Rome 15 June 1998
Press conference held by Secretary General Kofi Annan
at the opening of the Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries
on the
Establishment of an International Criminal Court.
Transcript:
Secretary General:
Let me first of all thank you for coming here in such numbers.
This is an important conference and I am very grateful that you
are all here. As I said this morning in opening the conference,
we face an historic opportunity to provide the missing link in
the international criminal law by creating a strong, confident
and capable court that can put an end to a global culture of
impunity. I asked the delegates to remember that the eyes of the
victims of past crimes and of potential victims of future ones
are fixed upon us. I entreated them to rise to the challenge and
give succeeding generations a gift of hope. They will not forgive
us if we fail. And as our posters say, all around Rome,"Welcome to Rome, we expect concrete results".
Question:(IPS)
If this court had existed earlier, those who had committed
genocide in Latin America, like Pinochet, and Videla in
Argentina, would they have been charged, brought before a court
of the nature which is envisaged at this meeting?
Secretary General:
I think the issues before the court, I think we have agreed on
three general areas which we are aware of: genocide, war crimes
and crimes against humanity. Anyone who is judged to have
committed any of these crimes will be brought before the court.
And if the court had existed in the past, those who had committed
those crimes would have. There are other aspects, of other crimes
which the delegations here will discuss in the next five weeks
whether they should be included or not. But I think anyone who
commits those crimes, if the court is established, which I hope
and trust will be, those individuals would be dealt with.
Question: (Berlin...not audible)
Some countries, and one especially, have expressed the concern
that a court with too strong competence and powers might be a
problem for individual nations to send soldiers into UN peace
keeping missions in the future. Do you share this concern, what
is your response?
Secretary General:
I am aware of those concerns which have been expressed and there
are other concerns which I don't think one should ignore. Whilst
we should listen to everyone and try come up with a court that
will be accepted and implemented by as many states as possible. I
think we need to be concerned that the court we establish should
be credible, should be independent and should have a strong
remit. But let me say that there are discussions going on which
may address some of the issues you have raised, but I don't think
that concern alone should prevent governments from signing on to
the establishment of the court. I think there are proposals and
compromises on the table that will deal with the issue you have
raised, without necessarily weakening the court.
Question: (RAI International)
You said in your speech and now repeated that the court must be
strong and independent. Independent from the governments, I
think, and also independent from the UN Security Council?
Secretary General:
I think for a court to be independent and operate effectively
implies that nobody, no unit, no organization should be able to
unduly influence what the court does. This does not mean that at
the end of the day in the give and take that we expect in the
next five weeks, some compromises will not be made. But I think
at the end of the day, an independent and a strong court will
serve the international community and the potential victims. I
would hope that all the governments here and those NGOs agree
with this position, to have a weak and ineffective court will not
solve the problem and I think we should all aim for a sensible
and viable solution.
Question: (Reuters)
As we speak, two things have happened today. First of all NATO
has announced the arrest of another wanted suspected war criminal
in Bosnia and, at the same time NATO planes are exercising close
to Kosovo, where ethnic cleansing seems to be starting again.
What impact do you think that an international criminal court
could have on conflicts like Kosovo and do you believe that the
Kosovo crisis will be amenable to the same combination of
diplomacy backed up by force which you were able to use in Iraq?
Secretary General:
I would hope that the establishment of this court will send a
powerful message across the world that impunity will no longer be
tolerated and those who commit crimes against humanity, war
crimes and genocide will be made to account for it and be put in
the dock and judged. I will also, returning to your second
question, my hope is that the efforts that have been made by the
contact group and the pressures that have been put on the parties
particularly on President Milosevic will be successful. He goes
to Moscow tomorrow and the Russian leadership have assured us
that they are going to do whatever they can to get him to bend. I
think if we use diplomacy and force and firmness in the way you
have described it, we should be able to succeed. But it is
important that we remain firm and resolute in the face of what is
happening in Kosovo and in Serbia. We know the methods, we know
what happened in Bosnia and we cannot sit back and let it be
repeated.
