>3) MORAL STATEMENT ONE: Intervention could only be justified based on
>International law: The point Charles and I were arguing when I left, the
>subsequent indictment of Milosevic by the International Human Rights
>Tribunal and the United Nations approval of KFOR occupation of Kosovo would
>seem to, at least retroactively, shine a nice international law gloss over
>the whole operation.
>
>So for those who held one or more of these positions at the beginning of the
>NATO intervention, how do the empirical events refuting them change or
>modify your thinking either about the Kosovo intervention or evaluating
>military interventions in general?
I never doubted that terror bombing and sanctions can do horrific damage, so I'll plead innocent on your earlier points.
As for the tribunal, you might have missed this when you were away. "We paid for it" is an interesting precedent in international law.
Doug
----
Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: dhenwood at popserver.panix.com Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 22:40:23 -0400 To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> Subject: Jamie Shea: NATO pays for tribunal X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by dont.panix.com id WAA04928 Sender: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
from Jamie Shea's May 16 daily NATO press briefing <http://www.nato.int/kosovo/press/p990516b.htm>:
"Question : Jamie, I wonder if you could comment on a speech made by Justice Arbour of the International Criminal Tribunal last week, a copy of which I left with your very fine secretary so that you would have reference to it. Judge Arbour in her speech said that as a result of the NATO initiatives being initiated on 24 March the countries of NATO have 'voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of her court whose mandate applies to the theatre of the chosen military operation and whose reach is unqualified by nationality and whose investigations are triggered at the sole discretion of the prosecutor who has primacy over national courts.' Does NATO recognise Judge Arbour's jurisdiction over their activities?
Jamie Shea : First of all, my understanding of the UN resolution that established the Court is that it applies to the former Yugoslavia, it is for war crimes committed on the territory of the former Yugoslavia. Secondly, I think we have to distinguish between the theoretical and the practical. I believe that when Justice Arbour starts her investigation, she will because we will allow her to. It's not Milosevic that has allowed Justice Arbour her visa to go to Kosovo to carry out her investigations. If her court, as we want, is to be allowed access, it will be because of NATO so NATO is the friend of the Tribunal, NATO are the people who have been detaining indicted war criminals for the Tribunal in Bosnia. We have done it, 14 arrests so far by SFOR, and we will continue to do it. NATO countries are those that have provided the finance to set up the Tribunal, we are amongst the majority financiers, and of course to build a second chamber so that prosecutions can be speeded up so let me assure that we and the Tribunal are all one on this, we want to see war criminals brought to justice and I am certain that when Justice Arbour goes to Kosovo and looks at the facts she will be indicting people of Yugoslav nationality and I don't anticipate any others at this stage"
from Jamie Shea's May 17 briefing <http://www.nato.int/kosovo/press/p990517b.htm>:
"Question : In The Hague last week the NATO governments have argued that the International Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction. I want to know if NATO is afraid of being judged by the International Court of Justice, and also what will happen if NATO is brought before the International Criminal Tribunal, will they also argue that there is no jurisdiction? Is NATO not prepared to recognise the authority of the International Court of Justice?
Jamie Shea : As you know, without NATO countries there would be no International Court of Justice, nor would there be any International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia because NATO countries are in the forefront of those who have established these two tribunals, who fund these tribunals and who support on a daily basis their activities. We are the upholders, not the violators, of international law.
Question : Shouldn't you recognise the jurisdiction then?
Jamie Shea : We obviously recognise the jurisdiction of these tribunals, but I can assure you, when these tribunals look at Yugoslavia I think they will find themselves fully occupied with the far more obvious breaches of international law that have been committed by Belgrade than any hypothetical breaches that may have occurred by the NATO countries, and I expect that to apply to both. So that is our position on that, we recognise international law, in fact we recognise international law so much that when we see a massive violation of it, with thousands of people driven from their homes, thousands of people killed, thousands of young men unaccounted for, others being herded around like cattle within their own country, we don't just shout about it, we do something to stop it because we uphold international law.
Question : Well why don't you recognise the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice?
Jamie Shea : I said we do recognise the jurisdiction.
Question : No, because you were only arguing that it Š every NATO country was arguing that there was no jurisdiction and you did not deal with the substantive issue. If you believe that international law is so important, why would you not allow the court to judge on these substantive issues.
Jamie Shea : The charge by Yugoslavia was brought under the genocide convention. That does not apply to NATO countries. As to whom it does apply, I think we know the answer there."