US & India score ageainst the ICC

Common Dreams NewsCenter
National Conference for Media Reform  
  Wednesday, July 30, 2008  

Published on Thursday, December 26, 2002 by Agence France Presse
US, India Score ‘Win’ Against International Criminal Court
India and the United States signed a pact under which they agreed not to send each other’s nationals to a world tribunal, in a victory for Washington’s efforts to scuttle the International Criminal Court.

At least 14 other countries have already signed such agreements with the United States, but India is significant as most of the others are small or closely identified as US allies.

The US-India agreement states there will be “non-extradition of nationals of either country to any international tribunal without the other country’s express consent.”

It was signed by Indian Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal, the top bureaucrat in the foreign ministry, and the US ambassador to India, Robert Blackwill.

“India and the United States share the strongest possible commitment to bringing to justice those who commit war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide,” Blackwill told reporters after the signing.

“However, we are concerned about the International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty with respect to the adequacy of checks and balances, the impact of the treaty on national sovereignty and the potential for conflict with the UN Charter,” he said.

US President George W. Bush’s administration strongly opposes the ICC, saying the tribunal could bring politically motivated charges against Americans, including civilian military contractors and former officials.

The Rome statute setting up the ICC was signed by former US president Bill Clinton, but he urged his successor not to ratify participation in the court until Washington resolved its concerns.

India has neither signed nor ratified the ICC.

Nonetheless, a total of 139 countries have signed the Rome statute and 87 have ratified it, according to non-governmental organizations.

The ICC enjoys support of many US allies, particularly in Europe and it officially opened in The Hague in July. Eighteen judges are expected to be elected to the world’s first permanent international court in February.

The court theoretically has universal jurisdiction, but can only prosecute if the state where the crimes were committed or the state of the nationality of the accused are party to the statute.

Faced with the creation of the ICC, the United States has instead been trying to reach bilateral agreements under which countries will pledge not to extradite any US national to an international court.

Others that have signed non-extradition agreements with Washington are Afghanistan, the Dominican Republic, East Timor, El Salvador, Gambia, Honduras, Israel, the Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Micronesia, Palau, Romania, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

John Bolton, the US under secretary of state for arms control and international security, said November 14 that Washington was focusing its efforts on non-extradition with countries in South Asia and the Middle East.

But US officials have been quiet about which specific countries were being targeted for immunity deals to avoid pressure being placed on the governments in question.

An Indian official said New Delhi was disappointed with the ICC because it did not see the court playing a role in the fight against international terrorism.

India was an early supporter of the United Nations and other international institutions, but over time has become angered by periodic attempts by Pakistan to bring the Kashmir dispute to global fora.

The Indian side of divided Kashmir is in the throes of a bloody 13-year Islamic separatist insurgency which New Delhi accuses Pakistan of supporting.

“This accord is emblematic of the continuing cooperation between India and the United States,” India’s foreign ministry spokesman Navtej Sarna told reporters.

India immediately joined the US-led “coalition against terrorism” last year and in May the countries held their first joint military exercises in nearly four decades.

© 2002 AFP


john bolton and the icc


John Bolton and the United States’ Retreat from International Law

Wade Mansell

Brussels School of International Studies, Belgium, and University of Kent, UK

Emily Haslam

Brussels School of International Studies, Belgium, and University of Kent, UK

This article focuses upon the writings of John R. Bolton who was for four years US Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. He is currently the US Ambassador to the United Nations. His position with regard to international law is, at least for non-Americans, extraordinary, but also extraordinarily important since it resonates with the views of many in the current Bush administration. In essence, he is sceptical of the entire category of international law and argues that it cannot ever be accepted as superior to US domestic law. He doubts that it can be distinguished from international relations. These views need to be taken seriously if the implications for the world of diplomacy and international relations, and indeed domestic law, are to be understood. This the article attempts to do.

‘unbalanced’ ICC prosecutor

Arab League slams ‘unbalanced’ ICC prosecutor

Posted Sun Jul 20, 2008 7:05am AEST

The Arab League has slammed the International Criminal Court’s “unbalanced” prosecutor for seeking the arrest of Sudanese President Omar al-Beshir, saying Sudan’s courts should judge alleged Darfur war crimes.

Arab foreign ministers stressed “the mandate of Sudan’s civil judiciary in achieving justice,” in a resolution following crisis talks in Cairo over how to deal with ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo’s request for Mr Beshir to be arrested on genocide charges.

The resolution also criticised Mr Moreno-Ocampo’s “unbalanced stance” for asking ICC judges to issue a warrant for Mr Beshir’s arrest which, if granted, would be the first ever issued by The Hague-based court against a sitting head of state.

Some of the Arab League’s 22-members have previously criticised Mr Moreno-Ocampo’s move, saying it threatens peace prospects in Darfur, while also fearing a dangerous precedent for other leaders in the region.

Khartoum has consistently rejected the ICC’s jurisdiction, saying it would try alleged war criminals in its own courts, although credible trials have so far failed to materialise.

