UN Still Talking About Global Court For War Criminals
RICHARD ROTH, DIPLOMATIC LICENSE: A global court for those who commit the world's worst crimes - they're still talking about it here at the UN. Sounds like a good idea, so why is the U.S. Congress up in arms about it? Next on DIPLOMATIC LICENSE. Courtroom drama at the United Nations. Would the United States be excluded from the designing of the first-ever international criminal court process? Hello, I'm Richard Right. This is DIPLOMATIC LICENSE. Ninety-seven countries have signed a treaty to establish the tribunal, but the U.S. worries some of its 300,000 soldiers will be forced to appear before the judges in a political circus.</s>RICHARD DICKER, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: There is no reason for the United States to isolate itself and discredit its ability to advance the cause of international justice.</s>ROTH: The U.S. fears its soldiers, thousands serving abroad, might be arrested in a country which ratified the treaty and brought before the court.</s>CASPAR WEINBERGER, FMR. U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: This court will undoubtedly attempt to assert its jurisdiction over American citizens and American servicemen, even though we would not be a party to the treaty.</s>ROTH: U.S. Republican Party senators have introduced the American Service members Protection Act to block U.S. cooperation with the tribunal.</s>JESSE HELMS, U.S. SENATE MEMBER: The threat that American servicemen and officials may one day be seized, extradited and prosecuted for war crimes is growing. And indeed, that day may already have arrived.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Multiple safeguards have been introduced into this treaty so that the service people, military personnel of any country need not fear unwarranted, politically motivated prosecution.</s>ROTH: At the tribunal conference, the U.S. argued for an exemption for its soldiers. The only way the U.S. will be part of the tribunal is as a friend of the court, helping locate witnesses and forensics information.</s>DAVID SCHEFFER, U.S. AMB. FOR WAR CRIMES ISSUES: Our proposal, in order to be a good neighbor, is to ensure that our armed forces overseas, during these non-party years, are not subjected to surrender to this court. That's our bottom line.</s>ROTH: Meanwhile, another U.S. NATO ally, Belgium, ratified the treaty this week. Seventeen, in all, have signed.</s>PHILLIP KIRSCH, TRIBUNAL CONFERENCE CHAIRMAN: The court will exist. There's no question in my mind.</s>ROTH: As the conference ended, the U.S. and court organizers differed on who was victorious in the legal lobbying. But in the end, the U.S. stays in the dialog, a compromise of sorts, until the next key session in November. What's really going on here? To find out, let's bring in at the UN William Pace. He heads a coalition that's been pushing for the establishment of an international court. Mr. Pace is on your left. And at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, Professor Jeremy Rabkin, who specializes in constitutional law. Thank you both for being here. Bill Pace, what is the reason for this court? Make your best case for it.</s>WILLIAM PACE, INTL. CRIMINAL COURT ACTIVIST: Well, this is a court 50-some years after the Holocaust and 50 years after the adoption of the Genocide Convention and the Geneva Convention to finally hold individuals - not nation states, but individuals who commit the worst, most heinous crimes in international law - war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide - to hold individuals accountable and to investigate and prosecute them. In the first case, it will be done by the nation states themselves.</s>ROTH: All right. Professor Rabkin, you've called this idea bizarre. Why is that?</s>PROF. JEREMY RABKIN, CORNELL UNIVERSITY: It is bizarre. There's no need at all to have a permanent international tribunal like this. If you can catch any of these terrible people, you can put them on trial in any country in the world. You don't have to have a permanent court. And of course, the real problem is to catch these people, not to try them. You mentioned in your set-up Milosevic and this guy in Sierra Leone. They're not in custody. At least Milosevic is not. The problem there is, again, catching him, not putting him on trial. And this court is going to make it harder to catch these people because it's going to make the United States and other countries that have force reluctant to use it.</s>ROTH: Do you think it will stop people, though, from committing such crimes as have been committed in the `90s - the massacres, the genocide, Professor?</s>RABKIN: No, I don't. No, I don't. I think the opposite is true. It'll make them reluctant to leave power. We have - according to reports, we've been bargaining with Milosevic or talking to him about leaving power. And now we've made it very difficult for him to leave because we're threatening that he'll be prosecuted.</s>ROTH: Bill Pace?</s>RABKIN: We ought to leave our hands open on this.</s>ROTH: Bill?</s>PACE: Well, the opposite is actually true. They were saying that if you indicted Milosevic for the crimes that he's responsible for in Yugoslavia that he would never come to peace last year. And two weeks after he was indicted, there was peace over Kosovo with NATO. And so, law and rule of law, especially just rule of law, is the world's greatest deterrent in the commission of crimes.</s>ROTH: Address, Mr. Pace, the concerns of Professor Rabkin and others. Why will U.S. nationals and soldiers be free of worry that they would hauled before the court in a political motivated outcry, perhaps against U.S. military policies in a country?</s>PACE: Well, in the first case, the United States will have the ability, if a soldier is accused, to assume the investigation themselves. And if they decide, then they'll prosecute. And then the international court will be taken out of it. It's based upon that principle of national priority and in complementarity (ph). Secondly, I think we need to be realistic. Right now, if an American serviceman commits murder, commits rape in another country, that country has the right to prosecute without getting the U.S.'s permission. This request that somehow if you commit war crimes in a country, you have to have the permission of the United States before they can be prosecuted is absurd and unacceptable to the.</s>ROTH: Professor Rabkin, what's wrong with that argument?</s>RABKIN: Well, first of all, wherever we put troops, we try and get agreements from the home country that we will be responsible for punishment and not the home country. And this international criminal court would override that and say the country has an obligation to extradite - the home country does - to The Hague for an international trial. And second of all, Mr. Pace said, well, it's all right because the United States will have primary responsibility. Well, this has actually come up. Amnesty International, his friends at another NGO, say the United States committed war crimes in the Kosovo War. The United States has refused to prosecute. In the future, if there's an ICC, the ICC will take it from there. They will prosecute, and we decline to prosecute. That is exactly what people are concerned about.</s>PACE: Well, this is - again, if you look at the facts, just like his argument with Milosevic, the international prosecutor for the ad hoc tribunal for Yugoslavia looked into the allegations against the NATO countries and determined that there was no basis for further investigation. So exactly the institution Professor Rabkin says can't work is already working, and it will work on a permanent basis.</s>RABKIN: No, Mr. Pace's argument is that because one time we got off, therefore, we will always get off. And I don't think that's anything to rely on. We don't want that judgment being made by an international prosecutor. We want to make it at home by our own responsible officials.</s>PACE: And you will have the right under complementarity for the United States to assume investigations and prosecutions and only.</s>RABKIN: No, we will not.</s>PACE: If the only - nobody, I think, except a very few extreme nationalists in the United States, believe that the U.S. should have a right to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity. I think most Americans accept the Geneva Conventions, and we were the leaders insisting on Nuremberg Tribunals at the end of World War II and the.</s>RABKIN: This is all fantasy. This is all a fantasy. Hardly anybody in the United States believes that the ultimate authority to decide whether we've committed war crimes should be in the hands of an international bureaucrat. Mr. Pace and his friends of the international NGOs - they believe it. The American people don't believe it. The Congress doesn't believe it. Not even the Clinton administration believes it. This is not going to happen.</s>ROTH: Well, this debate must end here, though, part of the high interest, though, in the court is seen in the arguments there. And at this point, it seems that the U.S. is, at its best, trying to become a part of the court by being what's called a non-state party. A very intriguing drama there. I'd like to thank Bill Pace over at the UN, leader of the coalition there, for the establishment of the international criminal court. And Professor Jeremy Rabkin at Cornell University. Thank you both.</s>RABKIN: Thank you.</s>PACE: Thank you.</s>ROTH: Professor Rabkin survived my questions and Mr. Pace's queries. He had an easier time with Senator Jesse Helms, a fellow court opponent, the other day during hearings in Washington on the court issue. To hammer home his point, the folksy Senator Helms even used a now popular phrase from the hit TV game show, "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?"</s>HELMS: Do you think that the framers of the Constitution ever, ever contemplated a surrender of sovereignty by the United States on a scale (ph), which would be represented by United States accession to the statute of Rome?</s>RABKIN: Absolutely not.</s>HELMS: Absolutely not. Is that your final answer?</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You run like that if you're the New Zealand prime minister, and it goes out.</s>ROTH (voice-over): The Olympics are coming, and Australia's New South Wales Minister Michael Knight presents a torch of sorts to the UN's public information director in New York. The UN, however, wins Nobels - not the gold, silver and bronze. (on camera): Now we're ready to compete in the DIPLOMATIC LICENSE synchronized UN analysis section of our program. Le Monde's Afsane Bassir Pour, just back from a Middle East swing with the secretary- general. And Barbara Crossette of The New York Times, who did Africa with the Security Council, I think, back in May. Afsane, the UN Security Council discussed additional sanctions on Sierra Leone, specifically in the diamonds industry. It's finally come to this. What does the council want to do, and what's the backdrop to the negotiations?</s>AFSANE BASSIR POUR, LE MONDE: Well, what they want to do is to stop the illegal trade of diamonds. Meaning that only diamonds that are certified by the government in Freetown be allowed to be bought and sold and not diamonds that are illegally going through neighboring countries, in particular, Liberia. Now, there's a problem. Some members of the council, especially Britain, wants Liberia to be mentioned specifically in the resolution. African countries, especially Mali, that's a member of the Security Council doesn't. And in fact, the secretary-general's special representative to Sierra Leone, the Nigerian</s>ROTH: I mean, it's very odd. Every time there is a batch of UN peacekeepers freed from detention, they thank Charles Taylor. And in the corridors and elsewhere, people blame him for rebel instigation in this whole mess. And of course, diamonds are at the heart of fueling this simmering civil war in Sierra Leone.</s>BASSIR POUR: Absolutely. But there are two other parts to the Sierra Leone war. Now, what is the mandate of the UN? Should the UN have the mandate of forcing the rebels out of the diamond zones, which would need a massive force with a strong mandate? That will come later. The third part of the Sierra Leone story is what to do with Foday Sankoh, the rebel chief. That, again, will be later.</s>ROTH: Elsewhere in Africa, Afsane and Barbara, we turn to you. The UN Security Council postponed any action on the lifting of sanctions against Sudan. Certainly, that was something the United States didn't want. What happened there?</s>BARBARA CROSSETTE, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, it appears that the United States persuaded Sudan to allow the postponement to take place. And the United States says, of course, that it gives a little bit more time to take a look at whether Sudan really is improving its relationship with the rest of the world.</s>ROTH: The U.S. sent a counterterrorism team to Sudan. How long has this been put off for?</s>CROSSETTE: Until November - mid-November, which is conveniently after the United States presidential election. This is not the only thing that's obviously been put off for quite some time. The even thornier issue of Iraq is, of course, also frozen out at the moment, and most people here don't expect to see anything about that unless something expected happens before the presidential election is also over. I should say that the United States is alone here on the council. All the other 14 members.</s>ROTH: On Sudan.</s>CROSSETTE: On Sudan - well, and in some other areas, too. But on Sudan, 14 other members would be prepared to lift these sanctions, so diplomats say, because the Sudanese have met all the requirements. We don't have time to talk about the sanctions issue now. But this, again, is one of those cases where sanctions are applied and then just hang there even when the country involved has met all the requirements of the.</s>ROTH: Yeah.</s>BASSIR POUR: Well, this.</s>ROTH: Sudan's ambassador had indicated to me earlier that the travel sanctions on his country never really had much of an impact, as they were never really enforced.</s>ELFATIH ERWA, SUDANESE AMB. TO UN: It's made some difficulties, but not that much difficulty because it's still our officials are traveling everywhere and seeing everybody for official reasons. But it's kind of symbolic. It's not real sanctions.</s>BASSIR POUR: I just wanted to make one point on sanctions. As Barbara mentioned, you know, these sanctions are imposed and just linger. Now, France, for the second time, has managed to obtain sanctions limited in time on Eritrea and Ethiopia and now on Sierra Leone. Which means the sanctions are for one year, 18 months, and then will be lifted automatically unless the council decides otherwise. This is a real precedent that has been set.</s>ROTH: All right. And speaking of sanctions, and Barbara mentioned Iraq. Barbara, curious scene, deadly scene in Baghdad - FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization employee shot and killed by a man who comes running in with guns and weapons in Baghdad. And then the shooter is then seen being interviewed by television reporters, certainly allowed by the government. What's your sense of what happened there?</s>CROSSETTE: It's hard to find anyone who knows Iraq well in this organization certainly and who is objective about it that could possibly believe that this could have happened as sort of just as a spontaneous act. Bear in mind that about two years ago - more than two years ago, now, I suppose - a rocket propelled grenade was thrown - was shot at the headquarters of the arms inspectors at the Canal Hotel, which is, by the way, where this man first went with two machine guns and explosives before wandering several miles off to an area closer to the university. So it raises a lot of questions and some very suspicious events surrounded this, including that press conference.</s>ROTH: All right. UN security beefed up there. Afsane, welcome back.</s>BASSIR POUR: Thank you.</s>ROTH: You were on a trip through the Middle East. Very briefly, your impressions for the Middle East peace process in the wake of the journey.</s>BASSIR POUR: Well, it was an extremely tiring trip, first of all.</s>ROTH: With the secretary-general of the</s>UN. BASSIR POUR: With the secretary-general. Seven countries in seven days, so basically, just one a day, very quickly. Now, two things were accomplished. Rather, one thing was accomplished, and another is hanging in the air. The secretary-general managed to diffuse tensions between Israel and Lebanon after the Israeli withdrawal of southern Lebanon by actually admitting that there have been some violations of what they call the blue line or the withdrawal line. Now, the second thing that's obviously on the secretary-general's mind is what can the UN do in the whole peace process? What role can the UN play? He's being very cautious because the Americans don't want the UN to play much of a role.</s>ROTH: Israel is going to be very wary about it. But welcome back, anyway, even if the Mid-East peace process was not settled by you. Afsane Bassir Pour of Le Monde, and Barbara Crossette of The New York Times over at our UN office. Thanks again, Barbara. Nine months after the UN started running affairs in East Timor, another update from territory administrator Sergio Vieira de Mello for the Security Council. First-ever free elections may take place in East Timor late next year. (voice-over): Vieira de Mello moved fast in the council chamber, but he wants faster reconstruction in East Timor. He blamed rigid UN rules. U.S. Ambassador Holbrooke, not seen here, says peace should prompt a lowering of UN troop levels there. The jealous Holbrooke, as he did four months ago here on our program, also couldn't resist marveling at the sartorial splendor of the Brazilian troubleshooter.</s>RICHARD HOLBROOKE, U.S. AMB. TO UN: You are, Sergio, a testament to the talent and capabilities of the United Nations at its best. I saw on the "Foreign Affairs Quarterly" recently that the UN had sent out the A-team of international technocrats to East Timor. Although maybe you don't appreciated being compared to Mr. T, you've got less gold chains on and so on, I think your job is tougher than anything that people can imagine and I think you're doing a great job. And I have to say; you're still better dressed than I am, to my eternal embarrassment.</s>ROTH (voice-over): Fireworks illuminated the night in Geneva, the sparklers to blast off a UN social summit. These may not be some of the delegates, but those who were at the conference - a five-year follow-up to a Copenhagen session attended by your DIPLOMATIC LICENSE team - promised five years ago to eradicate poverty. However, the delegates did agree this time, that not enough has been done to achieve that. A lot of sparring over debt relief and how to get governments to live up to their promises. Moving north in Paris on Thursday, French president Jacques Chirac hosted the UN's development leader Mark Mallick Brown (ph) as the annual Human Development Report of the UN was unveiled. The statistics measure the level of lives of people and compares how each nation is doing against another. Canada is judged to have the best quality of life. Sierra Leone - that's no surprise - is at the bottom of the list along with 23 other African countries. (on camera): The UN secretary-general Kofi Annan is in Germany this weekend. His visit includes a stop at Expo 2000. Before this European journey, Annan stopped at the St. Charles Borremeo School in Manhattan, where students have never heard of Expo 2000 but were pleased to have the world's top diplomat in the classroom instead of the dreaded substitute teacher.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would now like to present to you the St. Charles medallion, which will show our support and prayer towards your efforts of peace and harmony in the world.</s>KOFI ANNAN, UN SECRETARY-GENERAL: The world is a really small place, and we are all living together. And so, what is important is for us not to think that if something is happening far away, it does not concern me. I'm OK. Whatever happens to other human beings which are painful, which demeans them, which hurts them is a concern of all of us.</s>UNIDENTIFIED BOY: I think he does a really hard job, and I don't think I could ever do the good job that he does.</s>ANNAN: I liked your song so much that I'm going to go around singing it in my head. Do you mind if I sing it? No? I was quite impressed by them, too, to see these young people performing confidently and without inhibition. And also, what was important is I'm walking away with the feeling that this is a happy school, and I've always maintained that a good school is a happy school.</s>ROTH: Well, happy hour is over here at DIPLOMATIC LICENSE, so collect your bottles and UN documents and stay tuned for the latest news and entertainment. I'm Richard Roth in New York. Thanks for watching. END TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE THE SECURE ONLINE ORDER FROM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com