New Delhi: A recent statement of the United States – threatening to withdraw or deny visas to International Criminal Court (ICC) personnel probing possible war crimes by US forces or allies in Afghanistan – has come under criticism from the Human Rights Watch and the ICC itself.
Last year, the Trump administration had threatened to ban ICC judges and prosecutors from entering the country if they launched such an investigation. On Friday, US secretary of state Mike Pompeo’s followed that up with a statement.
“I’m announcing a policy of US visa restrictions on those individuals directly responsible for any ICC investigation of US personnel,” Pompeo said at a press conference in Washington. “These visa restrictions may also be used to deter ICC efforts to pursue allied personnel, including Israelis, without allies’ consent.”
He said the policy was already being implemented but would not elaborate, citing visa privacy laws. “These visa restrictions will not be the end of our efforts,” he said. “We’re prepared to take additional steps, including economic sanctions, if the ICC does not change its course.”
The ICC, based in The Hague, cited its independence and said it would continue to do its work “undeterred” by Washington’s actions.
Also read: What Will Happen After the US Withdraws From Afghanistan?
Taking exception to Pompeo’s statement, Human Rights Watch, in a press release, said it was a “thuggish attempt to penalise investigators”.
It claimed that the US action came also with apprehensions about a “possible investigation in Palestine that would likely include conduct by Israeli officials”.
“The US decision to put visa bans on ICC staff is an outrageous effort to bully the court and deter scrutiny of US conduct,” said Richard Dicker, international justice director at Human Rights Watch. “ICC member countries should publicly make clear that they will remain undaunted in their support for the ICC and will not tolerate US obstruction.”
“The ICC, despite its shortcomings, remains one of the few available tools to bring justice if national courts fail to do so,” Dicker said. “At a time of rampant atrocities in South Sudan, Myanmar and Syria, the US is sending exactly the wrong message in targeting ICC staff simply for doing their job – bringing justice for victims of international crimes.”
“In a September 2018 speech, the US national security adviser, John Bolton, announced a change in US policy toward the court and outlined several steps the US would take if ICC investigations reached US nationals or the nationals of US allies. In addition to travel bans, Bolton threatened prosecutions and financial sanctions against ICC staff as well as against countries and companies assisting in ICC investigations of US nationals… ” the press release said.
Also read: Designed to Fail: The American Misadventure in Afghanistan
“Bolton was the architect of a hostile campaign against the ICC in the early 2000s under the George W. Bush administration. However, these efforts did little more than erode US credibility… Members of the US Congress who recognise the ICC as crucial for international justice should call for rescinding this policy immediately,” said the Human Rights Watch.
“The US, which is not a party to the court’s Rome Statute, objects to the ICC’s jurisdiction over nationals of non-member countries… Afghanistan, however, is an ICC member country, giving the ICC authority to investigate and prosecute crimes committed by their nationals or by anyone on Afghan territory.”
“Trump administration threats against the ICC mask the real problem, the failure of US authorities to address past torture and other abuses by the CIA and US armed forces,” Dicker said. “This is precisely the ICC’s role – to deliver justice for victims when all other doors are closed.”
“Taking action against those who work for the ICC sends a clear message to torturers and murderers alike: their crimes may continue unchecked,” said Human Rights Watch deputy Washington director, Andrea Prasow.
With 123 member-states, including the entire EU, the ICC was established in 2002 to prosecute war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity when a country is unable or unwilling to prosecute perpetrators. Major powers – including the US, China and Russia – are not members.
Note: In an earlier version of this story, a photograph of the International Court of Justice was erroneously used in place of the International Criminal Court. Though both global courts are located in The Hague, they are very different institutions and have a totally different mandate.