China Will Not Back U.S. on Immunity from New Court

very interesting:


UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - China said on Friday it would abstain on a resolution giving the United States immunity from the new International Criminal Court, a decision that may leave Washington short of votes to pass the resolution.

"I said to my colleagues we will abstain," Beijing's U.N. ambassador, Wang Guangya, told Reuters after a luncheon among the 15 Security Council members and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Wang said earlier the resolution would send a wrong signal in light of the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal
(snip)
Among the 15 council members, Germany, France, Spain, Brazil, Chile, Benin, Romania and now China are expected to abstain, diplomats said. Pakistan and Algeria were
undecided

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5460732

We do not have moral clarity.

We introduced this resolution in the midst of the Abu Ghraib scandal. You'd think we'd have some sense of decorum, modesty. But noooooo. It just boggles my mind.

Thank heaven some of the world community is standing up to us.

they will have immunity PERMANENT and can't get prosecuted for war crimes in the entire future!

What are they thinking? If this passes, no person, no group, no country will be safe from us, US.

out of crisis areas and won't step in in the future! It's blackmailing the world!

we stayed the heck away from them.

They are U.S. forces after all.

Why you oppose it, not why it is blackmail.

has the same meaning in Engl. than in German!

"If you do not this, I will do that".
Sorry can't say it better

How is it blackmail to say you will take your troops home. I mean, they are American troops in nations that aren't America. Isn't it America's right to do so?

What it means is that the U.S. will refuse to CONTRIBUTE troops to any U.N. interventions in CRISIS AREAS.

This isn't about, say, the permanent U.S. military bases in Germany or the like. This is about refusing to participate in any possible future U.N. interventions -- like attempting to avert a genocide somewhere in the world -- the U.S. would refuse to give military assistance.

Hope that makes it clearer.

sw

Those interventions are voluntary. The U.S. is under no obligation to provide troops. Nor is the UN under any obligation to request them. But if they want troops, then it is reasonable to expect strings attached to that request.

it's not.

What's really going on here is that LEADERS who condone or allow war crimes, genocide and such to be committed would be liable to prosecution under International Law IF their OWN countries will not prosecute.

That is precisely why the criminal bush* junta wants immunity -- not for our soldiers, but for THEMSELVES.

sw

Foreign nations stand even LESS chance of prosecuting any American official than they do of going after soldiers.

Frankly, if the UN wants to intervene, they should have their own forces, not get contributions from member nations.

WHERE would the U.N. get troops EXCEPT from its member nations? The U.N. isn't a country, it IS its member nations!

And frankly, I can think of nothing better for the survival of our Republic than having all of bushco hauled before the Hague.

sw

Anyone can have an army with enough money and enough power to make it OK. If the member states vote the UN can do so, then they can do so. Volunteers would join the UN forces and give allegiance to them.

Assuming the UN stays together, I actually consider this inevitable because the UN can't really respond to problems effectively without force.

As for the last, you can hope for it. But it won't happen.

Should we carve a sliver out of Iraq? How about Tennessee?

Your argument is that power and might should triumph. Might makes right. Mine is that justice should triumph. Big difference.

The UN is all the time requesting member states to intervene in humanitarian missions. It is a highly impractical way of doing things. If enough major member states -- Russia, the EU, etc. -- agreed to it, then it could easily happen.

My guess is the U.S. would either veto or pull out of the UN if that happens, but that might well happen anyhow.

Do you believe that the US should have rights greater than other countries (in other words, that we have the right to violate the terms of the UN charter, to which we're signatory?)

But America is ALWAYS called upon to send troops elsewhere for "humanitarian" situations. If we don't get any guarantees, I would also be against sending troops in those situations.

After Bush elected into office, 911 and Iraq EVERYTHING changed.
Without levelheadness and smart moves it will all end in chaos.

Or is it chaos already ?

:scared:

I feel very strongly that if our own citizens are too brainwashed and stupid to stop these criminals, then international intervention may be our only hope.

sw

no member should go unilateral!

Look where he brought this country.

Our hope is, he unites Europe,so they can pay close attention to things he is up to!

Our troops appear to be beyond control. We should probably dismantle a good part of our armed forces at this point.

I think it might be all for the better if we had a grand total of zero (0) troops overseas. We should not be running anything beyond our own borders.

and the weapon industries.

A war is BIG MONEY for those in power and a big boost for military egos.
Sorry about ranting, I'm German and a believing pacifist.

them out opening day at the F911 in a mall close to my home. Hopefully a couple people will listen.

some kind of safety feeling for future events.
The US is the only left over world power. Now imagine, if China is getting stronger, or North Korea or even Pakistan start trouble.

There are so many dangerous spots.

Europe is interested, to fight the war on terror united. There is not a Nation to fight against, it's the mind set of Radicals, religious fanatics.

If the western world stays together, they can make it.

Bush's is using the "hammer method". Too much brakes.......

Europe is bigger than the USA, and China is bigger than both.

I see no reason why US citizens should pay to police the entire planet. We've bankrupted social security, healthcare, educational systems, our economy... this is stupid.

We should be spending those hundreds of billions on being the biggest intellectual powerhouse the planet has ever seen. Imagine the universities we could build with that money. We could educate the planet a thousand times over. We could revolutionize so many things! Think of all the good we could do!

Personally, I don't feel obliged to break into my neighbor's apartment when he's yelling at his son. I figure it's between them.

All the US would have to do to end a good portion of the terrorism in the world would be to STOP SELLING WEAPONS TO THE PERPETRATORS.

Once we get that straight, and start taking care of our own poor at home at the expense of the rich, maybe we'd have a leg to stand on.

Giving the US permanent immunity is giving a monkey the key to the box full of bananas...

This is not good.

WW III is a dayeth nearer...

It is outrageous that the Bush regime is going to get away with this!

And you KNOW that behind the scenes they are bullying and threatening all kinds of stuff, burning yet more bridges, pissing off yet more countries and allies, all so they can continue unabated their criminal foreign policies.

I added it

There's some other interesting details in the article -- for instance, I didn't know about this:

All other members are contemplating an abstention or are undecided, following a rebuke by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who said on Thursday the resolution was "wrong," would "discredit the council" and was of "dubious judicial value."

He said that resolution "would be a very unfortunate signal to send at any time -- but particularly at this time."

On Friday Annan distributed a memorandum to council members, "strongly" urging them not to renew the measure.

"The secretary-general believes that extending the exemption once more would contradict the efforts of the United Nations -- including the council itself -- to promote the rule of law in international affairs," the memorandum said."

I hope the U.S. gets slapped down on this...

sw

that you can read about this all over Europe in every main News, people talk about it and are waiting for the result.

Here it doesn't get any attention and a lot of people even don't know about this. It's very sad, because it's important for this country and the world.

Need to get * on the hook for war crimes ASAP after that

Doesn't that say it all? Is the American public at all aware that we are requesting to be put above the law?

This is sick.

If you send soldiers around the world in "peace-keeping" missions, even at the behest of the UN, it is inevitable that bad things will happen or questionable things will happen. No American leader wants to have U.S. troops or leaders prosecuted for peace missions like the Balkans.

The original idea is not valid. You can call Iraq a 'peace mission'.

If we were sent at the behest of the UN, how could the UN possibly prosecute us? Right now the ICC is using UN charter rules as they relate to aggression, and * is on the hook.

As for the rest, the head of the UN could urge the U.S. to take action, as he has done in the past. That would NOT excuse soldiers who were accused of questionable behavior.

Ultimately, this is an academic debate. We won't ever see any U.S. leadership prosecuted in any meaningful way in a foreign court.

It's not academic at all. It's questioning American moral leadership in the world, and it should be questioned.

US soldiers involved in questionable behavior *should* be prosecuted for war crimes.

Do you have a problem with accountability?

And prevent bad PR, nothing more.

I mean really, imagine the ICC serving criminal papers on a U.S. soldier in the midst of his unit. What commanding officer will let that happen?

If you allow U.S. soldiers to be prosecuted for actions they take in missions that are humanitarian in nature, the U.S. simply will opt out. Is that what you want?

Under that plan, Clinton would have never sent troops to the Balkans for instance. Or we'd have nothing to do with Haiti or Liberia, etc.

Because we abide by the terms of the ICC has *nothing* to do whether we participate in peacekeeping missions.

How could US soldier's be prosecuted for actions backed by a UNSC resolution?

'Humanitarian in nature'. I'd prefer to let the ICC decide what's humanitarian in nature, not a war criminal like George Bush.

It would ONLY come into play if the country concerned was not prosecuting criminal acts itself. It in no way supercedes a country's own judicial system.

sw

So it in no way impacts U.S. citizens.

