Your Ad Here Your Ad Here
Page 1 of 5 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 50

Thread: U.s. Suspends Aid To 35 Countries Over New Icc

  1. #1
    this just makes me sick...

    July 2, 2003
    U.S. Suspends Aid to 35 Countries Over New International Court
    By ELIZABETH BECKER
    New York Times

    ASHINGTON, July 1 — The Bush administration suspended all American military assistance to 35 countries today because they refused to pledge to give American citizens immunity before the International Criminal Court.

    The administration warned last year that under a provision of the new American antiterrorism law, any country that became a member of the new court but failed to give exemptions to Americans serving within its borders would lose such aid.

    That includes training programs as well as financing of weapons and equipment purchases.

    Many of the countries affected, like Colombia and Ecuador, are considered critical to the administration's efforts to bring stability to the Western Hemisphere. Others, like Croatia, are preparing to join NATO and were counting on American help to modernize their armed forces.

    Officials said that in all, $47.6 million in aid and $613,000 in military education programs would be lost to the 35 countries.

    The new court is the world's first permanent forum for putting on trial people charged with genocide and other crimes against humanity. The administration strongly opposes it on the ground that Americans could be subjected to politically motivated prosecutions.

    "There should be no misunderstanding, that the issue of protecting U.S. persons from the International Criminal Court will be a significant and pressing matter in our relations with every state," Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, said today.

    President Bush signed a waiver exempting 22 countries because they had signed but not yet ratified immunity agreements. That list includes Afghanistan, Sierra Leone and Nigeria.

    Full members of NATO, and other major allies — including Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Japan and South Korea — are not part of the military assistance prohibition.

    Prince Zeid Raad al-Hussein of Jordan, the president of the assembly of nations that signed the treaty establishing the court, said 90 countries had become members despite Washington's opposition.

    "The simple conclusion is that the American campaign has not had a negative effect on the establishment of this court," said the prince, who is his country's ambassador to the United Nations. "We have a court in place, a very fine panel of judges, a prosecutor, and we should be fully running by the end of the year."

    The original provision passed by Congress in the antiterrorism law emphasized American service members, but the administration has interpreted it to include all citizens of the United States.

    Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr., the assistant secretary for political military affairs, said the administration had no intention of undermining the court.

    Instead, he said, the administration wants to preserve its right to remain outside its purview, especially with a rise in the number of attempts to charge American officials with war crimes.

    "Our opposition is not meant to be a lack of respect for the jurists involved in the I.C.C.," Mr. Bloomfield said. "It is concern that there could be politically motivated charges against American citizens. Several standing officials have been under war crimes indictment in Belgium this year for their roles in the 1991 gulf war."

    He said those included Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.

    Supporters of the court dismissed that argument, saying the Belgian court is a national body very different rules from those of the new international court, which has safeguards that would help protect American officials.

    Richard Dicker, a director of Human Rights Watch in New York, which has lobbied for the court's creation, said the suspension of military aid today amounted to a defeat for the current campaign against the court.

    "This policy is creating a dilemma where the administration has to chose between sound military cooperation with democratic nations and this campaign of ideology against the international criminal court," he said. "I've never seen a sanctions regime aimed at countries that believe in the rule of law rather than ones that commit human rights abuses."

    Senior administration officials said the announcement should not be seen as a permanent freeze on all military aid to the 35 countries.

    The aid can be resumed if they sign the exemption agreement, or the president can issue waivers at any time if he believes that by failing to help a foreign government face an emergency, the country's national security would be put at risk.

    That was little comfort to the nations that lost military assistance today. Richard A. Boucher, the State Department spokesman, said the July 1 cutoff would have differing impacts on the countries.

    "There may be places where, you know, most of the money has been spent," he said. "There may be places where most of the money has not be spent."

    One example he cited was Colombia. Of the more than $100 million that the United States was to give to Colombia this fiscal year in military assistance, only $5 million will be suspended.

    "As of today we're suspending the assistance and the provision of defense articles to countries that failed to receive waivers," said Maj. Michael Shavers, a Defense Department spokesman."I can't tell you which countries will be affected, because we don't have the list yet."

    Among those in limbo could be foreign officers and students preparing to receive professional military training here, as well as governments that were relying on the United States to finance the purchase of American weapons and services.

  2. The Drawing Room   -   #2
    I would just like to add another little example of America using its financial power IMO stupidly

    Sorry it doesn't copy too well the original is here


    "It's funny how the moral positions are usually the healthier, safer and politically sensible positions," she says, speaking at her home in Washington.

