Hey, good morning. Welcome to mid-day from Minnesota Public Radio. This is Tuesday, July 14th. 1998. Gary acting is away this weekend. Fanelli. Thanks for joining is delegates to a United Nations conference charged with setting the ground rules for permanent international criminal court wind-up month-long meetings in Rome this week. The issue is not new. Of course. In fact, it's been fifty years since the UN first recognized the need to establish an international criminal court to prosecute war crimes such as genocide four years ago, the international law commission submitted a proposal to the general assembly for its consideration that body has been wrestling with the issue since so it decided to convene this conference going on in Rome and charge delegates with finalizing and adopting rules governing and international criminal court course, there are many people who oppose such a corn including some conservative members of Congress to Pentagon and other major countries in the US their argument is one of sovereignty and fears us officials ends.Soldiers could be prosecuted by International court. It's a contentious and divisive issue and it's the subject on midday today. Our guest is Barb fry. She joins us from Rome fry as a delegate to the conference for Minnesota advocates for human rights. She is international human rights law consultant and University of Minnesota professor. She is critical of the position. The United States is taking in the negotiations and she is on the line today to give us an update on what's been happening at the discuss the issue further. Hello Barb Perry, how are you all the way from Rome today? Thanks. It sounds like better than your weather. There is some deep well everyone and listeners to give us a call with their questions or comments for bar fry. The Twin Cities number is 227-6002 276 thousand a toll-free number is one 800-242-2828 and by right I suppose we should begin with just kind of explaining why.You think we need an international criminal court and and what it would do sure. As you mentioned in your introduction. This is not a new idea the idea of it a permanent international criminal court has been around for over a hundred years and in various forms, but the recent urgency has been the result of renew jenis-jenis idle conflicts in Rwanda in former Yugoslavia and many other places that threaten those kind of conflicts in the face of renewed ethnic Feud after the post after the Cold War. So given the relative success of of ad hoc tribunals that were set up on Yugoslavia and Rwanda. There was a strong sense that we needed to move to a permanent cord that had six rules and had a a prosecutor who is able to investigate other charges ofGenocide war crimes crimes against humanity, you mentioned that this would be a permanent Court it to replace the ad hoc. What's been wrong with the those processes will the ad hoc tribunal, of course depends solely on the wheel of the security Council and in situations where it has made a determination that there's a threat to International Peace and security under chapter 7 of the UN Charter and you know as we know the security Council while it it has been more active in the past few years is often prone to stalemate certainly is protective of the permanent members and their allies and thus results and sort of seemingly unfair kind of arbitrary decision regarding regarding those kind of cases in the census, you know, why not set up a permanent court that has rules everybody agrees on so that it can just askPut on a case-by-case basis regardless of where the genocide or the war crimes take place. I mean, is there any progress being made toward resolving some of those issues? Geron Of states to provide evidence and penalties. There's been a substantial agreement. In fact, I'd say the the chairman today estimated that at least four fifths of the statute is complete if the problem is not in the procedural aspect. It's in the political will of the states to accept the jurisdiction of such a court the main disputes that that remain revolve around the issue of who gets to determine whether to bring a case in the first place and the security Council countries led by the United States are doing everything in their power to make the treaty such that practically speaking only the security Council will be able to make those those decisions to bring case. We're talking today with fire fries. She is in Rome. She's in Rome for this conference talking about that whether or not to create an international criminal court. She represents the Minnesota advocates for Right and we're asking listeners to join in the conversation today with their questions or comments. Do you think of international criminal courts a good idea? If not, why not? And if so, why do you think that's the case join us at 227 6002 Twin Cities to 276 thousand a toll-free number is 1 800-242-2828 1 800-242-2828 as mentioned that barbecue been in the in Rome for the past month and these meetings have been going on. Can you give us some kind of an inside look at you know what the delegates have been discussing and and maybe if you could characterize the the tone of these negotiations given the contentious nature of the debate, but it sucks. I think that the the issues have been the same from the beginning that the negotiations are just getting tenser as the the hours tick by. Issues in the statue that could run everything with the gamut from what should be the general legal principles applied. How do you define the crimes for instance? One of the first ideas for this court was to prosecute the crime of aggression. In other words one one stayed after committing violence against another state after but because of problems of definition and again sent but that is really a security Council decision that I'm crying isn't even appearing in the final version of the statute so that the statute at this point is is focused on just