Sudan has refused to surrender two suspects named last year in connection with war crimes in Darfur and hopes to persuade veto-wielding permanent members of the UN Security Council to defer any ICC prosecution of Mr Beshir.

The Darfur conflict broke out in 2003 when ethnic minority rebels took up arms against the Arab-dominated regime in Khartoum and state-backed militias.

The United Nations has said 300,000 people have died and more than 2.2 million have been displaced.

Khartoum puts the number of dead at 10,000.


the arab league condemns the ICC

CAIRO, July 20 (UPI) — Arab League foreign ministers issued a statement after an emergency meeting Saturday opposing war crimes charges against the president of Sudan. 
The meeting in Cairo was called after the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Luis Moreno Ocampo, asked the court to issue an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir, the BBC reported. No warrant has yet been issued.
“The council decides solidarity with the Republic of Sudan in confronting schemes that undermine its sovereignty, unity and stability and their non-acceptance of the unbalanced, not objective position of the prosecutor general of the Internal Criminal Court,” the ministers said in a resolution.
Amr Moussa, the league’s secretary-general, said he would visit Khartoum Sunday to discuss the league’s plans with Sudanese officials. The ministers would not release details.

The attacks in the Darfur region by government-backed militias have become a cause among political figures and celebrities around the world. But the ICC has been condemned by most African and Arab leaders since Ocampo’s announcement

Who’s against the next war

Who’s against the next war
A close investigation reveals that the same people who pushed the Iraq wmd deception on the US are now pushing the”genocide” in darfur lies.These same groups now targeting Sudan for regimechange are the most active proponents of the realgenocide of arabs and muslims in Palestine, Iraq,Afghanistan and Lebanon.Large pro invasion rallies are being held by thecountry’s most powerful zionist groups andeveryone knows they get what they want from the USgovernment so get ready to watch your high schoolfriends die while slaughtering africans in the Sudan.Or you
could try stopping their next war tomorrow at Harvard


Read More About darfur

Hear the AUDIO ^^
Ten Reasons Why “Save Darfur” is a PR Scam to Justify the Next US Oil and Resource Wars in Africa
If stopping genocide in Africa really was on the agenda, why the focus on Sudan with 200,000 to 400,000 dead rather than Congo with five million dead?
“The notion that a quarter million Darfuri dead are a genocide and five million dead Congolese are not is vicious and absurd,” according to Congolese activist Nita Evele. “What’s happened and what is still happening in Congo is not a tribal conflict and it’s not a civil war. It is an invasion. It is a genocide with a death toll of five million, twenty times that of Darfur, conducted for the purpose of plundering Congolese mineral and natural resources.”
More than anything else, the selective and cynical application of the term “genocide” to Sudan, rather than to the Congo where ten to twenty times as many Africans have been murdered reveals the depth of hypocrisy around the “Save Darfur” movement. In the Congo, where local gangsters, mercenaries and warlords along with invading armies from Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Angola engage in slaughter, mass rape and regional depopulation on a scale that dwarfs anything happening in Sudan, all the players eagerly compete to guarantee that the extraction of vital coltan for Western computers and cell phones, the export of uranium for Western reactors and nukes, along with diamonds, gold, copper, timber and other Congolese resources continue undisturbed.
Former UN Ambassador Andrew Young and George H.W. Bush both serve on the board of Barrcik Gold, one of the largest and most active mining concerns in war-torn Congo. Evidently, with profits from the brutal extraction of Congolese wealth flowing to the West, there can be no Congolese “genocide” worth noting, much less interfering with. For their purposes, U.S. strategic planners may regard their Congolese model as the ideal means of capturing African wealth at minimal cost without the bother of official U.S. boots on the ground.
4. It’s all about Sudanese oil.
Sudan, and the Darfur region in particular, sit atop a lake of oil. But Sudanese oil fields are not being developed and drilled by Exxon or Chevron or British Petroleum. Chinese banks, oil and construction firms are making the loans, drilling the wells, laying the pipelines to take Sudanese oil where they intend it to go, calling far too many shots for a twenty-first century in which the U.S. aspires to control the planet’s energy supplies. A U.S. and NATO military intervention will solve that problem for U.S. planners.
5. It’s all about Sudanese uranium, gum arabic and other natural resources.
Uranium is vital to the nuclear weapons industry and an essential fuel for nuclear reactors. Sudan possesses high quality deposits of uranium. Gum arabic is an essential ingredient in pharmaceuticals, candies and beverages like Coca-Cola and Pepsi, and Sudanese exports of this commodity are 80% of the world’s supply. When comprehensive U.S. sanctions against the Sudanese regime were being considered in 1997, industry lobbyists stepped up and secured an exemption in the sanctions bill to guarantee their supplies of this valuable Sudanese commodity. But an in-country U.S. and NATO military presence is a more secure guarantee that the extraction of Sudanese resources, like those of the Congo, flow westward to the U.S. and the European Union.
6. It’s all about Sudan’s strategic location
Sudan sits opposite Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, where a large fraction of the world’s easily extracted oil will be for a few more years. Darfur borders on Libya and Chad, with their own vast oil resources, is within striking distance of West and Central Africa, and is a likely pipeline route. The Nile River flows through Sudan before reaching Egypt, and Southern Sudan has water resources of regional significance too. With the creation of AFRICOM, the new Pentagon command for the African continent, the U.S. has made open and explicit its intention to plant a strategic footprint on the African continent. From permanent Sudanese bases, the U.S. military could influence the politics and ecocomies of Africa for a generation to come.
7. The backers and founders of the “Save Darfur” movement are the well-connected and well-funded U.S. foreign policy elite.According to a copyrighted Washington Post story this summer
“The “Save Darfur (Coalition) was created in 2005 by two groups concerned about genocide in the African country – the American Jewish World Service and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum…
“The coalition has a staff of 30 with expertise in policy and public relations. Its budget was about $15 million in the most recent fiscal year…
“Save Darfur will not say exactly how much it has spent on its ads, which this week have attempted to shame China, host of the 2008 Olympics, into easing its support for Sudan. But a coalition spokeswoman said the amount is in the millions of dollars.”
Though the “Save Darfur” PR campaign employs viral marketing techniques, reaching out to college students, even to black bloggers, it is not a grassroots affair, as were the movement against apartheid and in support of African liberation movements in South Africa, Namibia, Angola and Mozambique a generation ago. Top heavy with evangelical Christians who preach the coming war for the end of the world, and with elements known for their uncritical support of Israeli rejectionism in the Middle East, the Save Darfur movement is clearly an establishment affair, a propaganda campaign that spends millions of dollars each month to manfacture consent for US military intervention in Africa under the cloak of stopping or preventing genocide.
8. None of the funds raised by the “Save Darfur Coalition”, the flagship of the “Save Darfur Movement” go to help needy Africans on the ground in Darfur, according to stories in both the Washington Post and the New York Times.
“None of the money collected by Save Darfur goes to help the victims and their families. Instead, the coalition pours its proceeds into advocacy efforts that are primarily designed to persuade governments to act.”
9. “Save Darfur” partisans in the U.S. are not interested in political negotiations to end the conflict in DarfurPresident Bush has openly and repeatedly attempted to throw monkey wrenches at peace negotiations to end the war in Darfur. Even pro-intervention scholars and humanitarian organizations active on the ground have criticized the U.S. for endangering humanitarian relief workers, and for effectively urging rebel parties in Darfur to refuse peace talks and hold out for U.S. and NATO intervention on their behalf.
The slick, well financed and nearly seamless PR campaign simplistically depicts the conflict as strictly a racial affair, in which Arabs, generally despised in the US media anyway, are exterminating the black population of Sudan. In the make-believe world it creates, there is no room for negotiation. But in fact, many of Sudan’s ‘Arabs”, even the Janjiweed, are also black. In any case, they were armed and unleashed by a government which has the power to disarm them if it chooses, and can also negotiate in good faith if it chooses. Negotiations are never a gurantee of anything, but refusal to particpate in negotiations, as the U.S. appears to be urging the rebels in Darfur to do, and as the “Save Darfur” PR campaign justifies, avoids any path to a political settlement among Sudanese, leaving open only the road of U.S and NATO military intervention.
10. Blackwater and other U.S. mercenary contractors, the unofficial armed wings of the Republican party and the Pentagon are eagerly pitching their services as part of the solution to the Darfur crisis.
“Chris Taylor, head of strategy for Blackwater, says his company has a database of thousands of former police and military officers for security assignments. He says Blackwater personnel could set up perimeters and guard Darfurian villages and refugee camp in support of the U.N. Blackwater officials say it would not take many men to fend off the Janjaweed, a militia that is supported by the Sudanese government and attacks villages on camelback.”
Apparently Blackwater doesn’t need to come to the Congo, where hunger and malnutrition, depopulation, mass rape and the disappearance of schools, hospitals and civil society into vast law free zones ruled by an ever-changing cast of African proxies (like the son of the late and unlamented Idi Amin), all under a veil of complicit media silence already constitute the perfect business-friendly environment for siphoning off the vast wealth of that country at minimal cost.
Look for the adoption of the Congolese model across the wide areas of Africa that U.S. strategic planners call “ungoverned spaces“. Just don’t expect to see details on the evening news, or hear about them from Oprah, George Clooney or Angelina Jolie.
Bruce Dixon can be contacted at bruce.dixon(at)
The question is who is going to help US
Who is going to stand by US?

Sara Flounders


And this is by……. (Sara Flounders) please Google this Sara if you want to know more and that is what she wrote
(The same media that had given credibility to the U.S. government’s claim that it was justified in invading Iraq because that country had “weapons of mass destruction” switched gears to report on “war crimes” by Arab forces in Sudan)