Immunity from UN

Remove all ads!

I was watching the news one evening where they were talking about how the USA wants immunity from their soldiers being accused of war crimes. Then went on to how Britain dosn't like this etc...blah blah. It got me thinking, is it so bad?
Sure the USA have made some military mistakes but from all the peacekeeping the US Armed Forces do there's BOUND to be accidents like that. Maybe they even deserve the immunity. Think of it this way, if US pull out of peacekeeping, who else can do it, Britain certainly can't do it all. ie. Bosnia would likely go to pot if the USA left. So with all these UN members raving about it maybe they should look at what the USA does all over the world. I say give it to them, just don't overrule it if it's deliberate.

[This message has been edited by Z-Layrex (edited July 03, 2002).]

 

No one should get immunity from crime, no matter their nationality. No matter what their country do. What the US want is to let its soldiers rape and use prostitutes in the countries they are 'helping' the immunity is in many ways wanted because alot of the UN soldiers have been acting like occupying forces in the nations they have been stationed treating local people like shit and taking advantage of them. Quite a few british soldiers are at a risk for getting prosecuted for crimes they have done in Bosnia. This is what the US dont want to happen to their soldiers. Mistakes are mistakes and should and will be viewed as such but crimes are still crimes and demanding immunity is freakish in my eyes.

 

Is that really what the US wants? Really?

The US has not said they should not be held accountable for war crimes. The issue is that the US does not want to join the world court. If it joins the world court, it would want immunity. What does this mean? That we would try our own soldiers and diplomats in the case where they commited a crime.
Considering the ridiculous amount of anti-American rhetoric spouted here from the citizens of other nations, it is not surprising that the US doesn't want to join.

 

Know that when i say 'war crimes' i don't mean the Evil rape, murderer, torture ones (I doubt any civilised trained soldier would do that these days) i meant accidents like when missles hit villages or civilians are neutralised because they were thought to be enemy.

 

Civilised trained soldier?
When your family, your loved ones, your friends, your mates are killed by the enemy, you're in the middle of a foreign land with bullets flying over your head, NOTHING counts for anything anymore. Rape, murder, torture, NOTHING.
Spare me this we are all civilised people bull.

 

I don't believe that our soldiers should get immunity from the UN war crimes.

But...
Why is it that the US is expected to supply the vast majority of the troops sent to problem areas? Why are our soldiers expected to be sent to dangerous areas when we could simply keep them for homeland defence?

Think about it. Of coarse we are going to have more crimes than any other countries because we keep the majority of the garrisons.

 

I know about some Belgian soldiers on an UN mission who roasted a Somalian kid because they thought that the kid had stolen something from their base and they wanted hime to confess. Seems a hell of a lot like torture to me. They also locked another kid up in a container without water or food to find him dead, after 2 days. They never got convicted.

ps this happened in 1995

I do agree with you, Z-Layrex about the 'missile hit village' accident. It's impossible to prevent all accidents from happening.

 

It's interesting how many americans bring up this argument, that each country should settle their own problems, and that a world court is not needed... Does that mean you oppose the trial of Milosevic and other war criminals in Haag? Because essentially we're talking the same thing, and in that case, the US in fact shut down all their foreign aid to the serbs, essentially forcing them to give up milosevic.

If you read up on international politics, you find that it's a dirty, dirty game. There are no rules, the strongest survive, and may then even choose to prosecute the loser to justify their victory. Of course, in Milosevic's case, it was probably a good call to prosecute him, since he does seem to be involved in war crimes, but what if an american general commited a similar crime? Would he be trialed? Obviously not, because noone in the world can force the US to do anything. The strongest survive, and make the rules.

So, it's pretty clear that a good thing to have would be an international set of laws apart from the Geneva convention, who is largely ignored by for example Israelian forces as we speak. And in order for a court to be effective, it needs to have the right to punish those who it finds guilty. It's pretty basic. And of course, that means intruding on each country's own agendas. Essentially everyone would need to sign a contract and agree to give some of the power over to this court. That's sort of the reason why such a court hasn't been installed yet, even though the idea has existed since WW1.

