http://www.wfa.org/issues/wicc/unsigning/unsigning.htmlsee links on that page
Today, at the request of the president, our mission up -- in the United Nations deposited a note with the U.N. secretary-general as the depository of the Rome treaty for the International Criminal Court stating that the United States does not intend to become a party to the ICC treaty and accordingly has no legal obligation as a result of our signature on December 31st, 2000. The president decided that this step was appropriate and an important one in order make our position clear -- our position that we will not support the ICC, believing that the document is flawed in many regards.
The president has also made clear and is making clear that he is committed to combating war crimes, committed for the United States to play a leadership role in the world to address these abuses as they occur. We took this rare action but not unprecedented action today in order to give us the flexibility to protect our interests and the flexibility to pursue alternative approaches. The president has also made it clear that we respect the right of other states to be part of the ICC, but we ask them in turn to respect our right not to be part of the ICC process.
In pursuing accountability, we will seek an alternative approach, one that we feel is a better approach, more tailored at getting to the core and the heart of the problem that are facing today. And that approach is primarily to put the responsibility back to where it belongs, and that is with the states. We want to create an environment where the states have the capacity to address these issues, they have the political willingness to address these issues. We believe that if we can build these democracies and the rule of law in these states, it acts as a constraint against abuse and a constraint against excesses of power.
In support of this alternative mechanism, the United States will be prepared to support politically, financially, technically and logistically any state -- post-conflict state that seeks to credibly pursue accountability for violations of humanitarian law. We will support creative ad hoc approaches, such as we see in Sierra Leone, where there is a division of labor between the international community and the sovereign state. We will be asking Congress to help us in finding the necessary resources in order to combat these problems. We will seek to mobilize the private sector, to see if the private sector can play a role in this regard, either through funding or other contributions. We will seek to create a pool of experienced judges, lawyers, prosecutors, who will be willing to work on short notice, in order to help ingrain the rule of law in these societies. And we will take steps within the United States to fill any gaps that we may have in our laws, to ensure that the United States does not become a safe haven for war criminals and indicted persons.
We will be looking to work with the international community. This is a multilateral approach. We will ask our allies and friends to join us here. We will ask the NGO community and the United Nations to join us in this regard because we do believe there is common ground. We believe that it cannot be disputed that the best way to combat abuses and atrocities is to rebuild and enhance the domestic willingness and capacity to deal with these issues as a front-line approach.
With that, I'd like to open the floor for any questions. Thank you.
MODERATOR: Please wait for the mike, introduce yourself and your organization.
Sir?
Q Good afternoon, Ambassador. My name is Paul Koring. I'm with the Globe and Mail of Canada. I realize hypotheticals are always difficult, but I'm trying to understand the degree to which Washington intends to have nothing to do with the ICC. In some of the ad hoc tribunals on war crimes, Washington and U.S. service personnel have been instrumental in providing either documents, evidence or witness testimony against those charged, both with respect to the Balkans and in Africa.
What would happen, for instance, if a third-party national brought before the ICC and the case rested, or rested in part on evidence gathered by either U.S. service personnel or the U.S. government; will you have nothing to do with this, even, for instance, in terms of the provision of witnesses and evidence?
Thank you.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
