Europe Caves in on International Criminal Court Issue
European Briefs
New California Media, Compiled and Edited by Paolo Pontoniere, Posted: Oct 07, 2002
Europe Caves in on International Criminal Court Issue
The foreign ministers of the European Union's 15 member countries have agreed on guidelines to allow member states to act unilaterally to work out individual immunity deals with the US. Each deal would exempt US military and citizens from the mandates of the International Criminal Court (ICC) within the boundaries of the particular country striking the deal.
Independently, Romania signed a similar exemption agreement with the US last month. Romania's action, although officially criticized by the EU, spurred Italy and Great Britain - where support for the current US administration is highest in Europe - to announce their intention to sign individual bilateral agreements on their own with the US. Under such pressure from two of the EU's main powers, the consensus that had been reached in Europe about the mandate of the Hague court dissolved like snow on a sunny day sending the EU's foreign ministers scurrying in search of an agreement that cobble the EU together for the time being.
As one might expect, the EU decision has been strongly criticized by human rights organizations, which maintain that the EU's decision undermines the ICC's credibility and effectiveness.
Dutch Foreign Minister Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, whose country currently holds the rotating presidency of the EU, holds a different opinion. He points out that Italy and Great Britain can no longer strike a deal with the US on their own terms, but rather, are bounded and restricted by the new guidelines.
Given the anemic reach of the new guidelines, Scheffer's point may represent merely a Pyrrhic victory. The charter worked out by the EU ministers includes four restrictions on members: exemption from extradition to the ICC is limited to US nationals engaged in a US government-approved foreign mission, such as the peacekeeping forces in Yugoslavia; US military personnel and US diplomats, when indicted with genocide or terrorism, must be prosecuted in the US; the exemption does not apply to mercenaries or US citizens traveling abroad on their own; when accused of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity, immunity is denied in every EU country.
According to Amnesty International, the current agreement violates the spirit of the Treaty of Rome, which inspired the idea of the European Union as a sovereign entity. In addition, because the current agreement is so full of loopholes, it can be practically nullified in one-on-one negotiations with the US.
European human rights advocates are furious over the new guidelines. Meanwhile, back in the US, where authorities do not recognize the ICC, interested parties are keeping a low profile and hoping that the administration will not put its foot in its mouth on this issue.
Turkey - Between a Rock and a Hard Place
In the jousting for position that is preceding the much-heralded war in Iraq, Turkey has the enviable or - depending on your point of view - undesirable position of the Belle of the Ball. Turkey occupies a key position in any strategizing that Americans and/or Iraqis will need to do if a conflict erupts.
Bordering northern Iraq, Turkey - which is a NATO member - could provide an easy way in for US bombers, which could take off from the Incirlik Air Base. US and British jets currently use Incirlik as a base for their air patrols of the UN-sanctioned no-fly zones in the north and south of Iraq. Turkey also has many other military bases and could make them available to the US in case of land invasion. In addition, because northern Iraq is Kurdish territory and is currently held by independent Kurdish organizations, Turkey could provide a convenient entry point for the US to provide arms to native insurgent forces. Such a scenario seems entirely possible should the US choose to follow its Afghan model for the invasion of Iraq.
However, the Kurdish issue could also play against Turkey. Emboldened by the creation-with or without the United States' blessing-of a Kurdish state in northern Iraq, Turkey's Kurdish minorities could feel compelled to seek independence from Ankara and to join forces with other Kurdish minorities in neighboring countries to create an independent Kurdistan. Iraqi strategists, well aware of Ankara's fears on this issue, are trying to exploit them to their advantage.
On a recent visit to Turkey, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz pointed out that Turkey lost 40 billion dollars during the Gulf War, and that a fragmented Iraq would pitch the entire region into deep turmoil. To sweeten his veiled threats, Aziz assured Turkey that Iraq would never use weapons of mass destruction against Ankara.
Turkey, deeply in debt with the International Monetary Fund, is on the brink of financial collapse and is more sensitive to financial prodding than to military posturing. Any mention of further economic strain on the country's resources sends the current leadership into the equivalent of a political spasm.
In the last couple of months, the US, which understands Turkey's dilemma very well, has sent several high profile diplomatic missions to Ankara in the hopes of getting a firm Turkish commitment to its military plans for Baghdad. For instance, Aziz's visit was preceded by a stopover by US Assistant Secretary of State Elizabeth Jones. Jones, after meeting with Turkey's Foreign Minister Sukru Gurel, repeated that Iraq's admittance of UN inspectors wasn't enough for the US and that peace could be bought only by Iraq's disarmament. After her speech, Bulent Ecevit, Turkey's prime minister, repeated his opposition to the attack. According to Turkish media, though, Ecevit's statement sounds increasingly hollow given that Turkey's bail-out from a $16 billion dollar IMF loan depends on US support.
Bush Disses Tony Blair
Being one of President Bush's staunchest allies when it comes to the war on terrorism and the campaign in Iraq has not served British Prime Minister Tony Blair as well as he might have liked. Blair has just been stymied by his friend Dubya on his efforts to resuscitate the Middle East peace process.
Blair has been clear in his opinion that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the major source of Arab resentment toward the West and that tackling this issue should precede – or at least progress simultaneously with - any action on the Iraqi front. Last week, Blair went so far as to tell the House of Commons that the international community needs a new peace conference on the Middle East. He repeated the same thought later in the week at a Labour Party assembly. On that occasion, he added that, by year's end, the international peace conference that he envisions should aim to gain the Arab world's recognition of the need for an Israeli state free of terror and the Israeli government's recognition of the need for the creation of a viable Palestinian state based on the boundaries of 1967.
The idea of resuming the Israeli-Palestinian final settlement talks was first raised in a proposal formulated by Secretary of State Colin Powell and adopted by the so-called Quartet Group-composed of the United Nations, the US, the EU and Russia. The central issues to be worked out in the talks, as proposed by Powell, were: the future of Jerusalem, which both Israelis and Palestinians claim as their capital; the destiny of three million Palestinian refugees who want to return home; and the establishment of new boundaries between Israel and Palestine.
According to British media, Blair, who aims to chair the talks, which he would like to see held in London, has not only been privately rebuffed by President Bush on this issue, but has also raised Israeli hackles. Tel Aviv reacted with deep aversion to Blair's calls both to revive the peace process and to require all Middle Eastern countries, Israel and Iraq included, to abide by United Nations resolutions.
Sources: Deutsche Welle, Il Manifesto, Kathimerini, La Repubblica, La Stampa, Le Monde Diplomatique, Liberation, Radio Netherlands, The Guardian, The Observer
Page
1 of 1
|
