Cebo.org is a collegial approach to information sharing between ethics-based
organizations with NGO status at the United Nations. Please contact member parties regarding the
positions of their respective organizations on matters expressed in this online journal.
May 25, 2004
Posted 11:38 PM
by Mary
Seattle Post-Intelligencer: AP - Africa: ".UN. calls for force to monitor Sudan
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
UNITED NATIONS -- The U.N. Security Council on Tuesday expressed deep concern over ethnic violence and a humanitarian crisis in western Sudan and called on the government to facilitate the deployment of an international monitoring force.
Aid agencies accused the Arab-dominated Sudanese government of providing support to Arab militiamen waging a campaign of ethnic cleansing against African tribes in Sudan's Darfur region. But Sudan's President Omar el-Bashir has denied the claims and his government eased restrictions on humanitarian groups last week.
'The council expresses its grave concern over the deteriorating humanitarian and human rights situation in the Darfur region of Sudan,' the 15-nation council said in a presidential statement."
Posted 9:55 PM
by Mary
Citizens for Global Solutions: "U.S. Seeks Renewal of Exemption for Peacekeepers
A Security Council Resolution granting UN peacekeepers immunity from the ICC was once again introduced by the U.S., to be voted in an open debate on Friday 21 May, 2004 (May 20, 2004) HTML Format "
REUTERS:
UN Defers Vote to Shield U.S. from Global Court
Tue May 25, 2004 12:44 PM ET
By Irwin Arieff
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The Security Council has indefinitely delayed plans to take up a U.S. draft resolution shielding American peacekeepers from prosecution by a new global criminal court, a U.S. diplomat said on Tuesday.
The resolution, which human rights groups argue is especially inappropriate so soon after the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal, had been expected to come to a vote in the 15-nation council last on Friday and again on Monday.
But the vote was called off on Friday after China's U.N. envoy said he had no instructions from Beijing, and Monday passed with no word on rescheduling.
"It's been deferred," U.S. envoy Stuart Holliday told reporters on Tuesday, adding that no new date had been set.
"It will be taken up in due course," Holliday said. An earlier resolution putting U.S. troops in U.N. peacekeeping missions out of the reach of the International Criminal Court expires at the end of June.
Pakistani Ambassador Munir Akram, the Security Council president for May, said he expected private council talks to take place before the U.S. draft text could move forward.
Richard Dicker of New York-based Human Rights Watch said the fresh delay meant the measure was "in deep trouble."
"The United States announced last week they wanted it signed, sealed and delivered by Friday. But it is running into a rising tide of opposition," he told Reuters.
Among the 15 council nations, at least four -- Brazil, Spain, Germany and France -- are expected to abstain. In addition, Benin also may abstain and Romania has said it wanted to abstain unless this would result in the resolution failing.
Two years ago a similar resolution was passed unanimously but last year three nations abstained.
The court, the first permanent global war crimes tribunal, was set up to prosecute the world's worst atrocities, such as genocide, mass war crimes and systematic human rights abuses.
The United States, under former President Bill Clinton, was one of 135 nations to sign the 1998 treaty creating the court.
But the Bush administration rescinded the signature, fearing the court could be used for politically motivated or frivolous suits against U.S. troops serving on foreign soil.
None of the U.S. prisoner abuses alleged in Iraq are eligible for prosecution by the court.
The U.S. draft would exempt "current or former officials" from prosecution or investigation if the individual came from a country that did not ratify the treaty creating the tribunal.
May 24, 2004
Posted 11:48 PM
by Mary
Question of Credibility
By Hans Corell
On 17 July 1998, a United Nations Conference adopted the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). 120 States voted in favour. Regrettably, the US was among the seven States that voted against.
The US nevertheless signed the Statute on 31 December 2000. But on 6 May 2002, the present US administration took the unprecedented step of withdrawing the signature. The US then embarked upon a literal crusade against the ICC in spite of the fact that more than 140 States, including nearly all US Western friends and allies, now support the Rome Statute.
