UN Mission in Kosovo calls for peace in the Kosovo-Serbia border

JOSÉ DOMINGO GUARIGLIA

UNITED NATIONS, July 28 (IPS)- The Chief of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), Robert Sorenson, expressed concern over the violence taking place in the border between Kosovo and Serbia during the last few days, the spokesperson for the UN Secretary General, Martin Nesirky, told reporters Thursday.

Sorenson called on all parties to strengthen the dialogue and stop the violence following attacks by Serbs to a security post in the northern Kosovo, bordering Serbia, on Wednesday afternoon.

The attackers set fire to the area to protest against the Kosovo independence and the intervention of the Kosovo’s Police to gain control of the gates 1 and 31 at the border. As a result of the events, one policeman died and four resulted injured.

NATO forces took the administration of the border on Thursday, especially in the customs of Jarinje and Brnjak, 69 kilometres and 57 kilometres respectively from the capital Pristina.

The Chief of UNMIK expressed the will to assist the populations involved in the clashes in order to end with the conflict and restore the order.

The mandate of UNMIK was established by the UN Security Council in 1999 under the Resolution 1244.

The main goal of the 418-personnel Mission is to ensure peace for the inhabitants of Kosovo and bring stability to the western Balkans zone.

Since 1999, Kosovo has been controlled by international organizations and, in June 2011, 76 nations recognised Kosovo as an independent State, while Serbia considers it an autonomous province in the Serbian territory.

The independence of Kosovo was proclaimed by the Kosovo’s Parliament in February 2008. It was part of the extinct Yugoslavia.

Bolivia and Chile will renew discussions over sea access

JOSÉ DOMINGO GUARIGLIA

UNITED NATIONS, July 27 -- Bolivia and Chile will resume their dialogue on access to the Pacific Ocean from Bolivian territory, the president of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Evo Morales, told reporters Wednesday.

Discussions between Morales and Chilean President Sebastián Piñera, will take place Thursday in Lima following Peruvian President Ollanta Humala’s inauguration. The invitation for the bilateral talks was made Monday by the Bolivian government.

The access to the Pacific Ocean from Bolivia has been a topic of discussion between both governments since 2006 and has had important diplomatic consequences. Both presidents suspended the dialogue after March 23, when Morales announced his intentions to take Chile to international courts.

President Morales says it is not a problem caused by citizens of either countries, and has assured that the dispute has been triggered by “oligarchies” and transnational companies. He said that “Chilean people support Bolivian demands”.

Chile has expressed that Bolivia’s requests are a violation of the 1904 Treaty that established the borders between both nations.

The countries have studied different proposals and solutions after Bolivia lost access to the Pacific Ocean during the 1879-1883 War of the Pacific

Budget Woes Could Hamper ICC Investigations

José Domingo Guariglia interviews CHRISTIAN WENAWESER, president of the Assembly of States Parties of the International Criminal Court

UN Photo/Paulo Filgueiras

UNITED NATIONS, Jul 25, 2011 (IPS) - The work of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the world's first and only permanent court that pursues war criminals, is likely to be hampered by a shortage of funds next year.

If the court does not get the necessary funding, due primarily to proposed "zero growth" in its budget, at least six active investigations in the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Uganda, Kenya and Libya could be affected.

In an interview with IPS, the president of the Assembly of States Parties and permanent representative of Liechtenstein to the U.N., Christian Wenaweser, spoke about the troubles in the formulation of the budget for 2012.

"Part of the difficulty stems from the extremely high costs arising from the situations referred by the Security Council to the court," he said.

Currently, the ICC's member states bear the entire financial burden of its mandate, something that was not foreseen by the drafters of the Rome Statute, which created the ICC.

"The time has come for the United Nations to pay for the investigations it refers to the court," he added.

According to the Coalition for the ICC and Amnesty International, the budget for 2011 was 149 million dollars. A "zero growth" budget in 2012 could affect the six active investigations, they warn.

The ICC is financed by its 116 member states, using the scale adopted by the United Nations for its regular budget, so that the main contributors are Japan, Germany and the UK. The United States is not a contributor of the ICC because is not a signatory of the Rome Statute.

Once presented by the ICC, the Committee on Budget and Finance makes recommendations to the Assembly of States Parties and the countries approve the funds for the next year.

