Dr. Carolyn LaDelle Bennett

By continuing its capricious and insular rulemaking outside the International Criminal Court the current government in Washington forestalls a necessary correction of prior and persisting lawlessness surrounding U.S. “war-on-terror” detentions — Dilemmas deepening dilemmas.

Wouldn’t it be simpler and a better way to resolve mounting dilemmas to obey and be held accountable by the same rule of law to which other countries and their heads of state and citizens and allies are held accountable?

“The Netherlands should not consider taking Guantanamo Bay detainees,” Dutch MEP, Christian Democrat Wilhelmus (Wim) van de Camp said this week, “until the United States first recognises the International Criminal Court (ICC) based in The Hague.”

Moreover, Van de Camp continued, as a prerequisite to the Netherlands’ accepting prisoners from the Cuban-based detention centre the United States should revoke “what has been dubbed the ‘Hague Invasion Act’.”

This impunity legislation came about seven years ago when the U.S. government enacted the American Service Members Protection Act which contains The Hague Invasion Clause. Human Rights Watch reported at the time that U.S. President George W. Bush had signed into law a measure “intended to intimidate countries that ratify the treaty for the International Criminal Court (ICC).”

This so-called service members’ protection law, still angrily opposed by U.S. allies and other countries, HRW described in August 2002 as a law that “authorizes the use of military force to liberate any American or citizen of a U.S.-allied country being held by the [ICC].” Further clarified this week by Dutch news sources, the law in theory enables U.S. forces … To unilaterally storm the ICC [in The Hague] to liberate U.S. soldiers held for war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Human Rights Watch continues detailing the U.S. anti-ICC/Hague Invasion law’s lawlessness in …

Providing for the withdrawal of U.S. military assistance from countries ratifying the ICC treaty Restricting U.S. participation in United Nations peacekeeping unless the U.S. obtains immunity from prosecution, and Reserving to the U.S. President the right to put aside any provisions the president desires to set aside based on grounds of “national interest.”

In this lopsided situation in international relations and rule of law the Dutch Prime Minister (also a Christian Democrat), Dr Jan Pieter (Jan Peter) Balkenende, on an official visit to Washington late last week suggested only vague and inconsequential changes to his government’s earlier statement on the United States’ Guantanamo Bay detainee problem. In his response to Washington’s plea for nations outside the United States to take these detainees off its hands, Balkenende expressed only a willingness “to consider accepting a couple of Guantanamo detainees…”

Great dilemmas in international affairs often created or exacerbated by America do not find just resolutions when the United States of America is the world’s rogue cop setting itself outside the rule of international laws.

The United States is not a State Party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. States Parties to the ICC as of June 29, 2009, total one hundred and nine: 30 are African States, 14 are Asian States, 16 are Eastern European, 24 are Latin American and Caribbean States, and 25 are Western European and other States.

A: Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria
B: Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi
C: Cambodia, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus
D: Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic
E: Ecuador, Estonia
F: Fiji, Finland, France
G: Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana
H: Honduras, Hungary
I: Iceland, Ireland, Italy
J: Japan, Jordan
K: Kenya
L: Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg
M: Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Montenegro
N: Namibia, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway
P: Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal
R: Republic of Korea, Romania
S: Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Surinam, Sweden, Switzerland
T: Tajikistan, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago
U: Uganda, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay
V: Venezuela
Z: Zambia

Sources

“Dutch MEP wants US to recognise criminal court, article published July18, 2009,
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/dutch-mep-wants-us-recognise-criminal-court
“U.S.: ‘Hague Invasion Act’ Becomes Law¯White House “Stops at Nothing” in Campaign Against War Crimes Court,” (New York, August 3, 2002), http://www.iccnow.org/documents/8-3-02HRWBushSignsASPA.pdf
http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ASP/states+parties/The+States+Parties+to+the+Rome+Statute.htm
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/

Posted by Bennett's Column at 5:52 PM 0 comments
Labels: Hague Invasion Act, U.S. and Rome Statute-ICC, U.S. foreign policy, U.S. impunity, U.S.'s Guantanamo Bay detainees

-###-

Blog: todaysmissingnews
http://todaysmissingnews.blogspot.com
Dr. Carolyn LaDelle Bennett is a writer and independent journalist.