Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

US Tells UN to go fuck itself

18:46 / 11.04.02

In the news today we learn that:

April 11 The world's first permanent criminal court for the prosecution of dictators and war criminals became a reality today, more than half a century after such a tribunal was first proposed in the ruins of World War II.

"The long-held dream of the International Criminal Court will now be realized," Secretary General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) said. "Impunity has been dealt a decisive blow."

[...]
The establishment of the International Criminal Court, which will assume jurisdiction over genocide and war crimes cases beginning on July 1, has been broadly welcomed by most democratic nations, American lawyers' associations and human rights groups.

BUT Bush is against it, and as threatened that the US will UNSIGN the treaty. Congress has already passed a law forbidding Americans at all levels of government from cooperating with it. No American president has EVER unsigned a treaty. this is a move that threatens the concept of treaty writing itself and assaults the very stability of the UN as a home for international law.

19:11 / 11.04.02

...seems like a trend is forming to dispute any idea or body that hasn't even been past the structuring phase. International law, cloning, etc. It's quite awful that openmindedness is being increasingly chucked out the window as of late...

Seems to me that an International Criminal Court will finally give the UN a "say" in what goes on in the world for once. It seems that their call has been continually undermined or disregarded. May be the reason why the US government is against it. Shouldn't everyone be held accountable for their actions?

19:56 / 11.04.02

bizanchee: Shouldn't everyone be held accountable for their actions?

Everyone except the good guys, whose identities and motives are, of course, self evident.%

20:22 / 11.04.02

my god. i just tried to come up with another 1984 quote and, hell.

unsign?

unsign?

don't they call "no takebacks" when drawing up treaties?

23:08 / 11.04.02

hmmm...thinking a little bit about the consequences of an International court. I think that it's a good idea since it puts any action that a country takes into a realm beyond the eyes of those involved. In a sense...now there really isn't an ineffectual world audience, per se. If enough people don't agree with something, actions could be taken.

But at the same time, do you think that it may:

- create a binary situation - the UN council vs. everyone else.
- a decrease or increase in those who belong due to the pressure.
- be steps towards an all-powerful and recognized World Power.
- a pressure more towards politics to solve problems moreso than military action.

08:13 / 12.04.02

Doesn't this help to qualify the U.S. as a rogue state?

17:21 / 12.04.02

With weapons of mass destruction, too, Kit-Kat

Who train terrorists.

Er - double standards?

I have two words as to why the US wants to 'unsign' (nice one, George) this, and they are the name of a Nobel Peace prize winner.

Henry Kissinger.

The US knows if it is guilty or not in cases of international criminal law - so ask yourself why it doesn't want this court.

Hmmm, tricky one...

Nelson Evergreen

00:38 / 13.04.02

Alas, the ICC is going to come into existence as of July the 1st this year, and can't 'backdate.' I believe Kissinger (officially) hung up his hatchet a long time ago, even if the spirit of his charming approach to international affairs is very much alive and kicking. He'd therefore be untouchable even if Bush did somehow end up ratifying the treaty. Also, this caught my eye in Thursday's Guardian:

"In reality, British or American soldiers are unlikely to appear before the court. The prosecutor will only intervene in cases where the legal system in a country is judged suspect, either because it's court system is incapable - as in Somalia or Haiti - or because it's government is considered to be obstructing justice."

Which no god-fearing christian government would ever do, obviously. So what's the US so paranoid about? It's devoted partner in crime (The UK) couldn't wait to get the court up and running. We've nothing to hide, officer. Honest.

02:21 / 13.04.02

US "creates" UN...US turns against UN...UN becomes new world government...

Huzzah! a new nation to fight...The World!!

um, this is kind of a goof, but not intended to be threadrot. this is all very comic booky (heh). be back after i've thought of something intelligent to say.

16:30 / 14.04.02

UNSIGN? What the hell's the point in treaties if you can 'unsign' them? They're about as much use as the [obscure diplomatic reference] Kellogg-Brand pact..

09:41 / 15.04.02

There is an excellent book called 'Rogue State' by an ex State Department offical named Blum, which clearly and terrifyingly details how US behaviour places it firmly in the 'Rogue State' camp.

It's a must-have for anyone who finds themselves trying to justify a distrust of the 'war on terror' and similar outings.

Of course, you probably can't trust Blum either, but hey.

18:42 / 16.04.02

Ah, but define 'rogue'. I'm assuming it applies to someone who is on the outside from the rest, i.e. those countries the US won't talk to. The USA being the rulers (in theory) can't exactly be a 'rogue'. The can be a 'bunch of bastards' but not 'rogues'

02:52 / 08.05.02

...bump...

heard on NPR today that the US is (has or will) in fact unsigning the treaty and opting out of the ICC. So now I guess the rest of the world is left to wonder what else the US will take back when it's got ideas up its sleeve. And I'm sure this will just make it easier for lovely things like genocide to go unnoticed.

10:49 / 08.05.02

I hope this isn't threadrot, but I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere else on the site: Bush has also recently told the UN to go fuck itself by "refusing to sign a United Nations declaration on children's rights - designed to set funding priorities across the Third World - unless pledges on sexual health services are scrapped.".
This is because "The Bush delegation objects on moral grounds to a pledge to guarantee 'reproductive and mental health services' for under-18s and to a pledge to 'protect the right of adolescents to sex education and avoiding unwanted/ early pregnancies'."
So, basically, his puritan, head-in-the-sand viewpoint threatens to stop millions of children in Aids stricken countries from receiving proper, and potentially lifesaving, sex education. of course, it's not really a problem, because they'll all be so impressed by the moral fortitude that his administration is displaying with regard to this and all other international matters that they will pursue a sexual existence of rigid monogamy thereby eradicating sexually transmitted disease within a generation, right?
A nice irony in the fact that a number of Muslim countries support his viewpoint on this matter.

Full story here.