US ambassador attacks expense and professionalism of war crimes tribunals
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The Bush administration made a surprisingly vehement attack on the UN war crimes tribunals yesterday, accusing them of suffering from mismanagement and a lack of professionalism. The American ambassador-at-large for war crimes, Pierre-Richard Prosper, said the tribunals should be concluded within the next six years.
Giving testimony before Congress, Mr Prosper said: "There have been problems that challenge the integrity of the process. The professionalism of some of the personnel has been called into question, with allegations of mismanagement and abuse.
"The process at times has been costly, has lacked efficiency, has been too slow and has been too removed from the everyday experience of the people and the victims."
Mr Prosper said the tribunals – which are trying the former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic and other alleged Yugoslav and Rwandan war criminals – were also very expensive and that plans should be put in place to bring them to a close by 2008.
Mr Prosper also reaffirmed America's strong opposition to the proposed permanent International Criminal Court, saying it "lacks the essential safeguard to avoid a politicisation of justice". Although former President Bill Clinton signed the treaty establishing the international court, he did not send it to the Senate for ratification. President Bush has also refused to send it to the Senate and some administration officials are pushing to have America revoke its signature.
US officials have previously criticised the expense of the tribunals at The Hague and Arusha, Tanzania, which cost $100m (£70m) a year to operate.
Carla Del Ponte, chief prosecutor for tribunals at The Hague, said in November she was starting to consider an "exit strategy" under which the tribunal would end in 2008.
But she told the UN: "There may be people who are saying [after 11 September] the world has moved on and the issue of the day is now terrorism. We cannot take that view of international justice."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments