US shifts to open coercion & manipulation of ICC

The US has always kept international judicial bodies on a short leash but did it quietly. Now, the mask has slipped, experts told RT after an International Criminal Court judge resigned over threats from Washington. 

Judge Christoph Fluegge had to leave the UN-run International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague last week after the United States reportedly threatened judicial staff who were inquiring about alleged US war crimes in Afghanistan.

Fluegge, a career international lawyer, told Die Zeit these threats would see the US imposing travel bans on judges or launching criminal investigations against them.


Trump said, "Any attempt to target American, Israeli, or allied personnel for prosecution will be met with a swift and vigorous response."

‘Major international victory’: Trump cheers ICC decision not to probe US atrocities

RT : 12 Apr, 2019

After the International Criminal Court (ICC) declined to investigate claims of US atrocities in Afghanistan, US President Donald Trump cheered the decision but said the ICC was “illegitimate” and US and allies beyond its reach

“This is a major international victory, not only for these patriots, but for the rule of law,” the White House said in a statement, referring to the ICC decision to reject the request to investigate the actions of US military and intelligence officials in Afghanistan.

The US “holds American citizens to the highest legal and ethical standards,” and has consistently refused to join the ICC because of its “broad, unaccountable prosecutorial powers,” threats to US sovereignty, and “and other deficiencies that render it illegitimate,” Trump said in a statement.

Any attempt to target American, Israeli, or allied personnel for prosecution will be met with a swift and vigorous response.

Last week, Washington canceled the entry visa of ICC’s chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, saying that anyone who dared investigate US military or intelligence personnel would face the same fate. The Gambian lawyer had been conducting a preliminary investigation into claims of torture, cruelty and sexual assault by US and allied personnel in Afghanistan, dating to 2003-2004.

Bensouda had found a “reasonable basis to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity have been committed in connection with the armed conflict in Afghanistan,” and was reportedly planning to open a formal investigation.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned Bensouda last month to “change course” or face US sanctions, however, declaring that the US was determined to protect its troops and civilians from “living in fear of unjust prosecution for actions taken to defend our great nation.”

While Washington has pushed for the creation of ad-hoc international tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR), the US voted against the establishment of the ICC in 1998, and has refused to join or submit to its authority after the court was officially created in 2002.

The US has held itself above international law for decades. In 1986, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague ruled that Washington had violated international law by supporting the Contras in Nicaragua. The US refused to participate in the proceedings and blocked the enforcement of the judgment in the UN Security Council.

What makes the pressure on ICC different than in the past, UK journalist Neil Clark told RT recently, is that "interference and attacks are now in the open," whereas in the past they would be confined to back channels and low-key intrigue.

“You know, it's the empire with its mask off,” said Clark.

When soft power doesn't work, the hard one comes into play, he explained. "A judge in my case was threatened by Americans working there that if certain passages in the judgement acquitting the general I was defending were not removed he would face physical problems."

This is the type of gangsterism they use to get their way in these tribunals.

Both analysts said Washington used the ICC rulings to hammer down defiant regimes all around the world, including in former Yugoslavia, Rwanda or Sierra Leone. That aside, there were instances of ICC decisions disrupting peace efforts in some of the worst conflicts, Clark added.

Back in 2011, the journalist recalled, deposed Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi tried to set up negotiations with the armed opposition. Only one day later, "the ICC Prosecutor sought an arrest warrant against Gaddafi and his son and intelligence chief for crimes against humanity, therefore sabotaging any hopes for a peaceful resolution."

He found it conspicuous that the warrant followed attempts by the Libyan regime to negotiate with the rebels and seek to end the war, which "could save so many lives." Gaddafi was then murdered by a mob of rebels and Libya, once a vibrant North African country, descended into chaos.

"It goes way back. Ever since the international courts and bodies have been established, the US has tried to interfere and to use them for political purposes," Clark said.

For his part, Black said claims that the US is bringing international justice bodies to heel are not unfounded.

Incidentally, Judge Fluegge has been the one who voiced dissenting opinions during the controversial trials by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). He repeatedly refused to admit genocide of Bosnian Muslims by Serbian forces in Srebrenica, having been removed from a number of proceedings.

Critics of the ICTY pointed out that most of those indicted were Serbs or Montenegrins, and many have seen this as reflecting bias against former Yugoslav leadership.

Likewise, the ICC "have only gone after certain African leaders who stand in the way of EU or US interests," Black noticed, while "war criminals like [Rwandan president] Paul Kagame and [former president of Uganda] Yoweri Museveni who have killed millions of people are protected." 

Out of the people who have been indicted by The Hague-based court, "an incredibly high percentage … have been black African leaders who have not been the allies of the US," Clark said. "If you're a black African leader who doesn't do what the US [wants to do], you'll be before the ICC. If you're a white, European, Israeli or whatever, you won't be in front of it."

The US and Israel, "two of the biggest culprits of international law," disregard the ICC jurisdiction, the British journalist repeated. It raises big questions about the international justice system where "the worst transgressors of international law are not being put up before the court." Such system cannot have any credibility at all, Clark argued, saying "law has to be applied equally to all."