Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-03-Speech-3-167"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020703.5.3-167"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I wish to begin by taking the opportunity to congratulate the international community and all of us on the fact that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court came into force last Monday. This event must be regarded as one of the most epoch-making in international legal development since the Second World War.
Firstly, the International Criminal Court is a matter of global concern and not a bilateral problem between the United States and the EU. It is crucial that we not be confrontational, for that would get us nowhere. There are also, unfortunately, other major partners of the EU, such as China and India, which oppose the court. Turkey, as an associated country, has still not signed the statute or otherwise endorsed our common position or any of the EU’s declarations in support of the court. In Japan and Russia, there is political will to endorse the statute, but this has still not been embodied in the form of decisions. Nonetheless, the fact that all these countries are still not participants in the court has neither damaged, nor caused a cooling-off in, bilateral relations. We have been very careful to avoid confrontation on this issue but, at the same time, sought to keep the court high on the agendas of our regular meetings for exchanging views. Through persistent lobbying in support of the statute, we have already managed to convince a number of countries, and we hope that, by this means, we can convince still more.
I also want to state that the International Criminal Court is not the only area on which the United States and the EU disagree. Friends are entitled to disagree, but I think we are wise always to insist that what unites the EU and the United States is, in spite of everything, stronger than what divides us. We can all point to examples: steel (on the subject of which we shall soon hopefully obtain a solution), bananas (an area in which a solution was found and about which there is a lot to say) and the Kyoto Protocol (in connection with which we are continuing our high-level dialogue). Sometimes we find a solution, and sometimes we continue to disagree. In the human rights area, we have different attitudes to the death penalty. Through our long-term efforts in combating the death penalty, we have, however, succeeded in influencing American opinion. As an example, I would mention the recent American Supreme Court judgment on the Atkins case, ruling out the death penalty for mentally retarded people. The EU had a part to play in this matter through what is termed an ‘
brief’ of which the US Supreme Court took account in its reflections on the issue. That is a policy we wish to continue.
The American administration has assured us that an American intervention in the territory of an EU country would be – and I quote – ‘inconceivable’. That has been said by both Secretary of State Colin Powell and Assistant Secretary of State Marc Grossman. Many American soldiers gave their lives for freedom and democracy in Europe. I cannot imagine their grandchildren taking it into their heads to invade one of our Member States. The ASPA proposal is now on the table, however, and section 3008 concerning the use of force will constitute a dangerous precedent in international law. I can assure you that we shall monitor this matter very carefully.
The International Criminal Court will soon be able to prove its worth as an independent and effective international court. We in the EU will spare no effort to ensure its success. I am sure that those who are at present opponents of the International Criminal Court will be able to see for themselves that the Rome Statute both ensures the highest standards of law and order and guards against the use of the court for political purposes. We probably have to face the fact that universal endorsement of the court is still somewhere in the future. I have confidence, however, that our arguments will eventually win the day, as they have in the many other areas I mentioned earlier.
By using its veto in the UN Security Council last Monday, the United States took a very far-reaching and unfortunate step in its opposition to the court. I understand, however, that negotiations to find a compromise solution in the UN Security Council will be resumed later today. It is essential that a solution be found which does not undermine the EU’s common position and the statute of the court and which, at the same time, leaves the United States still committed to its peacekeeping operations. As holders of the Presidency, we shall do everything to ensure that this is what happens.
Sixty-nine countries have ratified the statute of the court, and we can see that it now already has significant support in the international community. A statute of this kind is something which the European Parliament has called for again and again, as I myself did a couple of years ago in a report on human rights, adopted by a very large majority. Parliamentarians have spoken and written about it. Now it is here, and that is a fact I think we should celebrate here in Parliament.
The many international and internal conflicts which the world witnessed in the twentieth Century underline the need for this court to be set up quickly. The International Criminal Court can help make the world safer, more just and more peaceful. By its mere existence, it could deter people from committing the serious crimes – war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity – which we have unfortunately also witnessed in our own lifetimes and until quite recently. It is important that such crimes should not go unpunished and that it should be possible to hold everyone responsible for their actions. That is why this International Criminal Court is a central plank in the strengthening of the international legal community.
We must appeal to all states to sign up to the Rome Statute. Universal endorsement is necessary if the court is seriously to be able to operate effectively. With a view to obtaining such universal support, we adopted a common position last year, which has recently been updated. On the basis of this common position, the European Union has employed political dialogue and initiatives in an attempt to obtain the broadest possible endorsement of the court from countries all around the world.
The International Criminal Court is a recurrent theme in our contact with the United States, and it is precisely our talks with the United States that are the subject of our debate today.
The EU and the United States share the same basic values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the principles of a state based on the Rule of Law. That is why we have always seen it as quite natural and necessary for the United States to be among those who have signed up to the Statute of the International Criminal Court. We have no doubt that the United States could make a particularly positive contribution to the court. During the diplomatic conference in Rome in 1998, we were perfectly clear about the United States’ reservations concerning certain provisions of the statute. Moreover, we did our best to find ways of dispelling or accommodating these reservations, but unfortunately to no avail. To our regret, we have to note that, on 6 May of this year, the United States informed the UN Secretary-General that it did not intend to endorse the statute, which had in actual fact been signed under the previous US administration. We believe that the United States has taken a wrong decision, and the European Union deeply regrets the fact.
Recently, or more specifically on 17 June, the General Affairs Council adopted conclusions expressing our concern regarding the present American bill which goes under the title of the American Service Members Protection Act, or ASPA as it is called. The latest version proposes limitations upon the United States’s participation in UN peacekeeping operations, prohibits the transfer of information to the International Criminal Court and bans American military aid to most of the participants in the court. As we said in our conclusions from the meeting of the General Affairs Council in Luxembourg, we believe that the ASPA could seriously undermine the work of the International Criminal Court.
We also emphasised our misgivings about the provision authorising the American President to use every available means to free people detained at the request of the court, including people detained in the EU Member States. This provision has especially given rise to concern in the Netherlands, which is to be the seat of the court and which has made no bones about dubbing the ASPA ‘The Hague Invasion Act’.
If the ASPA is adopted, it will be a very unfortunate development for the international community. We have expressed our concern to the American administration at all levels. Our top representatives in Washington have concerned themselves with the problem over a long period. It is a grave matter, a substantial hiccup and a serious problem in relations between Europe and the United States. I should like, however, to say that, even though it is a major problem and a difficult situation, we shall not, in my view, achieve anything by describing the American bill as a threat to transatlantic relations. It would be unreasonable to raise it to that level, and I should like to make that clear."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples