Let us face it. The idea of a U. S. Ambassador at Large for War Crimes Tribunals or International Criminal Courts is a bit of a joke to begin with! For years after forming an International Criminal Court the US was not even a signatory. Ever since Nuremberg the participation of USA in any War Crimes Tribunal has been willy-nilly at best. Richard Goldstone, a jurist at Den Hague Criminal Court, has complained about lack of diplomatic support, and has said, "USA should become much more involved." [I quote from his appearance at a show on Al Jazeera]
Due to a shift in US policy during the Obama administration there has been a little more visible American presence in such trials as that of Charles Taylor of Liberia and President Bashar of Sudan. Critics have accused USA of imposing double standards whenever the issue concerned acceptable standards.
We should not forget that the war crimes of 1971 were committed by Pakistani armed forces with full military assistance from the USA. Any war crimes trial opening up those 1971 wounds would possibly reveal the provider of the arms and ammo with which those injuries were inflicted in unflattering light. It is understandable why the US was never forthcoming with support for the demand of the trials for 1971 war crimes in the 38 years since the independence of Bangladesh.
In view of the circumstances and record, it is amusing to have the 'intervention' in the long-anticipated trial of 1971 genocide from none other than an Ambassador at Large from the very country that aided and armed the perpetrators.
I bear no personal grudge towards Stephen Rapp nor do I think some of his recommendations are insincere or unhelpful. The Dhaka Tribunal definitely needs to adjust itself to the rigors of international criminal court standards. I agree with David Bergman that neutral observers at the trial should not be considered an impediment in any way. But it is the neutrality of the US Ambassador at Large for war crimes and atrocities committed against humanity in the then East Pakistan in 1971 that is being held up to question.
Farida Majid
Ramna, Dhaka
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 10:09:28 +0600
Subject: Fwd: Bangladesh War Crimes blog: Assessing US ambassador Rapp's intervention
From: davidbangladesh@gmail.com
To: davidbangladesh@gmail.com
Dear All
Stephen Rapp, the US Ambassador at large for war crimes, has visited Bangladesh three times and is the only foreign diplomat to have formally and publicly intervened on the tricky issue of due process and standards of the Bangladesh war crimes tribunal. How should one assess his intervention, so far?
http://bangladeshwarcrimes.blogspot.com/2011/12/effectiveness-of-us-ambassador-rapp.html
Thanks
David
-----
If you would like to be removed, or added, to this list, please e-mail a request
Follow on twitter my take on Bangladeshi politics: https://twitter.com/davidbangladesh
--
Due to a shift in US policy during the Obama administration there has been a little more visible American presence in such trials as that of Charles Taylor of Liberia and President Bashar of Sudan. Critics have accused USA of imposing double standards whenever the issue concerned acceptable standards.
We should not forget that the war crimes of 1971 were committed by Pakistani armed forces with full military assistance from the USA. Any war crimes trial opening up those 1971 wounds would possibly reveal the provider of the arms and ammo with which those injuries were inflicted in unflattering light. It is understandable why the US was never forthcoming with support for the demand of the trials for 1971 war crimes in the 38 years since the independence of Bangladesh.
In view of the circumstances and record, it is amusing to have the 'intervention' in the long-anticipated trial of 1971 genocide from none other than an Ambassador at Large from the very country that aided and armed the perpetrators.
I bear no personal grudge towards Stephen Rapp nor do I think some of his recommendations are insincere or unhelpful. The Dhaka Tribunal definitely needs to adjust itself to the rigors of international criminal court standards. I agree with David Bergman that neutral observers at the trial should not be considered an impediment in any way. But it is the neutrality of the US Ambassador at Large for war crimes and atrocities committed against humanity in the then East Pakistan in 1971 that is being held up to question.
Farida Majid
Ramna, Dhaka
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 10:09:28 +0600
Subject: Fwd: Bangladesh War Crimes blog: Assessing US ambassador Rapp's intervention
From: davidbangladesh@gmail.com
To: davidbangladesh@gmail.com
Dear All
Stephen Rapp, the US Ambassador at large for war crimes, has visited Bangladesh three times and is the only foreign diplomat to have formally and publicly intervened on the tricky issue of due process and standards of the Bangladesh war crimes tribunal. How should one assess his intervention, so far?
http://bangladeshwarcrimes.blogspot.com/2011/12/effectiveness-of-us-ambassador-rapp.html
Thanks
David
-----
If you would like to be removed, or added, to this list, please e-mail a request
Follow on twitter my take on Bangladeshi politics: https://twitter.com/davidbangladesh
---------------------------------------------------
David Bergman- New Age: Editor, Special Reports: http://newagebd.com/newspaper1/
- Asia Calling: Bangladesh correspondent: http://asiacalling.kbr68h.com/
- http://journalisted.com/david-bergman
- http://journalisted.com/david-bergman
Mobile: (00 88) 0 171 547 4150
--
---------------------------------------------------
David Bergman- New Age: Editor, Special Reports: http://newagebd.com/newspaper1/
- Asia Calling: Bangladesh correspondent: http://asiacalling.kbr68h.com/
- http://journalisted.com/david-bergman
- http://journalisted.com/david-bergman
- http://bangladeshwarcrimes.blogspot.com/
Follow my take on Bangladesh's politics and life on twitter: https://twitter.com/davidbangladesh
Follow my take on Bangladesh's politics and life on twitter: https://twitter.com/davidbangladesh
Mobile: (00 88) 0 171 547 4150
__._,_.___
