As
Ocampo Brags,
ICC Tainted by
Loophole
for
Qatar & French
Vote Swap
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
November 2 --
The UN
Security
Council's
referral of
the situation
in Libya
to the
International
Criminal Court
was the
subject of
Council debate
Wednesday
afternoon.
The ICC's
outgoing
prosecutor Luis
Moreno Ocampo
speechified,
then France
and the US
among others
gave speeches
about their
commitment to
the ICC and
accountability,
respectively.
But as was
recently
exclusive
reported by
Inner City
Press, 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.
Ocampo bragged
that people
associated
with Saif al
Islam Gaddafi
contacted the
ICC asking
hypothetical
questions
about
surrendering.
Afterward a
reporter from
AFP,
41% funded by
the French
government,
asked where
exactly Saif
Gaddafi is.
One imagines
French jets
awaiting the
answer that,
not
surprisingly,
never came.
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?
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
Security
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.”
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...
Share |
, 
