Immunity or Security?

We all know of the debate over whether a war on Iraq supports ‘The War On Terror’ or is in fact a dangerous distraction from it. One thing I hadn’t yet realised was that the fight against the International Criminal Court is also being used as a distraction from that same struggle against global terrorism. That all changed with this press release from Citizens for Global Solutions:

The omnibus appropriations bill scheduled for final House approval today contains a controversial amendment that will impose further sanctions on countries that have ratified the International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty. The amendment, originally included in the House version of the foreign aid spending bill in July, would prohibit assistance from the Economic Support Fund (ESF) for countries that have refused to sign a “bilateral immunity agreement” to shield U.S. citizens and certain foreign nationals from transfer to the ICC for investigation or prosecution for atrocities or genocide. The funds affected include support for anti-terrorism activities, peace building, democratization and counter-drug initiatives.

The full list of countries affected by this measure is perhaps most notable for the number of the US’ key allies it includes:

Andorra, Argentina, Austria, Australia, Benin, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Republic of Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Mali, Malta, Namibia, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, Niger, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, San Marino, Samoa, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, United Kingdom, and Venezuela.


  1. It seems to verge on the hypocritical – to go running after people on the basis of wrongful actions, then refuse to countenance any prosecution of people simply on the basis of thier home nationality status *regardless of whether they commited a crime or not*

  2. “verge on”? πŸ˜‰

  3. Yeah, well, exactly! πŸ˜‰ I just don’t like to be too strong in expression, it’s pretty much aparent to most sane onlookers that this is inflated selfish lunicy.