Showing posts with label Susan E. Rice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Susan E. Rice. Show all posts

United States' cooperation & the ICC

(Part 1 of a 2-part series; Part 2 is here)

The International Criminal Court is almost entirely dependent on state cooperation to effectuate its mandate to bring to justice individuals responsible for committing “the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole.” State cooperation is also central to the evolving relationship between the ICC and the United States.
President Barack Obama entered office with a pledge to temper the prior administration’s hostility toward the ICC. Since then, he has been conducting a high-level review of U.S. policy toward the ICC. Although no official position has been announced, subsequent public statements by:

have since confirmed that the United States stands ready to re-engage with the Court.
The United States, along with other states, has rendered a range of formal and informal assistance to the ad hoc tribunals. Over the years, the United States has:
  • supplied technical assistance
  • seconded personnel,
  • utilized diplomatic and economic sanctions,
  • frozen assets,
  • shared evidence,
  • offered rewards for information leading to the arrest or conviction of indictees, and
  • authorized and participated in multilateral military efforts to track and apprehend suspects.
As such, the United States has extensive experience using its intelligence capabilities, criminal justice expertise, and military muscle to further international justice.
Even as a non-state party, the United States is poised to continue to play this role vis-à-vis the ICC in light of the détente between the United States and the Court. As will be discussed in tomorrow's post, however, aspects of domestic law render a whole range of forms of assistance potentially unlawful.

The United States & the ICC

(Part 2 of a 3-part series)

For all the years of its existence, the International Criminal Court has, in effect, shared space with another occupant. Ever present, though sometimes hard to see, has been the United States of America.
The story of the ICC is also a story of U.S. foreign policy. It is a story of the relation between the world’s remaining superpower, a key proponent of the post-World War II International Military Tribunals, and today’s direct descendant of those tribunals, the ICC.
The United States was among a handful of countries to vote against the ICC Statute at the 1998 Rome diplomatic conference (above left). (credit) The United States has kept its distance ever since, sometimes quite hostilely so. Its status as a nonparty state deprived it of any vote at the 2010 Kampala Review Conference and other meetings of the ICC Assembly of States Parties. Yet the importance of the United States to the project of international criminal justice cannot be ignored.
Thus it was at the recent 4th International Humanitarian Law Dialogs at Chautauqua, New York, on "Crimes Against Peace - Aggression in the 21st Century": participants repeatedly turned to talk of the United States.
John L. Washburn, Convener of AMICC, the American NGO Coalition for the ICC, said it well:
For a country as powerful as the United States, the limitation of being a nonparty state is that instead of being the 2,000-pound gorilla, you’re the 1,800-pound gorilla in the room.
U.S. heft left its imprint on the package of crime-of-aggression amendments adopted at Kampala.
A definition forged in the years when U.S. officials had absented themselves from ICC discussions survived with little change, save for the agreement that the offense occurs only when a U.N. Charter violation is "manifest" – an adjective deemed more stringent than others considered. Even more important was the effect that concerns voiced by the United States had on amendments setting forth the paths by which the ICC may investigate and prosecute allegations of aggression.
At Chautauqua, 2 succinct critiques underscored this effect:
► "We came out of Kampala with a consensus," said former Nuremberg Prosecutor Benjamin B. Ferencz, a longstanding supporter of making the crime of aggression punishable in international criminal fora. The consensus, in his view: "Everybody can veto everything."
► Washburn again came quickly to the point. "Any country that’s paying attention can avoid jurisdiction over it for aggression," he said, adding, "I think this was probably the outcome that the United States was hoping for but not sure they could get."
(The negotiations leading to the Kampala package, now open for states’ ratification, are aptly detailed in IntLawGrrl Beth Van Schaack's new paper, on which she recently posted.)
For the official U.S. perspective, Dialogs participants turned to one of their own – former international prosecutor Stephen J. Rapp (right), since last September the United States’ Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues. Rapp, whose arrival at the State Department coincided with the return of the United States to ICC negotiations (prior posts here and here), told the Dialogs participants:
While we had been absent from the ICC, we had not been silent in the faces of crimes that shock the conscience.
Rapp cited as proof U.S. support for the Special Court for Sierra Leone (of which he used to be Chief Prosecutor), for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and for other tribunals.
Why the rapprochement?
The reason for our involvement in the ICC is that if there’s to be an answer at the international level for the atrocities that are being committed, tonight, it will not be in the ad hoc tribunals. It will be either at the national level, where of course it’s always best, or in the ICC.
Rapp continued:
That’s where the butchers will be tried. That’s where Americans need to be supportive, to ensure its success.
(See too this transcript of a post-Kampala press conference featuring Rapp and State Department Legal Adviser Harold Hongju Koh.) Though he deemed U.S. ratification of the ICC treaty "difficult," Rapp said that "at least at this stage we want to make it possible for this institution to succeed."
As IntLawGrrls’ own Valerie Oosterveld explained in her superb year-in-review lecture at the Dialogs (left), since late last year the United States has pursued a policy of positive engagement with the ICC. Although the United States remains a nonparty state, on a case-by-case basis it makes political or diplomatic statements in support of the ICC, considers ICC cooperation requests, shares information with the ICC, and provides the ICC with witness assistance.
Rapp gave to 2 specific examples of this policy in action:
► This spring, Congress enacted the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act (prior post); and
► Just weeks ago, President Barack Obama criticized Kenya for giving safe passage to Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese President whom the ICC seeks to arrest on charges of genocide.
► Had Rapp spoken today rather than last week, he might have added yesterday's related news; specifically, the proclamation by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of a "new American moment" of "global leadership," and the announcement by the United States' U.N. Ambassador, Susan E. Rice, that on September 24 Obama will attend a U.N.-organized summit on Sudan, focusing on Darfur and the impending referendum on South Sudan secession.
On this, Rapp was rather less fervid.
Rapp described the definition of aggression in proposed Article 8 bis as "one that departed significantly from Nuremberg." He cited an International Herald Tribune op-ed that another Dialogs participant – former international prosecutor Richard J. Goldstone – had written in the runup to Kampala (prior post), and warned that definitional ambiguity could invite confused constructions and could force the ICC on one side or the other of a conflict.
A particular concern, Rapp said, is that worthy military interventions might be subjected to allegations of aggression. Resounding a note that Obama had struck in his Nobel Peace Prize Lecture last year, Rapp spoke of "the debt we owe to people who went into harm’s way and who exercised force." Referring to the Nuremberg trials (right), Rapp added, "The Nazi leaders would never have been in the dock if lives were not lost."
That note stirs many in the world to unease, particularly when it is struck by a country engaged in military intervention, Rapp acknowledged. "That’s a challenge that we in Kampala had to confront," he said, "to deal with the reality in the world while signaling our desire for a world of law, a world where law can eventually displace force."
A number of participants welcomed the United States’ embrace of ICC observer status.
Noting Rapp’s reiteration of the positive-engagement policy in his Chautauqua remarks, Oosterveld, who has served as a member of the Canadian delegation to the ICC Assembly of States Parties, commented,
I felt very heartwarmed about it because I had been there in 2000 when the United States withdrew from the ICC. To hear this from Rapp was a very, very wonderful breakthrough.
Washburn nonetheless expressed concern that as events elsewhere have moved to the fore, on the matter of the ICC "there has been a certain complacency" among U.S. officials since Kampala. He warned against too great a disconnect.
Washburn’s cautionary tale?
Reminder of the dysfunction that impeded relations between the United States and others at the Rome Conference that established the ICC.


(This series on the crime of aggression and the 4th IHL Dialogs, which IntLawGrrls cosponsored, concludes tomorrow with Part 3 (here), a report on the celebratory speech that closed the Dialogs. Part 1 of this series is here.)

Behind every successful man

IntLawGrrls' favorite image from this week's doings at U.N. headquarters in New York: U.S. President Barack Obama chairing Thursday's session of the Security Council, flanked by 2 top foreign policy advisors, Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, and Dr. Susan E. Rice, Ambassador to the United Nations.
As seen in the U.N. video of the session, unanimously adopted was Res. 1887 (2009), on nuclear nonproliferation. (Hat tip to Peggy McGuinness, IntLawGrrls guest/alumna and charter member of Opinio Juris, whose OJ posts on U.N. happenings have been super.)
Clinton and Rice were by no means the only women foreign policy advisors hard at work this week: U.N. dispatch reported that White House aide Samantha Power (left) spoke at a press briefing Wednesday, following the "first-of-a-kind meeting" between Obama and leaders of countries that comprise the top contributors to U.N. peacekeeping operations. Power (prior posts) is Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs at the National Security Council.

