Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Editorials
Saturday, January 6, 2001War crimes court
pact should be shelvedThe issue: President Clinton has signed a treaty for an international war crimes tribunal.
PRESIDENT Clinton has signed a treaty aimed at establishing an international war crimes tribunal, but he is far from enthusiastic about it and there is virtually no chance that the Senate will ratify the pact soon.
In fact, Clinton recommended that President-elect Bush refrain from submitting the treaty to the Senate until U.S. misgivings are addressed. A Bush spokesman agreed that the treaty is flawed and said it will not be submitted for ratification in its current form.
The International Criminal Court is designed to bring to justice people accused of crimes against humanity. Until now, the world has dealt with such crimes with tribunals established for specific episodes in specific countries. Tribunals were established in the 1990s to prosecute crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda.
The treaty has encountered vigorous opposition from Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms, R-N.C. He has pledged to give top priority during the congressional session to passage of a bill that would bar U.S. cooperation with any such tribunal.
Despite Clinton's reservations about the treaty, Helms said Clinton's action was an attempt by a lame-duck president "to tie the hands of his successor." He asserted that the "kangaroo court" would leave U.S. service personnel subject to prosecution.
Helms' objections are shared by the Pentagon. With 200,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen stationed all over the world, the Defense Department fears that the treaty could expose them to frivolous charges or politically motivated judges.
Supporters of the treaty insist that the international tribunal would step in only when a country failed to bring its own war criminals to trial.
That may be the intention, but it is easy to imagine this power being abused by countries with a grievance against the United States, of which there are many.
Moreover, most countries' legal systems fall short of the United States in protecting the rights of the accused. The international tribunal might do no better.
In the absence of blatant criminal acts, a permanent court might take up questionable claims motivated by spite. Tribunals restricted to deal with specific situations, such as Bosnia and Rwanda, reduce the danger of politically inspired prosecutions.
Falun Gong sect poses
a test for Hong Kong
A showdown may be coming in Hong Kong over the plans of a sect that is banned in mainland China to hold a conference in the former British colony. Thousands of members of the Falun Gong sect have been arrested in China, but the group is legal in Hong Kong, which was assured of a high degree of autonomy in the agreement resulting in the 1997 turnover by Britain.
In fact, the Hong Kong government has allowed Falun Gong to rent a concert area inside city hall. A spokeswoman for the government's cultural services department said its venues are open to any associations registered under the laws of Hong Kong.
An article by China's official Xinhua News Agency accused Falun Gong members in Hong Kong and Macau of stirring up trouble and sullying China's image. A spokesman for the sect responded that its members would not be intimidated and would go ahead with the conference on Jan. 14.
"I am sure they (Beijing) intend to threaten us but we won't be affected by these attacks," Kan Hung-cheung, spokesman for the Hong Kong Falun Gong, said.
Kan was singled out as "a core member of the evil cult" for encouraging 30 other members of the movement to gather in Macau during the celebration of the first anniversary of Macau's return to China on Dec. 19. All were denied entry to Macau for the event.
The Falun Gong issue has developed at a time when pressure from Beijing seems to be eroding Hong Kong's autonomy. Last month the Legislative Council voted to retain a law restricting public assemblies. Several liberal lawmakers participated in illegal protests to express their opposition.
The law requires demonstrators to notify the police seven days in advance of marches involving 30 people or more or rallies by more than 50. This diminishes the rights of freedom of expression and assembly in the name of maintaining public order.
Some analysts think Hong Kong's autonomy may be threatened if Falun Gong activism continues. Lau Siu-kai, a professor of sociology at a local university, said, "Beijing is getting impatient. If it feels Hong Kong is being used as a base for subversion, the local government might come under pressure to intervene."
Falun Gong combines meditation and breathing exercises with a doctrine loosely rooted in Buddhist and Taoist teachings. It is nonpolitical, but the Chinese Communists view it as a threat because it has attracted large numbers of adherents and resists government control.
Toleration of Falun Gong's activities in Hong Kong could bring down the wrath of Beijing on the Hong Kong government. That would discredit Beijing's pledge to respect Hong Kong's autonomy and democratic policies.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
Frank Bridgewater, Acting Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editor
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
