On
Syria
ICC Draft,
ICP's Told P5
Hasn't Discussed,
Doubt It
Passes
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, May 8
-- After the
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.
, 