Women at work in America

On this U.S. day of rest known as Labor Day, IntLawGrrls offers a pictorial journey through the working life of American women and, alas, girls. Many of the early photos come courtesy of "A History of Women in Industry," an excellent exhibition at the website of the Washington, D.C.-based National Women's History Museum.
At your leisure, have a look.


































(image credits, top to bottom: early American spinner; 19th C. Navajo weavers; mid-19th C. domestic servants in Florida; early 20th C. cotton mill workers in Indianapolis, Indiana; early 20th C. farm worker; early 20th C., "Delia Kane, age 14, waitress at the Exchange Luncheon in Boston"; circa 1913, garment workers on strike in New York; 1937 photo of woman and child, forced by Depression and Dust Bowl joblessness to migrate from Oklahoma to California; circa 1940s photo of California Department of Motor Vehicles secretary Mitsuye Endo, a loyal American of Japanese ancestry who in a 1944 Supreme Court judgment won her challenge to internment; circa 1980s photo of Sally Ride, pioneering astronaut; photo of Maria Isabel Vasquez Jimenez, who, aged 17 and pregnant with child, died in 2008 of heat exhaustion while working in a field in California's Central Valley; March 2009 AP photo of Dr. Susan E. Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (left), and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (right), at work)


Darfur in D.C. today

"Toward a Comprehensive Strategy for Sudan" is the title of today's hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The session begins at 10 Eastern time this morning at 419 Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, and should also be available on webcast and C-SPAN.
Scheduled witnesses include Dr. Mohammed Ahmed (left), a Darfuri physician and peacemaker who's been honored as a Human Rights Laureate by the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice & Human Rights. Earlier this year Dr. Mohammed visited the California International Law Center at King Hall, of which yours truly is director, to meet with students working on our ongoing joint RFK-CILC Darfur Project on transitional justice.
Also set to testify before the Foreign Relations Committee are: retired Air Force Major General Scott Gration, the President's Special Envoy to Sudan; Earl Gast, Acting Assistant Administrator for Africa at the U.S. Agency for International Development; Dr. David Shinn, former Ambassador to Burkina Faso and to Ethiopia, and now an Adjunct Professor in international affairs at George Washington University; and Susan Page (right), formerly head of the Rule of Law program for the U.N. Mission in Sudan and now Regional Director for Southern and East Africa Programs for the National Democratic Institute.
The hearing provides an occasion for review of recent developments respecting Sudan (prior IntLawGrrls posts). For example:
► Earlier this month, a 5-member arbitration tribunal issued its resolution of a boundary dispute between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army, respecting the Abyei Area in South Sudan. Some in the south are said to have warned they may appeal the decision, which drew a line through the oil-rich region.
► Respecting the western region of Darfur, the indictment by the International Criminal Court of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir continues to stir controversy. Via a resolution at the African Union summit earlier this month, many leaders rallied on Bashir's behalf and railed against the ICC and its Prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo. But just this week, Bashir was a no-show at an African summit in Uganda. Reports are that Bashir's scheduled visit was "blocked" by President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, an ICC member state. The move follows the apparent notice to Bashir that he might face arrest if he attended the inauguration of South African President Jacob Zuma of South Africa, also an ICC member state. Yet the policy of Zuma's government remains unclear. And as our Opinio Juris colleague Kevin Jon Heller's noted, Botswana's said it would adhere to its ICC obligations if the indictee entered its jurisdiction.
► Some maintain that it's not only Africa that's in disarray, but that the same could be said of Sudan policy in the United States. Last month Gration said "that the Sudanese government is no longer engaging in a 'coordinated' campaign of mass murder in Darfur," but rather what's occurring now is "' the remnants of genocide.'" The Washington Post's Colum Lynch saw in the remarks evidence of "an emerging rift between Gration and Susan E. Rice [below right], the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, who accused the Sudanese leadership of genocide as recently as two days ago." An op-ed writer agreed. In testimony yesterday at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on peacekeeping, however, Rice spoke favorably of Gration's mission; her focus was pressing Sudan to allow more aid workers into Darfur. Her prepared statement included these words:

Darfur is about the size of California, with a pre-war population of 6.5 million. Only twenty thousand peacekeepers are inherently limited in their ability to patrol territory so vast, and to protect so many civilians. Imagine how much more difficult their task becomes when the host government actively hinders their efforts, the parties balk at cease-fire talks, and the peacekeepers are deployed below their full operating capacity.

Bottom line:The Committee's Senators will have much to talk about today.


What did Title IX do for you?

Over the years a number of us IntLawGrrls have talked about the importance of sports – tennis, soccer, track and field – in our lives.
Now, on this 37th anniversary of the U.S. statute that called for parity between men's and women's sports – Title IX – comes Dr. Susan E. Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, with her own, similar account on the White House blog:
I played point guard for my high school basketball team at National Cathedral School in Washington (I also played tennis and softball). What I learned from my coaches and teammates extended well beyond the basketball court. Being part of the basketball team taught me some valuable life lessons and helped shape me as a person. I learned how to be a team player, how great it feels to win, how tough it can be to lose – and how difficult it is to do so gracefully.
As the United States Ambassador to the United Nations – I’m often reminded that in basketball as in diplomacy, you have to know when to throw elbows, and when to show finesse.
Would love to hear, dear readers, what Title IX has done for you.

Ambassador Susan Rice on UN & USA

Here's what Dr. Susan E. Rice (left), U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, told Politico about the U.S. decision to seek a seat on the Human Rights Council for the 1st time since it was established in 2006:
'We have a record of abject failure from having stayed out. We've been out for the duration and it has not gotten better. It's arguably gotten worse. We are much better placed to be fighting for the principles we believe in -- protection of human rights universally, fighting against the anti-Israel crap, and for meaningful action on issues that we care about and ought to be the top of the agenda -- things like Zimbabwe, Sudan, Burma, by leading and lending our voice from within.'

In an interview well worth reading, Rice also indicated that the February announcement that the United States was pulling out of Durban II, the World Conference on Racism, to be held this month in Geneva, may in the end lead to U.S. involvement: following the announcement organizers to produced a new draft agreement that's much more to the United States' liking.
Rice struck a tone far different from that of a recent predecessor, John Bolton (who, not surprisingly, already has condemned the new administration's decision that the United States will try to work within the Human Rights Council). She said of the United Nations:
'This is an institution that, despite its evident flaws, we are much better off having function effectively.'

A gender-balanced natsec sextet

A photo montage is worth a whole lot of words: For the 1st time in history, the President's national security leadership is about to comprise an equal number of women and men. (photo credit)
Yesterday President-Elect Barack Obama announced that he'd seek the Senate's confirmation of the 6 persons above as his key advisors on issues of national and global importance.
Most media attention has been paid to Obama's appointment of his chief rival for the Democratic nomination, U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) (top row, middle) to be Secretary of State. It's an audacious, inspired choice. On account of both her years in the Senate and her years as 1st Lady, Clinton's been to and met with many of the leaders who're soon to be the object of her diplomatic endeavors. At home, it must be noted, Clinton's immediate (Condoleezza Rice) and recent (Madeleine Albright) predecessors are women. The same may be said of counterparts abroad: today women serve as the Foreign Minister in 24 countries besides the United States.
Among those slated to join Clinton in the Cabinet is Gov. Janet Napolitano (D-Ariz.) (bottom row, left), tapped to be the new Secretary of Homeland Security. As we've posted, she's also served as U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona and as Arizona's Attorney General. She'll inherit the daunting task of bringing to maturation a department birthed post-9/11 as an amalgamation of agencies in charge of counterterrorism, disaster relief, and border control, among many other bailiwicks.
Dr. Susan E. Rice (bottom row, right) is set to become U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, thus heading the U.S. Mission to the United Nations in New York. Rice will be the 3d American woman to hold the post; the others were Madeleine Albright and Jeane J. Kirkpatrick. And she'll follow a legion of women who've been their country's chief U.N. representative. During the tenure of U.S. President Bill Clinton, Rice served both in the State Department, as U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, and at the White House, as the National Security
Council's Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for African Affairs and as Director for International Organizations and Peacekeeping. As we've posted, she was a key foreign policy advisor to Obama during his campaign. A onetime Rhodes Scholar who earned her Ph.D. in international relations from Oxford University, Rice has also been a Senior Fellow in the Foreign Policy and Global Economy and Development Programs at the Brookings Institution.
Rounding out the natsec team: Eric Holder (top row, left), nominated to be Attorney General; retired U.S. Marine Corps General Jim Jones (top row, right), to be National Security Advisor; and Dr. Robert Gates (bottom row, center), the subject of another IntLawGrrls post today, slated to remain as Secretary of Defense.

Why this IntLawGrrl's for Obama for President

(An Iowa Caucus Day item) Soon after the 2d inauguration of George W. Bush, whose Presidency already had been marked by abuse scandals at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, by the folly of the Iraq invasion, and by the failure to incapacitate Osama bin Laden, I began to prepare for the next election cycle.
My road to 2008 began on the freeway, listening to politicians read aloud the books in which they endeavored to tell their own stories in their own words. My Life, the memoir by Bush's immediate predecessor, Bill Clinton, filled in some details about a man who in the 1990s had dominated current events. In Living History his wife, Hillary Clinton, read her precise account of those same times. The works left me appreciative yet disengaged.
Then, on a colleague's recommendation, I listened to Barack Obama read Dreams from My Father, the "story of race and inheritance" he'd written a decade earlier. The last thing I expected to discover were things in common. And yet here was someone who'd also moved about as a child, been raised at times by grandparents. Who'd also witnessed Harold Washington's milestone mayoral election while working in Chicago -- who'd worked a few years before moving on to law school, then to law teaching. Whose family ties put him in close contact with newcomers to America and with relatives overseas. (Yesterday, in the Voice of America interview here, Obama urged political rivals in Kenya, his father's homeland, to "address peacefully the controversies that divide them.") A progressive Illinoisan who preferred consensus to conflict.
His campaign's followed lines sketched in Dreams and detailed in his 2d book, The Audacity of Hope. The operative word remains "hope" -- discussed by means not of doe-eyed promises of the impossible, but of substantive policy prescriptions. There's a focus on building a movement, one that underscores the significance of a fact seldom studied despite the reams of copy written about Obama: This is someone whose sensibilities were shaped by years of organizing poor people in job-starved communities, a real world experience that all politicians could use but few have. The campaign's unabashed reaching across the aisle, moreover, comes as a relief to all exhausted by the pitched political battles of the recent past.
And then there's Obama's foreign policy.
This is a candidate who fears not to speak with favor of the United Nations and other international bodies. Who speaks of the essential need for the United States not simply to demand from its allies, but rather to earn from them, respect and assistance. Who understands "security" to mean more than military might. A candidate who persists in a plan to meet personally with world leaders of all political persuasion, to cut in on diplomatic dances of avoidance that sometimes extend distance between cultures.
Not least is Obama's denunciation of Guantánamo and all it stands for: indefinite detention for purposes of interrogation, abandonment of habeas corpus, cruelty and torture. It's unequivocal and delivered to all audiences.
Aiding Obama are scores of foreign policy experts and international lawyers. They include many noted and respected women, among them: Pulitzer Prizewinning Harvard Professor Samantha Power; Patricia Wald, former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia; and Dr. Susan E. Rice, formerly assistant U.S. Secretary of State for African Affairs.
It may seem odd that someone who's spent nearly a year blogging the achievements of the world's women leaders is working for this candidate. Would I welcome as President a woman who's made her own way, who stands on her own feet, who promises to bring the best to the job? Certainly. I'll embrace that candidate, when she emerges.
Now, though, this IntLawGrrl's honored to be doing her wee bit for Barack Obama, the human who pushes people to "Change the World."
 
Bloggers Team