Take action on an urgent matter regarding the U.S.’s
obstructionist role in efforts to create a fair and effective International
Criminal Court (ICC). Secretary of State Madeline Albright is currently
approaching foreign ministries to garner support for a U.S. proposal that would
severely curb the independence of this Court and ensure the possibility of
across-the-board exemptions from the Court’s jurisdiction for peacekeeping
forces. Ms. Albright’s efforts are part of a larger strategy in this process
and reveal the mounting pressure the U.S. is putting on governments involved in
the current negotiations to cater to U.S. concerns.
The ICC will be the world’s first permanent criminal court to try individuals
for what are considered the most egregious of war crimes, crimes against
humanity and genocide. The treaty creating the ICC (referred to as the “Rome
Statute” for the ICC) was adopted by an overwhelming majority of countries in
Rome in 1998. The Rome Statute is also heralded for its treatment of gender as
crimes of sexual and gender violence, including gender-based persecution, are
specifically named as crimes for the first time in international law. Thus far,
8 countries have ratified the Rome Statute and 94 have signed.
The U.S., however, along with six other countries, including Iraq, Libya and
China, VOTED AGAINST the Court. The U.S. argued that the Security Council should
have control of the cases that can come before the Court -- in the form of a
veto -- and also wanted an exemption for U.S. peacekeepers. Being among the five
permanent members, such a veto would have situated the U.S. nicely in terms of
the influence it could wield over this institution. The other 120 countries
voting in favor of the Court held out for a more independent one, though not
without numerous concessions to the U.S which resulted in an already complicated
and difficult jurisdictional regime.
Since the adoption of the Rome Statute over the U.S.’ objections, the U.S. has
continued with its efforts to weaken the Court in several ways. First, the U.S.
began a policy of insisting on the inclusion of a provision in bilateral
agreements that the countries party to such agreements would agree to not
extradite U.S. nationals to the Court once it comes into existence. The most
recent strategy as put forward by Ms. Albright to the foreign ministries is a
proposal which re-introduces the issue of Security Council control over the
cases that can come before the Court as well as the issue of an exception for
peacekeepers. Both concepts were soundly rejected at the Rome Treaty Conference.
This proposal seeks to achieve these same objectives in a more complicated and
underhanded way.
The U.S. efforts are in anticipation of what has been termed the U.S.’
“make-or-break” meeting at the U.N., the preparatory commission meeting (Prepcom)
for the ICC which will be held from 12-30 June 2000 at UN headquarters in New
York. This will be the last meeting to deal substantively with the issues of
concern to the U.S.
U.S. BASED NGO’S AND ACTIVISTS: We are urging you to express your support for
the Court and demand that the U.S. play a more constructive role in this process
and ultimately sign and ratify the Rome Statute. We cannot rely on the foreign
ministries of other governments to constantly counter the U.S.’ pervasive and
multi-layered attacks on this institution. Those responsible in the U.S.
government must hear loud and clear the voices of women and men in this country
in support of the ICC. We must demand that the U.S. play a more responsible and
respectful role in this process and take part in international justice on an
equal footing and on the same terms as the rest of the world.
TO OUR FRIENDS ELSEWHERE IN THE WORLD: We ask that you write to your foreign
ministries urging them to reject, and continue to reject, these and other
efforts by the U.S. and/or others who may try to undercut the ICC.
Please feel free to fax the following draft letters or write your own. If you
are in the U.S. please write to the following persons. Please also fax or email
a copy to the Women’s Caucus for Gender Justice, iccwomen@igc.org / fax
1-212-949-7996.
President Clinton
fax: 1-202-456-2461
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
fax: 1-202-261-8577
Attorney General Janet Reno
Fax: 1-202-307-6777
Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1000
David Scheffer, Ambassador at Large for War Crimes
fax: 1-202-736-4495
Theresa Loar, President’s Interagency Council on Women
fax: 1-202-647-5337
Bonnie J. Campbell, Director, Violence Against Women Office
fax: 1-202-307-3911
_______________________________________________
(Draft Letter to U.S. Officials)
May 2000
Dear ________________,
We are writing to you about the U.S. role in the ongoing process to establish
the International Criminal Court. We understand the U.S. voted against this
Court and desires a 100% exemption from the Court’s jurisdiction for U.S.
nationals as well as a Security Council veto over cases that can come before the
ICC. We are concerned that the U.S. is still trying to achieve these objectives
despite these aims having been overwhelmingly rejected at the 1998 Rome
Diplomatic Treaty Conference.
We are alarmed by such efforts to weaken the capacity of an institution as
necessary for world peace and justice as the ICC. Such an institution must be
founded upon principles of independence and impartiality in order for it to do
justice evenly and fairly. We understand many concessions were made during the
treaty conference specifically in response to U.S. concerns about the Court’s
jurisdiction. As a result, the Rome Statute contains a jurisdictional regime, or
threshold, that is already more difficult to meet than many countries and
organizations in civil society believed appropriate. Further, the Court’s
jurisdiction is subject to the principle of complementarity, i.e. the Court can
only try cases when the national system is unwilling or unable to do so.
Additionally, the Rome Statute contains a series of checks and balances on the
Prosecutor’s power to investigate situations and prosecute cases that would
eliminate the possibility of politically-motivated prosecutions.
Among the many achievements for which the Statute of the ICC is heralded is its
treatment of gender as crimes of sexual and gender violence, including
gender-based persecution, are specifically named as crimes for the first time in
international law. We are concerned that the U.S. is increasingly lagging behind
in the ongoing development of principles and institutions that reaffirm and
strengthen the most basic human rights and humanitarian concepts.
We demand that those responsible in the State, Defense and Justice Departments
reconsider the official position concerning the ICC in light of the support in
the U.S. for such a Court and the need to ensure the independence, impartiality,
fairness and effectiveness of this very necessary mechanism of accountability.
More specifically, we demand:
-the U.S. withdraw proposals which re-introduce the Security Council and
peacekeeper exception into the ICC process in a manner already rejected;
-the U.S. halt all similar efforts that would undermine this Court’s ability
to function.
Furthermore, we urge President Clinton to take the opportunity to sign this
landmark treaty before leaving office and set the U.S. on an appropriate course,
along with many others in the world community, toward ending the culture of
impunity.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Signed,
______________________________
(Draft Letter to Foreign Ministries)
May 2000
Dear ________________,
We are writing to you about the U.S. role in the ongoing process to establish
the International Criminal Court. We understand the U.S. voted against this
Court and desires a 100% exemption from the Court’s jurisdiction for U.S.
nationals as well as a Security Council veto over cases that can come before the
ICC. We are concerned that the U.S. is still seeking to achieve these objectives
despite these aims having been overwhelmingly rejected at the 1998 Rome
Diplomatic Treaty Conference.
We are alarmed by such efforts to weaken the capacity of an institution as
necessary for world peace and justice as the ICC. Such an institution must be
founded upon principles of independence and impartiality in order for it to do
justice evenly and fairly. We understand many concessions were made during the
treaty conference specifically in response to U.S. concerns about the Court’s
jurisdiction. As a result, the Rome Statute contains a jurisdictional regime, or
threshold, that is already more difficult to meet than many countries and
organizations in civil society believed appropriate. Further, the Court’s
jurisdiction is subject to the principle of complementarity, i.e. the Court can
only try cases when the national system is unwilling or unable to do so.
Additionally, the Rome Statute contains a series of checks and balances on the
Prosecutor’s power to investigate situations and prosecute cases that would
eliminate the possibility of politically-motivated prosecutions.
Thus, with the aforementioned safeguards in place, rather than
politically-motivated prosecutions, we should be more concerned about the danger
of politically-engineered non-prosecutions and Security Council monopolization
of world justice. Despite U.S. assertions to the contrary, not only would the
current U.S. proposal result in an amendment of the statute, it would undercut
the ability of the ICC to do justice. We must insist that if the U.S. is going
to play a part in international justice, it do so on an equal footing and on the
same terms as the rest of the world.
We commend your steadfast commitment to ensuring the independence of this court
in the face of such intense opposition from the U.S. in Rome. We urge you to
continue to reject all such efforts aimed at eroding the independence and
effectiveness of this most necessary mechanism of accountability.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Signed….
U.N. e-mail addresses, Permanent Missions:
Please address your letter to the 'Representative of the 6th Committee' at
your permanent mission.
Afghanistan - afgun@undp.org
Albania - albun@undp.org
Algeria - dzaun@undp.org
Andorra - andun@undp.org
Angola - agoun@undp.org
Antigua and Barbuda - atgun@undp.org
Argentina - argun@undp.org
Armenia -armun@undp.org
Australia - ausun@undp.org
Austria - autun@undp.org
Azerbaijan - azeun@undp.org
Bahamas - bhsun@undp.org
Bahrain -bhrun@undp.org
Bangladesh - bgdun@undp.org
Barbados - brbun@undp.org
Belarus - blrun@undp.org
Belgium - belun@undp.org
Belize - blzun@undp.org
Benin - benun@undp.org
Bhutan - btnun@undp.org
Bolivia - bolun@undp.org
Bosnia and Herzegovina - bihun@undp.org
Botswana - bwaun@undp.org
Brazil - braun@undp.org
Brunei Darussalam - brnun@undp.org
Bulgaria - bgrun@undp.org
Burkina Faso - bfaun@undp.org
Burundi - bdiun@undp.org
Cambodia -khmun@undp.org
Cameroon - cmrun@undp.org
Canada - canun@undp.org
Cape Verde- cpvun@undp.org
Central African Republic - cafun@undp.org
Chad -tcdun@undp.org
Chile - chiun@undp.org
China - chnun@undp.org
Colombia -colun@undp.org
Comoros - comun@undp.org
Congo - cogun@undp.org
Costa Rica -cosun@undp.org
Cote d'Ivoire - civun@undp.org
Croatia - hrvun@undp.org
Cuba- cubun@undp.org
Cyprus - cypun@undp.org
Czech Republic - czeun@undp.org
Denmark - dnkun@undp.org
Djibouti - djiun@undp.org
Dominica -dmaun@undp.org
Dominican Republic - domun@undp.org
Ecuador - ecuun@undp.org
Egypt - egyun@undp.org
El Salvador - salun@undp.org
Equatorial Guinea -gnqun@undp.org
Eritrea - eriun@undp.org
Estonia - estun@undp.org
Ethiopia -ethun@undp.org
Fiji - fjiun@undp.org
Finland - finun@undp.org
France -fraun@undp.org
Gabon - gabun@undp.org
Gambia - gmbun@undp.org
Georgia -geoun@undp.org
Germany - germany@un.int
Ghana - ghaun@undp.org
Great Britain - gbrun@undp.org
Greece - grcun@undp.org
Grenada - grdun@undp.org
Guatemala - gtmun@undp.org
Guinea - ginun@undp.org
Guinea-Bissau -gnbun@undp.org
Guyana - guyun@undp.org
Haiti - htiun@undp.org
Honduras -hndun@undp.org
Hungary - hunun@undp.org
Iceland - islun@undp.org
India -indun@undp.org
Indonesia - idnun@undp.org
Iran - irnun@undp.org
Iraq -irqun@undp.org
Ireland - irlun@undp.org
Israel - isrun@undp.org
Italy -itaun@undp.org
Jamaica - jamun@undp.org
Japan - jpnun@undp.org
Jordan -jorun@undp.org
Kazakstan - kazun@undp.org
Kenya - kenun@undp.org
Korea(Dem. People's Republic of) - prkun@undp.org
Korea (Republic of) -korun@undp.org
Kuwait - kwtun@undp.org
Kyrgyzstan - kgzun@undp.org
Lao P.Dem. Republic - laoun@undp.org
Latvia - lvaun@undp.org
Lebanon -lbnun@undp.org
Lesotho - lsoun@undp.org
Liberia - lbrun@undp.org
Libya -lbyun@undp.org
Liechtenstein - lieun@undp.org
Lithuania - ltuun@undp.org
Luxembourg - luxun@undp.org
Macedonia - mkdun@undp.org
Madagascar - mdgun@undp.org
Malawi - mwiun@undp.org
Malaysia - mysun@undp.org
Maldives -mdvun@undp.org
Mali - mliun@undp.org
Malta - mltun@undp.org
Marshall Islands - mhlun@undp.org
Mauritania - mrtun@undp.org
Mauritius - musun@undp.org
Mexico - mexun@undp.org
Micronesia - fsmun@undp.org
Moldova - mdaun@undp.org
Monaco - mcoun@undp.org
Mongolia - mngun@undp.org
Morocco - marun@undp.org
Mozambique - mozun@undp.org
Myanmar - mmrun@undp.org
Namibia - namun@undp.org
Nepal - nplun@undp.org
Netherlands - nldun@undp.org
New Zealand - nzlun@undp.org
Nicaragua - nicun@undp.org
Niger - nerun@undp.org
Nigeria - ngaun@undp.org
Norway - norun@undp.org
Oman - omnun@undp.org
Pakistan - pakun@undp.org
Palau - plwun@undp.org
Palestinian National Authority - palun@undp.org
Panama - panun@undp.org
Papua New Guinea - pngun@undp.org
Paraguay - pryun@undp.org
Peru - perun@undp.org
Philippines - phlun@undp.org
Poland - polun@undp.org
Portugal - prtun@undp.org
Qatar - qatun@undp.org
Romania - romun@undp.org
Rwanda - rwaun@undp.org
Russian Federation - rusun@undp.org
Samoa - wsmun@undp.org
San Marino - smrun@undp.org
Sao Tome and Principe - stpun@undp.org
Saudi Arabia - sauun@undp.org
Senegal - senun@undp.org
Seychelles - sycun@undp.org
Sierra Leone - sleun@undp.org
Singapore - sgpun@undp.org
Slovakia - svkun@undp.org
Slovenia - svnun@undp.org
Solomon Islands - slbun@undp.org
Somalia - somun@undp.org
South Africa - zafun@undp.org
Spain - espun@undp.org
Sri Lanka - lkaun@undp.org
St. Kitts and Nevis - knaun@undp.org
St. Lucia - lcaun@undp.org
St. Vincent & the Grenadines - vctun@undp.org
Sudan - sdnun@undp.org
Suriname - surun@undp.org
Swaziland - swzun@undp.org
Sweden - sweun@undp.org
Switzerland - cheun@undp.org
Syrian Arab Republic - syrun@undp.org
Tajikistan - tjkun@undp.org
Tanzania (United Republic of) - tzaun@undp.org
Thailand - thaun@undp.org
Togo - tgoun@undp.org
Trinidad and Tobago - ttoun@undp.org
Tunisia - tunun@undp.org
Turkey - turun@undp.org
Turkmenistan - tkmun@undp.org
Uganda - ugaun@undp.org
Ukraine - ukrun@undp.org
United Arab Emirates - areun@undp.org
United States of America - usaun@undp.org
Uruguay - uruun@undp.org
Uzbekistan - uzbun@undp.org
Vanuatu - vutun@undp.org
Vatican (Holy See) - vatun@undp.org
Venezuela - venun@undp.org
Viet - Nam - vnmun@undp.org
Yemen - yemun@undp.org
Yugoslavia - yugun@undp.org
Zaire - zarun@undp.org
Zambia - zmbun@undp.org
Zimbabwe - zweun@undp.org