Question: (El Pais, Madrid)
Could you tell us if you have seen, insisting on the role of the
Security Council, if you have seen some moves from the American
position which is, let us say, extremely keen on maintaining a
dependence on the Security Council, of this court. Have you seen
some kind of move towards a more flexible position?
Secretary General:
First of all I do not want to speak for the Americans. I think
they have a very strong and competent delegation here that will
speak for itself, but let me say that whilst I cannot claim to
have seen any movement on their part, there are very solid and
workable compromises on the table and I hope we shall be able to
find a way forward. And I am confident that all the governments
here have come here because they believe in the importance of
this enterprise and the need for us to set up an international
criminal court and no one, no one country I hope would want to be
responsible for the failure of this conference.
Question: (Diario Noticias, Lisbon)
Do you think that the situation of Timor would fit in the case of
being taken in front of this court?
Secretary General:
As you know I myself am engaged with the parties in search for a
solution to the East Timor conflict. I am not sure which aspect
of the East Timor conflict you have in mind as being something
that one would want to bring up before this court. But what I can
tell you is that with the new leadership in Indonesia we are
discussing very seriously suggestions that they should turn a
page and they should make a gesture including release of
political prisoners. They have made a fair step by announcing the
release of about 15 prisoners and also suggestions of special
regime. But I expect that in time we will move much further than
we are today.
Question: (Radio Vatican)
I wanted to know whether following the crimes against humanity it
is possible to include over and above the facts that there are
wars being raged, is it possible to include experimental work
which puts the life of mankind at risk, such as atomic
experiments or genetic experiments which might place at risk the
lives of children, as regards their future lives. This is
something which we heard today, about the pregnancy issues. Are
these also to be considered as crimes against humanity?
Secretary General:
That will be up to the creative and competent delegates who are
going to be hassling over the competence of the court over the
next five weeks.
Question: (Washington Post)
Could you talk to us a little bit about , from a practical point
of view and a philosophical point of view whether it will be
better to have a weaker court with more signatures or a stronger
court with fewer signatures?
Secretary General:
Sounds like a simple question. Obviously we would want to see a
court that has as many countries as possible signing on to it and
working with us to implement it. But, for the court to be
credible and to stand the test of time, it has to be seen as
independent and strong and able to carry out this work. I think
it is not beyond human ingenuity and creativity to be able to
create such a court despite some of the differences and the
complex issues that we have before us. So I would want to, whilst
I am not dealing effectively and precisely with fewer or larger
numbers, I think that at the end we need to have a credible court
and I think that it is possible to have a credible court and with
many governments signing on. I think the world public opinion has
spoken, there is tremendous international pressure and once that
pressure is maintained I think in time very few governments can
sit out and refuse to ratify the convention. So I think it is
better to come up with something credible, competent and
independent and hope that those who have not realized the need,
or are not able to sign on will sooner or later come on board
rather than weaken the court. If it is ineffectual no one gains
and in fact this will be a wast of time.
Question:(Radio Radicale, Italy)
Like any other international institution, this court will be
credible and efficacious if it has effective economic
independence and I would like to ask you how you will have this
funding from the countries and how this links in with another
question: the death sentence was referred to in some of the ad
hoc courts which were set up following the Security Council
decisions. Will this also apply in this international court? When
will there be a formal commitment by the United Nations to a
moratorium on the death penalty?
Secretary General:
The issue of funding is being discussed as part of negotiations
and discussions, whether the court will be funded partially by
the General Assembly or by participating states. This is
something that is under discussion and I cannot really give you a
definite answer to that. On the question of death penalty, I see
now there are many governments in the UN who do not accept the
death penalty and I think that this is an issue that is going to
be discussed by the conference. Speaking personally, I do not see
how the death penalty can be imposed by the court that is now
under discussion, given the differences among juridical systems
among the member states. And as you know in the two ad hoc
tribunals that we have set up, both Bosnia and Rwanda, death
penalties are not part of the punishment.
