Bush and BIAs

[Cali Coug]

I don't know if anyone is following this or not, but this is one of Bush's biggest foreign policy blunders.

BACKGROUND


Bush is scared to death of being subjected to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC is a court that was built to prosecute large criminal acts in violation of international law. We are talking about things like genocide, mass murder, etc. We aren't talking about something like not following the laws for flags on ships. Milosevic was prosecuted in the ICC.

The ICC was formed as part of the Rome Convention in 1996 (I believe). It has over 100 signatories (meaning those nations agree to accept ICC jurisdiction). The US never signed (neither did Iraq).

Bush is concerned that American leaders could be subjected to trial or subpoena in the ICC. Actually, concerned doesn't capture his sentiments. He is petrified.

Most legal experts will tell you that there is little to no chance that the US leaders could be brought to trial before the ICC if they were to sign the Rome Convention treaty and accept ICC jurisdiction.

ISSUE

So just how worried is Bush about this? He has instructed the State Department to get signatory nations to the Rome Convention to sign an Article 98 treaty (also called a bilateral immunity agreement, or BIA) with the US. The BIA treaty basically says that the signatory nation will not ever attempt to bring US citizens before the ICC for trial.

To get the countries to sign a BIA (which, by signing, means the signatory nation is violating international law by disregarding its treaty obligations under the Rome Convention), Bush and the Republican Congress said they would withhold US aid for those nations' millitary operations unless they signed. The money we give them for military operations is expressly earmarked for combating terrorism and the international drug trade. In other words, Bush would rather get a treaty saying we won't be brought before the ICC (of which there is ZERO chance anyways without the BIA being signed) than he would help those countries to fund their part in the war on terror and drugs.

To further compel nations to sign BIAs, Congress passed an amendment to their original act that also conditioned economic assistance for non-military operations on signing a BIA with the US. We now have over 100 BIAs signed.

The problem? Many nations, especially those in Latin America, are looking to other large nations for economic assistance when the US has tried to coerce them to sign a useless BIA agreement that would make the country violate international law. Who are they getting money from? China and Venezuela. We are, unbelievably, allowing China and Venezuela to take an unprecendented amount of influence in Latin America all because of an irrational fear of the ICC. This is really dangerous to our security.

Perhaps the issue is too complicated for people to care. But look into it. You may be surprised what you find.

Here are some links of interest:

http://www.iccnow.org/documents/CICCFS-CommentsUSOfficials_BIA-ASPA_current.pdf#search=%22bia%20icc%20condi%20ric e%22

http://www.globalsolutions.org/programs/law_justice/icc/bias/bias_home.html

[FMCoug]

I'm with Bush on this one. There's this little concept called national soverignty that's pretty important to me.

[Cali Coug]

I'm with Bush on this one. There's this little concept called national soverignty that's pretty important to me.

I understand sovereignty concerns. I don't think it is a good idea to ever give up a substantial amount of sovereignty. I do think, however, the issue of sovereignty has been dramatically over-hyped in this instance. There is only a remote chance US leaders would be brought before the ICC if the US were to sign the Rome Convention treaty. There is ZERO chance of the US leaders being brought before the ICC right now. ZERO. There are only 4 ways anyone can be brought before the ICC, and NONE of them could possibly apply to the US today as a non-signatory.

Nevertheless, this is all a side issue. Whether or not you want ICC jurisdiction has nothing to do with whether or not the US should be seeking a BIA with current Rome Convention signatories. We don't need a BIA. We CAN'T be brought before the ICC currently. But we are going out of our way to get BIAs and withholding funding from key allies in the process (who are turning to China and Venezuela for their aid in the US vacuum). We are creating a dangerous situation that does not need to exist.

See the first link in my first post for comments on current Bush administration individuals who have questioned the BIA policy (including Condi Rice).

[Archaea]

Do you hunt for everything you don't like about Bush? Is this a part time job for you?

Are you unwilling to see the others side of any issue?

This issue appears to be very arcane, and may not be that important. I agree that US citizens should NOT ever be brought before the ICC. I barely trust our judicial system, and outside of Britain have not trust in the judicial systems outside of the US and Britain, especially the more I become familiar with them.

[Cali Coug]

Do you hunt for everything you don't like about Bush? Is this a part time job for you?

Are you unwilling to see the others side of any issue?

This issue appears to be very arcane, and may not be that important. I agree that US citizens should NOT ever be brought before the ICC. I barely trust our judicial system, and outside of Britain have not trust in the judicial systems outside of the US and Britain, especially the more I become familiar with them.

Again, focusing on the wrong issue. This is a big problem and is a valid concern. I don't think it is "arcane." China and Venezuela are gaining a solid foothold in Latin America due to the incompetence of the administration. Is that really "arcane?"

FWIW, hunting for everything I don't like about Bush would take up far more time than a part time job would allow for. He is a disaster.

[creekster]

Again, focusing on the wrong issue. This is a big problem and is a valid concern. I don't think it is "arcane." China and Venezuela are gaining a solid foothold in Latin America due to the incompetence of the administration. Is that really "arcane?"

FWIW, hunting for everything I don't like about Bush would take up far more time than a part time job would allow for. He is a disaster.

I didn't have time to go through your links, so go ahead and ridicule if this is present in them, but what evidence is there that China and Venezuela are given openings becasue of the emphasis on BIAs? IOW, Chavez is running arounf Latin AMerica with pockets full of cash and is more than eager to buy friends to oppose the USA. He would do this with or without the BIA issue. How does it uniquely contribute?

[Cali Coug]

I didn't have time to go through your links, so go ahead and ridicule if this is present in them, but what evidence is there that China and Venezuela are given openings becasue of the emphasis on BIAs? IOW, Chavez is running arounf Latin AMerica with pockets full of cash and is more than eager to buy friends to oppose the USA. He would do this with or without the BIA issue. How does it uniquely contribute?

It contributes because the US is simultaneously withholding aid to nations in Latin America for failure to sign a BIA. The aid, under the most recent act, includes economic assistance as well as military aid (used for combatting terrorism and the drug trade).

Rather than sign the agreement, many nations in Latin America are looking for other sources of economic assistance. China and Venezuela are happy to fill that gap (and are currently doing so). The end result is the very real possibility of a strong anti-American coalition in Latin America that could be averted with foresight.

And yes, this is discussed in the first link I provided (which links to congressional testimony, statements of US Generals, statements of current State Department officials and many more).

[creekster]

OK, I looked at the first link. It makes clear that APSA applies to IMET, or military training and education programs. APSA is a federal act authored, or introduced, by Jesse helms. It sets forth requirements that must be followed in terms of providing aid to various countries that support the ICC, although most major allies are excluded (NATO allies, for example). The president apparently has some discretion in excluding aid in the absence of compliancce with APSA, and presumably this is what you are talking about (although you do not make this very clear). The portion of the problem that is as a result of Bush's policy as compared to the portion of aid denial that is legislated is also not addressed in your post, nor is it addressed in your links.

The second link addresses the issue more clearly, and speaks to APSA (passed in 2002, btw) anbd somethign called the 'nethercutt provisdion" which operates similarly but apparently extends to other types of aid.

A couple of interesting points: First, the first quotation in the first link is from COndi Rice, acknowledging the risk involved in forceful insistence on BIAs. Gee, sounds like the Bush adminstration may be aware of its own supposed stupidity on this one. Second, the second link warns of US allies left adrift without military aid, which list in Latin America includes Venezuela. DIdn't these people notice that we have embargoed all military aid to Venezuela precisely BECASUE they aren't cooperating in the war on durgs/terror?

The BIA issue is interesting. I do not like the ICC and I do not like the cession of sovereignty it implies/requires. Even so I am not sure the legislated approach to BIAs is necessarily a good thing, but I certainly don't lay this all at Bush's feet.

[Cali Coug]

OK, I looked at the first link. It makes clear that APSA applies to IMET, or military training and education programs. APSA is a federal act authored, or introduced, by Jesse helms. It sets forth requirements that must be followed in terms of providing aid to various countries that support the ICC, although most major allies are excluded (NATO allies, for example). The president apparently has some discretion in excluding aid in the absence of compliancce with APSA, and presumably this is what you are talking about (although you do not make this very clear). The portion of the problem that is as a result of Bush's policy as compared to the portion of aid denial that is legislated is also not addressed in your post, nor is it addressed in your links.

The second link addresses the issue more clearly, and speaks to APSA (passed in 2002, btw) anbd somethign called the 'nethercutt provisdion" which operates similarly but apparently extends to other types of aid.

A couple of interesting points: First, the first quotation in the first link is from COndi Rice, acknowledging the risk involved in forceful insistence on BIAs. Gee, sounds like the Bush adminstration may be aware of its own supposed stupidity on this one. Second, the second link warns of US allies left adrift without military aid, which list in Latin America includes Venezuela. DIdn't these people notice that we have embargoed all military aid to Venezuela precisely BECASUE they aren't cooperating in the war on durgs/terror?

The BIA issue is interesting. I do not like the ICC and I do not like the cession of sovereignty it implies/requires. Even so I am not sure the legislated approach to BIAs is necessarily a good thing, but I certainly don't lay this all at Bush's feet.

The BIA legislation was Bush's idea. You may notice that I pointed out that Condi is critical of the administration's position in my post above. That isn't exactly news to me. But then to say "sounds like the Bush administration may be aware of its own supposed stupidity on this one" is something I agree with. They are aware of it. It is stupid. And yet, they continue to pursue it. Why?

If that isn't Bush's fault, whose fault is it? (You could try to make a case for the Republican Congress, but that doesn't do much for the party).

BTW, While ASPA is terrible legislation, it allows the president to exempt any country he wants to from its effects. He has complete discretion to determine who is exempt and who isn't. If someone is losing military and economic aid, you can be pretty comfortable in laying the responsibility for that action at the feet of the president.