US coercive hand in ICC issue
Published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer
August 2002
THE INTERNATIONAL Criminal Court (ICC), which was created
some 120 nations in 1998 to try individual perpetrators of genocide, war
crimes and crimes against humanity, has been in the news in recent weeks,
for controversial reasons. As former Solicitor General and now UN Law
Commission member Raul Goco pointed out, the ICC, which was created by a
diplomatic conference in Rome in 1998 with 120 approving votings, 7 negative
votes and 21 abstentions, was initially ratified by 10 countries on April
11, 2002. This number has swelled to 77 countries as of the last count - 17
more than the 60 required for the Rome Statute to be enforced.
This is where the complication came in. the United States, then under
President Bill Clinton, was one of the 120 countries that created the ICC,
but Clinton did not endorse it to the US Senate for ratification. When
President George W. Bush came into power, he not only did not endorse it, he
withdrew the United State's signature in the ICC's creation. Moreover, over
the past three weeks since the ICC statute was enforced, the United States
has campaigned hard to prevent other countries from ratifying it, employing
all the conceivable pressure tactics as only the world's superpower can.
The Bush administration is fighting the ICC as it fears that American
nationals abroad could be subjected to harassment before the ICC by being
denied the procedural protection to which all Americans are entitled under
the US Constitution, such as a trial by jury. The United States is
particularly worried about the fate of its peacekeeping forces abroad, now
numbering over 9,000 in nine countries.
Goco pointed out that the Philippines is also a signatory to the creation of
the ICC, but now that it is up for ratification in the Senate, the Macapagal
administration seems to be in a bind. Evidently it's weighing the hard-line
US campaign against the ICC. I queried Senate President Franklin Drilon
about the ICC, and he replied that the Senate cannot act on the ICC since
the matter has not yet been forwarded by Malacañang. Drilon said that he is
ratifying it and he does not see much problem getting the Senate to ratify
it. It's evident that the problem is the Palace,, which could still be
sorting out its options in the light of its avidly pro-American policy.
In a speech before the Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines
recently Vice President Teofisto Guingona recalled that when he was still in
the DFA, he had recommended to President Macapagal the ICC treaty's
transmittal to the Senate. He felt that the Philippines should welcome
having a permanent ICC especially since "it will help ensure that if member
states fail to prosecute, the ICC can". Until the ICC's creation, only ad
hoc tribunals with limited jurisdiction have tackled the war in the Balkans
and genocide in Rwanda. Guingona's recommendation was not acted upon.
Goco has pointed out that the Philippines would be reduced to the status of a
mere observer at the ICC if the Senate fails to ratify the treaty.
Interestingly, Foreign Secretary Blas Ople issued a statement after his
assumption of office recommending ratification, but since then he has been
quiet about it. Was he ordered to keep quiet?
Those following the ICC issue cannot recall a time when the United States has
been as coercive with the rest of the world. I suppose the US stand becomes
understandable after the sept. 11 terrorist attacks, which forced it to make
very strong moves against countries perceived to be helping international
terrorism.
After months of intense lobbying, the United States was able to force the UN
Security Council to grant a one-year exemption for American peacekeepers
from prosecution by the ICC. This concession, however, was small comfort,
for originally it was bargaining for blanket immunity for Americans overseas
to be automatically renews yearly.
In addition, the United States has asked individual countries to pledge not to
extradite Americans for trial, but so far only Romania and Israel have
signed up. But the United States did not stop at a verbal campaign. The US
Congress recently passed a bill authored by the House majority whip, Texas
Republic Rep. Tom DeLay, and signed into law by Bush, which threatens
countries that will ratify the ICC statute with withdrawal of US military
aid, including education, training and financing of the purchase of
equipment and weaponry. Since then, US diplomats have swung into action,
serving the warning on all the countries. This law is bound to have
fear-reaching effects as there are few countries that don't receive US aid
one way or another.
Vice President Guingona pointed out in his Focap speech that that $387 million
was earmarked for foreign military assistance and that the Philippines was
allocated $30 million as an emergency, requirement, as defined in the United
States' "Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act" of 1985, as
amended. But he also pointed out that the new anti-terrorism law authored by
DeLay provides that no US military assistance may be provided by the
government of a country that is party to the ICC's ratification.
Interestingly, however, the new law, adjusting to reality, also contains a
list of foreign countries to who the US president may continue to grant
military assistance despite this prohibition, if American interest so
dictates.
Guingona notes that the countries on this waiver list include a Nato country
member, Japan, Jordan, Argentina, South Korea and Taiwan, but the
Philippines is not there. What he is sating is that there has been so much
to do here about US aid, but if we ratify that ICC statute, we would be
excluded from that aid. This appears to be the Macapagal administration's
dilemma.
