Strasbourg, 04/07/2002 (Agence Europe) - With the adoption of a resolution presented by the EPP-ED, Socialist, Liberal, Greens/EFA and United Left/NGL Groups, the European Parliament called on the US Congress to "refuse the unilateralism symbolised by ASPA", the draft law on protecting the members of US services against the risk of being taken before the International Criminal Court in The Hague for things they might do in the context of peacekeeping operations (see yesterday's EUROPE, p.5, and 3 July, p.3).
Spanish Socialist Rosa Diez Gonzalez said he insisted before the "wisest members of Congress" during an almost unanimous debate. One notable exception was British Conservative Charles Tannock who ironically stated he understood his colleagues' criticism of the United States or Israel for having raised objections to the very broad interpretation of war crimes given by the International Criminal Court, but not China or Russia … In his view, the US concerns are "very real and serious" as, according to the new rules, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld could be arrested during a visit to Paris, for facts imputed to one of his subordinates. What is necessary is to mainly change provisions concerning the responsibility of commanders of peace-keeping operations, Mr Tannock said. PDS member André Brie, on the other hand, reproached the Council for having expressed an over-positive vision of transatlantic relations: "it might be all right for bananas" but this affair is far more serious. Italian Radical Emma Bonino exclaimed: this Court, which is an historic event, is "destined to remain, while political leaders are destined to change". She felt that a response to the problems posed by the US attitude will be given simply by the number of countries that ratify or will ratify the statute of the Court (66 on 11 April, 76 less than two months later, she recalled). She went on to say that this depends on us also, as we must see whether the Union is willing to bear the cost of the peace-keeping operations. She fears that the Americans mainly want to attack the "very system of the United Nations". Many Dutch MEPs intervened in the debate, as the ASPA, in their country, has been described as an "act of invasion of The Hague" (as it will allow the US president to use every means necessary to "release US or allied personnel detained by or on behalf of the International Criminal Court). The Americans were there when we needed them, but peace and democracy do not stop with the end of the war, and the superpowers cannot claim not to have to respect the rules, exclaimed Liberal member Lousewies van der Laan. Socialist Max van den Berg, Christian Democrat Arie Oostlander (who called on the Union to be ready to carry out peace operations even without the US) and Green member Joost Lagendijk expressed themselves along the same lines.
Council President Bertel Haarder stressed that the new Court "by its very existence, may prevent certain persons from committing terrible crimes" and said that "universal adhesion" to the Court is necessary. He hoped that a solution would be found with the United States. In the death penalty affair, the Federal Court took a position close to that of the Union (no death penalty for disabled persons), he recalled, saying that the EU/US relationship must not be brought into question. Commissioner David Byrne urged MEPs, as legislators, to raise the problem with their colleagues from Congress, recalling the action undertaken so far by the Union at diplomatic level, and the efforts being continued in New York.