As
France
& US Talk
ICC, Tainted
by Judge Vote
Swap and
Loophole for
Qatar
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
November 2 --
With the
Security
Council's
referral of
Libya
to the
International
Criminal Court
the subject of
Council debate
on
Wednesday
afternoon,
France and the
US among
others gave
speeches
about their
commitment to
the ICC and
accountability,
respectively.
But
it has
recently
emerged that France
offered to
support an
unqualified
judge for the
ICC in
exchange for
support for
its current
candidate
Bruno Cathala
-- click here
for that story.
Now the US'
pushing in
February for
an exemption
to the Libya
ICC referral
has been shown
as
more
substantial
than argued at
the time by US
Ambassador
Susan Rice,
by non ICC
member Qatar's
bragging that
it had
hundreds of
"boots
on the ground"
in Libya
during the
conflict.
While
publicly
calling for an
end to
impunity, the
US at a
Council
experts'
meeting on the
morning of
February 26,
2011 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.
Araud
said, “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 wrote a story with Araud's quote
and the
paragraph.
(c) UN Photo
On Nov. 2 in
Tripoli, Ban
Ki-moon &
Jalil, plane Q
not answered
On
March 1
outside the UN
General
Assembly,
Inner City
Press managed
to ask US
Ambassador
Susan 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 a bit
strange.
Now with
Qatar's
admission, it
is worse:
Qatar's
military chief
of staff Maj.
Gen. Hamad bin
Ali al-Atiya
was quoted
bragging, "We
were among
them and the
numbers of
Qataris on
ground were
hundreds in
every region."
He went
further:
"Training and
communications
had been in
Qatari hands.
Qatar …
supervised the
rebels' plans
because they
are civilians
and did not
have enough
military
experience. We
acted as the
link between
the rebels and
NATO forces."
Also regarding France, on
November 1 at
the UN the
Chairperson of
the Working
Group on
Mercenaries
Faiza
Patel on UNTV
told Inner
City Press "you
must be aware
of a
French person
killed,
setting up a
private
security
company" in
Benghazi.
Yes -- but
will that be
investigated?
And will
mercenaries
from non-ICC
member states
benefit from
the
US-requested
loophole? Will
France's
quid
pro quo
tainted
candidate
Bruno Cathala
win a seat and
be the one to
make
decisions?
We'll see.
Footnote:
earlier on
November 2, as
the UN bragged
about Ban
Ki-moon's trip
to Tripoli on
the way to the
G-20 meeting
in Cannes,
Inner City
Press asked
Ban's two top
spokesmen two
simple
questions:
"Please
state
on whose
aircraft --
whether owned
by a nation or
otherwise --
the Secretary
General and
PGA flew into
Tripoli on?
This does not
concern
security, I am
not requesting
the time of
any flights,
only
who owns /
paid for the
aircraft, in
terms of the
perception of
impartiality.
This is on
deadline this
morning.
"Also,
yesterday
morning the
Chairperson of
the Working
Group on
Mercenaries
Faiza Patel
told Inner
City Press,
'The UN does
use private
military
companies.'
She then said
the UN has a
program to
coordinate its
use
of private
military
companies to
ensure that
those charged
with human
rights
violations are
not used.
Please
describe that
program, and
all uses by UN
system
agencies of
private
military
companies."
Six
hours later,
neither
question was
answered or
even
acknowledged.
Watch this
site.
, 
