Mrs Cherie Booth, wife of Tony Blair, criticised the US opposition to the ICC in a speech given last night. According to Mrs Cherie Booth, "the impact of the US failure to support the ICC may be symbolically important - a high-profile rejection of a major initiative for the rule of law in international affairs. But it will also be a lost opportunity if a state with a long-standing commitment to human rights does not take a lead in shaping the work of the world's first international criminal court." <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> A Foreign Office spokeswoman said the government was disappointed that the US had not joined: "We understand their reservations but we do not share them. We feel their fears that it will be politicised are unfounded and we hope that with time they will see that their concerns are misplaced." 

Bellow, please find the speech of Cherie Booth preceded by a comment by Ewen MacAskill, both published in today's newspaper
The Guardian. 
                          ______________________________________________________________-

Cherie Booth hits out at US over international court 

Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor
Thursday June 13, 2002
The Guardian 

Cherie Booth stepped into controversy last night by making an outspoken speech critical of the US administration for failing to join the international criminal court, which is being set up to deter widescale human rights abuses. 
Britain, along with more than 60 other countries, has ratified the court. But the US is totally opposed. Ms Booth, a QC, said: "The impact of the US failure to support the ICC may be symbolically important - a high-profile rejection of a major initiative for the rule of law in international affairs. 
"But it will also be a lost opportunity if a state with a long-standing commitment to human rights does not take a lead in shaping the work of the world's first international criminal court." 
Mrs Blair's speech in London last night was much more outspoken than the official government line. Both Downing Street and the Foreign Office, while regularly expressing disappointment at the absence of the US, tend to be muted in their criticism of Washington. 
A US embassy spokesman said he had not seen the speech but "the US is strongly opposed to the ICC treaty because it is seriously flawed and would not advance the cause of justice". 
Ms Booth was speaking at an Institute of Contemporary History conference looking at international criminal justice from the Nuremberg trials after the second world war through to the present day. She spoke on the topic of the ICC. 
Such a speech represents a potentially awkward balancing act for the prime minister's wife. She has to weigh social meetings with the US president, George Bush, and the first lady, Laura, with her right to speak out in her capacity as a leading lawyer. Her dual existence led to a row recently after revelations that she had chaired a series of policy seminars at Downing Street. 
In the speech she said the idea of the ICC was intended to deal with the most serious crimes against humanity. 
"The prospects for the ICC as a protectorate of the ideals of the international community as a whole become difficult to imagine, however, when some states elect to exclude themselves from that vision," she said. "This is particularly true when those states are powerful and strikingly so when such powerful states, like the United States, are traditionally associated with the very values the ICC seeks to endorse." 
The idea of the ICC began to take shape four years ago. The aim was to establish a permanent court rather than the ad hoc tribunals set up to deal with the Balkans and Rwanda atrocities. The court is to come into being next month. 
The former US president, Bill Clinton, signed up to the ICC before leaving office last year but Mr Bush and the entire Republican party are hostile. 
The US administration, which notified the ICC in May that it would not be joining, does not want its servicemen to be subject to any jurisdiction other than its own. It also fears that the ICC could become politicised. 
Ms Booth tried to address US concerns directly. She said the US had worked closely with Britain during the initial negotiations in Rome in 1998 on the creation of the ICC to ensure that there were adequate safeguards against politically motivated
prosecutions of US and British citizens. "It is plain that the UK was and remains satisfied that this was achieved," she said. 
She insisted it was a basic fact was that the court would act only where national jurisdictions could not. 
"In 1998 the UK concluded, and after the most careful consideration, that the liberty and well-being of its citizens - whether service personnel, officials, politicians or civilians - will not be threatened by malicious or politically motivated arrest and
 indictment in a foreign land by virtue of its commitment to the court," she said. 
"With time, I hope that the US will come to share that assessment with regard to its own people and recognise that the concerns
it has expressed, legitimate as they may now seem, are not well-founded." 
A Foreign Office spokeswoman said the government was disappointed that the US had not joined: "We understand their reservations but we do not share them. We feel their fears that it will be politicised are unfounded and we hope that with time
they will see that their concerns are misplaced." 

      Comment 
 
 
 

US lets down world justice 

Cherie Booth
Thursday June 13, 2002
 The Guardian 

 The statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted on July 17 1998 by an overwhelming majority of the states attending
 the Rome conference. To date, the Rome statute has been signed by 139 states, and 67 states have ratified it. One significant
 absentee as a ratifier is the US, but happily it has not followed through on the reported threat to remove its signature from the statute. 
 Within just four years, the treaty has achieved the 60 required ratifications - far sooner than was generally expected. The statute will become operative on July 1, when the court's jurisdiction over genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity will take
effect. 
The second half of the 20th century saw the strengthening of human rights and a growing sense that because individuals live under the international legal system, they must necessarily have rights and obligations flowing from it. The fact that delegates at
Rome were able to finalise the ICC statute is evidence of the existence of a social system built on universal respect for the idea of human rights - a system which denounces the most serious war crimes and crimes against humanity because of a recognition that tolerating such atrocities diminishes and threatens everyone. 
The prospects for the ICC as a protector of the ideals of the international community as a whole become difficult to imagine, however, when some states elect to exclude themselves from that vision. This is particularly true when those states are powerful,
and strikingly so when such powerful states, like the US, are traditionally associated with the very values the ICC seeks to endorse. 
From its beginnings, an important element of the US conception of its own national interest has been the development and maintenance of an international rule of law. The importance the framers gave to international law is reflected in the constitution itself, whereby Congress is given power to "define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations". 
 In the last century the US was a leading force in the establishment of the Permanent Court of Arbitration; a chief architect of the United Nations, the IMF and the World Bank; a leading sponsor of the ad hoc tribunals on Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia;
and a vocal endorser of the idea of an International Criminal Court. Indeed, President Clinton called for a permanent war crimes tribunal shortly before the Rome conference when addressing genocide survivors in Rwanda. 
The impact of the US failure to support the ICC may be symbolically important - a high-profile rejection of a major initiative for the rule of law in international affairs. But it will also be a lost opportunity if a state with a long-standing commitment to human
 rights does not take a lead in shaping the work of the world's first international criminal court. 
The ICC statute has principles central to American conceptions of justice all over it, reflecting ideas such as due process, command responsibility and superior orders, to name but a few. 
At the Rome conference in 1998, the US worked closely with the UK throughout long and difficult negotiations to ensure that the statute of the ICC contained adequate safeguards against politically motivated prosecutions of our citizens. It is plain that the UK was and remains satisfied that this was achieved. 
Now, as then, t he UK remains convinced that US and UK national interests in taking forward the court coincide; and that the overriding concern of the international community to bring an end to impunity for war crimes and crimes against humanity will be
advanced significantly by the emergence of the ICC, with American participation. But not at any price. 
The US claims that the Rome statute is flawed. Certainly it is not perfect. But while the statute is a reflection of wide agreement which inevitably involved some compromises, none of those compromises undermines the basic fact that the court will act only
where national jurisdictions cannot. 
In 1998 the UK concluded that the liberty and well- being of its citizens will not be threatened by malicious or politically motivated arrest and indictment in a foreign land by virtue of its commitment to the court. With time, it is to be hoped that the US
will come to share that assessment with regard to its own people, and recognise that the concerns it has expressed, legitimate as  they may now seem, are not well-founded. 
 Cherie Booth is a barrister specialising in human rights law. This is an extract from a speech given last night as part of a series organised by the Institute of Contemporary History and the Wiener Library. 
      comment@guardian.co.uk 
 

home            back            side