This week witnessed another attempt by the imperialists to create a legal framework for military action against Syria. France put a draft proposal to the Security Council seeking to transfer the Syrian civil war to the International Criminal Court (ICC). The true purpose of the proposed resolution is not to be able to indict people before the ICC but rather to be able to activate Chapter VII of the UN Charter. This would enable any country later to launch military action against Syria claiming legitimacy in acting to uphold the UN Charter. The world has seen this between 1990 and 2003 when all genocide and military action against Iraq was carried out under that same pretext.
I do not intend here to discuss the position of Security Council resolutions vis-à-vis International Law as the topic is too involved and very technical and matters little in a world dominated by power politics that side-step law whenever it is expedient to do so.
But I would like to draw the attention of anyone interested to one simple fact in the proceedings in the above proposal that goes to show how International Law could become a ploy in the hands of the Imperialist Zionists when the Security Council discusses some international serious matter.
On 1 June 2002, the Rome Statute of the ICC came into force after 60 states ratified it, hopefully signaling the beginning of a new era in international criminal law.
If we look at the current members of the Security Council and their positions regarding the ratification of the Rome Statute and voting on the proposed French resolution before the Security Council we have the following table:
|
Name |
Ratified Rome Statute |
Voted on French Proposal |
|
China |
No |
No |
|
Russian Federation |
No |
No |
|
United States of America |
No |
Yes |
|
United Kingdom |
Yes |
Yes |
|
France |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Argentina |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Australia |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Chad |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Chile |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Jordan |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Lithuania |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Luxemburg |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Nigeria |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Republic of Korea |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Rwanda |
No |
Yes |
It appears from the above table that 11 states, which ratified the Rome Statute and became parties to the ICC, have voted in favour of the French proposal to put Syria under the whim of the much politicized prosecutor of the ICC.
Four states stand differently.
Both China and the Russian Federation (Russia) who have not yet ratified the Rome Statute voted against the French proposal. That would make perfect sense. Irrespective of the their argued position regarding their rejection of the proposed resolution they would have acted properly and legally as it would be a mockery of justice for a state that does not recognized the jurisdiction of a court to attempt to indict another state before that same court!
But the USA presents a paradox..
Because the US did not only refuse to ratify the ICC Treaty but it embarked on a campaign to encourage other states not to sign up to the Treaty, and on failing to succeed in that campaign, it pressured states into entering into bilateral agreements not to apply the ICC law to US citizens, and there, it achieved the acquiescence of over 100 states. By doing this, the US was breaching international law, not simply by not abiding by it but by encouraging other states to break it through these bilateral agreements. Towards that end, the US passed the American Service-members’ Protection Act of 2002 (ASPA) which, “prohibits the United States from providing military aid to countries that have ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).” The ASPA effectively limits US cooperation with the International Criminal Court, restricts US participation in UN peacekeeping, prohibits military assistance to most countries that ratify the ICC’s Rome Statute, and authorizes the President to use ‘all means necessary and appropriate’ to free any US or allied personnel held by or on behalf of the
ICC—a provision that has led European leaders to call it “The Hague Invasion Act.”
Certain U.S. allies have since been specifically exempted under the ASPA. These include all NATO countries, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand!
So in view of the above facts, would any state have the audacity of the USA to legislate against the ICC and against any state, organization or individual cooperating with the ICC and then go and indict another state before that same court? Or is the USA telling the world that it is different from the rest in this respect too – it is the most audacious State!
Abdul-Haq Al-Ani
24 May 2014
The habitual exceptionalism the US practices may be coming to an end because it is being exposed and Isolated by the Vetoes of the Russian Federation and China. I cannot agree more with your assertion with regard to the hypocrisy and audacity of this superpower. Soon, US laws which are supposed to be in harmony with International law as is the case with all member states, will end up contradicting International Law which will create an unprecedented situation that may just cause a long overdue change in the structure of the UN itself. It is unsustainable to be above the law for long. And as an aside, the new election legislation in Syria, not only meets all International law standards, but is almost a carbon copy of the one France uses. Yet France is considered a democracy and Syria a rogue state.