# CE2004078EN.01074001.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/740 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/740

---

(2004/C 78 E/0789)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2452/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(23 July 2003)

Subject:   Growing American pressure on future EU Member States to permanently cease their cooperation with the International Criminal Court

Subject:

| 1. | Has the Council heard that, under US legislation, as from 1 July 2003 no financial assistance will be provided to the approximately 50 States which have ratified the Statute of the International Criminal Court in The Hague? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Has the Council heard that, under US legislation, as from 1 July 2003 no financial assistance will be provided to the approximately 50 States which have ratified the Statute of the International Criminal Court in The Hague?

| 2. | Is the Council aware that the future EU Member States Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Bulgaria are among the 3 5 States which have previously received US assistance but in future will only be able to receive it if they conclude an Article 98 agreement' promising never to extradite American citizens to the International Criminal Court in The Hague? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Council aware that the future EU Member States Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Bulgaria are among the 3 5 States which have previously received US assistance but in future will only be able to receive it if they conclude an Article 98 agreement' promising never to extradite American citizens to the International Criminal Court in The Hague?

| 3. | Does the Council regard this new step as an escalation of the United States' approach, which already featured the American Service Members Protection Act (dubbed by some the ‘Hague Invasion Act’) and the agreement signed with the future EU Member State Romania on 1 August 2002 on the exclusion of Americans? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the Council regard this new step as an escalation of the United States' approach, which already featured the American Service Members Protection Act (dubbed by some the ‘Hague Invasion Act’) and the agreement signed with the future EU Member State Romania on 1 August 2002 on the exclusion of Americans?

| 4. | Does the Council accept that, as a result of this escalation, the Criminal Court will not be able to operate properly and that those responsible for future war crimes comparable to those committed in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda will enjoy permanent immunity from prosecution in cases where no adequate national prosecution procedure is applied? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the Council accept that, as a result of this escalation, the Criminal Court will not be able to operate properly and that those responsible for future war crimes comparable to those committed in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda will enjoy permanent immunity from prosecution in cases where no adequate national prosecution procedure is applied?

| 5. | What will the Council do to prevent further pressure being brought to bear on EU Member States and future Member States to permanently cease their cooperation with the International Criminal Court, contrary to the common position adopted by the Council in 2001 and 2002? |
| --- | --- |

5.

What will the Council do to prevent further pressure being brought to bear on EU Member States and future Member States to permanently cease their cooperation with the International Criminal Court, contrary to the common position adopted by the Council in 2001 and 2002?

Source: De Volkskrant, 2 July 2003.

Reply

(4 March 2004)

(4 March 2004)

| 1. | The Council recalls the importance the EU attaches to the preservation of the integrity of the Rome Statute.
  The Council confirms it has received information, both from NGOs and from the third countries concerned, on renewed heavy US pressure to conclude non-surrender agreements. This pressure consists mainly in threats to withdraw US military assistance as provided for by the American Service members Protection Act, the so-called ASPA (effective from 1 July 2003). It was mentioned that such pressure might also include the decision to withdraw the whole US aid to certain countries. The US authorities have, however, strongly denied this latter information. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Council recalls the importance the EU attaches to the preservation of the integrity of the Rome Statute.

The Council confirms it has received information, both from NGOs and from the third countries concerned, on renewed heavy US pressure to conclude non-surrender agreements. This pressure consists mainly in threats to withdraw US military assistance as provided for by the American Service members Protection Act, the so-called ASPA (effective from 1 July 2003). It was mentioned that such pressure might also include the decision to withdraw the whole US aid to certain countries. The US authorities have, however, strongly denied this latter information.

| 2. | The Council is aware of the consequences of the implementation of the above US decision for the European countries mentioned by the Honourable MEP. NATO members will not be concerned, but six future EU Member States (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Bulgaria), not expected to join NATO before 2004, will see important funds withheld as of 1 October. These funds are meant to help them prepare their nation's militaries to be fully interoperable with NATO forces. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Council is aware of the consequences of the implementation of the above US decision for the European countries mentioned by the Honourable MEP. NATO members will not be concerned, but six future EU Member States (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Bulgaria), not expected to join NATO before 2004, will see important funds withheld as of 1 October. These funds are meant to help them prepare their nation's militaries to be fully interoperable with NATO forces.

| 3. | The Council recalls that at every possible occasion (EU Common Positions, Guiding Principles and different demarches carried out in third countries) it has reaffirmed its consistent and clear position on the ASPA and on the bilateral non-surrender agreements. When approached by the US with proposals for non-surrender agreements, Member States looked for a common EU approach to these proposals within the Council. Since the very start of the process, the Council identified one clear political objective for this common approach: the framework for any solution to accommodate US concerns must preserve the integrity of the Rome Statute and should not undermine the ICC.
  Particular reference should be made to the EU Guiding Principles annexed to the Council Conclusions of 30 September 2002. In the above Guiding Principles, the Council considered that entering into bilateral agreements — as presently drafted — would be inconsistent with ICC States Parties' obligations with regard to the ICC Statute and may be inconsistent with other international agreements to which ICC States Parties are parties. Furthermore, any solution should include appropriate operative provisions ensuring that persons who have committed crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the Court do not enjoy impunity. Such provisions should ensure appropriate investigation and — where there is sufficient evidence — prosecution by national jurisdictions concerning persons requested by the ICC. In any case, any solution should only cover persons who are not nationals of an ICC State Party. It should cover only persons present on the territory of a requested State because they have been sent by a sending State; and surrender cannot be deemed to include transit.
  It is recalled that the ten acceding countries supported the EU Common Position of June 2003 and that the associated countries (Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey) as well as the EFTA countries also aligned with it. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Council recalls that at every possible occasion (EU Common Positions, Guiding Principles and different demarches carried out in third countries) it has reaffirmed its consistent and clear position on the ASPA and on the bilateral non-surrender agreements. When approached by the US with proposals for non-surrender agreements, Member States looked for a common EU approach to these proposals within the Council. Since the very start of the process, the Council identified one clear political objective for this common approach: the framework for any solution to accommodate US concerns must preserve the integrity of the Rome Statute and should not undermine the ICC.

Particular reference should be made to the EU Guiding Principles annexed to the Council Conclusions of 30 September 2002. In the above Guiding Principles, the Council considered that entering into bilateral agreements — as presently drafted — would be inconsistent with ICC States Parties' obligations with regard to the ICC Statute and may be inconsistent with other international agreements to which ICC States Parties are parties. Furthermore, any solution should include appropriate operative provisions ensuring that persons who have committed crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the Court do not enjoy impunity. Such provisions should ensure appropriate investigation and — where there is sufficient evidence — prosecution by national jurisdictions concerning persons requested by the ICC. In any case, any solution should only cover persons who are not nationals of an ICC State Party. It should cover only persons present on the territory of a requested State because they have been sent by a sending State; and surrender cannot be deemed to include transit.

It is recalled that the ten acceding countries supported the EU Common Position of June 2003 and that the associated countries (Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey) as well as the EFTA countries also aligned with it.

---