|
IN THE NEWS 2003 Big bully finds another slave Ravi
Nair The recent signing of a bilateral agreement between the US and
India — not to surrender each other’s nationals to the jurisdiction of the
International Criminal Court (ICC) — once again emphasises the lack of
informed Indian foreign policy thinking, if any, on such issues. The South
Block’s readiness to sign on the dotted line at Washington’s foggy bottom
diktats once again underlines how isolated the present Indian government’s
foreign policy is. The fact is that the European Union has collectively rejected such
immunity agreements. With all its arm-twisting, Washington has only been able
to enlist 16 acolytes to offer it absolution. The US has reportedly sent to more than a hundred countries an
‘offer’ of agreement not to surrender its nationals to the ICC or to
cooperate with the court, purportedly under Article 98 of the ICC statute. In
recent weeks, the Bush administration has approached dozens of governments
seeking Article 98 agreements against sending any US suspect to the ICC. To
pressure them to agree, Washington is citing newly passed legislation — the
American Servicemembers’ Protection Act (ASPA). It authorises the barring of
various forms of US military assistance to governments, other than NATO
members and specified allies, that refuse to sign Article 98 agreements. At issue is Article 98 of the ICC’s treaty, which was designed to
allow governments to devise orderly procedures to implement the treaty’s
preference for prosecutions by national authorities. This provision was
premised on the ICC’s ability to take jurisdiction of a case should it find
that an investigation or prosecution was not conducted in good faith. The ICC statute begins by stating that the ICC will be
complementary to national criminal jurisdictions. The actual mechanisms of
complementarity within the statute are complicated. The operation of the
statute is interrelated with the capacity of the States to conduct national
prosecutions through their domestic legal systems. In the end, the ICC will
only deal with a limited number of cases. The focus will inevitably turn, at
various stages, to the national level. Governments need to ensure that their
legislation and judicial processes actually enable the executive and the
judiciary to genuinely carry out these national prosecutions under the terms
of the ICC statute and in conformity with international human rights law. This is the principal reason why the Indian government has gone
along with the Americans. India is one of the few democratic countries which
allow a large measure of impunity to all perpetrators of human rights
violations. Little does India realise that international law is moving
inexorably towards international accountability for all human rights and
humanitarian law violations. A case in point is the adoption of the
‘Optional Protocol On Torture’ in the UN General Assembly earlier this
month, despite dogged opposition by the US and India. India eventually
abstained in the final vote. Since early 2002, American tactics have included threats of
economic sanctions to convince governments to give US nationals exemption from
the ICC. Legal experts have expressed outrage at what they consider another US
attempt to use its economic power to obtain exemption from a court designed to
ensure that crimes as serious as genocide, crimes against humanity or war
crimes do not go unpunished. According to many governments, the US is
misinterpreting Article 98 of the Rome statute, the provision of the ICC’s
governing treaty being invoked to justify seeking such agreements, and
resorting to bullying tactics to get signatures. The threat to cut off military aid, coercive actions undertaken
recently in the Security Council to get exemption for peacekeepers, are part
of a multi-pronged effort by the US to undermine international justice. US
spokespersons say these agreements are allowed under the statute that creates
the ICC, but legal experts from leading NGOs and from other governments
disagree. The US is now trying to bully governments into signing these
agreements, just as it coerced them to agree to exempt US peacekeepers from
the ICC in the Security Council despite consensus that this would be in
violation of international law, the UN charter and the Rome statute. Despite the Indian government’s known hostility to the ICC Rome
statute, what stampeded it into signing this agreement, without a
parliamentary or national debate, is the explicit US threat to withdraw
military assistance from countries that refuse to sign the agreements. Dubbed
“impunity agreements” by ICC advocates, they are based on a provision in
the American Servicemembers Protection Act, passed in the US Congress and
signed by President Bush on August 2, 2002. The ASPA authorises the US
government to cut off military aid to countries that support the ICC, with the
exception of key allies. The ASPA bill, however, includes broad presidential waivers that,
if used, would overrule such provisions. Even before the passage of ASPA, the
US declared the unprecedented “nullification” of its signature of the Rome
statute in May 2002, and began aggressive efforts in the Security Council in
the months following to obtain exemption for US peacekeepers from the
jurisdiction of the ICC. The jurisdiction of the ICC was established when its treaty entered
into force on July 1, 2002. This court will be the first permanent,
independent judicial body capable of trying individuals accused of genocide,
war crimes and crimes against humanity. An advance team of the ICC is already
operating in the Hague and the court is expected to begin hearing cases by
mid-2003. Indeed, the ICC is being set up and paid for by countries that
ratify the Rome statute — 87 to date, while 138 States have signed the
statute. The writer is Director, South Asian Human Rights Documentation Centre
|
|
About SAHRDC / Action Alerts / Online Resource Centre / Human Rights Features / Publications / Home |
|
All contents copyright © SAHRDC B-6/6, Safdarjung Enclave Extension, New Delhi - 110029, India |