    On his first business day in office, with the support of voters like Wendy, President George W Bush started a war few people have heard about - his war on abortion.

    Pro-choice and anti-abortion activists outside the US Supreme Court
    The anti-abortion movement is growing stronger under Bush

    He reinstated an old policy from the Reagan days called the Mexico City policy or "gag rule".

    The rule states that the United States will not allow its overseas aid money to be used to fund groups that carry out or provide any kind of advice or information about abortion.

    Hundreds of women's health organisations in the poorest nations of the world - places where maternal mortality and infant death are high - faced a tough choice. Either sign the gag rule and be silenced on abortion, or refuse and lose millions of dollars in US aid.

    Most refused to sign. As a result, thousands of family planning clinics across the developing world have closed their doors, making access to vital contraceptives hard to come by.

    The US aim was to cut abortion worldwide, but has it worked?

    Back-street abortions

    I travelled to Ethiopia - a country where abortion is illegal but where a recent study at Addis Ababa hospital found half of all female deaths there were caused by botched back-street abortions. Here the cost of silence can be high.

    If they are forced to give birth they throw the children into latrines or abandon them for the hyenas to eat them
    Amare Badada, Ethiopian Family Guidance Association

    One of the most upsetting moments was standing outside a one-room tin hut where Asmara, a prostitute, had bled to death just hours earlier.

    Aged 22, she received condoms from the local Marie Stopes clinic. It closed when the US cut its cash after it failed to sign. She got pregnant and died.

    "She had no money to go to hospital, so became too weak to move, then she died," her friend told me.

    On the other side of Addis Ababa is Molu, living with nine children in one room. She has been told one more baby will kill her.

    But the clinic that gives her the pill for free is shutting. There is no other clinic.

    Molu says if she gets pregnant again, she will carry out her own abortion with wire.

    "Either way I will die," she says with chilling fatality.

    'Hypocritical'

    In the region of Nazareth in Ethiopia's highland plains, I met Amare Badada of the Ethiopian Family Guidance Association.

    Mr Badada lists rape, forced marriage and genital mutilation as part of daily life for women.

    "These women will always find a way to abort somehow," he said. "If they are forced to give birth they throw the children into latrines or abandon them for the hyenas to eat them."

    Ethiopian woman and two children
    Marie Stopes says the policy has not cut the number of abortions

    Mr Badada refused to sign the gag rule, and has since watched his organisation's family planning clinics close down one after the other. In the region of Nazareth, there were 54 clinics last year. Next year there will be just 10.

    Each clinic serves approximately 500 women who walk an average of 10 kilometres (six miles) to get there. The impact of the closures is immense.

    "Under the gag rule, I can treat a woman who comes bleeding after an illegal abortion but I am not allowed to warn her of the dangers before she goes," Mr Badada said. "We should not be told what to think and say.

    "It is hypocritical to allow US taxpayers' money to be used to fund abortion in the States but not here.

    "The US is driving women into the hands of back-street abortionists."

    Getachew Bekele, Ethiopian director of Marie Stopes International, who also refused, says: "It hasn't worked to cut abortion. All it has done is deprive women of condoms."

    Abstinence

    A key aim of the American anti-abortion lobby is to silence Marie Stopes, which is lobbying to overturn the abortion laws in Ethiopia and other places where it is illegal.

    Under President Bush, the anti-abortion movement is stronger than ever.

    Supporters believe every woman has the right to have as many babies as God plans. They also believe the high death-rate of mothers in labour, and the numbers of unwanted babies can be tackled with an alternative solution - abstinence.

    Mr Bush has won plaudits for his promise to spend $15bn to fight Aids, but few people know that one-third of the money set aside for prevention is to go to faith-based, abstinence-only programmes.

    But not all Americans agree. Wendy Turnbull works for Population Action International - a pro-choice lobby group.

    "How can we look Africa in the eye and say here you go - here's the money, but we tell you how to spend it. How arrogant is that?"

    But Wendy Wright remains convinced America knows best.

    "It's not that I know what is right for other women," she says. "It's that I know what is right."
    "faith-based, abstinence-only programmes" What a DICK. It would be funny if it wasn't killling people

  3. The Drawing Room   -   #3
    Poster
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    9,946
    So the President of the United States is doing what he said he was going to do. I donīt understand the point you are making. Normally world leaders are given a hard time for not doing what they say.

  4. The Drawing Room   -   #4
    So the President of the United States is doing what he said he was going to do. I donīt understand the point you are making. Normally world leaders are given a hard time for not doing what they say.
    I think the point you are missing (on purpose?) is not that the president is doing what he said he was going to do, but the morality of what he is doing and the subsequent consequences of his actions.

  5. The Drawing Room   -   #5
    Originally posted by evilbagpuss@2 July 2003 - 18:35
    So the President of the United States is doing what he said he was going to do. I donīt understand the point you are making. Normally world leaders are given a hard time for not doing what they say.
    I think the point you are missing (on purpose?) is not that the president is doing what he said he was going to do, but the morality of what he is doing and the subsequent consequences of his actions.
    quite right, by jpaul's moral vacuum logic, its okay for a president to kill a child, as long as he announces his intention beforehand.

    problems understanding the point we are making, indeed

  6. The Drawing Room   -   #6
    clocker's Avatar Shovel Ready
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    15,388
    America seems to be in a lose-lose situation here:
    Among those in limbo could be foreign officers and students preparing to receive professional military training here, as well as governments that were relying on the United States to finance the purchase of American weapons and services.
    In other threads the US has been castigated because we did provide training and arms to foriegn armies, now we get keelhauled because we aren't.

    I would just like to add another little example of America using its financial power IMO stupidly


    Presumably your country will step in and spend your money wisely?


    Already this thread is taking on the tone of recent topics where people who disagree are labeled as living in a "moral vacuum". I should hope that it would be possible to disagree with JPaul without stooping to name calling.
    "I am the one who knocks."- Heisenberg

  7. The Drawing Room   -   #7
    Poster
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    9,946
    Originally posted by myfiles3000+2 July 2003 - 19:37--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (myfiles3000 @ 2 July 2003 - 19:37)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-evilbagpuss@2 July 2003 - 18:35
    So the President of the United States is doing what he said he was going to do. I donīt understand the point you are making. Normally world leaders are given a hard time for not doing what they say.
    I think the point you are missing (on purpose?) is not that the president is doing what he said he was going to do, but the morality of what he is doing and the subsequent consequences of his actions.
    quite right, by jpaul&#39;s moral vacuum logic, its okay for a president to kill a child, as long as he announces his intention beforehand.

    problems understanding the point we are making, indeed [/b][/quote]
    When did the US president kill a child. Or are you just making a ludicrous, emotive point.

    The President stated that if certain actions / assurances were not taken / given then he would respond by removing aid that his people were suppying. I don&#39;t think he is under any obligation to give this aid. The assurances were not given and he withdrew the aid. That must be his prerogative. As I recall it was military aid and not for example food / medicine. So we are not talking about leaving people starving here, we are talking about not giving them guns and training them how to use them.

    Your point is that he was morally wrong to do this, you are entitled to that point of view. He obviously disagrees and sees his first priority as being the well-being of his citizens, through out the world.

    I have no problem with this position he is taking, indeed I would expect my Government to look after my welfare, wherever in the world I happened to be. I do not wish to be tried using any legal system other than the one my own country subscribes to. I certainly don&#39;t wish to be tried by some UN Court.

  8. The Drawing Room   -   #8
    j2k4's Avatar en(un)lightened
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oh, please...
    Posts
    15,254
    I&#39;ll crack the nutshell for you, myfiles:

    In all cases, we are speaking of monetary aid; the question of what said "aid" constitutes is, I suppose, to be left to the countries receiving our largesse to define.

    In convenient cases, it is to be termed "interference"; in this case it is still referred to as "aid".
    “Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of 'em are stupider than that.” -George Carlin

  9. The Drawing Room   -   #9
    Originally posted by clocker@2 July 2003 - 20:14
    Already this thread is taking on the tone of recent topics where people who disagree are labeled as living in a "moral vacuum". I should hope that it would be possible to disagree with JPaul without stooping to name calling.
    i would encourage clocker and jpaul to re-read my post, you both missed the meaning. read a little more carefully.

  10. The Drawing Room   -   #10
    Poster
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    9,946
    Please feel free to read my last.

    It&#39;s not so much of a diatribe as you posted, however one tries one&#39;s best to get the meaning across. Particularly when doing so from a moral vacuum.

    Oh and you may not have noticed before, so I&#39;ll make it as plain as possible. I don&#39;t actually respond particularly well to condescending phrases like "read a little more carefully".

Page 1 of 5 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •