The New York Times

Editorials/Letters

Wednesday, July 22, 1998

U.S. Is Wrong on War Crimes Court

To the Editor:

It is hard to understand why Washington failed to support the creation of a permanent international criminal court (news article, July 18). The concern that American citizens, and particularly service members stationed abroad, would be subject to politically motivated persecution before an alien tribunal overlooks the realities of the modern world.

American service members have been subject to the jurisdiction of foreign tribunals, although without the protections fundamental to the proposed court. Businesses incorporated and headquartered in the United States are subject to litigation before foreign courts if they export goods or services. The United States is bound by extradition treaties to turn over Americans for prosecution in appropriate cases.

The issue is not whether Americans can be insulated from foreign courts; they cannot be. Rather, it is whether the United States can exercise its influence to help institutionalize the rule of law in which we believe.

Robert S. Rifkind

New York, July 18, 1998

The writer is a lawyer.

To the Editor:

Re "U.S. Dissents, but Accord Is Reached on War-Crime Court" (news article, July 18): Such a court is needed because some victims cannot obtain justice within their own country. For instance, when the Burmese military junta opened fire on students who peacefully demonstrated for democracy in 1998 and killed hundreds, their relatives could not seek justice from Burmese courts controlled by the junta.

It is unfortunate that the Rome conference yielded in part to the United States' insistence to give a veto to the government in whose territory a crime was committed. That provision defeats the main purpose of having a court from which people suffering under dictatorial regimes can seek justice.

Dietrich Fischer

Robbinsville, NJ July 18, 1998

To the Editor:

The semifailure of the Rome conference to arrive at a charter for an international criminal tribunal acceptable to the United States was predictable (news article, July 18).

The issue has never been whether atrocities are committed in armed conflict. Of course they are, and by all sides. The issue is who should be responsible for supervising the situation. If the world community takes that responsibility, peace will suffer.

For instance, would the new court try to arraign Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, for complicity in undoubted Palestinian atrocities? Would it try to arraign Ariel Sharon, the Israeli Cabinet minister, for complicity in what many believe to be atrocities against Palestinian people? Would a trial of either or both help the search for peace on terms acceptable to the constituents of both?

Alfred P. Rubin

Medford, Mass., July 18, 1998

The writer is a professor of international law at Tufts University

To the Editor:

Officials of 21 governments recently met to discuss ways to curb light-weapons trade with "nonstate actors" (news article, July 15). This addresses just one aspect of the problem.

Over and covert transfer to abusive governments still account for the lion's share of light-weapons transactions. If the Oslo conveners persist in ignoring this, the lives of countless civilians, the true victims of today's conflicts, may be imperiled.

Loretta Bondi

Kate Joseph

New York, July 15, 1998

The writers are members of the Light Weapons Monitoring Group.