Belgium Scraps War Crimes Law Which Angered U.S.

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

Belgium Scraps War Crimes Law Which Angered U.S.

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Belgium said Saturday it has decided to scrap a controversial war crimes law which has seen cases launched against President Bush (news - web sites) and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites).

Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt said his new government, sworn in Saturday, has decided as one of its first acts to scrap the law which has angered the United States.

He told a news conference the move was aimed at preventing abuses of the law, which has also seen a case launched against British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites).

“I think we have definitely solved this question,” Verhofstadt said, hours after his government had been sworn in by King Albert II.

The 1993 law gave Belgian courts the power to try war crimes cases no matter where they were committed.

In future, the right to launch cases would be restricted to Belgians or people resident in the country. All cases apart from those involving Belgians would be dropped, he said.

The norms of international immunity would also be respected. Any cases that were launched would take into account Belgium’s agreements with NATO (news - web sites) allies and other European Union (news - web sites) members.

The law got Belgium into all kinds of trouble.

For the full story click on the link provided.

2

Real shame. The organized, pro-Zionist lobbying works every time.

Belgium law change condemned, BBC, 14 July 2003

Human rights groups have attacked the Belgian Government’s decision to withdraw a controversial war crimes law.

The US-based organisation, Human Rights Watch has accused Belgium of giving in to pressure from the United States.

A Belgian human rights group described the decision as hypocritical and irresponsible.

…] A representative of Human Rights Watch expressed sadness and shock at the announcement. “What saddens me is that, with all the political pressure from the United States and Israel, we have completely forgotten the original point of the law, which was to render justice to the victims of horrible crimes,” said Geraldine Mattioli from the group’s Brussels office. “These crimes are so horrible that they are beyond understanding and, as such, concern the whole of humanity so that we do not need to be directly involved to be affected by these crimes.”

“It’s clearly a disappointment,” said Dan Van Raemdonck, of Belgium’s Human Rights League. “Belgium was in the lead, now it’s fallen behind other countries.”

3

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
Real shame. The organized, pro-Zionist lobbying works every time.

[/QUOTE]

Et tu Nadia??? "Pro-Zionist" lobbying is the reason Belgium scrapped the law?

Could it not be that someone sensible finally realized that the Courts of one country simply cannot be allowed to exercise self-imposed jurisdiction over people and events that have no relation to it? If the US ever tried to do what Belgium did and proclaimed universal jurisdiction of its Courts over the business and affairs of people and events everywhere in the world, you'd be screaming the loudest. Come to think of it, your oft-repeated criticism of US foreign policy sounds very much applicable to the Belgium War Crimes Law.

4

:halo: Oui.

**
Actually the US already does exercise “self-imposed jurisdiction” (Iraqi and Afghan prisoners being held on allegations of being involved in ‘terrorism’).

It is not as though Belgium would be ‘out to get’ the US in particular. Saddam Hussein, Yassar Arafat, and Fidel Castro were three individuals who had cases brought against them through this law in Belgium.

With all due respect, it is only governments who feel they are above and beyond the law, and who believe they may be found guilty under these measures in Belgian law, that are expressing vehement opposition to this issue. Any government that knows it has not committed any type of warcrime, on any country’s soil, should feel a natural inclination towards endorsing this idea. If you have nothing to hide, then why engage in needless worry.

5

Nadia,

"Any government that knows it has not committed any type of warcrime, on any country’s soil, should feel a natural inclination towards endorsing this idea."

What a naive statement. The problem is that the threshold for accusation is so low, and the world community has not agreed on the definitions of the crimes, the proof required, or the penalty.

No one is debating that a fair and equitable process is needed for prosecution of war crimes. However the Belgium Law was not an effective way to go about it. The Belgian Law was simply a political nuisance that made the true prosecution of war crimes a joke.

6

If you believe that then to be consistent you ought to support the US policy just as you support the Belgium law. But, there is not a neat analogy to be made. In fact, part of the difficulty the US had/has in dealing with terrorism is that the government cannot indict people within the US criminal court system unless there is a relationship between the acts of the perpetrator and the US. This relationship is made either through physical presence in the US or participating in actions that ultimately have effects on/in US territorial jurisdictions. That concept of jurisdiction has always been internationally recognized until Belgium adopted its nutty law. Belgium is the only country anywhere in the world that asserted its courts had jurisdiction over people for acts that have nothing to do with Belgium.

Iraqi and Afghan prisoners present an entirely separate and distinct classification that has everything to do with military action and nothing to do with Court jurisdiction.

As much distaste as I have for Saddam Hussein, Yassar Arafat, and Fidel Castro, a court in Belgium has no business asserting jurisdiction over them or proceding with cases against them. If Belgium can do it, why not let China, Japan, N Korea, the US, the UK, Israel, India, Pakistan and any other country that wants to enact a similar law do so? It truly makes absolutely no sense to let a country do this.

Further, why stop at what Belgium legislators choose to define as war crimes? Why not extend the jurisdiction of Belgium courts to all cases of spousal abuse occuring anywhere in the world? Why not all cases of deprivation of civil or voting rights? Why not let Belgium courts try Omar and his Taliban cronies or the Emir of Kuwait and all members of the Kuwaiti parliament for not giving women the right to vote?

I think that is a terribly weak argument. That’s like saying Muslims in the US ought not oppose indiscriminate searches of their homes, cars, body cavities, etc. or phone taps or any of a host of other actions if they are innocent. After all, if they have nothing to hide, why should they not willingly submit to such actions. Actually, no government ought to have a natural inclination to endorse any idea that involves giving some other country the right to prosecute its citizens for acts or crimes that do not occur in or have effects in that other country.

7

If i remember correctly there was quite a bit of agreement over the proposed international court - 90 countries had ratified the Rome treaty that established the court and 139 countries are signatories to the treaty. The “world community” was close to agreeing on establishing an ICC, but again - it was selective countries that were dragging their heels.

My Voice,

Your argument that no other country has the right to prosecute other citizens for crimes that “do not occur in or have effects in that other country”, is a pretty hollow argument. We are not talking about depriving Kuwaiti women of the right to vote, we are talking about war crimes here. The matter is slightly more serious. With this sort of laissez-faire mentality, i am not surprised that war crimes have been, and are being, committed in Iraq.

What worries those who are opposed to this, such as Sharon and Bush I/II, is their own vulnerability in the face of these measures.

How so?

A relevant

[quote]
(BBC NEWS | Europe | Belgium law change condemned) perhaps from one of the HRW officials:

8

The Belgian Law, as well as the ICC are a travesty of justice. Guess who is about to be indicted? Saddam? No. His thugs who probably murdered 300,000 Shias? No. Taylor? Mugabe?

No, Tony Blair, one of the ICC’s supporters. Now go ahead and tell me that this court is not a political Kangaroo court!

‘ARREST BLAIR’
European lawyers press for war crimes charges
A group of European lawyers are to bring charges against British Prime Minister Tony Blair alleging war crimes over his invasion of Iraq.

They claim that the US-UK invasion of Iraq violates the United Nations Charter, the Geneva Convention, the Hague Convention and the International Criminal Court’s statute.

The moves, started by Dimitris Paxinos in Athens and apparently supported by up to 200 others arround the world, could result in Blair standing before judges in the International Criminal Court — the same Court as Slobodan Milosevic.

Blair will face charges over the death and injury of 10,000 civilian casualties, some maimed by shrapnel bombs, if the court accepts the case. European lawyers may argue that Blair’s crimes are more serious than those of Milosevic. The former Serbian premier was fighting terrorist separatists in his own country — while Blair launched an attack on a foreign sovereign state which the UN ruled was illegal.

Bush escapes being charged at the present time as the US is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court.

Mr. Paxinos, who is president of the lawyers’ association in Greece, told the BBC that he is confident that the evidence he has compiled so far is strong.

Until recently, charges against a head of state were virtually unknown. But in addition to the arrest and extradition of Milosevic, Blair himself has been instrumental in bringing about the change in precedent by having Augusto Pinochet arrested while he was in London.

