[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 98 (Thursday, July 18, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1291-E1292]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   WHOSE DEFINITION OF ``FAIRNESS''?

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 18, 2002

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to commend to his 
colleagues an editorial from the July 12, 2002, edition of the Omaha 
World-Herald entitled `` `Fairness' to be wary of.''
  As the editorial stresses, the International Criminal Court (ICC) 
will place U.S. policy-makers and military personnel in a precarious 
position whereby practically any random nongovernmental organization 
(NGO) could bring esoteric charges against them. Indeed, the editorial 
highlights the story of a Croatian advocacy group which has brought 
charges against former President Clinton for his support for military 
actions in Croatia. These charges, which were presented in the special 
tribunal on the Balkans, were not presented due to any specific 
infraction but because the advocacy group believes that all sides of 
the issue should be reviewed for the sake of ``evenhanded justice.'
  Mr. Speaker, the ICC is likely to consume vast resources on similar 
baseless cases and charges rather than focusing on the gross 
infractions of basic international rules of engagement. It is 
appropriate for this body and for the Administration to adamantly 
oppose U.S. participation in the new court.

              [From the Omaha World-Herald, July 12, 2002]

                       ``Fairness'' To Be Wary Of

       Critics have scoffed at the insistence by the Bush 
     administration and Congress that U.S. military personnel 
     abroad be protected from indictment by international 
     tribunals. Such courts, the critics claim, are intended only 
     for prosecution of major war criminals. The indictment of 
     U.S. policy-makers and soldiers, they say, isn't very likely.
       Recent events, however, have shown that U.S. concerns are 
     justified. The Washington Times reported this week that a 
     special tribunal investigating war crimes in the Balkans is 
     examining whether charges are warranted against former 
     President Bill Clinton and his aides for U.S. support of a 
     Croatian military offensive in 1995.
       An advocacy group in Croatia sparked the court's action. 
     The activists told the tribunal that if it indicts a former 
     Croatian general accused of slaughtering Serbian civilians 
     during that campaign, it should also indict American 
     officials in the interests of what it called ``evenhanded 
     justice.''
       This isn't the first time U.S. officials have come under 
     scrutiny by that court. Previously, the prosecutor for the 
     tribunal had investigated whether NATO had violated 
     international law during its 1999 bombing campaign in 
     Yugoslavia. The prosecutor filed no indictments, saying she 
     wouldn't have been able to collect sufficient evidence to 
     bring charges against high-level officials.
       In light of those facts, the Bush administration has been 
     amply justified in refusing to seek congressional approval 
     for a new entity, the International Criminal Court, which 
     began operation last week and seeks global jurisdiction. (To 
     keep United Nations peacekeeping on track in the Balkans, the 
     Bush administration compromised this week on the immunity 
     question, while still refusing to endorse the court. The 
     compromise should provide sufficient de facto protection for 
     troops.)
       Supporters of the new court say it is a vehicle for trying 
     only the most brutal of international war criminals. But such 
     claims lack credibility when a similar international court is 
     dutifully conducting an investigation--out of ``fairness''--
     of possible war crimes by a former U.S. president.
       On balance, we think it's a good idea to have specially 
     appointed courts consider war-crimes matters for individual 
     military conflicts. But the International Criminal Court has 
     been granted too much authority, and the Balkans tribunal has 
     shown a troubling lack of proportion by taking seriously 
     calls for indictments against high U.S. officials.
       American leaders are right to be wary about the potential 
     for abuse.


[[Page E1292]]



                          ____________________