By Haider Rizvi
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 13 2003 (IPS)

Do you want the International Criminal Court or our help in renovating your airport?

That is how a U.S. diplomat reportedly tried to sway leaders of the tiny Caribbean island of The Bahamas to not join the International Criminal Court (ICC) some three months ago.

U.S. Ambassador Richard Blankenship not only threatened the country with an ”unfavourable response”, he warned other Caribbean nations that they might lose U.S. financial assistance if they signed on to the new court, set up to investigate and prosecute individuals for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

For the islanders, the U.S. envoy’s words were blackmail, because part of the aid that Washington had promised the nation was allocated for rebuilding an airport to sustain the tourism industry, the mainstay of the country’s economy.

”This is an ugly threat,” said Richard Dicker of Human Right Watch, who recounted the story. ”The U.S. knows that The Bahamas economy heavily relies on tourism,” added Dicker, whose group has been campaigning for several years to strengthen the ICC.

On Thursday, groups and nations opposed to the U.S. move to renew its exemption from the criminal court lost the fight 12-0 in the U.N. Security Council (with three abstentions), but some observers say the fact that the issue was heard in a general debate – where smaller developing states also criticised Washington – is a larger victory.

That did not stop one of those countries from opposing Washington’s request to renew the resolution that was adopted after two weeks of sometimes bitter debate last year. ”This is contrary to the U.N. Charter,” Anthony Edghill, the representative of Trinidad and Tobago, told the Security Council.

The Caribbean countries are not the only ones facing the loss of financial assistance from the United States. Currently, more than 40 U.S. ”friends” and ”allies” risk losing US aid if they sign and ratify the Rome Statute that created the new court, including six of the new NATO members: Bulgaria, Slovenia, Slovakia, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia.

The list also includes countries dependent on U.S. military assistance to maintain law and order, such as Colombia, Croatia and Macedonia.

So far, more than 30 nations have publicly announced that they have signed ”non-surrender” deals with Washington. But others criticised the U.S. exemption Thursday.

”If this draft resolution is approved, the exemption contained in itself must not be a permanent one,” said Peruvian ambassador Oswaldo de Rivero, representing 19 Latin American nations in the Rio Group.

Civil society leaders who campaigned for years for the establishment of the court say despite U.S. efforts to cow small and vulnerable states, there are strong signals of growing support for the ICC.

”We are concerned over how this resolution has attempted to elevate an entire category of people to a point above the law,” said Jordanian envoy Prince Raad Zeid Al-Hussein, whose country is one of Washington’s closest allies in the Arab world. ”This resolution is in contravention of the Rome Statute,” he told the Security Council.

”The two biggest losers as a result of today’s decision are the United States and the Security Council,” said William Pace, the convener of the Coalition for the ICC, a network of 2000 groups worldwide that campaigned for the establishment of the ICC.

”The U.S. lost on two levels,” he explained after the vote. ”First, because it came away with a good deal less than it wanted, and second, because it squandered any claim of legitimate interest or concern.”

”The Security Council was damaged because it acted beyond its powers.”

Yvonne Terlingen of London-based Amnesty International also said the resolution was unlawful. ”This contravenes the U.N. Charter, international law and the Rome Statute.”

Washington’s opposition to the ICC emanates from its fear the Court will instigate ”politically motivated” prosecutions against its nationals, but international law experts disagree, and say the U.S. approach could lead to the creation of a ”two-tiered” system of justice for serious human rights crimes.

”The U.S fears are not only misplaced, but an insult to the 18 (ICC) distinguished judges and the highly qualified chief prosecutor, as well as the countries that elected them,” said David Danzig, a spokesman for New York-based Lawyers Committee for Human Rights.

Excerpt: