Brits Aim To Move Conflict Jurisdiction from Security Council to ICC

June 12 (EIRNS)—The British imperial financial cartel gained ground at the conference of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Kampala, Uganda, which ended yesterday, in their campaign to take greater control over conflicts they initiate or that result from policies they back, such as the IMF's austerity conditionalities policy. Their goal at the conference was to increase the jurisdiction of the privately created International Criminal Court (ICC)—funded by megaspeculator and drug-promoter George Soros—at the expense of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

At the Review Conference of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which began June 4, the financial cartel added a new area, "aggression," that the ICC would be mandated to investigate. The proposal called for giving the ICC authority to investigate, prosecute, and punish individuals for aggression. This would greatly complicate future decisions by any nation on the use of force to protect their interests, and inserts the ICC into an inherently political realm that would work to the advantage of British-spawned destabillization operations. Up to this point, the ICC has only focussed its investigations and prosecutions on African nations.

Concerned about what the British could unleash with this change, the four non-British permanent members of the Security Council, and other delegates at the conference opposed the move. But the leader of the U.K. delegation to Kampala, Chris Whomersley, said the British could act as an interface between the ICC and the UNSC.

The compromise agreement on the motion that was reached at Kampala states that the UNSC will hold primary responsibility for determining whether an act of aggression has occurred, and that the ICC can initiate an aggression case only if the UNSC takes no action. The amendment will not take effect until Jan. 1, 2017.

Although other technicalities further weaken the amendment, the compromise amendment gets another foot in the door for the ICC to be used in the context of propaganda campaigns, such as its campaign against the government of Sudan over the Darfur situation, to enhance orchestrated destabilization campaigns.

Elizabeth Evanson, counsel in Human Rights Watch's international justice program, was happy about the development. "The agreement may pave the way for the court to act on aggression without Security Council control," she said.