risk being politically disqualified. But now this looks totally discriminatory and unfair, if at the same time citizens of certain countries can be privileged and excluded from the permanent Court. I am for the cooperation with ICTY, but for the same reasons I’m for the cooperation with ICC.

But why is the US maintaining such an uncompromising stance in the face of so much opposition.

Since the Rome statute was adopted in 1998, the US has been the only state actively opposed to the setting up of the ICC, saying it could bring politically motivated cases against them. But this argument doesn’t hold up, argues Jonathan Donahue.

Jonathan Donahue: The court statute contains such substantive fair trial guarantees and other safeguards to ensure that such a situation wouldn’t arise. It also has recently elected 18 of the highest qualified judges to the court and a very highly qualified and experienced prosecutor that its almost impossible that such a situation could ever arise. And I think it’s unfortunate that the US is taking such an aggressive worldwide campaign to try and almost discredit the court.

And that comment from Amnesty International ends this edition of UNMIK ON AIR. Thanks for listening.