 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
DinoDoc
|
 |
AECCP loves Democracy
Sep 1999
time: 23:21
|
|
BTW, if this is the "deal" you are refering to, you're blowing things out of proportion:
quote:
Yugoslav Leader Opposes Deal with U.S. on New Court
Reuters
BELGRADE - Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica has come out against a U.S. request for a bilateral deal to prevent American citizens from being turned over to the new International Criminal Court (ICC).
The United States, which has roughly 5,000 peacekeepers in the U.N.-administered Yugoslav province of Kosovo, strongly opposes the new court and has approached countries to negotiate bilateral agreements to avoid the prosecution of American personnel in their jurisdictions by the ICC.
Kostunica, whose predecessor Slobodan Milosevic is on trial for war crimes at the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia in The Hague, said any agreement to exempt people from prosecution by the ICC would undermine international law.
"Those who would enjoy immunity from prosecution would not only sleep soundly, but would also be encouraged to keep committing crimes," state news agency Tanjug quoted Kostunica as saying late Monday.
His remarks reflect a widespread feeling in Serbia that Washington is applying double standards, pressuring Belgrade to cooperate with The Hague tribunal while it seeks to win exemptions for its own citizens from the ICC.
FEAR FOR PEACEKEEPERS
Washington says hostile nations may abuse the ICC to bring politically-motivated cases against Americans, notably its troops on peacekeeping missions around the world. It had threatened to veto such missions.
The U.N. Security Council in July agreed unanimously to give U.S. peacekeepers a year's exemption from prosecution by the ICC, which was set up in The Hague on July 1 this year to deal with war crimes and other gross human rights violations.
Switzerland Tuesday also thwarted U.S. efforts to win immunity for its citizens.
Foreign Minister Joseph Deiss said Switzerland would extradite U.S. nationals to the ICC if necessary. Any bilateral agreement would undermine the court in tackling atrocities such as genocide and war crimes, Deiss said.
"The second reason is maybe even simpler. We think such a contract is not necessary because a situation in which American soldiers would undertake peacekeeping operations in Switzerland would be very unlikely, if not impossible," he said.
Canada and Norway have also shunned such deals.
Yugoslavia's eastern neighbor Romania became the first to sign a deal with the United States this month.
Romania is an aspiring NATO member, and EU officials have said they fear other mostly eastern European NATO candidate countries were under U.S. pressure to follow suit. The EU is a strong supporter of the new court.
Yugoslavia is not a candidate for NATO membership but wants to join the alliance's Partnership for Peace cooperation scheme.
"The real question is whether this court will try everyone and really be a court or try only some and, in that case, will not be a court," Kostunica said.
The president's comments are in line with his frequent attacks against "selective justice," which he normally levels at the U.N. war crimes tribunal in The Hague. He has accused the court of bias against Serbs. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
 |
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:21
|
|
Not to mention that Croatia is probable the only country ever that has given its citizens on trial for crimes commited while FREEING the country.
Which is RIGHT, as bing in war does not allow you to commit crimes ageinst civils/ elderly from the other side. Naturally there was and still is a huge dissent against that in the country. As I said the government almost fell a few months back because of that. (complying with Hague)
And the political line of the minor majority is: We have freed our country and we have nothing to fear, let our generals, etc go there and prove that we have nothing to hide. - which is great. Even though I am certain there will be people that will finish in jail ( at the end it was a War).
Naturally the line of the minority is: No this was a war for freedom and we are not guilty. - and that is it. Our generals are our heroes, and noone can sue them. (in other words, if a few of them -and these are just few but still) ordered villages to be burned and civilians to be killed, that was the price for freedom. (as if freedom would not be achieved with or without that). These guys are heroes, but still, you shoul dbe held responsible for purposful killing of civilians nevertheless. I myself would like to be protected with that kind of law "or at least principle" in my life, shold I find myself in a war situation what already happened once.
I percieve this as a struggle to get someone to be responsible in warfare, and that future "ethinc cleanser, mass murderers" and the like know that after the war finishes they will be held responsible for what they did.
And now this from our allies US. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
I thought that hysterical ranting was wat made Apolyton fun...
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
|
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by rah
Gee the US didn't support the ICC in it's current form. What's wrong with the US making agreement that could hinder it. Don't countries have the choice of weighing the +s and -s and deciding for themselves.
OR is it really.....if we don't agree with you, we're automatically evil.
Isn't that what you accuse the US of all the time?
Rich |
Of course not.
It is going around saying : You have to send all the ones ICC asks for to Hague or else for years.
And now coming around and saying: Sign this treaty with us, do not send our citizens there, and we will not send yours. In fact we will help you to get the ones who are there already, so you can handle them in your courts. And ICC says - no way you will get your people out, and you will not want to sign this if planning to become an EU member soon.
And if this is not a twist than  (plus the posible political implications in our country, but surely US wouldn't mind as the other political option would use it as an excuse, which would play straight on US hand)
It is not agreeing with US, it is that US has a lot of influence, and that is uses it to its interests as it pleases, even though they are saying that they consider you "as a country" and stability there -stability yes, but on US terms.
edit: I've got to go now 
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-08-2002 01:20
- not to mention Serbia where it will just strengthen reactionary politics. A true and clean stab for the Euros, probably the biggest since WWII. 
Another blow to international law. 
.. go figure??? 
|