PRESS CONFERENCE ON INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

PRESS CONFERENCE ON INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

At a Headquarters press conference this morning, representatives of three prominent non-governmental organizations called on more Member States to join in what they believed was the growing trend opposing the United States bid to extend a Security Council resolution exempting from prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC) United Nations peacekeepers from countries’ not party to the Court’s Statute for a 12-month period beginning on 1 July. 

The call came ahead of the Security Council debate and vote on the text, which was to have taken place today but was rescheduled for 24 May.  The speakers - Caroline Baudot, Legal Research Officer for the NGO Coalition for the International Criminal Court; Richard Dicker, Director of Human Rights Watch’s International Justice Programme; and Yvonne Terlingen, Amnesty International Representative at the United Nations - said they detected a growing trend against the renewal of resolution 1487 (2003), and urged the Security Council not to “undermine” the Court by agreeing to the renewal.  The first resolution on the question - 1422 - was adopted in July 2002.

Mr. Dicker said that this year’s debate and vote was taking place in a very different context than last year.  Resolution 1487 was adopted at a time when the United States was angry because it failed to obtain the necessary second Iraq resolution authorizing a United Nations imprimatur for the invasion of Iraq.  The implication, he said, was that because the United States was angry, the other Council members had to do all they could to placate Washington’s anger. 

This year, he continued, the post-Iraq context looked very different.  The mounting reports of evidence of prisoner abuse in Iraq constituted the most important factor contributing to that changed context.  He believed that situation was “the 800-pound gorilla” that was going to be padding around the Security Council Chamber during both the open debate and when the votes were actually cast. 

“I think the Americans have picked one hell of a time to make the case for special immunity for themselves on the basis of their refusal to acknowledge a court of last resort – the ICC, that would only come into play if the national authorities failed to do their job”, he said.  He made it clear that the Court had no jurisdiction or authority over the events in Iraq, and, therefore, it was not as if the vote in the Council would, in any way, impact potential United States liability for those crimes that had occurred in Iraq. 

He noted that the symbolism of an American representative appearing on the Council floor this past Wednesday morning talking about the crimes in Iraq and then coming back later that afternoon to insist on an exemption for United States forces from the ICC was, in his words, “quite stunning”. 

The other factor shaping the upcoming debate was the negotiations underway on a resolution the United States was desperate to obtain legitimising the 30 June handover of sovereignty to an Iraqi authority.  Contrasting May 2003 and May 2004, he recalled that a year ago the Bush Administration could not be bothered with the Security Council; a year later, it was now dependent on the Council to give “its regime in Iraq” some legitimacy.

As to why Washington was in such a rush with the resolution, as last year’s text did not expire until 1 July, he suggested two reasons for the Bush Administration’s haste.  First, it wanted to rush to undercut what it knew very well would be a rising tide of opposition.  It knew that States would not be able to get instructions from their capitals very quickly.  The second reason for the rush, very much related to Iraq, was that the United States wanted the issue of its immunity out of the way before negotiations seriously got under way on the Iraq resolution, likely to be completed sometime by mid-June.

Ms. Terlingen said that Amnesty International yesterday came out with a statement urging governments to vote today in favour of human rights and international humanitarian law by opposing the renewal of resolution 1487.  She believed that resolution was a direct attack on the ICC, which sought to end impunity regardless of the status of States and regardless of nationality.  Amnesty International considered the resolution illegal.

“We believe there is a growing trend against the resolution.  Last year, there were three abstentions and this year we hope for more, especially at a time that the need to uphold international humanitarian and human rights law is demonstrated more than ever by the events seen in the last three or four weeks”, she said.  She reminded correspondents that the United Kingdom said last year that resolution 1422 (2002) was an exceptional measure and that it looked forward to the day when it would no longer be required.

Ms. Baudot pointed out that last year, many States expressed their objections to the resolution in a public meeting.  Also, the European Union, in a common statement, indicated that the resolution should not be automatically renewed without taking into account the specific conditions under which the request was made.  Further, Secretary-General Kofi Annan also made “a very strong statement” expressing his hope that the renewal of the resolution would not become an annual routine and that the resolution undermined the authority of the Council and the legitimacy of United Nations peacekeeping.

The three speakers noted that the ICC was up and running and that two States, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, had already referred the situations in their countries to it.  Those were States who themselves had armed conflicts within their borders and on their territories.  Thus, they demonstrated the intricate connection and importance of the ICC in ending and preventing armed conflict.  Council members were urged to demonstrate their full support for the ICC by voting against the draft resolution.

* **** *