-->
wobei alle Verfehlungen im Irak-Feldzug und -Krieg ausgenommen werden müssten!

United Nations of America

United Nations of America

Weekend Barometer June 27, 2004


(The following is from the June 6th Barometer)

The yearly, US forced, UN vote to ensure that no US soldier is ever pulled in front of the War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague is due for consideration soon( See Full Article below for this year's decision). In 2003, for the first time there were three abstainers (France, Germany, and Syria). What will this years vote bring? With our tentacles reaching to all corners of this earth, and our soldiers spread everywhere, how many Abu Ghraib prisons will it take before we are viewed throughout the land as cold-conquerors? When one considers that a large portion of the world’s population already sees us this way, how long until we, as a nation, will be forced to submit to the world court in The Hague? How would the markets react? Currently, America looks foolish for the way we went into Iraq and our collective American eye is black. Personally, I am fine with what America is doing in Iraq, but last time I checked the stock market doesn’t ask Mike Johnson for advice. The markets are focused on the hard choices we as

a nation face against an enemy with no defined boundaries, belonging to no country and having only one unified goal - The end of US civilization. With that as our backdrop, can we ever dare to subject US Soldiers to the international courts?

Here’s what happened at this years vote on June 23, 2004:

U.S. Drops Bid at U.N. for War Crimes Immunity
By Evelyn Leopold and Irwin Arieff, Reuters

UNITED NATIONS (June 23) -- The United States withdrew on Wednesday its U.N. resolution to shield American soldiers from prosecution abroad because of strong opposition fueled by the Iraqi prisoners abuse scandal.

Opposition was fueled by the prison abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib.

James Cunningham, the U.S. deputy ambassador, made the announcement after U.N. Security Council members turned down his compromise to renew an exemption from the International Criminal Court for one year only. Last year's resolution expires on June 30.

The rejection prompted fears that the United States would veto U.N. peacekeeping missions as it did two years ago when the council hesitated to adopt the resolution. But Cunningham refused to say if this would happen again.

"We believe that our draft and its predecessors fairly meet the concerns of all," he said."Not all council members agree, however, and the United States has decided not to proceed further with consideration and action on the draft at this time in order to avoid a prolonged and divisive debate."

Washington has rarely faced such opposition in the council, with the notable exception of its attempt to get U.N. endorsement for the invasion of Iraq last year. Since then the council has backed the Bush administration on Iraq, despite the prisoner scandal.

But the U.S. abuse of prisoners at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib jail made it difficult for members to extend the resolution for the third time, even though the scandal would not come before the new tribunal.

The court, which started operating a year ago in The Hague, Netherlands, was created to try individuals for the world's worst atrocities -- genocide, war crimes and systematic human rights abuses -- in a belated effort to fulfill the promise of the Nazi war crimes trials after World War II.

TRIBUNAL OF LAST REPORT

It is a tribunal of last resort and would only try cases of individuals from a country that refused or was unable to press charges, making it unlikely an American would be prosecuted.

But the Bush administration, backed by Congress, wants airtight guarantees and fears politically motivated prosecutions. In the last two years, Washington has signed 90 bilateral agreements with countries that pledge not to prosecute U.S. officials abroad.

"We are after all the largest contributor to global security and have special well-known interests in protecting our forces and our officials," Cunningham told reporters.

China's U.N. ambassador, Wang Guangya, told reporters,"My government is under particular pressure not to give a blank check to the United States for the behavior of its forces."

Algeria's U.N. ambassador, Abdallah Bali, said the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal"had a strong impact on many delegations" as did appeals by Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

Annan last week asked the council to reject the measure, saying it undermined international law and sent an"unfortunate signal any time -- but particularly at this time."

After the U.S. pulled the resolution, Annan said the U.S. decision would"help maintain the unity of the Security Council at a time when it faces difficult challenges."

William Pace, head of the Coalition for an International Criminal Court, which includes more than 1,000 organizations supporting the tribunal, called the U.S. decision"a victory for international justice." He said American concerns that the court was a threat to its peacekeeping operations"are wrong."

A resolution needs a minimum of nine"yes" votes for adoption by the 15-member council but the United States could only be sure of support from Britain, the sole European Union member prepared to vote in favor, as well as Russia, Angola, the Philippines and Pakistan, diplomats said.

All others -- Germany, France, Spain, China, Brazil, Romania, Benin, Chile and Algeria -- signaled they would abstain or were leaning in that direction.



So there it is, The United Nations of America.

You decide for yourself whether it is good or bad for the country. I’ll tell ya right now that to have soldiers on trial in the Hague will take us a long way towards a real debate as to the usefulness of the United States submitting to a global body deciding on America’s citizens basic freedoms. Will this hurt the American markets? Not today, nobody is paying attention. Tell me though, what happens when a four-star general is put on trial for war crimes?

Am I being paranoid? Time has a way of answering the important questions.