| JuryFury.com
A New Issue Every Monday ! SUBSCRIBE NOW !! Online School of Politics |
||
| Areas of Interest THE USA American Foreign Policy US House and Senate US Presidents State & Local Politics Regional Politics Politics of China The British Commonwealth Indian Subcontinent Middle East The European Union Africa Latin America ASEAN NATO United Nations The Non-aligned Movement Eastern Europe New Nations of the 20th Century General Topics Constitutional Law Human Rights Nuclear Disarmament & Treaties International Warfare Environmental Law Peace Treaties Economic & Social Alliances International Organizations Journalism & Media Racism and Democracy Women in the Workplace Family Law Courts and Practices The Judicial System Higher Education Education and Government Health Care & Insurance Rights of the Disabled Copyright & Working Online Legal Representation Legal Insurance Pornography Domestic Violence Religion & Law Workers Rights Employers Rights Prison & Life after Social Organizations Welfare & Poverty Taxation and Democracy Third World Aid Programs Space Exploration Alternative Energy Petroleum Industry & Cars Nuclear Power Programs for the Arts Sports Education Policing the Internet Privacy and freedom Immigration Food and Regulation War on Drugs War on Pharmaceuticals Public Housing Pollution and Control Sexual Harrassment Discrimination Electoral Process Consumers Rights Investors Rights Abortion Death Penalty Social Security Gender & Sexuality Grassroots Organization ACLU World Watch Oxfam UNICEF United Negro Fund Ford Foundation (suggestions welcome at our chatsite) Law of the Economy Join I-Traderschool, our sister magazine, for debates and news. |
International Criminal Court
(ICC) What Bush thinks of the ICC by Trevor Batten Read it directly. American Foreign Policy and the International Criminal Court: http://www.state.gov/p/9949.htm From: "International Criminal Court" + America: http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=%22 International+Crimin\al+Court%22++%2B+America&_sb_lang=nl+en by Sophia Barkat Re: Trevor's post - ICC Thanks for the link. As a founding member and major player in the UN, the US is not supposed to be opposed to ICC - http://www.state.gov/p/9949.htm "We believe that states, not international institutions are primarily responsible for ensuring justice in the international system." Can members disobey the Charter and not be punished? by Trevor Batten Re: Sophia's post "Sophia Barkat" <quietpoly@yahoo.com> wrote: "Thanks for the link. As a founding member and major player in the UN, the US is not supposed to be opposed to ICC - http://www.state.gov/p/9949.htm - "We bellieve that states, not international institutions are primarily responsible for ensuring justice in the international system." Logic is such a subjective thing it seems. If one believes in states and not institutions and the ICC is an institution -- then, presumably, one does not believe iin the ICC - (but is a "state" not an "institution"?) Sophia wrote: "Can members disobey the Charter and not be punished?" This surely depends upon the Charter! Once when in the park with my daughter, I saw two kids playing. Suddenly, one kid bashed the other who then started crying. To my amazement, a parent went to to the child that was crying and chastised them for not fighting back. Personally, I would have told the aggressor not to be so aggressive, or at least to deal with conflict in another way. I suspect, that there is some kind of cultural difference at play here -in some cultures they blame the aggressor and in other cultures they blame the victim. I say this because I am surprised at the fact that you presumably know how the UN was created and which interests it serves. You also see a member treating the organization badly -and yet you blame the organization and not the aggressor. I am also curious as to what you mean exactly by "the UN". Surely, it is composed of at least two parts -the "paper" part, formed by the Charter which specifies the legal rules of the game -and the "human" part, formed by the (delegates of the) countries which compose it. To a certain point, these are two separate aspects -the rules might be perfect but the people behave badly -or the rules might be bad but the people wwork wonders within them (and of course all the other combinations too). However, I believe we have been here before -nevertheless, if the UN is failing -to whom or what do you blame this -and how can it best be corrected. Do you believe the US position is correct -or do you have totally different suggestions for improving things? Here are the opening statements from the State department (with my remarks added): * We believe in justice and the promotion of the rule of law. (This is a noble aim) * We believe those who commit the most serious crimes of concern to the international community should be punished. (this is a noble aim) * We believe that states, not international institutions are primarily responsible for ensuring justice in the international system. (what the hell does this mean? Presumably, the international system primarily covers the relationships between states -so how can states ensure justice without the support and assistance of international institutions?) * We believe that the best way to combat these serious offenses is to build domestic judicial systems, strengthen political will and promote human freedom. (This is completely absurd -and contrary to the first statement. How are domestic judicial systems to promote human freedom when it is these domestic judicial systems that are committing the most serious crimes against humanity. If this principle was maintained, then Saddam Hussein would be inviolate -because his activities (from WMD's to torture) are permitted by his domestic legal system. How can one support the rule of law -when the potential criminals are the only ones who must determine the law?) by Sophia Barkat Re: Trevor's post Trevor said: "I am also curious as to what you mean exactly by "the UN". Surely, it is composed of at least two parts -the "paper" part, formed by the Charter whhich specifies the legal rules of the game -and the "human" part, formed by the (delegates of the) countries which compose it. To a certain point, these are two separate aspects -the rules might be perfect but the people behave badly -or the rules might be bad but the people work wonders within them (and of course all the other combinations too). However, I believe we have been here before -nevertheless, if the UN is failing -to whom or what do you blame this -and how can it best be corrected. Do you believe the US position is correct -or do you have totally different suggestions for improving things?" Very simply stated: I am opposed to the Security Council, Media, International Leaders: (the people) 1) for giving us the impression that the Secretary General is some kind of world leader when the Charter gives him no power to execute anything. There upon shifting blame of inaction away from the real culprits in the Security Council. The Security Council: (the people) 1) for starting, aiding and abetting wars that it was supposed to stop since the inception of the UN. Members of the General Assembly: 1) for being part of an organization that will not keep the peace, will parade as an organization that does try to keep the peace, and that enforces the Charter selectively upon it's poorer members, while not punishing lawbreakers in the Security Council. 