Return to Archives

UN’s Global Kangaroo Court
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UN’s Global Kangaroo Court Could prominent businessmen or religious leaders, a charismatic politician or an Army general be hauled before a global court and charged by the UN Security Council with a “crime against humanity”? Yes, say attorneys familiar with the UN’s recently opened International Criminal Court (ICC).
The world’s first global court opened for business at The Hague in March. Its mission is to prosecute individuals for “crimes against humanity.” The Court was born from the bowls of the United Nations. During the UN’s year 2000 Millennial Summit in New York, a parade of nations signed the “Rome Statute” in the UN’s grand hall. Conservatives, law professors and religious leaders raised a warning flag, but the world ignored them. It was a “significant world event” according to a UN spokesman.

Indeed it was. The Court is designed to stop gross human rights violations committed on a massive scale. A permanent Nuremberg style tribunal, the Court’s jurisdiction was hammered out at successive UN meetings. Its main task is halt war crimes --the terror and repression of a Hitler or a Stalin. The fine print, however, is sobering. If a nation chooses not to prosecute a “criminal,” the ICC has given itself permission to breach a nation’s sovereign borders to gather information and even to apprehend the subject.

Richard G. Wilkins, a law professor at Brigham Young University wrote, “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.”

Now, less that three years later over 60 nations have ratified the Court and its doors are open wide—the judges have been elected and seated, the mandate of the Court has been determined. And the first criminals to be investigated may not be the Butcher of Baghdad, but George W. Bush and Britain’s Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan hinted that an investigation might be in the wings when he opened the ceremony celebrating the ICC inauguration. The UN Secretary General pointed out that the model for the court, “… had to be carefully evaluated, in particular, the implications such a court might have for the delicate process of dismantling tyrannies and replacing them with democratic regimes….” None of the gathered Glitterati missed his meaning as his comments came on the eve of the war in Iraq.

With military assaults in Iraq concluded, a group of international civil rights attorneys led by UK lawyer Phil Shiner, have launched a probe to determine whether the Iraq conflict resulted in violations of the UN’s Charter or the Geneva Convention. The United Kingdom has ratified the ICC treaty, but the United States is not a party to the treaty. Before the War in Iraq began, some European legal experts and anti-war protesters advised Prime Minister Blair that his cooperation with the US led coalition could expose him to an ICC investigation.

Although Bill Clinton signed the intent papers, the United States did not ratify the ICC treaty. President George W. Bush views the treaty as an assault on US Constitutional rights. He rescinded the US signature despite howls from allies and critics who have ratified the ICC treaty. Senator Jesse Helms saw the danger the global court posed to US service personnel and was instrumental in having the American Service Members Protection Act passed to exempt any US personnel for the jurisdiction of the global court.

Under the Court’s rules, an individual, an organization or a nation may bring suit against person who is a citizen of a country that has ratified the ICC treaty. However, even citizens of those nations (India, China, USA) who have not become a party to the treaty can be in jeopardy. The UN’s Security Council may bring charges against a citizen of any nation that is a member of the UN, whether or not that nation has agreed to the ICC.

The rules of ICC statute do not list terrorism as a crime over which the Court would have jurisdiction, simply because delegates at the ICC meetings were unable to agree on the definition of terrorism. Their dilemma mirrors the Reuters philosophy; “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” Therefore, other charges would have to be levied against the President and the Prime Minister, such as a breach of the UN’s own Charter of Rights or the Geneva Convention. Heads-of-state are responsible for actions committed with their knowledge and permission. That is why a known “stateless” terrorist might go free while leaders of nations or armies on the wrong side of political correctness are at risk.

Professor Wilkins warned that the Court “is without sufficient checks and balances. It has the most powerful prosecutor ever with the vaguest criminal statute passed anywhere. The ICC leaves open to total discretion of the prosecutor and the court the determining of what the 'crimes' mean.”

The move to investigate Bush and Blair will probably fizzle for lack of evidence that a significant, systematic wrong-doing occurred. But the threat to investigate these prominent leaders points to a future that bodes ill for anyone in a position of power who may be out of favor with the “consensus” of the international community.

Professor Wilkins listed surprising categories of potential targets of the ICC, including religious leaders who may be subject to the ICC’s definition of “crimes against humanity.” The definition of “crimes against humanity” is so vague that the Pope or a prominent evangelist whose message reaches millions, could be tried for upholding traditional moral teachings on abortion and homosexuality. But how is a teaching injurious enough to fall under the Court’s auspices? The criteria include numbers-- how many people suffered “rights abuse” from your actions?

UN conferences, such as the Cairo Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Conference on Women set “international standards” of human rights that prohibit “discrimination” on grounds of gender or sexual orientation—therefore a religious leader or politician who “obstructs” access of millions to their “rights” could be subject to the ICC. A politician who is opposed to legalizing same –sex unions can be called to account for depriving an entire group of people of their UN specified rights to a “family.” The UN repeatedly employs the euphemism, “various forms of the family.”

Consider a charge against the Vatican lodged by the European Network of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF-EN). At the close of the Beijing +5 Special Session at the UN, radical NGOs and the coalition of western nations had again been halted in their drive for universal abortion rights. The Holy See's delegation was the target of angry, frustrated NGO lobbyists, including Planned Parenthood. Two weeks later, in an open letter to Pope John Paul II, IPPF-EN outlined its conflict with the Holy See: abortion and rape, condoms and AIDS, sex education, and homosexuality. The letter claimed “...we are deeply concerned that you do not seem to recognize that the opinions and actions of the Holy See...are seen by many as...war...that contributes to...suffering and deaths.” IPPF-EN deliberately invoked “war crimes” imagery in this missive and is fully IPPF is fully conversant with the ICC proceedings. Could the Pope conceivably be held responsible by the ICC for millions of AIDS deaths because the Church prohibits the use of condoms?

It is not far-fetched when one reads this release published by the UN:

According to the [ICC] draft statute, the definition of this crime would include the following prohibited acts: Persecution against a group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural or religious (and possibly gender) grounds; Other inhumane acts causing serious injury to the body or to mental or physical health.

Is it “inhumane” to teach against contraception and homosexuality in the face of AIDS? Is it “serious injury” to mental health to witness to life and condemn abortion? Will the pope and bishops be charged with the serious injury, both physical and mental, to millions of people?

As for the definition of “aggression,” the proposal notes: “The definition must be precise enough for individuals to know what acts are prohibited; and it must be general enough to cover a wide variety of acts which may occur in the future, and which may not yet have been conceived of.” (Emphasis added). In other words, general enough that the ICC and the UN can make just about anything a “crime,” given the right circumstances.

That ominous elasticity is sufficient for the wise. Recall that UN conferences systematically call for and fund radical sex education programs that violate parental guidance, universal “health and reproductive rights,” contraceptives and condom distribution, and various pro-homosexual programs.

Evangelical and pro-family organizations oppose these provisions. What a crime.

© MJAnderson 04/21/03