By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, May 9
-- When the UN
Security
Council
belatedly
issued a press
statement
about Boko
Haram's
"abduction of
276
schoolgirls of
14 April in
Chibok,
Nigeria" on
May 9, it did
not include a
reference to
the
International
Criminal
Court.
Inner City
Press asked
the Security
Council's
president for
May, Oh Joon
of South
Korea, if the
phrase
"accountable
at national or
international
levels" should
be read as a
reference to
the ICC.
"ICC is not
mentioned in
this press
statement," Oh
Joon replied.
Video
here.
With France,
the UK and
non-ICC member
USA all
supporting ICC
referral for
Syria, that
they couldn't
or just didn't
get even a
mention of the
ICC on the
outrages of
Boko Haram is
telling.
What will the
UN's response
to the mass
abduction
consist of: a
mere visit by
Said Djinnit,
who already
covers West
African for
the UN from an
office in
Dakar? As is
true of so
much of the
#BringBackOurGirls
response, it
is too little,
too late.
On
Syria, after
breathless
reporting on
May 7 about
the US and
France
agreeing to a
cynically
sculpted
resolution
aiming to
refer to the
International
Criminal Court
some of the
conflict in
some parts of
Syria, and
even then with
an exclusion
for nationals
of all non ICC
members expect
Syria, Inner
City Press
asked
questions on
May 8.
Inner City
Press is
reliably
informed that
there has as
yet been no
discussion
among the
Permanent Five
members of the
Security
Council about
the draft; one
member
exclusively
told Inner
City Press, I
don't think it
will be
passed.
The issue also
came up at the
US State
Department's
May 8
briefing,
where
spokesperson
Jen Psaki said
the US
supports the
draft. She was
asked about
the occupied
territory of
the Golan
Heights, but
not about the
full scope and
cynicism of
the carve
outs.
In
2011 when the
Security
Council
referred the
situation in
Libya to the
ICC, the US
demanded and
got a similar
but narrowed
carve-out
(Libya has no
Golan Heights
and therefore
no Israel
issue). Even
so, Brazil
threatened to
abstain based
on the
cynicism of
the US
carve-out, as
Inner City
Press covered
here.
So is
the assumption
that the
current
Elected Ten
members of the
Security
Council are
all less
principled
than Brazil in
2011?
In the
rush to make
the US
position seem
principled or
progressive,
or newsworthy
when a veto by
Russia or
China would
make the whole
charade an
exercise in P3
feel-good
while Assad
reclaimed
Homs, are
these
questions not
even being
asked?
Needing
this
level of
impunity shows
a lack of
confidence in
the ICC. The
message is,
the ICC can be
sicced on
one's enemies,
but only if
one's friends
are protected.
The ICC is a
tool.
In
terms of
sourcing, if
it is said
that the US
and France --
fresh off its
stealth and
non-admitted
opposition to
mere human
rights
monitoring in
Western Sahara
-- refused to
comment on
their game,
who else could
be the source?
P3 minutes two
equals what?
Back
in 2011, while
publicly
calling for an
end to
impunity, the
US at a
Council
experts'
meeting on the
morning of
February 26
demanded the
following
paragraph:
6.
Decides that
nationals,
current or
former
officials or
personnel from
a State
outside the
Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya
which is not a
party to the
Rome Statute
of the
International
Criminal Court
shall be
subject to the
exclusive
jurisdiction
of that State
for all
alleged acts
or omissions
arising out of
or related to
operations in
the Libyan
Arab
Jamahiriya
established or
authorized by
the Council,
unless such
exclusive
jurisdiction
has been
expressly
waived by the
State.
When
the resolution
was adopted
later that day
-- after
Security
Council
ambassadors
quietly
attended a
Chinese circus
before the 8
pm vote --
Inner City
Press asked
French
Ambassador
Gerard Araud
about the
paragraph. (In
2014, Araud
who is now
slated to
leave in July
denied ever
opposing human
rights
monitoring in
Western
Sahara, a
position an
African member
of the Council
during Araud
tenure laughed
at.)
Of the
Libay
carve-out,
applicable to
the
prospective
Syria
carve-out,
Araud said in
2011, “that
was for one
country, it
was absolutely
necessary for
one country to
have that
considering
its
parliamentary
constraints,
and this
country we are
in. It was a
red line for
the United
States. It was
a
deal-breaker,
and that's the
reason we
accepted this
text to have
the unanimity
of the
Council.”
That
day, Inner
City Press was
not called on
to ask
Ambassador
Rice about the
paragraph, and
so wrote
a story with
Araud's quote
and the
paragraph.
On
March 1, 2011
outside the UN
General
Assembly,
Inner City
Press managed
to ask Rice:
Inner
City Press:
Can I ask you
a question
about the
Security
Council
resolution?
(inaudible) On
the Security
Council
resolution
that passed
Saturday, some
have now
raised a
question about
the US asking
for that
paragraph six,
which exempts
Americans,
and, I guess,
others, anyone
that's not an
ICC member,
from referral
and
prosecution by
the ICC. They
say it
undercuts
international
law-Brazil
said it, now
the head of
the Rome
Statute
grouping of
member states
said it. Why
did the US ask
for that? And
don't you see
a downside to
saying there's
no impunity if
you are
excluding
people from
referral?
Ambassador
Rice:
No, I don't
see a
downside. As
you well know,
the United
States is not
a party and we
have thought
it important,
if we were
going to, for
the first
time,
affirmatively
support such a
resolution, to
make sure that
is was clear
the
limitations as
to who
jurisdiction
applied to.
That's why we
supported that
phrase. Your
assertion and
that of others
that somehow
this provides
a pass for
mercenaries, I
think, is
completely
misplaced. I
don't think
that the
International
Criminal Court
is going to
spend its time
and effort on
foot soldiers
that have been
paid small
amounts of
money by
Qadhafi.
They're going
to focus on
the big fish,
so I think
your interest
was misplaced.
Counting
on
the ICC not to
prosecute a
certain size
of killer
seemed and
seems a bit
strange. Watch
this site.
, 