Question: (inaudible...Canada)
The draft text currently includes as war crimes against humanity,
a number of crimes which have not previously been recognized as
such under international law, for instance, enforced pregnancies
included as a phrase and that has been interpreted by women,
women congress lobbyists as meaning, as including denial of
access to abortion services and my question is, are you concerned
that an overly broad definition of war crimes might undermine
support for the court by giving rise to suspicion and ..
inaudible).
Secretary General:
I think we need to be careful when we discuss the competence of
the court and the types of cases that are likely to come before
the court. There are only three areas where, as up to today, we
have agreement on: genocide, war crimes and crimes against
humanity. There are a whole range of other areas that are under
discussion that may or may not be approved. So we should not jump
the gun and throw in issues which have not been settled. And I
think the question you posed or the issue you raised falls into
the category that will have to be discussed by the delegates over
the next five weeks, and agreed upon.
Question: (.. Radio USA)
I wonder if you could describe your sense of anticipation about
the process of democratization of the United Nations system in
the context of this process. We have a situation in which
opposition from at least four of the five have not managed to
derail the process and that a larger group of less powerful
countries has emerged. How do you see that in this broad process
of democratization?
Secretary General:
It doesn't threaten me and it does not worry me. In fact I
welcome it. I think we saw the best example of that was the land
mine convention in Ottawa? Where the grass roots movement, the
whole range of NGOs, the Red Cross, governments and international
organizations came together to make that convention happen. If it
had not been for the grass roots movement, the international
public opinion and the pressure, we would not have had that
convention in a relatively short period. In my judgement this is
a new diplomacy. The public and the peoples of the world are not
going to arrest or stop with the land mine convention. We are
going to see the partnership, the movement, the combination of
efforts across all range of issues that are of concern to the
public. We at the UN travel the world encouraging participatory
democracy. I think we should apply a bit of it to ourselves.
Question: (Corriere della Sera, Italy)
Do you think that the court for the crime in Rwanda can be used
as a sample for the new tribunal. Because there are a lot of
allegations against that court and I was there a couple of times
and I found a lot of problems, for example documents written in
English and in French with different meaning, or judges that are
not there any more, after a couple of years they were sacked, or
investigators that stayed there six months and after, when they
finally began to understand the problem, they went away, and
other problems like this. What do you think about?
Secretary General:
I think when you set up tribunals of that kind, ad hoc tribunals,
whether the one for Rwanda or Yugoslavia, you do have budgetary
problems, administrative and teething problems, but these are
problems which are not insurmountable and I hope that we have
learned some lessons from those two experiences that will serve
us well as we move into the area of establishing the new
international criminal court. I would hope that the member
states, once they approve the establishment of the court, would
also provide the resources necessary for the court to function
effectively and to have the staff and the facilities that they
need. We did have many difficulties at the beginning with regard
to Rwanda and the Yugoslav tribunals. I must admit some of it was
of our doing, I mean mistakes in the Secretariat, but we have
cleaned that up and I think these kind of administrative and
bureaucratic difficulties need not stand in the way of the
establishment of the court and I hope we have learned something.
Question: (IPS)
I was just wondering in terms of the new abilities of the court,
there are some language in the draft text that suggests a
possibility that certain groups of weapons, the use of certain
things, such as nuclear weapons, land mines, blinding laser
weapons and the like could in itself be included as a crime
against humanity or as a war crime. I was wondering, considering
that the points that several of these, that ending the use of
several of these weapons has been to you and the United Nations,
how you feel about the possibility that they could be included
within the context of the ICC even though there is still
evidently some dispute about their inclusion here.
Secretary General:
I think we have to understand that this is a negotiation amongst
states. We the Secretariat are encouraging them (inaudible) but
these are decisions member states will have to take and we will
know whether they will be included or not at the end of the five
weeks of negotiations and so at this stage I would prefer not to
be drawn, if you do not mind.
Question: (...inaudible)
I would like to know if the court is going to have a mechanism,
pursuant to which individuals can seize the court in a case
against their own government. That is my first question.
Secretary General:
How many questions do you have?
Question (...inaudible)
The second is a development on the first. I would like to know
whether the court would be independent or would it be a UN
specialized agency?
