Bushs Lonely Defense of Americas Sovereignty
July 3, 2002
by Mary Mostert, Analyst - Banner of Liberty
The International Criminal Court (ICC) came into existence on July 1st,
with 60 nations signing onto it, and it will henceforth apply to the entire
world, including the United States of America, which has not ratified
the documents creating it. As of this writing, President Bush is standing
alone among leaders of the world to stop the ICC from having any jurisdiction
over American servicemen involved in peacekeeping operations in Bosnia.
Unless the United Nations agrees to provide immunity to Americans in UN
Peacekeeping missions, Bush has made it clear that Americans will be withdrawn
from UN controlled Peacekeeping missions.
In other words, anyone in the United States involved in the government of the country, from president to an army private can be accused and tried if indicted for a war crime. And, in reading the Draft Code of Crimes, we find that a vast number of War Crimes, such as genocide, have been included, defined and codified.
For example it states: the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide adopted by the United Nations in 1948 recognizes that the crime of genocide may be committed by constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals. It is under this definition that Slobodan Milosevic, former president of Yugoslavia, is in prison at the Hague for genocide even though the number of people he is supposedly responsible for killing, under the indictment, is something like 600 people that he never saw. They were killed while he was the president of Yugoslavia, so he is being tried for their genocide.
And, if you thought genocide meant the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national or racial group as it is defined in the dictionary and as took place when six million Jews were exterminated by Nazi Germany, you are way behind the times.
The ICC Code of Crimes states in Article 6 (b) for example that you can commit Genocide by causing serious bodily or mental harm, to one or more persons and that person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
And, if that is not vague enough to concoct charges against ones enemy in the International Criminal Court, you can revert to Article 6 (c) of the ICC Code of Crimes which states that Genocide by deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction. That requires only that certain conditions of life are inflicted upon one or more persons and that person or persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
The nations that have ratified the ICC and brought it into being represent approximately 16% of the worlds population. The worlds most populous nations, China (1.2 billion people), India (1 billion people), the United States (272 million people) among others did not sign. This brand new body of law is being forced on the majority of the people of the world by a minority of the population of the world living in nations such as Albania (3 million), Andorra (65 thousand), Croatia (4.6 million), Dominican Republic (8 million), Iceland (272 thousand), Liechtenstein (32 thousand), Malta (381 thousand), Nauru (10 thousand), Panama (2.7 million), St. Lucia (154 thousand), Trinidad and Tobago (1 million), United Arab Emirates (2 million) and, of course, Zimbabwe (11 million) which has been confiscating farms from white people for several years.
In recent years Dr. Richard G. Wilkins, Professor of Law and Managing Director of the World Family Policy Center at J. Reuben Clark Law School at Brigham Young University has attended and/or spoken at most of the United Nations meetings on the International Criminal Court. He notes in a paper entitled Ramifications of the International Criminal Court for War, Peace and Social Change: Despite the best intentions of the Court founders, the Rome Statute transfers a vast amount of decision making authority from previously sovereign nations to an international court that will be remote (and unable to be controlled by or accountable to) the diverse peoples and cultures of the world. It does so by means of vague statutory language, capable of expansion to include conduct well beyond that which (at present) is considered to be within the customary reach of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
Wilkins predicts that the court will probably only make it more difficult to negotiate a peaceful end to certain crises and existing social problems without reducing the necessity for the occasional use of force.
He also points out that the Rome Statute that created the International Criminal Court says it is designed to be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions and only used when a nation is unwilling or unable to act.
While that sounds reassuring, what it actually means in a legal sense is the Courts laws govern since any time a nation departs from the Courts laws, that nation could be found unwilling or unable to follow the Courts laws, thereby triggering complementary jurisdiction. (See page four of Wilkins paper.)
He also points out that Court advocates, such as the radical left wing Womens Caucus, claim that ratification of the treaty creating the Court will necessitate in many cases that national laws be in conformity with the ICC Statute. The Womens Caucus, which supports abortion on demand, the right of women to be prostitutes and same-sex marriage, sees the creation of the ICC as providing an opportunity for groups all over the world to initiate and consolidate law reforms that agree with their agenda.
State Parties, the Womens Caucus claims, will be required to review their domestic criminal laws and fill in the gaps to ensure that the crimes enumerated in the ICC Statute are also prohibited domestically.
According to Wilkins, If the gender caucus is to be taken at its word, the Rome Statute can (and will) be used to re-engineer social policies throughout the world. I have been a lawyer (and a law professor) long enough to know that vague language can be used to achieve almost any goal if the lawyers (and judges) engaged in the task are infused with enthusiasm and ingenuity.
Wilkins warns, Judicial action that refashions social norms has become quite commonplace in the United States, Canada and the European Union. The impact of such judicial tinkering is now becoming clear in the decaying family and social structures in these parts of the world. The International Criminal Court could well become the mechanism by which the Western innovation of judicially (rather than legislatively) crafted social policy - and its accompanying consequences - are exported to the rest of the world. Of all revolutions through the centuries, this is the quietest. Of all the attempts made over the years to foist one groups will on everyone else, this is the most subtle and simultaneously the most far-reaching - the world-wide constitutional convention no one knew about.
What radicals failed to implement by lobbying in Washington they now believe they will accomplish via the International Criminal Court.
Send the author an E mail at Mostert@ConservativeTruth.org.
For more of Mary's articles, visit her archives.