The fact is, the bush* junta wants NO International Law, the same way it wants the executive to be held unaccountable even to our OWN U.S. laws.

You seem to forget that bushco is a criminal operation -- of COURSE they don't want any laws to restrain them.

sw

But it won't change much either way. It just cuts down on the nasty press when the U.S. would ignore the actions of the ICC.

I want the bush* junta STOPPED. I want to see them standing in manacles before the Hague. I want their trials to be an historic event on the scale of Nuremburg.

I want them discredited, disdained, and disempowered in EVERY way possible. I want Americans to have to wake up and learn the lessons that Germans had to learn after WWII. I want the decisive and absolute FALL of the American Empire -- then perhaps, there may be some chance of sanity in the world.

sw

If it comes to the point of the US vs. the Rest of the World, I'm all for it.

There is no way one nation, however mighty, should enjoy a special status above the law.

But you won't get many.

* I want the bush* junta STOPPED. -- Maybe
* I want to see them standing in manacles before the Hague. -- Never
* I want their trials to be an historic event on the scale of Nuremburg. -- Equally never
* I want them discredited, disdained, and disempowered in EVERY way possible. -- Back to maybe.
* I want Americans to have to wake up and learn the lessons that Germans had to learn after WWII. -- Depends on what lessons you want.
* I want the decisive and absolute FALL of the American Empire -- then perhaps, there may be some chance of sanity in the world. -- Again unlikely for something so clear cut.

It is ENTIRELY possible to see the Bush junta held responsible at the Hague. They are guilty of war crimes--and all it would take is enough responsible Americans seeing to it that international law is upheld.

What if Bush started a campaign of conquest like Hitler? Is it really that unthinkable? Do you think the rest of the world (or anyone of conscience) would allow it to continue?

Your pessimism is not backed by history.

Amnesty International, Doctors without boarder (spelling), and other international groups are collecting material and they found much!

Very strong material!!

Sorry I can't find the link anymore.

The American public wouldn't stand for it. Like it or not, America is the superpower and that would prevent your plan.

Bush has not started a campaign of conquest like Hitler. If he did, we would have nuclear war sooner or later.

that anybody in this administration is getting prosecuted in The Hague.

But the international rules and laws might prevent that a leader goes ahead with unlawful decisions

In theory. In practice, not every nation agrees to them.

this is not the beginning of a campaign of conquest? Have you read the neocon literature?

In 1972 it would be unfathomable that Richard Nixon would resign. It happened. Perhaps the American public would support a war crimes trial, if it was the right thing to do.

and I'll wager that neither do you.

My overall want is that the U.S. be a part of the global community of nations and accountable to International Law. That is why I am glad to see that there's a chance that this immunity resolution will fail to pass -- it's at least a step, however small, in the right direction.

For the resolution to pass would be a step AWAY from the right direction.

sw

to request immunity from war crimes is to state, in essence, you intend to commit them and that is untenable. The bush admin is a rogue administration with fascist tendencies that need to be thrown out of office and then charged with war crimes.

Every time U.S. troops are used to intervene anywhere. I'm OK with no exemption. I'm also OK with no U.S. troops being used in any humanitarian efforts anywhere.

Guess what, I am perfectly fine with no US troops anywhere too! With bush out and a decent President in place, the world will be a much more peaceful place and less in need of troops.

"Endless prosecution" is the red herring expression used by the bushites who know NOTHING about the ICC and the Geneva Conventions and glory in their ignorance. War crimes are war crime, end of story.

and if you believe that...

...Impeach Bush* Now.

Ha! Bush calls himself a uniter, not a divider


Look where he brought this country.

Our hope is, he unites Europe,so they can pay close attention to things he is up to!

this. Hopefully they have learned their lesson from recent adventures in Frat-boy torture.

They also entertain happy POW's with fratboy party games and friendly puppies. They also enliven wedding parties with firework displays.

Don't believe it? Just ask our beloved military who do everything possible to avoid harming civilians and make every effort to investigate isolated instances of abuse.

Hell, they even break a few rules like the Geneva Accords just increase the happy atmosphere when "liberating" countries.

And, to top it all off, when such "unfortunate incidents" occur they will have some nice fratboy officer express his "deepest regrets".

International Criminal Court? Why, that would inhibit our troops from from having a little boyish fun. After all, we can trust our military to investigate itself. Can't we?

Good for China and the rest who won't buy into the bullcrap.