Excerpts from the interview with Ambassador Wenaweser follow.

Q: Who are the major funders of the ICC budget?

A: The ICC has essentially the same scale of assessments as the United Nations. Consequently, those ICC States Parties that are the greatest contributors to the United Nations are also the major funders of the ICC budget. Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Canada, Spain, Mexico, the Republic of Korea and Australia are the top 10 States Parties in this respect.

Q: How does the ICC punish delays in contributions by the States Parties?

A: At the last session of the Assembly of States Parties, a small number of countries had arrears amounting to two years of contributions. As in the United Nations General Assembly, such countries lose their right to vote in the Assembly, but they may apply for an exception to that rule if the inability to pay is beyond their control, as may be the case for least developed countries.

For substantial delays of less than two years, however, there are no such clear sanctions. Overall, however, States Parties do actually make their payments in a rather responsible manner.

Q: How does the Contingency Fund work?

A: The Contingency Fund was established in 2004 to help the Court deal with unforeseen expenses, in particular since judicial activities are extremely difficult to forecast in a budget planning process. The Court must notify States Parties of its intention to tap into the Fund, and it may only do so where it has actually run out of money under its approved budget.

Due to the Security Council referral of the situation in Libya, the Court has already concluded that it will have to make use of the Fund. There is a legal requirement that the resources available in the Fund should not fall below 7 million euros (about 10 million dollars). Due to a number of unforeseen funding requirements, the fund would thus have to be replenished.

Q: The ICC is working in six different cases and there is the chance of a new investigation in Cote d'Ivoire. Do you think the ICC will need to increase its budget for 2012?

A: At this stage in the budget planning process, it is up to the Court to make this assessment. Currently the Court assumes it will need an increase of 13 percent. At the next phase, the Committee on Budget and Finance (CBF) will subject this budget proposal to close scrutiny, before States make the final decision at the December session of the Assembly.

Q: The convenor of the Coalition for the ICC, William Pace, said that France and the UK were demanding "zero growth" budget for 2012, even though they were among the nations that asked the ICC to probe Libya's regime. What can you say about it?

A: States Parties will have to embark on difficult budget negotiations in December 2011. I would therefore prefer not to comment on the positions of individual States Parties.

Q: In any case, do you think a "zero growth" budget could compromise the activities of the ICC?

A: I believe that it is the duty of States Parties to see that the Court's activities must be properly funded. That said, I also think that the budgetary reality of States Parties must be taken into account and the Court must find ways to make savings. As always, a compromise must be struck, one that takes into account the needs of the Court and the abilities of States Parties.

Part of the difficulty stems from the extremely high costs arising from the situations referred by the Security Council to the Court. Currently, the ICC's States Parties bear the entire financial burden of these situations, something that was not foreseen by the drafters of the Rome Statute. The time has come for the United Nations to pay for the investigations it refers to the Court.

Q: How can the U.N. pay for these investigations if it also depends on a limited budget from member states?

A: The money would in the end of course come from U.N. member states, not from the U.N. as such, and there is already much overlap in the list of the biggest contributors of both organisations. The U.N. General Assembly would have to take a specific decision regarding the full or partial reimbursement of these costs, which would then be binding on all U.N. Member States. Such arrangements are already foreseen in the Relationship Agreement between the United Nations and the ICC.

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=56611

The ICC celebrates 13 years with the same challenges

JOSÉ DOMINGO GUARIGLIA

Thirteen years passed since the adoption of the Rome Statute, the founding treaty of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Now, the ICC is recognised as the first judicial body with authority in cases of genocide, crimes against humanity and war. But to achieve its goals, countries must be committed to the cause.

The lack of interest from many nations in providing evidence, surrendering individuals and holding trials; the negative reactions about the Court’s decisions and the budgetary needs are among the list of problems the ICC has dealt with and are the challenges it will have to face.

Not so global

Although it was signed on 17 July 1998, the Rome Statute turned into force on 1 July 2002. The Assembly of States Parties of the ICC accepted to create in 2010 the International Justice Day to stress its importance and the date of 17 July became a celebration of the global fight against impunity.

The first obstacle faced by the ICC is its membership. In 2002, the Rome Statute had 60 ratifications. Today this number is 116, but since its adoption seven nations voted against the treaty: United States, Israel, China, Iraq, Qatar, Libya and Yemen.