Secretary General:
Let us begin with the second question. It will be independent. I
hope that is made perfectly clear. As to your first question I am
not in a position to answer but I hope that Mr. Corell will be
able to speak to you of this type of issue.
Question: (...Hamburg)
Just as a follow up on that last question, if the court is such
an important issue for you, Secretary General, why should it just
become the treaty based institution rather than an organ of the
United Nations like the ICJ and the Hague?
Secretary General:
Because the decision is not in my hands. It is the member states
who decide and I think in a way an attempt to set up an
independent international criminal court that is not seen as a UN
organ is also an attempt to reinforce and enhance the
independence of the court. Often when organizations, even though
the ICJ is quite removed, are attached to the General Assembly we
have heard the accusations that it is either politicized or is
likely to be politicized and if one wants a court to operate
independently and have its own rules of procedure without
interference from political institutions and governments, except
the areas that are now under discussion, I think setting it up as
an independent court, a stand alone court, would that be an alone
organ or linked to the UN should reinforce a sense of
independence and lack of politicization and I think it is a plus
rather than a negative.
Question: (...inaudible)
What position should the court take regarding children in armed
conflict?
Secretary General:
When I get questions like what position the court should take on
this issue, let me say that I am very much opposed personally to
children in armed conflict and as you know I have named a special
representative at the Under Secretary General level to deal with
this issue, Olara Otunnu and he has been very active. Whether the
court will take up that issue or not I am not sure and I am not
in a position to really say one way or the other. And I am not
even sure that it is one of the issues that would emerge after
the five weeks of negotiations, but the member states who are
negotiating the establishment of the court are aware of the
critical situation of children in armed conflict and if they
choose to take it as one of the issues, I would respect it but I
do not want to be drawn on that either.
Question: (German Public Radio)
There are at least two countries with a certain experience on
international courts, for instance Holland, but the very
historical (one) is Germany, as you know. What could be the
contribution, the historical contribution, of the Nuremberg war
tribunal to what is going to be decided here in Rome?
Secretary General:
I think the legal experts, dealing with the establishment of the
court, have looked at all the legal precedents in preparing for
this event. In bringing us here today they have looked at all
those precedents and I am sure that what happened in Nuremberg,
what happened in Tokyo; what happened in Rwanda and the Hague, on
the Yugoslav tribunal have all been factors and experiences which
have been playing part of the discussions which have brought us
here. You know you need to have a sense of history to have a
sense of mission, of effective mission. Anyway I am sure they
have relied a lot on the experiences of the past, of the legal
precedents of the past.
Question: (L'Espresso, Italy)
I realize the difficulties you have in having a press conference
at the very outset, because everything else, all the questions
will be answered later on but, before giving journalist an
opportunity to draw up a balance sheet, I would like to ask you
this question. I recall that when, forty years ago there was a
court set up in Strasbourg for human rights, there were just
twelve countries involved. The Strasbourg Court is of course
directed at all countries. What I would like to ask is this, as
you see it, at the end of these thirty two days of work, forty or
sixty countries, will they be there to sign, will they consider
the results acceptable if there are just forty or sixty
countries?
Secretary General:
I think when it comes to international agreements and treaties of
that kind, different numbers have been required for the agreement
to go into force, I think, some indications, you mentioned the
figure of sixty, it is quite possible that the member states
would agree on sixty or more or less and I think if the large
number of member states believe that they have the elements for
the establishment of a strong international court and they
believe that they can go ahead and do the right thing, my sense
is that they should go ahead. No government has to wait for
others to do what is right. And this should go ahead and move on
with the establishment of the court. We saw a bit of this in Oslo
where, after lengthy negotiations, the member states decided they
wanted a strong convention, that they were not going to let it be
watered down and the vast majority of member states with the
public and international support were able to come up with a
convention which some have not signed but I am sure will ?. The
vast majority of member states have signed and those who were not
able to sign then, or have not signed now, will sign tomorrow, if
not tomorrow, the next tomorrow, they will have to sign.
Before you leave if I may say that I know you have had lots of
press conferences and I want to thank you for coming in your
numbers but you are not finished yet. I am told the head of
Amnesty International is now going to talk to you.
* *** *