The British Courts, while Blair was Prime Minister, ruled that Pinochet could be extradited to Spain on charges brought by a Spanish prosecutor.

The 82 year old Chilean General suffered two strokes while being held in London and was eventually allowed to return to Chile.

While it is fairly certain that a British government today is not going to hand over Blair to stand trial, he would not be able to go to Greece or any other country that might arrest him. But in yet a further twist of irony, if Blair succeeds in dissolving Britain into the European Union — with or without a referendum — there will be no sovereign British government left to protect him.

9

OG,

Take a deep breath. Sit down. Because you’re not going to like what you read next.

It is my firm belief that - if the likes of Arafat, Castro and Hussein are up for standing at the ICC’s docks, then Bush and Blair both certainly are as well. Infact, the latter two are the first individuals who should be tried at the ICC. My standards of ‘moral expectations’ from democratic governments are slightly higher than from dictators and tyrants.

Now let the vitriolic comments come forth :halo:

10

Thus proving PRECISELY my point that this is a POLITICAL court, not a criminal court.

The US and Britain have duely elected democratic governments with highly functional judiciary systems. The failure to distinguish between Pol Pot and Bush and Blair is shocking. In the case that I posted above, the Greek BAR ASSOCIATION, not the Greek Government, nor a concensus of world governments is going to bring suit against Blair. This extraordinarily low threshold of indictment insures that the court will be a political tool, not a tool of justice.

When you have time, read up on the Laws of War. There are specific international conventions that guide the conduct of war, which generally say that the combatants can have at it, but that the civilians should be protected as much as is reasonable whilst still killing your enemy. There is a very practical realization in this body of law that Wars will occur, and that in the process civilians will die. Your political stance starts with the premise that Wars should not occur, and if they do no civilian should die. This is patently unrealistic, and defies the history of man. Perhaps you think that the power of the UN renders wars irrelevant, but you fail to see that the UN is not a bastion of virtue, but a place where votes are bought and sold, and where countries self interest sometimes overrides right and wrong. By blurring the lines of War Crimes, you degrade the value of real War Crimes tribunals, and the deterrent effect they have in persuading combatants that they must wage a fight in a way which spares civilians.

The ICC is a Lilliputian effort to throw a thousand ropes around giants, so that when political efforts fail a small group of political idealists can make trouble for those they disagree with. This is not justice, it is politics cloaked in a court.

This should be distinguished from the crowd (I will include you in this group) that believes that War is a Crime. The War is a Crime crowd is attempting to make achieve political aims by de-electing in a court leaders of other countries with whom they disagree. This entirely circumvents the Democratic process.

The indictment of Blair in the ICC will be the downfall of the ICC.

11

Nadia:
I echo OG's comments.

But further, let's stick to the Belgium law for a moment and differentiate it from the ICC. I have a suspicion that few people actually understand what the Belgium War Crimes Law is really all about.

The Belgium War Crimes Law was NOT the product of any international agreement to submit to the jurisdiction of a Belgium Court. Quite simply, the Belgium legislature voted to let people anywhere and everywhere file cases in Belgium Courts for claimed war crimes that occured anywhere and everywhere in the world. That is a crucial difference between the Belgium Law and the World Court and/or the ICC. Countries can and do enter into agreements and treaties to establish courts and organizations for the purpose of settling international disputes. They voluntarily give jurisdiction to these organizations to settle disputes to which they or their citizens are parties. When they do so, I've got no problem with it. But the key to jurisdiction is the consent of the signatories to the agreements.

** Please stick to the Belgium War Crimes Law in your reply. ** Tell me what gives the Belgium legislature the right to give Belgium courts the right to try these cases there. If Belgium can do that, why can't Russia, Pakistan, the US, China or any other country do it too? Are other countries foreclosed from doing the same thing Belgium did because Belgium did it first? And if you have no problem with any country in the world doing it for War Crimes, for what other offenses can they also do it? If you want to limit it to War Crimes, tell me the logical and legal basis that should make this differentiation acceptable.