The Hindu : India succumbed to U.S. pressure: Amnesty

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Dec 28, 2002

National

National

India succumbed to U.S. pressure: Amnesty

By Amit Baruah

NEW DELHI Dec. 27 . Amnesty International said today it was "unfortunate'' that India had succumbed to pressure from the United States and signed an "impunity agreement'' with it. The agreement, which bars the two countries from surrendering persons to any international tribunal, sent a "clear signal'' that New Delhi lacked the commitment to bring to justice even those accused of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity, Amnesty said.

``That the Government of India did not engage in any democratic, parliamentary or public debate before signing this agreement is both regretful and dangerous. Amnesty International India strongly opposes this agreement and calls on the Government of India to immediately withdraw from this agreement and to sign and ratify the Rome statute of the ICC (International Criminal Court).''

``The U.S.'s lack of respect for and fear of international human rights protection measures is well known. The U.S. was one of seven countries that voted against the adoption of the Rome statute to set up the International Criminal Court....many of the 15 States that have already signed the impunity agreements with the U.S. did so under pressure,'' the human rights group said in a statement. ``The pressure tactics included threats that the U.S. would withdraw military and other assistance from them if they refused to sign. The U.S. has indicated that States that are applying for membership in NATO have also been targeted.'' Amnesty said arguments that national jurisdiction and sovereignty were undermined by multilateral human rights protection instruments like the ICC were "spurious'' and lacked "any basis''.

``As of December 10, 2002, 139 States have signed and 87 States have ratified the Rome statute of the ICC. It is far fetched to suggest that all these countries or governments do not care for their sovereignty or national jurisdiction,'' the statement said. According to Amnesty, the ICC had sufficient safeguards in its structure, jurisdictional criteria and judicial process to prevent politically motivated prosecutions. If that were not so, half the countries of the world would not be a party to the ICC statute and accept its jurisdiction. ``The other argument that the ICC does not address terrorist crimes is merely an excuse to escape international censure. An internationally acceptable legal definition of terrorism is still elusive and a separate U.N. Convention on Terrorism is under negotiation.''

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National