In a court, everyone is equal. That's exactly what the US and the UK are trying to barter with, they want special rights for the citizens of their country. It doesn't matter if they have done the world great services or not, everyone has to be equal in the eyes of the law. Anything else would be like not prosecuting a police who beats up his wife, because he's out in the streets all day, fighting crime. Noone can ever earn to be excepted from the legal system. If this court is based on such a weak compromise as the one that the UK and US now propose, it will soon be as weak and useless as the UN has become.

Just think about it, will Syria and Iran feel like signing up for this court, knowing that the US and UK can do things like this? No they won't. This court would have to be based on a wide agreement between as many nations as possible, and that means that the US and the UK will have to adjust to the majority, perhaps for the first time ever.

 

Maybe its for a reason?

Ok so you in the middle of nowhere, bullets flying about your head, your alowed to beat a defensless woman, (yes most people are defensless against 3 or 4 trained soliders) then gang rape her till she dies? nothing is an escuse for that. Or are we saying Hitler had a hard life and it was war so nothing counts for anything?

Because the USA has already tried doing that, remember in the 1930's after the depresion, and what happened oh yes WW2 and the cold war, and seeing as President Bush doesnt seem the brightest blub in the box I honestly fear somthing similar will happen again, I mean he goes around ripping up nuclear arms treatys like he was elected by a landside and is totaly immune to all sorts of attack.

And I do agree with idoru you have got it right, who ever has the largest military might makes the rules, the only reason the USA havent made every contry on earth basically work for them is the fact we could still give them a bloody nose. The UK might not have the Man power or the Armed forces of the USA but we have enough weapons of mass destruction to cause major damage so the USA ummm staying in its place and slowly pushing.

[/rant]

[This message has been edited by Mr Writer (edited July 04, 2002).]

 

The UK, in fact, has no problem with the international criminal court, so the only (major) player who is against the court is the US.
The problem appears to be that the US does not want to surrender any control over their soldiers in any way, rather than a particular fear of politically motivated prosecutions; the US currently has 35 troops serving in UN missions (almost all of its troops in peacekeeping/peace-enforcing missions are serving in US- or NATO-led missions).
America has not said that the court is a bad idea, merely that its troops should not be subject to it; but why should there be one law for America and one for everyone else?

 

Hmmm reminds me of some footage I saw not long ago, policeman kicking a man whos leg was borken and threatening to run him over...

were they proceuted, was there a huge public inquirey? no the news story just faded away.

 

I get a real kick out of the fact that people who don't live there or have never been seem to think of the U.S.A. as a single person...a big bully who only speaks English and chews with his mouth open.

The fact of the matter is that the U.S. consists of ~270 million individual souls. They go shopping. They watch movies. And, just like everywhere else, their politics are local. I think it perfectly legitimate to withhold aid money to get what you want, just like Mom used to cut off my allowance if I acted up. It was her money. And if I complained? "Get a job."

Every time something like Kyoto or the World Court pops up, everbody gets their knickers in a twist if the U.S. doesn't want to "sign on." The problem isn't, however, that the U.S. won't "sign on." "Signing on" is a thinly veiled euphemism for "Please pay for it, America."

I am not American, as it happens, and I wince every time I hear someone refer to the president of that nation-state as "the leader of the free world." I also think it inexcusable that at least two weddings in Afghanistan have been bombed out over a misunderstanding. (If you're going to bomb a village, you'd better make damn sure there are only bad guys there, IMO.)

But I don't recall the U.S. ever telling the world that they weren't allowed to implement Kyoto or the WC. They just said they wouldn't participate. And why not? Kyoto is a nice idea, but the treaty is irreparably flawed. And with all the anti-American venom coming from every corner of the globe, you can bet your bottom dollar that it would be used by weaker nation-states for political ends.

Not that it matters, really. A WC without the US would have no teeth, and no one would take it seriously.

I just wish everybody would quit regurgitating the propaganda from their local papers, go to the U.S. and sit next to an old guy in a diner and join him for flapjacks and coffee. The U.S. might surprise you.

 

I have been to America many times and loved in Gonzago. The people were mostly all nice. Lot's of large, well built buildings. Alot of policemen, one unit let me sit in the car when i was 6. I love it and hope to go again soon. My whle point was to let US soldiers have immunity from the UN from accidents. If some American soldiers commit a crime, the USA WILL deal with them, they're hardly gonna say fine go take a shower. That's what my point was, with American soldiers doing so much peace keeping then they DESERVE immunity. And i think the UK is wrong to get all skirty with the government for it too.

 

Gonzago and Z-Layrex, this topic isnt at all about USA bashing. It is about a nation wanting to stand above the law. A law that everyone else agrees to, so that all the soldiers that have been on a mission gets the same treatment. The reason I feel a bit of a resentment against the US *goverment* in this question is the sheer arrogance to demand that your own citizens doesnt have to abide by the same laws that they expect others to do. Idoru's post is very accurate. All to often USA gets mentioned in the same sentence as China, Iraque, Iran etc as a nation that refuse to international treatys that all democracies in the world agrees on except them. Is that really a company that the US wants to associated with? The comment about paying is just so silly that I wont even deign to comment on it.

Oh I would like to add that in this topic it is the 'pro' US people that have turned this into an 'anti' vs 'pro' US topic. It had nothing to do with that.

 

Before this discussion quickly degrades into another "us versus them" debacle, some distinctions need to be made. (Disclaimer: I *am* a citizen of the United States. I also have the uncommon distinction to hold both US and Canadian citizenship by birth and have lived and travelled throughout the US and Canada).

First off, the United Nations and NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization, for those who may not know) are two entirely different organisations, with different mandates and membership. That being said, there is a very big difference between a UN peacekeeping force and NATO armed forces. Whereas a UN peacekeeping force is made up of troops from *voluntary* countries, NATO armed forces are designated troops assigned directly to NATO by *obligation* of the member countries.

In addition, UN peacekeepers are typically sent into a an area *after* a conflict has occured (rarely during) in order to help keep the peace, to police the opposing sides during a cease-fire or truce situation, or to uphold some form of order where there is no recongnisable governing body. NATO forces enter into an existing or ongoing conflict, usually in support of (or at least against) one of the opposing sides. This is usually the case, but by no means always the case. The main difference here is that NATO's number one priority is always the defense of it's member countries through military means. In contrast, UN peacekeeping missions are based on 'humanitarian' priorities, and once assigned, are answerable to the UN governing body (mostly the UN Security Council).

In recent years, there has been a growing coordination of efforts between NATO and the UN. For the most part, this has meant NATO troops entering into a conflict to forcefully bring about a resolution. Once the conflict has subsided (through treaty, truce, cease-fire or NATO control of occupied territory), there is usually a transition from NATO forces to UN peacekeepers.

Finally, whereas NATO forces are predominantly made up of US troops, UN peacekeepers are predominantly *not*. Most peacekeepers come from Britain, France, Belgium, Canada, Australia and other UN member countries. (The composition of most UN peacekeeping forces is quite striking when you look at the relative numbers from smaller countries such as Canada, Belgium and Australia.) Therefore, the US is generally not considered a 'peacekeeper', something which the US government (at least in past) has adhered to and in fact avoids becoming involved in. That is a *very* important distinction to make in this discussion. One of the primary reasons for this is that UN peacekeepers are answerable to the UN governing body, not to NATO, and the US does not like the idea of handing over control of even small portions of its military to members that are decidedly anti-US.

(whew! /me stops to take a breath....)

Secondly, there is a major difference between War Crimes and 'accidents' that occur in the field (including friendly-fire incidents, or bombing of civilians). No war-time 'accident' has ever been considered a War Crime, nor should it. War Crimes are intentional (key word) and blatant (another key word) acts commited by a party during a time of war or conflict that are in contravention to the laws of war (i.e., the Geneva Convention), or considered to be 'inhumane'. The most obvious and famous examples are the Nuremberg Trials, during which the Allies (the US, France, Great Britain, and the USSR) agreed to try Axis (German, Italian and Japanese) war criminals, both civilian and criminal. Another less well-known example is the trial and conviction of Lt. William Calley for ordering and carrying out the slaughter of 347 Vietnamese civilians (men, women and children) during the Vietnam War. In this case, Lt. Calley was tried and convicted solely by the US military. And of course, there is now the case of Melosovic et al.

Now with all that being said, no country's troops (regardless of their involvement in international events, however distinctive or dubious) should be considered 'immune' from War Crimes. There simply is no acceptable reason or justification for it. I especially think this is true of the US *because* of their extensive military involvement throughout the world.

However, I think it would also be unacceptable to have a War Crimes Tribunial that is answerable to all, or even most, of the UN member countries. Most of the countries that belong to the UN use their membership as a shield for themselves, arguing against the 'attrocities' and 'injustices' of other countries while commiting the same or similar acts.

The most reasonable and effective method would be to use only un-biased, third parties for a war crimes tribunial. An impartial arbitrator should be assigned, which does not have any interest in the outcome of the trial other than to see justice carried out. Prior to the attrocities of the second world war, few would have believed that such events could have occured. Most military powers saw fit to allow each other power to be answerable to itself, and that they would all abide by the rules of war and act accordingly. We all know how that changed afterwards. Just because you don't believe that a given power would act in the same, or a similar manner, whether it's your own country or not, at this point in time, the future is *never* certain. The only effective and justifiable recourse is to involve outside, unbiased arbitrators, *and* to grant them the power to enforce the law.

(My apologies for the extreme length of this post - trying to be as clear and unhostile as possible )

[This message has been edited by Gnolyn Lochbreaker (edited July 04, 2002).]

 

I would just like to add that it is very interesting to read this thread, every poster had made a different addition to the puzzle, pointing out different facts and making the image clearer and clearer. This is a damned good thread if we can keep it at this level.


Gnolyn, where you would you find objective arbitraries? Will be hard.

 

Actually, I don't believe it's hard to find objective arbitrators. I think the hard part is getting agreement on them. And by objective, I don't necessarily mean from a neutral country. Individuals are known for their objectivity more so than countries are, but both would have to be considered. The Nuremberg trials, for example, used judges from the various Allied countries, all of whom were apparently quite distinquished and accomplished judges in their own right.

 

I am from Sweden and Sweden and swedes have a long history and a good reputation as arbitrary diplomats and negotiators, perhaps more so than any other nation in the world but I still think that Sweden wouldnt be a good choice for arbitrary judgment. My vote would go for normal lawyers and prosecutors that gets an assignment with a rolling schedule. Perhaps a bit like american jury duty, they get called up for international duty.

 

"And I do agree with idoru you have got it right, who ever has the largest military might makes the rules, the only reason the USA havent made every contry on earth basically work for them is the fact we could still give them a bloody nose. The UK might not have the Man power or the Armed forces of the USA but we have enough weapons of mass destruction to cause major damage so the USA ummm staying in its place and slowly pushing."

see joaquin, there was an America bashing post in this thread. Granted, it's the only one I saw, but still. You're right though, other than that it is all fairly high-level.

Mr Writer, what Arkados meant was that people fighting a war typically feel less inhibition towards murder, rape, et al, and are capable of doing things most people consider horrible. Living with the knowledge that there are hundreds of thousands of people out there doing their best to kill you every day probably has a pretty detrimental effect on most people's minds.

 

Once again we see people falling into the "US wants to be above The Law" trap.

The World Court is not "The Law." The U.S, for example, already has laws of military and war conduct.

The World Court is a farcical concept that would create the ridiculous idea of government-appointed officials from, for example, Libya in the position of judging British soldiers. Considering the radically different concepts of justice in the two countries, I find it surprising that anyone is willing to join the WC.

Oh, and modern, civilized soldiers have and do rape and murder civilians in lands they occupy. The U.S. already prosecutes them under military law, which is far more strict than our civilian code (although civilian code also applies to the military).

To cast this as an attempt by the U.S. to let our soldiers rape and murder wantonly is simply childish emotionalism, joacqin. You should be above that.

And how exactly would we be able to fight the war on terrorism, i.e. defending our country, if the WC existed? Considering how quick everyone here is to believe that we bombed a wedding party, it's hard to believe that we'd be able to do ANYTHING without some twit in western Europe starting an inquiry and forcing us to document to the UN things that we already know. Much better to tell the UN to go screw and then go about the business of defending our country. Otherwise the Frenchmen are going to sue under WC auspices every time a Muslim catches a cold. If you think this is an unreasonable statement, then you haven't been paying attention to French foreign policy.

[Edited to add: Oh, and as for the U.S. bombing weddings, they just found active anti-aircraft guns in the town. So much for "wedding traditions."]

[This message has been edited by Shralp (edited July 05, 2002).]