By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, May 27
-- Even before
France's draft
resolution to
refer parts of
the conflicts
in Syria to
the
International
Criminal Court
failed on a
double veto on
May 22, there
was criticism
of France for
agreeing to
carve out such
as of the
Golan Heights,
for Israel,
and for
nationals of
non ICC
members like
the United
States.
It took five
days after the
double veto
and after a
first letter
that omitted
the issue, but
on May 27 the
Coalition for
the
International
Criminal Court
came out
criticizing
the carve outs
that French
Ambassador
Araud defended
and
obfuscated.
On May
22 Inner City
Press asked
Araud after
the vote about
these carve
outs: if an
American pilot
as part of a
coalition of
the willing,
not approved
by the UN
Security
Council due to
veto, bombed
civilians and
was downed in
Syria, would
he be taken to
the ICC?
"Of
course," Araud
replied. "It
is not a
peacekeeping
operation.
Read the
text." Video
here.
Today's CICC
letter says
"Security
Council
referrals to
the ICC should
not include
exemptions of
the nationals
of some states
while
conferring
jurisdiction
over the
nationals of
others states,
as is the
effect of OP7."
The CICC has
still not
answered this
May 23 Press
question:
"is what Araud
said true?"
Throughout
May
22 Inner City
Press received
opinions,
including from
Americans
surprised
French
diplomat
Araud, slated
to become an
Ambassador in
Washington in
July, would
say this, or
that the US
had agreed to
support a
draft which
while
exempting the
Golan Height
might put an
American pilot
in front of
the ICC.
There
were also more
legal
opinions, some
that Araud was
technically
right under
Operative
Paragraph 7 of
the draft
resolution:
“Decides
that
nationals,
current or
former
officials or
personnel from
a State
outside the
Syrian Arab
Republic which
is not a party
to the Rome
Statute of the
International
Criminal Court
shall be
subject to the
exclusive
jurisdiction
of that State
for all
alleged acts
or omissions
arising out of
or related to
operations in
the Syrian
Arab Republic
established or
authorized by
the Council,
unless such
exclusive
jurisdiction
has been
expressly
waived by the
State.”
Presumably
when
Araud said yes
the US pilot
could be taken
to the ICC
because “it is
not a
peacekeeping
operation,” he
was referring
to the phrase
“ all alleged
acts or
omissions
arising out of
or related to
operations in
the Syrian
Arab Republic
established or
authorized by
the Council.”
But
the loophole,
of course, is
“RELATING to
operations...
established or
authorized by
the Council.”
If the Council
authorizes
cross-border
provision of
aid into
Syria, and an
American pilot
did bombing
runs in Syria,
would it be
said the
bombing was
RELATED to the
authorized aid
operations?
Ultimately,
how
can a country
which is not a
member of the
ICC refer
others to a
court that is
not good
enough for it?
Araud
also belatedly
addressed an
issue he has
refused to
answer Inner
City Press
questions on:
France's sale
of Mistral
warships to
Russia while
he speechifies
about
aggression on
Crimea and
Ukraine. Araud
said those
sale are a
different
matter: video
here. This
too causes
some
consternation
in Washington
and elsewhere.
We'll have
more on this.
And as to the
CICC, they've
said that
on the DRC's
mere two
convictions
for 130 rapes
by its
soldiers in
Minova in November
2012, and whether
UN Peacekeeping
under Herve
Ladsous is
eviscerating
the UN's
claimed Human
Rights Due
Diligence
Policy by
continuing
support to the
41st and 391st
Battalions
implicated in
the rapes is
beyond their
mandate. So in
whose mandate
is that?
, 
