 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| INTERNATIONAL LAW AND JUSTICE | Foreign Ops and the ICC | ||
|
U.S. institutes more sanctions on ICC Member States
Citizens for Global Solutions has conducted an in-depth analysis of this provision in an effort to ascertain its impact on U.S. relations with its allies in strategic regions such as the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. The amendment in question would cut Economic Support Funds (ESF) to all countries that have ratified the International Criminal Court (ICC) but have not signed a Bilateral Immunity Agreement (BIA) with the U.S.
+ All BIA Fact
sheets and Reports
The Bush
Administration has taken a strong position against the
ICC, has withdrawn from all negotiations, and has pursued policies that
could undermine the Court's important work. This staunch
opposition is despite the fact that
the U.S. played a leading role in negotiating the Rome Statute, the
treaty establishing the ICC. Country Examples of a Counter-productive U.S. Foreign Policy The Bush Administration’s opposition to
the ICC hurts many of America’s closest friends and allies. Indeed, many of
the ICC member states not only share multiple U.S. foreign policy goals,
but are also either democratic or trying to consolidate democracy for the
first time. Because these countries support the ICC they are subjected to
the withholding of key U.S. funds. withholding ECONOMIC SUPPORT Funds: a numerical analysis Analysis clearly illustrates that the provision to the FY 2006 Foreign Operations spending bill, which prohibit nations supporting the ICC from receiving critical U.S. economic assistance, is much more than bad policy. It would have negative affects on ICC member states and would be counterproductive to a U.S. foreign policy that is committed to battling terrorism, drug trafficking, hunger, poverty and disease while promoting democracy abroad. Rep. Jim Kolbe made this point clearly when he stated in July 2004 that “conditioning ESF assistance and cutting it off to nations that do not sign [BIAs] is not…the right response. It is a very, very heavy hand to the problem…At a time when we are fighting the war on terrorism, reducing this tool of diplomatic influence is not a good idea.” |
|
background information
ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUNDS
promote America’s foreign policy
interests by providing assistance to key U.S. allies and countries in
democratic transition. The fund assists Middle East peace negotiations
and finances economic stabilization programs, often in a multi-donor
context.
BILATERAL IMMUNITY AGREEMENTS
otherwise referred to as Article 98 agreements,
bilateral immunity agreements (BIAs) prohibit states
that are party to the International Criminal Court (ICC) from sending
any U.S. personnel to the Court. Since the summer of 2002, the Bush
Administration has sought to conclude BIAs with
every country in the world.
the INTERNATIONAL criminal COURT
is the only permanent international court capable of trying individuals
accused of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity when there is no
other recourse for justice. |
On Friday, November 11, 2005 the United
States Senate passed the Fiscal Year 2006 (FY 2006) Foreign Operations
spending bill, which had been approved by the House of Representatives
earlier in the month. The bill now goes to President Bush for his signature.
While much analysis will be paid to the bottom line of the legislation
($20.9 billion), equal attention should be given to a provision which
jeopardizes $326.6 million in U.S. economic assistance in FY 2006 to 12
nations.
  |
 |
 |
 |
|