One element in this effort is the attempt to exempt current or former officials or personnel (basically peacekeepers) from States not party to the Statute from the jurisdiction of the ICC with respect to acts or omissions related to UN operations. To achieve this, the US administration invoked Article 16 of the Statute. According to this provision, no investigation or prosecution may be commenced or proceeded with under the Statute for a period of 12 months after the Security Council has made such request to the Court under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
When this matter was first introduced in the Security Council in June 2002, the US proposed that the Secretary-General, without further request from the Council, should once a year inform the President of the ICC that these peacekeepers would be generally exempt from the Court’s jurisdiction for 12 months. Since the legality of this proposal was highly questionable – it is obvious that Article 16 deals only with specific cases in situations where peace and security is threatened – the Secretary-General urged the members of the Council to reconsider.
The result of a few days’ dramatic negotiations, during which the US insisted and threatened to veto a renewal of a UN mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina (UNMIBH), a compromise was struck as reflected in resolution 1422 (2002) of 12 July 2002: the resolution would apply for only one year.
In the Council’s informal consultations preceding the adoption, I was asked about the compromise. As the UN Legal Counsel, I explained that “under the present circumstances” one could live with this particular resolution. There were several reasons for this. The situation that the resolution addressed would not occur; the ICC would anyway independently examine the legality of the resolution; the issue had arisen suddenly in the Council and the compromise would leave time for reflection under less stressful circumstances, etc. Important factors were also that the danger of a perpetual regime clearly in contravention of the Rome Statute had been avoided, and that UNMIBH could be extended.
A year later, the US insisted on a renewal of the resolution. Unfortunately, the Security Council agreed, and resolution 1487 (2003) was adopted on 12 June 2003. The Secretary-General was concerned and expressed the hope that this would not become an annual routine, since this would undermine not only the authority of the ICC but also the authority of the Council, and the legitimacy of United Nations peacekeeping.
In July 2002, I had explained to the members of the Council step by step in 10 precise points that the situation that the US wanted to prevent would simply not occur. And if by some miracle it would, the US would be in full control of its own personnel anyway. This explanation was again circulated informally among the members of the Council a few months later.
In my view, the two resolutions deal with a non-issue. Many think that the resolutions damage the ICC. This may be so, but this is not the main problem. From their august position, the ICC judges can look down upon these efforts with a melancholic smile; it is inconceivable that they will recognize the validity of a resolution of this kind. What they will require to stop proceedings in the unlikely event that a peacekeeper is brought before the ICC is obvious: a new resolution under Article 16 that addresses the particular case.
No, the more serious issues are the following.
First: In order to achieve this meaningless resolution, the US uses threats and exerts tremendous pressure on the other members of the Council. Why embarrass them in this way? And what does this do to the credibility of the Council – an institution that the US often relies on when it comes to real issues like peace and security, the fight against terrorism, etc.?
Second: The US insisted on the resolution although the administration knew that it addresses a non-issue. Why? Because of its hostile position vis-à-vis the ICC? If so, then the question arises what this does to the administration’s credibility. If it is prepared to throw in such weight behind a resolution with ulterior motives, what signal does this send? What should one think when they raise other issues? Is it serious this time – or?
Security Council resolution 1487 (2003) expires on 30 June 2004. The question is: will the other 14 members of the Council allow themselves to be intimidated once again if the US insists on a renewal? Can they afford damaging their own reputation – and the Council’s? And can the US afford continuing in this way when they need all the support they can get from the UN in other matters?
Many great friends and admirers of the US have lately followed the administration’s actions in this and other international issues with disbelief and bewilderment. For someone who is a warm supporter of the United Nations, the ICC and the United States it is obvious what must be done in this particular case. It is time to stop this nonsense!
Hans Corell was the Legal Counsel
of the UN March 1994-March 2004
______________________________________
American NGO Coalition for the ICC
801 Second Ave., 2nd Fl., NY, NY 10017-4706
E-mail: amicc@amicc.org
Web: www.amicc.org
May 6, 2004
Posted 8:53 PM
by Mary
US, UK Face Questions on Who Controls Iraqi Troops
International News Article | Reuters.com: By Evelyn Leopold
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States and Britain on Thursday promised full sovereignty for an Iraqi interim government but several diplomats questioned why Iraqi forces would remain under American military control.
Security Council members opened the first informal talks on a new Iraqi resolution, aimed at supporting a caretaker government and its relationship to U.S.-led forces when the occupation officially ends on June 30.
U.S. and British officials say the resolution, not yet circulated, was expected to cover arrangements for the new interim government, the role of the United Nations, approval of a U.S.-led multinational force and several other issues.
Differences emerged, however, on the definition of full sovereignty which the United States and Britain have said does not mean total authority over defense, observers at the meeting said.
Consequently, several nations, including Germany, Algeria, France and Brazil, questioned why Iraq could not at least control its own forces. "
May 4, 2004
Posted 9:05 PM
by Mary
U.N. Announces Framework For Iraq's National Elections: "U.N. Announces Framework For Iraq's National Elections
Tuesday, May 4, 2004
By Jim Wurst
U.N. Wire
UNITED NATIONS — The head of the U.N. Electoral Assistance Unit, Carina Perelli, said yesterday that 'security aside, we are better than on track' for having an Iraqi elections commission set up by the end of May.
That commission, which will oversee national elections in January 2005, will consist of seven nonpartisan commissioners and a director general who will organize the electoral system and run the elections with international supervision and, if necessary, cancel the elections if security is so bad that they 'will not really represent the will of the people,' she said.
'It's not that we believe elections are silver bullets that cure all ills,' Perelli said at a news conference. 'Basically going on with an election if we perceive this election is just an empty shell of a process, it will not be in the interests either of Iraq or the United Nations.'
The panel will also have an international commissioner representing the United Nations who will participate in setting up and running the elections. Both the director general and the international commissioner 'will have a voice but not a vote' in the working of the commission, said Perelli. The commission will also have provincial directorates in each of the country's 18 provinces."
Posted 10:27 AM
by Mary
1:23pm (UK)
UN Demands Prisoner Abuse Soldiers Be Brought to Justice
"PA"
The top UN human rights official today urged the American and British military to bring to justice soldiers alleged to have abused prisoners in Iraq.
Bertrand Ramcharan, the acting UN high commissioner for human rights, has also begun an investigation of the overall situation in the Iraq, said his spokesman Jose Diaz.
Ramcharan “adds his voice to the expressions of revulsion regarding the reports and the photographs depicting the abuse of Iraqi prisoners,” Diaz said.
“Such incidents should be investigated and those responsible brought to justice swiftly. The acting high commissioner notes that coalition authorities have indicated that they will do just that and he looks forward to seeing the conclusions of those investigations.”
There has been a chorus of international criticism of purported abuse of prisoners, after US network CBS last week broadcast images showing Iraqis stripped naked, hooded and being tormented by their US captors.
The UN special investigator on torture, Theo van Boven, said those responsible must be punished, he said.
A British newspaper also published photos purporting to show a hooded Iraqi being pushed, threatened and urinated on by a soldier from the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment.
Last month, Ramcharan told the UN Human Rights Commission – the global body’s top watchdog – that he wanted more scrutiny of the situation in Iraq.
Diaz said UN experts have started gathering information for a report on the human rights in Iraq, even though they currently are unable to travel there.
The UN team, which expects to release its findings at the end of the month, is collecting information from media reports, as well as the coalition, Iraq’s human rights ministry, foreign aid groups and Iraqi UN employees, Diaz said.
Latest News:
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm
May 2, 2004
Posted 5:09 PM
by Mary
The New York Times > International > Americas > U.N. Struggles to Find Troops to Police Haiti: "U.N. Struggles to Find Troops to Police Haiti
By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS
Published: April 30, 2004
WASHINGTON, April 29 - Just a month before its deadline, the United Nations finds itself hard-pressed to sign up peacekeeping troops and French-speaking police officers to take over security in Haiti from an American-led interim force, United Nations officials and diplomats say.