2) For doing nothing to address and demand the need for dissolution of the Security Council and empowerment of the General Assembly and the Secretary General. 3) for submitting to a lie - that any good can come of an organization with such a twisted Charter. 4) for being party to the inaction a.k.a. discussions on ways of peaceful resolution and other charade activities - while 200,000 Bosnian Muslims die, and Palestinian kids die in crossfires outside of UN PeaceKeeping Camps in the West Bank. The UN has 250 so-called Watchers there who do nothing but report back to the UN so that the puppet Secretary General can give a press conference the next day and denounce the uncalled for Israeli attack. 5) for hiding behind the Year of the Woman and the Year of the Child and Literacy for All, while children die of lack of medicine in Iraq due to UN sanctions etc, and 25% of Africa waits to be wiped out by AIDS, and the WHO pushes test-drugs that Western Pharmaceutical companies just came up with. Recall how Clinton announced that the AIDS situation in Africa was of grave importance to the US. In the US nothing is of grave important to the government unless there is money in it. The list goes on and on and on.... by Trevor Batten Re: Sophia's post Perhaps you should also blame the general population (in developed countries) who like to believe that all is good in the world, that their leaders are always honorable men and that they have further nothing to do except buy and be happy! It has been said that the public get the politicians that they deserve. Looking at Blair and Bush I see no real reason to disagree! But I thought you already claimed that the charter was (largely) set up by the US to control and curtail the emancipation of other countries. This time, the majority of the UN seems to have opposed the war -but the warmongers decided to ignore the democratic process in the UN (general assembly and Security Council) and go ahead and have their war. Do you have any practical (realistic) proposals for how the war could have been prevented? How can anybody (including permanent Security Council members) punish law breakers who are permanent Security Council members (because of the veto system)? As far as I can see, the ICC (set up by the UN) does offer the chance of punishing lawbreakers (inside or outside the Security Council). However, as you know, to indict the US practically (i.e. in practical terms) involves a declaration of war (from the ICC on the US). In fact, this would probably create an interesting President (an institution declaring war on a country) -and, as the previous article showed, invollve the US in some interesting paradoxes as far as NATO was concerned. Maybe this is why the US is trying to blow up NATO -before it is too late...... I'm afraid, I believe that you have lived too long in the US -and see things from a far too simplistic and short term perspective. How can they do this -so long America (and other countries) have a veto which prevents anything being accepted which does not fit in with their interests. Do you know of any rules that would allow the circumvention of a veto? This is rather like me seeing you being held hostage by someone pointing a big gun at your head -so then I accuse you of not liberating yourself! Well, I suspect a lot of good has come from the UN -via UNESCO and the various help organizations. Perhaps, one could claim that a lot of good has even come from the myth that good might come from the organization. Now people have expectations -which they might not otherwise have had. PPerhaps the difficulties involved in finding a way forward are actually an example of the success of the UN and not its failure! Living in Holland -and having experience Srbrenica from within Holland -I would say the only error the UN made was to take Holland seriously when it offered to help. Many people have the illusion that Holland is a great, progressive, country that somehow offers an example of how things should work in the world. Naturally, the Dutch like to keep up this image. However, in practice, it has nothing to do with reality! Many people have died in Holland as a result of accidents which should never have happened (or if they did happen, should have been treated more intelligently). Rules are ignored here and nobody is ever responsible for anything. They can't even get a government together within three months of an election. They rushed into Bosnia (for their own glory) although they had no idea at all about what they were getting involved with. Believe me, their troops had never even really realized that the Serbs used real bullets. Only after the first soldiers had been in action did the military organize demonstrations (with troops hiding in a shelter -while somebody shoots cardboard boxes off the roof) to aquatint their troops with live fire! After the massacre -the Dutch were primarily involved with a cover up --afterwards they became obsessed with their own shame. When the women of Srbentica asked for some kind of gesture from the Dutch government (when the official Dutch report was published -years afterwards) the Dutch replied that they wanted to sort out their own feelings first! So presumably, somebody has benefited -if their was money in it! But seriously, surely the trick of diplomacy is to take what is offered and get more out of it than was intended. Of course a government sets up an "environmental agency" which is intended to keep all those environmental freaks under control -but it is the job of the environmental freeaks to exploit this "environmental agency" to force the government to do more than it was intending. |
Encourage Discussion Join Juryfury Chat Promote Juryfury.com Join online discussion Groups Archives Writers Needed Be a Columnist Be an Editor Become an Owner Writing Training Program Internship Program for Students Advertise with Us Our Staff & Contributors Our Magazines Quietpoly.com I-Traderschool Juryfury.com The Company Our Address: QuietPoly Inc. 240 W. Saunders. Dr. (#146) Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Tel (928) 214-7365 quietpoly@yahoo.com Our Affiliations (pending member) MediaChannel.org IndyMedia.org |