The Founding Director of the Centre for Women’s Global Leadership, Charlotte Bunch, told that the number of countries is important to create an established Court with jurisdiction in the violation of the most vulnerable populations. She does not think the USA could ratify the treaty in the next year because of the way the American Congress operates.

In November, 2003, the former American under-Secretary of State, John Bolton, appointed his total opposition regarding the possibility of an approval of the Rome Statute, claiming that the USA sovereignty could be undermined.

The Convenor of the Coalition for the ICC, William Pace, doesn’t believe in the possibility of an adherence of the USA or China in a short time. But he thinks the Obama administration has been “more constructive” and this could be the first step.

For one of the co-founders of the NGO International Justice Project (IJP), Wanda Akin, the fact that the USA is not a signatory of the treaty makes it even more important to celebrate the International Justice Day to use it as a reminder of “the monumental steps this ICC has taken”.

Akin considers the Court should be even more open to act outside of Africa, because the investigations nowadays are focused on the Central African Republic, Darfur, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Northern Uganda, Kenya and now Libya.

As the Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu explained in 2009, Africa is preponderant in the ICC because Central Africa, Congo and Uganda requested ICC intervention by themselves.

Nevertheless, not everybody thinks the same. On July 5th the African Union announced their decision to not cooperate with the ICC in the arrest warrant for Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, arguing that the Court is discriminatory because only goes after crimes perpetrated in Africa, the African Union Commissioner, Jean Ping, appointed.

The Chief Executive Officer of the Pan African Lawyers Union, Donald Deya, explained that in Africa there are reservations on the implications of certain Court’s decisions. As an example, he mentioned the situation in Libya, where the NATO, in his opinion, is trying to change the political regime, and not to protect civilians.

ICC and the protection of civilians

The protection of civilian population is a human right recognised in the United Nations Charter, the Security Council (SC) Resolutions 1970 and 1973 and the Rome Statute.

The Rome Statute in its article seven defines the crimes against humanity as “acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population”. Among these there are murder, extermination, enslavement, imprisonment, rape and torture.

The article seven of the Rome Statute was used to trial the Libyan government after the attacks perpetrated against the population. As a result of that, on 27 June, warrants of arrest were issued for Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, his son and spokesman Saif Al-Islam Qaddafi, and Abdullah Al-Senussi, Director of Military Intelligence.

One of the co-founders of the IJP, Raymond Brown, remarked to IPS that all regional organizations reacted against Qaddafi’s position, except the African Union, and remembered that “international community would only intervene if there’s a widespread humanitarian harm”.

Libya is not a state party of the ICC and for that reason, the Court could only act after a referral made by the SC under the Resolution 1970 of the 26 February. In the Resolution, the SC highlighted that the Libyan authorities shall cooperate and provide assistance to the Court and the Prosecutor.

“It’s fair to say that the decision was only taken when there was a massive violation. It was appropriate in many ways to make the ICC referral and to intervene. It was a fast answer. What happened in Libya was not an ordinary situation", Brown told.

But in the protection of women in Libya and other countries, there have been several problems. As Bunch explained, even if the definition of rape as a war crime is very clear in the Rome Statute, many women in Africa think there is no gain in speaking out and the documentation in cases of massive rape is difficult to obtain.

A budget problem

Besides the ratification issue, there is another obstacle for the effective work of the Court.

The Coalition for the ICC has urged all member countries to maintain their financial support to the organization in order to not affect its activities, after some states parties, like France and the United Kingdom (UK), demanded “zero growth” budgets for 2012.

William Pace explained that, paradoxically, France and the UK are the nations that insisted in referring the Libya case to the ICC.

According to the organization, having a low budget could impact the new investigation in Libya and the delivery of justice in many other places. It could also affect the possibility of an eventual investigation against the Syrian regime, for allegedly have committed crimes against civilians.

Pace said that he thinks the situation in Syria is a “classic example” of those cases in which the SC applies some principles in one country and ignores them in another.

But Akin explains that, even if the case is similar to what happened in Libya, each situation should be considered differently. “Syria deserves to be considered in its own merit. The political situation is different in every country”, told.

UN Noon Briefing 07/07/2011

My question is at the minute 17

My first press conference at United Nations