The Security Council is considering a request by Secretary General Kofi Annan to send 6,700 peacekeepers and 1,622 civilian police officers to Haiti, which was shaken in February when armed insurgents opposed to the government of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide took over much of Haiti's north and moved on the capital.
Planners cite several challenges as they seek to replace nearly 2,000 troops from the United States and about 1,500 from France, Canada and Chile who were deployed to keep order after Mr. Aristide left.
Although this interim force has managed to impose a modicum of stability, diplomats express concern that large parts of the country remain under the rebels' control, and that there has been no systematic effort to disarm them.
One problem is the competition for French-speaking peacekeepers, as missions are prepared for Ivory Coast and Burundi this year, United Nations representatives said.
In addition, some potential contributors are reluctant to offer troops because of lingering doubts about the conditions of Mr. Aristide's departure, on Feb. 29: he was assisted into exile by American officials in an incident he later referred to as a kidnapping. The Bush administration denies this, saying it acted to safeguard Mr. Aristide from attack and to avert a rebel takeover.
'The big problem they have is "the controversy over Aristide's departure,'' said a senior diplomat who is involved in the negotiations. "It remains a cancer, and it tends to limit support.''
Posted 2:31 PM
by Mary
Channelnewsasia.com: "WASHINGTON : A UN-sanctioned multinational security force will help maintain security in Iraq after the US military hands limited sovereignty back to the country, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan revealed.
'The (UN Security) Council will probably authorize a multinational force to remain in Iraq to help create a secure environment,' Annan told NBC's 'Meet the Press' news programme.
'I think it will be part of the new resolution that the Council will be discussing and approving that will cover the period after the 30th of June,' Annan said Sunday.
'Obviously the new government would also be consulted, but there will be a resolution authorizing a multinational force and encouraging governments to come together in a genuine international effort to help stabilize Iraq,' Annan said.
'Quite frankly, it's in everybody's interest that we do whatever we can stabilize Iraq,' the secretary general added."
Posted 9:24 AM
by Mary
UN SPOTLIGHTS TOP 10 ISSUES THAT SHOULD GARNER MORE MEDIA COVERAGE
New York, Apr 30 2004 12:00PM
un.org/news
To shine a spotlight on some of the important international issues and developments that often do not get sufficient media attention, the United Nations Department of Public Information (DPI) today launched a new initiative, presenting a list of "Ten Stories the World Should Know More About."
This list, announced at a press conference at UN Headquarters in New York by Shashi Tharoor, Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information, includes a number of humanitarian emergencies, as well as conflict or post-conflict situations, and spans other matters of concern to the United Nations, although it is far from representative of the main issues before the Organization.
According to DPI, the stories are not ones that have never been reported, but are often second-rung issues that need more thorough, balanced and regular attention. Mr. Tharoor stressed that the list itself was "a snapshot of the most compelling stories that, at this point in time, we believe are in need of more media attention."
While the list was prepared in consultation with various UN offices and agencies, DPI said it took full responsibility for the final selection, noting that the ranking did not necessarily reflect the order of importance. "Our number one story is merely the first among equals," said Mr. Tharoor.
The list includes the plight of child soldiers in Uganda, who are emerging as central figures amid deadly violence and a growing humanitarian emergency, the crisis of children orphaned by AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, and overfishing as a threat to marine biodiversity.
Noting that the launch took place on the eve of the World Press Freedom Day, he stressed that the goal of the initiative was to engage the media in bringing attention to critical issues, rather than to criticize the press for what it covers or overlooks.
To assist journalists in covering the stories, DPI will provide contact information about UN focal points for the highlighted stories, launch a special page on UN News Centre web site and will help the press to arrange interviews with UN officials prepared to speak on those issues.
2004-04-30 00:00:00.000
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"War does not determine who is right--only who is left." - Bertrand Russell
| 
