GA ADOPTS RESOLUTION ON INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL

C O N F I D E N T I A L USUN NEW YORK 001070

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/27/2017
TAGS: PREL UNGA ICC
SUBJECT: GA ADOPTS RESOLUTION ON INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL
COURT (ICC)

REF: STATE 159396

Classified By: Ambassador Wolff for reasons 1.4 (b) and 1.4 (d)


1. (U) The General Assembly, November 26, adopted a draft
resolution "Report of the International Criminal Court"
(A/62/L.13) without a vote. The resolution was introduced by
the Permanent Representative of the Netherlands who announced
that in addition to the 99 co-sponsors listed in the draft,
Afghanistan, Chad, Chile, Guinea, Haiti, Madagascar,
Montenegro, and St. Kitts and Nevis had joined consensus for
a total of 107 co-sponsors. Prior to adoption of the
resolution, Ambassador Wolff explained the U.S. position
(reftel).


2. (C) After the meeting, a somber, somewhat disconcerted
Dutch Permanent Representative told Amb Wolff that the U.S.
statement was "very tough". He said that it almost sounded
like a declaration of war. Wolff responded that it was a
reiteration of our request that the ICC states parties
respect the right of states not to ratify the Rome Statute.
This was not an unreasonable position, it was not a new
position and it was certainly not a declaration of war.
Rather, it was a clear reminder that the efforts the U.S. has
made to respect the views of ICC parties should be recognized
and appreciated . There must be an underlying understanding
that United States co-operation offered to ICC parties, out
of respect for their views, should not be taken for granted.

The co-sponsors refusal to reflect an understanding of the
position of non-states parties indicated a lack of respect
for their decisions not to ratify the treaty. Protestations
to the contrary, it was clear that the basis for the
co-sponsors' unwillingness to engage meaningfully on this
issue was their commitment to universal adherence to the Rome
Statute of the ICC.


3. The Dutch PR also questioned the U.S. focus on the
details of reimbursement for UN services to the Court arguing
that the ICC reimburses the UN. Wolff explained that the
payments are reimbursed from the budget and the details of
what services and facilities are provided to the ICC and the
reimbursement requested by the UN are particularly important
to states not party to the treaty but contributors to the UN
budget.
Khalilzad