By Danny Schechter
It was a day when the Israeli incursion continued to roll through the West Bank and bombs were found in a Palestinian ambulance headed for Israel, a day when Chinese police rounded up more Falun Gong practitioners, a Nicaraguan lawyer for indigenous people was reported killed and three people died in a terrorist grenade attack in the Philippines.
And it was the day that a group of activists on the island nation of East Timor welcome the ratification of a new international institution.
Most Americans didn't know about it because it has barely been referred to here. The news these days is fixated on the Middle East and on more stories of pedophile priests in Catholic churches.
Yes, one of the most important stories of the year was ignored, the ratification of a bold new global court years in the making. Rebuffed by Washington, but embraced worldwide, the United Nation's International Criminal Court (ICC) is coming this summer.
Many of us in the United States don't know about it because of a lack of coverage that points to a more significant problem. Media organizations, particularly television and tabloids but also more "serious" publications, love to focus on individuals but have a harder time scrutinizing institutions. In addition, they pay attention to problems and often ignore solutions. They report on government policies more than initiatives from non-governmental organizations (NGOs). So that the routines of coverage tend to reinforce the status quo and consequently perpetuate injustices, because they rarely expose readers, listeners and viewers to innovative proposals that can change the way the world works, especially in regard to international organizations. As a result, parochialism is often their most important product.
Establishing A Court
With virtually no attention in the United States, on April 11, 10 countries ratified the Rome Statute for the ICC, surpassing the number needed to bring the ICC into existence. As of July 1, 2002, the ICC will have jurisdiction over the most serious breaches of international humanitarian and human rights law — crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide. An NGO coalition of more than a thousand organizations with support from legal experts worldwide has been campaigning for passage for a decade.
William Pace, who convened the NGO Coalition for an International Criminal Court, said, "The establishment of the ICC has been declared the most significant advance in international law since the founding of the United Nations. This Court is capable of ending an era of impunity and is a symbol of the triumph of law over violence and brutality."
"The court's creation makes a strong statement that the worst abuses must be prosecuted," said John M. Miller, spokesperson for East Timor Action Network. "However, the ICC comes too late for East Timorese and other victims of past systematic rights violations." The court's jurisdiction is not retroactive.
"While the ICC can not hold accountable the perpetrators of the crimes against humanity inflicted in East Timor since Indonesia's 1975 invasion, it can help prevent future atrocities," said East Timorese lawyer Aderito de Jesus Soares. A member of the East Timorese legislature and the founder of the East Timor Jurist Association, Soares is currently in New York to observe this week's UN Preparatory Commission for the Establishment of the ICC.
East Timor, which becomes independent on May 20, plans to sign and ratify all international human rights treaties, including the ICC, following independence.
"We know what is like to live under a regime that systematically tortures, rapes and murders," said Soares. "Even now, Indonesia is not prosecuting the high-ranking officers and political officials who planned and directed crimes against humanity committed in East Timor."
Where Are The Americans?
U.S. citizens probably don't know about the ratification. Why? In part because their government, hewing to the unilateralist, go-alone posture of the Bush administration, refused to ratify it. Earlier administrations took a similar stand. The U.S. should ratify the ICC Treaty out of concern for human rights worldwide and because we must be bound to the same rules as other nations. Instead, Bush not only refuses to ratify, he may try to rescind U.S. support, undermining global efforts for accountability and justice.
Many suggest that such a court would be the perfect place to try Osama Bin Laden, if he is ever brought to justice. If terrorism is indeed a crime against humanity — an international crime — then an international court should hear the case. That makes sense just about everywhere in the so-called free world outside of the USA. One American objection is a fear that American military personnel and policy-makers could be tried "in frivolous or politically motivated suits." Others worry that the Court will violate constitutional protections of due process.
Human Rights Watch responds that the Court "is designed to be a fair, independent judicial body that respects the highest standards of justice. Indeed, the ICC has one of the most extensive lists of due process guarantees ever written."
Another argument is that "the Court will be accountable to a rogue's gallery of undemocratic states." HRW disputes this as well, noting that the Court "will be governed exclusively by its Assembly of States Parties (ASP), consisting of countries that have ratified the Rome Treaty. Virtually every major U.S. ally, including all NATO members save Turkey, is expected to ratify the Rome Treaty and thus join this Assembly. Because the Court only has jurisdiction over crimes committed on the territory of countries that have ratified its treaty, highly abusive governments have been reluctant to expose their leaders to prosecution by joining the Court. Thus far, countries such as China, Cuba, North Korea, Iraq, Libya, Burma, Pakistan, have refused to sign the ICC Treaty, which is being ratified primarily by established and emerging democracies all over the world."
"The New York Times" reported that David J. Scheffer, who signed the treaty for the United States as the ambassador for war crimes during the Clinton administration, said that backing out now was "a very ill-advised strategy." "The only reason you would unsign the treaty is if your intention was to wage war against the court," Mr. Scheffer said. "If your intention is not to wage war against the court but rather to try to preserve American interests, defend American interests, protect American interests, then the best strategy would be to remain as a signatory."
The new court will take time to establish itself. If its many architects and supporters have anything to say about it, the International Criminal Court may become one of the most crucial new global institutions in this century. It is an idea whose time has come.
Now somebody has to tell the U.S. press to tell the rest of us, and to remind and educate the public why this structure for international law and justice is needed.
— Danny Schechter, executive editor of MediaChannel.org, most recently directed "We Are Family" as a Globalvision production for Tommy Boy Films.
HOME
