Rome, June 17 -- Seeking to limit the scope of an international criminal court, the United States today dismissed United Nations efforts to create a fully independent prosecutor as unrealistic and unwise.
[a4a: buzzword alert! No elaboration on "unrealistic" and "unwise" - we're merely supposed to swallow this pronouncement and accept it!]
In a statement that infuriated human rights groups, the United States representative at the United Nations, Bill Richardson, warned delegates to a United Nations conference here not to turn the court into "a human rights ombudsman open to, any and all complaints from any source."
The conference had been convened to set up rules to try individuals for genocide and other crimes against humanity.
The United States wants the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council to play a major role in determining what crimes and which defendants should be prosecuted by a permanent international court.
[a4a: This is because the US bankrolls and trains human rights violators around the world, and any independent UN court would end up trying US clients (and even US soldiers) for human rights violations; if the US secures a role in what cases get ruled on, it would be able to pressure the UN court to conveniently "overlook" the considerable violations of human rights by US client states]
"This court cannot and should not address every crime that goes unpunished, no matter how horrific or atrocious it may be," Mr. Richardson said.
[a4a: My first question to this is, "why not?" Again, the paper doesn't ask that question, it merely takes Richardson's words as gospel. If the court is to curb human rights abuses and genocide, shouldn't it seek them out everywhere? Or is he saying that some violations are acceptable, even desirable?]
But for now Washington finds itself isolated at a conference where more than 40 other nations, united in what is known as the like-minded group, and hundreds of human rights groups are pushing for a fully independent prosecutor with the power to start investigations as the best means of guaranteeing the court's power and impartiality.
[a4a: BUZZWORD ALERT! Here the majority opinion (the other 40 nations) is marginalized by portraying them as "the like-minded group" (and the writer says, "what is known as" - I wonder, who calls them this? It's never pointed out. Further, the writer doesn't feel the need to explain what these 40 other nations are "like-minded" about - they're made to seem sort of mysterious, almost conspiratorial - this bloc of bad guys picking on the poor US.]
"If we move too quickly," Mr. Richardson argued, "we may create a court that will appear sound on paper but collapse under the weight of its own mandate."
[a4a: If anything makes the UN collapse, it will be US efforts to squash and undermine it; the US refusal to pay its share of the UN bill (we're the single largest non-payer in the UN).]
The United States is concerned that unless the leading powers have a say in the jurisdiction of the court and what crimes prosecutors can pursue American servicemen could be taken before international judges who harbored anti-American agendas. "Soldiers deployed far from home need to do their jobs without exposure to politicized proceedings," Mr. Richardson said.
[a4a: BUZZWORD ALERT! What is an "anti-American agenda" and how can an independent war crimes court go against this agenda? Does that mean a pro-American agenda necessarily involves the violation of human rights and genocide? Rather than question the role of American servicemen and foreign policy in its violation of human rights, the US would rather eliminate a functioning world court on crimes against humanity!]
Beneath the noble sentiments that have been flowing across the conference hall, the proceedings themselves are already highly politicized.
[a4a: What the hell does this mean? Here, the writer again makes assertions that, while seemingly noble or lofty, a world court for human rights violations is actually nefarious, nasty thing. Who do they think they're fooling?]
Mr. Richardson alluded in his speech to the lobbying efforts of the like-minded group, led by normally staunch allies like Canada and Britain. "The court cannot be the creation of a single group of nations," he said. "The court must be built on the firm ground of international consensus and enjoy international support."
[a4a: BUZZWORD ALERT!! Here, Richardson outdoes himself in Orwellian doublespeak - here he portrays the 40 nations in favor of the world court (that is, the international consensus) as a "single group" - making them seem to be the minority; then he goes on to make the 1 opposing nation, the US, represent an invisible, imaginary "international consensus". It only holds water if you never question what you read!]
Throughout the five-week conference delegations will be forced to debate and seek compromise. The opening statements are in effect opening bids in a complex and lengthy process. Leaving the conference, Mr. Richardson heatedly said: "We won't support the treaty if it has this self-initiating independent prosecutor. That's for sure."
[a4a: BUZZWORD ALERT! Here we're prepared for the eventual gutting of this world court by the US, to make it seem that this initial stand by the majority of participating nations is simply an irrational, unreasonable opening salvo, and the US will eventually talk sense to the wrong-headed nations out there! Note that while the appearance of negotiation is there, the US has made it clear where it stands - the US will support no independent world court, period. End of debate. Now it's simply up to the rest of the world to "come around" to the US's position. I hope they stand firm to their principles and aren't "forced to seek compromise" as noted in the article - which brings something to mind; if you're "forced" to seek "compromise", is it really a compromise at all?]
His position was opposed by Canada, chairman of the conference and one of the most active members of the like-minded group.
[a4a: Interestingly, the article doesn't reveal the membership of this mysterious "like-minded group" - to do so would reveal how out-of-step the US is with world opinion! Better to keep them in the shadows, I suppose…]
"A court worth having is one with an independent, highly professional prosecutor," Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy of Canada said in his statement this morning. "He or she should be able to initiate a proceeding ex-officio, rather than having International Criminal Court jurisdiction triggered only by state complaint or a Security Council referral."
Mr. Richardson's statement angered rights groups, who have flooded the conference, lobbying for as broad and independent a court as possible.
"This court will have very little business if it is dependent on states or the Security Council's referring cases to prosecutors," Richard Dicker, associate counsel for Human Rights Watch, said. "You can just imagine the diplomatic, economic and security considerations that would come into play before the U.S. or even a smaller nation would risk lodging a complaint against China."
[a4a: Or, more likely, before a smaller nation would risk lodging a complaint against the US!]
All nations say publicly that they want an effective and independent court. But some countries qualify that by insisting that states consent to any investigations of their citizens, a restriction that human rights groups deplore as fatally obstructionist.
[a4a: Whoops! Newspeak again! Here "some countries" are saying this, when, from what we've seen in the article, the US is alone, while 40 nations stand on the other side. Who are these phantom countries? The article never says, and the good readers aren't supposed to ask questions like that!]