Due
to US Libya ICC Loophole, Qatar, Ukraine & UAE Could Also Be Immune
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
March 23 -- When the UN Security Council referred the case
of Libya to the International Criminal Court in its Resolution 1973,
the United
States demanded and got an exemption for citizens of
countries which are not members of the ICC's Assembly of State
Parties to the Rome Statute.
Inner
City Press
first reported on this loophole, then asked US
Ambassador to the UN Susan
Rice if it might allow certain possible war crimes to be exempt from
the ICC referral. Rice responded that she doubted the ICC would go
after “small” mercenaries.
But
now, even of
the
first twelve countries which have provided notice to the UN under
Security Council Resolution 1973, several beyond the United States
are not ICC members. That
is, if they dropped bombs on civilians -- even intentionally -- they
would be exempt from any referral to or prosecution by the ICC,
thanks to the loophole the US demanded for itself.
Both
Arab
countries which have provided notice, Qatar and the United Arab
Emirates, are not members of the ICC, and therefore exempt from
referral to the ICC. So too with Ukraine, which has provided notice
(but see
this other story).
Susan Rice, Obama and Clinton, ICC and Qatar, UAE,
Kuwait & Ukraine not shown
The
UK has claimed
that Kuwait will soon be joining -- but it has not joined the ICC.
And
while Turkey
has said it will offer humanitarian help without providing UN notice,
it is not a member of the ICC either.
What
hath the US
wrought? Watch this site.
* * *
With
UN on Libya, 12 Notifiers May Mean Less Than That: Ukraine &
UAE Cases
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
March 23 -- Still only 12
countries are listed as having
provided notice to the UN under Security Council Resolution 1973, the
same number as on the morning of March 22.
The number of actual
“partners” may even be lower. Beyond backtracking by the United
Arab Emirates, based on “the West's position on Bahrain,” a well
placed Council diplomat on Wednesday morning told Inner City Press
that Ukraine, despite being announced by the UN as a notifier, is
primarily concerned with its own citizens.
On
Tuesday, after
first
reporting Ukraine on the Security Council's list, Inner City
Press questioned
how a country which took more than a month to come
through with attack helicopters for the UN Mission in Cote d'Ivoire
would be able to meaningfully participate in what the US is calling
Operation Odyssey Dawn.
While
the UN's
list of twelve is sometimes presented as a list of supporters of the
no fly zone and even bombing, when Pressed at Wednesday's noon
briefing, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky
insisted he had made it clear on Tuesday that these are only letter
writers.
Here
is what
Nesirky said on March 22, about the UAE not yet Ukraine:
Spokesperson
Nesirky:
They notified the Secretariat under the terms of the
resolution. I did not say that they will be taking part in enforcing
a no-fly zone; I didn’t say that... I haven’t seen their
notification, the specific letter, I haven’t seen that letter. We
need to be clear that each of the countries, when notifying the
Secretariat and when we transmit that notification to the Security
Council, that notification can take different forms. The content is
not the same for each one. Each country is saying something
different about what measures it is taking or simply how it is
supporting the resolution. But the details of each of those would
need to come from the Member States concerned...If a Member State
requests that a document should be circulated, in other words, made
an official document that is circulated and available, then that will
be done. But I don’t know any specific case what has happened.
The
UN's daily
Journal does on a delay include the letters, at least Ukraine's
initial letter - click here.
But Council sources say that Ukraine's
position is not as described.
Inner
City Press
asked Nesirky if, even belatedly, the Secretary General and his
Spokesperson's Office can provide public disclosure of these letters
more frequently than the day's noon briefing. When we get then, we'll
tell you, Nesirky said. We'll see.
Footnotes:
Inner
City Press asked Nesirky if Ban Ki-moon would like his
briefing(s) on March 24 to teh Security Council to be public -- the
one about his trip is thought to be closed door, but why shouldn't
his briefing about Resolution 1973 be public? Punting, Nesirky said
that is entirely up to the Council. So much for leadership on
transparency.
Nesirky
also refused again to state whether Ban's envoy to Libya al-Khatib is a
UN staff member, an Under Secretary General, or to confirm that he is
still paid -- in seeming violation of the UN Charter -- by the
government of Jordan, a country which has not yet notified under
Resolution 1973 despite UK claims.
* * *
At
UN
on
Libya, the UAE, Norway, Spain, Ukraine & Belgium Give Notice of
Action
By
Matthew
Russell
Lee, Exclusive
UNITED
NATIONS,
March
22, updated -- The United Arab Emirates, Norway, Spain, Ukraine
and Belgium have
provided notification to the UN they intend to take action in Libya
under Security
Council
Resolution 1973, Inner City Press is reliably
informed.
While
Resolution
1973
requires countries taking action on Libya to give prior
notification to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Ban's spokesman Martin
Nesirky did not answer repeated e-mail requests in the days after the
resolution passed for a list of notifying countries. Even at the noon
briefing of March 21, he did not have the list.
At
3:30 on Monday
afternoon his office sent out an email listing “United Kingdom,
France, United States, Denmark, Canada, Italy and Qatar” and saying
that “those notifications have been transmitted to the Security
Council.”
Since
the
UN's
involvement in the military campaign in and over Libya is one of its
attractions for some, it would seem the UN should more quickly and
transparently disclose the notifications to the public, and describe
the “coordinating” role assigned to Ban Ki-moon in Resolution
1973.
The
Security
Council Affairs unit worked hard over the weekend, but they are not
the Spokesperson. They have not yet set up their own web site to make
disclosures. But the Spokesperson's Office is lagging behind.
Inner City Press
can now report that Spain, Norway, UAE,
Ukraine
and Belgium have provided
notifications to the UN under Resolution 1973.
There
--
was that
so hard?
Update 1: to his
credit, UK Permanent Representative Mark Lyall Grant rattled off the
twelve names (the seven named yesterday, and five coming after.) This
was confirmed by another P-5 country. A non permanent member's
Permanent Representative was amazed that the names are not better made
public.
Update 2: regarding
Ukraine, it's worth nothing that it took weeks for Ukraine's parliament
to authorized attack helicopters for the UN Mission in Cote d'Ivoire,
leading to the question: how fast can or will Ukraine move after giving
notice?
Inner City
Press has suggested to a P-5 Council member that a sign board be
erected in front of the Council with the number -- and names -- of
Libya notifiers under Resolution 1973. "Good idea," the P-5
representative said. But will it happen?
Footnotes:
one
reason
for the dysfunctional relationship between the
Spokesperson's Office and Security Council Affairs is that the
Spokesman was ejected from Council consultations, and did little more
to oppose this than a conciliatory and ineffective letter from Ban's
chief of staff Vijay Nambiar. Now when Security Council Affairs gets
information of global interest, the Spokesperson's Office does not
report it in anything like real time. Thus the UN decays. Watch this
site.
, 