three three areas of crimes one of genocide, which is basically trying to eliminate all or part of a racial or ethnic group on the second are war crimes, which are crimes that are committed as part of a large-scale large-scale military operation and it with a planet Policy and finally on crimes against humanity which are of the scale of crimes in the the serious nature crimes that can be committed even in peacetime situations. I think this everybody feels real optimistic that all of the issues of definition and procedure will be met. The real remaining arm wrestling is on the area of what what should be the source of the cases and again the United States and and with it Russia, France and China the UK's pet is kind of waffling on this as v v permanent member of the security Council would like the security Council to be the sole source of the cases most other countries here in attendance apparently about 75% or more want their the prosecutor to be able to initiate cases on his or her own based on information that that person would receive. Various sources or that state member states to the statute would be able to bring would be able to refer cases to the prosecutor and it's basically on that is true that everything else hinges. So there's a whole lot of kind of a jurisdictional language that people are fighting about but what it really gets down to is how much Independence will this court have aside from the security Council that are being considered. Is there a aggression is that correct trade? And at this point aggression is out of the statute and you know, I think that the majority of states are very comfortable with it being out of the statutes and aggression seems that you know tends to be an issue that's dealt with in the security Council anyway, so I think the real concern certainly among Human Rights group. And human rights Advocates here are situations of internal armed conflict. Which tend to be the main sources of these atrocities are the main places these atrocities take place over instant. There are no International conflicts right now. All of the wars going on in the world are civil wars, or is it civil conflicts in which the fighting cancer be really dramatic and and gruesome and women and children and other civilians are often the the subject of the violations and that tends to be the main concern of the of the people here in terms of defining crimes. She is a delegate to the conference of discussing the international criminal court for the Minnesota advocates for human rights. If you'd like to join the discussion to 276 thousand is the number of the Twin Cities to 276 thousand. We do have a toll free number. Well one 800-242-2828. Let's take our first call a Terry and Cambridge. Go ahead the United Nations security Council tends to ignore issues. As far as women's rights are concerned i e the atrocities in Bosnia. And right now with the Taliban a totally taking women's rights away wondering if your Nash International court with an address these issues much more readily and not just agree F2 local attitudes about women and say a sub enter enter Civil War stuff. Absolutely and there has been a large caucus of of people here who are concerned primarily with women's issues and In the description of both war crimes and crimes against humanity. There are specific specific concerns regarding violence against women. Now. I must tell you that the gender issue has been one of the the contentious issues at the conference in is not yet resolved what I mean by the gender issue is that there are a number of concerns around around gender that were defined and in the Beijing conference on women in 1995 and women's Advocates would like the the language to be preserved here, especially in regard to things like rape and forced pregnancy. The fourth pregnancy issue has been real hot potato because the Arab states and the Holy See have been lobbying to change the language on it because they're concerned that too. Waffles pregnancy might give the woman some sort of a right to have an abortion. And even though the women's groups have reiterated there since that abortion plays no part in that issue that there has been still no agreement on the exact language of that concept of of basically enslaving a woman and raping her until she is pregnant with the child of a different ethnic group, which was it is a practice that has taken place in in both Yugoslavia Rwanda and in other internal conflicts as you suggest Have you been the critical of the USS position during these negotiations? Can you tell us why that is? Sure. It's very difficult to watch the US delegation here, which I believe is answering to a very small minority and very vocal minority of of American citizens who are just supposed to the concept of participating in in this International statutes or and and will only do so if we can be in control of of the issue at all times, it seems especially ironic since we of course old billion dollars to the United Nations that we should be the party that is causing stalemate at this conference. And I think that the role of us has has been met with resentment by many countries including a lot of its usual allies. I'm there's been a pattern of isolationism by the US you'll remember the recent landmines treaty. We were the only holdout on that and the states just went ahead and and put To vote without the you ask in Kyoto the conference on the environment and in Japan again, we were the ones they are trying to keep trying to keep the threshold of high for environmental matters in there been other conferences that have been less visible in the past number of years were the US has continued to be isolationist. And you know, I think for me as an American lawyer, it's it feels particularly Troublesome since I think there's a great amount of pride about the US's role in Nuremberg in establishing a rule of law instead of following a Churchill's request to go in and kill all the Nazi leaders that we actually set up courts, even though they were Victors courts and we put people to a trial and I think that that was a very proud chapter 4 American lawyers, and and I think there's a lot of us should feel quite betrayed hear that somehow the Narrow political interests of the United States are leading us to to try and throw up barriers that will not only protect American citizens. So I don't even think that's a question here, but they're going to deny a lot of victims access to this new instrument of justice and of the issue course is sovereignty in a lot of people believe in that in that us officials and soldiers. I mean isn't that illegitimate concern address to the various things you threw up there one is that yet? The Pentagon has been very involved. Not only before this conference at which day they spent much of our tax money. I might add flying in the military leaders of other countries to to to alert them to what they perceived as the danger of their soldiers getting prosecuted. Are the statute so they were lobbying other countries militaries. Second thing is that a large part of the US delegation here is made up of Pentagon Advocates and Pentagon lawyers. And so they're sitting right in these meetings, which are determining for instance what how you can exclude evidence or how how the prosecutor can can determine whether information is National Security interest in there for what would prosecutor has access to or not. And I guess, you know to use sovereignty as an excuse. Sorry, she is well protected in this in the statute the whole one of the very first statements in the Preamble says that the court is built on the notion of complementarity, which means that National countries like the US that have adequate National court systems. Don't let those cases won't be trying. International criminal court. This is only four countries that refused or are unable to prosecute war criminals in within the boundaries of their own States fry. She is with the Minnesota advocates for human rights. She is in Rome for a conference of an international criminal court. If you'd like to join the conversation. Feel free to give us a call to 276 thousand in the Twin Cities. The toll free number is one 800-242-2828 Kathleen St. Paul your next go ahead. I'm concerned about the fact that Actually I said I support the international criminal court in my I feel that that the United States should not have any kind of veto power and that the National Security Council shouldn't be there. I'm taking being responsible for deciding what cases are going to be settled but I'm just wondering if this wouldn't help to push the shedding of the school of the Americas because the United States has has caused undue harm in Central and South America because of the training of these people especially around the cases of Jennifer her Perry's husband and The fact that the state department was also covering up the abuse is of higher-ups in the El Salvador door and army over the case of the Forest Lane Church women marry no-nonsense one label a woman that were raped and killed in El Salvador in 1980, and I'd like to try to address whether this might push the closing of the school of the Americas. Thank you what this statue. Does it certainly defines honored. Undeniable basis, what are the content of various of these serious crimes like war crimes and crimes against humanity and I think I'm certain that one of the reasons that the u.s. Is so concerned about this is because of the Unseen hand that we've had in a lot of internal conflicts throughout the world over the past several decades including some of the ones that your caller mentioned and I think that I'm not sure that it would be very easy to prosecute of the US for for instance for having a school of the Americas but it's certainly something that would provide more political support in the u.s. For stopping actions that that encourage war crimes are encouraged crimes against humanity. So I don't know that there's any basis for a case about the school of the Americas but it certainly helps politically to show that the rest of the world. Ready to Two Step Up 2 to the standards case study or something of how this would go before the court in and you know, if this idea how in general it would work sure example might be what's going on at in the Republic of the Congo right now, which is the former country Zaire where there has been reportedly a massacre of several thousand hutus by the news that you're in a government run by Lauren could be kabila has refused on many levels to let investigators come in and and and and document the atrocities he's got rid of evidence. He has refused certainly to prosecute. The the killers at a national level. In fact this case I think indicates what are some of the risks of just allowing the security Council to have the end saying this because apparently there was discussion in the security Council the past couple days on the situation of Congo where a proposed resolution was that the the security Council basically condemned the violence and encourage the government to try these cases International courts, and then I'm ultimately if they wouldn't try these cases International courts to refer them to either an ad hoc tribunal or if the international criminal court is prepared to take cases to an international criminal court. And if the security Council word to refer that kind of case to end up the prosecutor of the international criminal court that the kind of case you would identify the end of Jules responsible for the massacre and if you could get custody of them, then you would carry out trials against them. Now in this case is to security console refuse to recommend or has so far refused to recommend International trials against against the perpetrators of this violence instead. They just said suggested National courts. Try try the cases. If if you had that kind of situation that and you had some other access to the prosecutor. So for instance, if another member state of un would recommend that the prosecutor investigate or the prosecutor on his or her own initiative found that there was adequate evidence upon which to indict someone of war crimes in that situation, then they could proceed against individuals from the Congo. We also want to pass along some weather information. We do have some severe weather in the Northwestern Minnesota along with North Central Minnesota at this hour and the National Weather Service in Grand Forks has issued a severe thunderstorm warning for Northern Clearwater County and Eastern Polk County a bolt and Northwestern Minnesota until 11:55 this morning a Doppler radar indicating a severe thunderstorm 2 miles Southeast of Oakley or 30 miles Southeast of Beaver Falls the storm moving Northeast at 40 miles per hour get a national weather service advisory a severe thunderstorm warning for Northern Clearwater and Eastern Polk County's both of Northwestern Minnesota until 11:55. We should mention that there is a chance for the TV chance for some scattered thunderstorms in the north for most of this morning and then this afternoon otherwise just plain old probably mostly sunny hot and humid across the region today high temperature is from the middle 80s in the far North Middle 90. In the South are continuing chance for thunderstorms tonight, otherwise clearance guys, especially in Northwestern parts of the State lost Knight Middle 50s near Thief River Falls right around 70 in Rochester for the Twin Cities today. Sunny hot and humid high in the lower 90s South to Southwest winds 10 to 20 partly cloudy tonight a 30% chance of thunderstorms. Mainly after midnight a low around 70 tomorrow high in the mid-to-upper 80s under partly cloudy skies and a 20% chance for some thunderstorms last report in the Twin Cities. The temperature was eighty-three and the skies are mostly sunny. I'm more to Benson on the next All Things Considered Irish kids spending the summer in Minnesota talk about the latest troubles back home where violence is a part of everyday life and children aren't excluded the Children's Program of Northern Ireland. And the rest of the day's news on the next All Things Considered weekdays at 3 on Minnesota Public Radio k n o w FM 91.1 in the Twin Cities. And stay with us here at midday coming up at noon will be going offline for the national Press Club in Washington DC for an address from Philippe de Montebello Philippe de Montebello. I should say he is the director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art and he is expected discuss plundered art, especially plundered art from the Holocaust that's coming up at noon live from the national Press Club right here on Mid Dave programming a Minnesota Public Radio is supported by Ecolab A supplier of cleaning and sanitizing products and services. It is now 28 minutes before 12 noon. You're listening to midday eye Minnesota Public Radio. We are talking today about an international criminal court. Now, there was a conference going on in Rome and has been going on for the past month or so is winding up this week of our fry represents. The Minnesota advocates for human rights has been in the last 10 days or so, and she is joining us today to give us some insight in the discussion surrounding whether or not the other in an international criminal court should be cray. You're not too far again. Thanks for joining us through there. And with the heat comes a chance for thunderstorms in some parts of the area today the courthouse basically how would it be financed? And that hasn't been resolved. There are of course several suggestions for planting one is that the the states that ratified the treaty that become a party to this international criminal court statutes should fund it on but that would leave, you know, the great burden on those who who become the first parties to the tree. So on my understanding is that the latest compromise position is that there be General United Nations funding from from the general funds of the organizations that help him at least in the initial. Of the court before a little strapped for cash in the course of the problem with the u.s. Paying dues. That's who that may be Troublesome issues of this court is that is very expensive. My understanding is that the the international criminal court in Yugoslavia has cost about 68 million dollar. A year and you know, it's try its indicted about 50 people and it's on on trial about number five. So this is not a cheap process as anyone who's involved in Justice in the United States knows I'm yet and yet the sensors that if ultimately these kind of Trials can help to deter violence that it that it will help to save cost in the most expensive areas of the United Nations, which are the the peacekeeping areas is 2 to 76,000 in the Twin Cities are the toll free number is one 800-242-2828 Dorothy from White Bear. Your next month is addressing some of the basics of power and Corruption, you know, whether practiced by commercial imperialism or religious or social or political. It seems to me we're in a very strange time of being in danger of repeating histories errors. And I doubt very much that Americans would have voted to be characterized as a superpower or probably any other populous in history Roman Greek what-have-you who were subjected to the Ambitions of a few people. I start like a war on the human race. Some of these things just seemed kind of anti-American and anti-human and out of our hands but being discussed. I used to work for the UN and have the greatest respect for it was good. In fact, I've been saying I think Rome is a great place to hold this conference because it it And you that that history is long and the most powerful can fall in there for when we design institutions like this one needs to take the long-term View and not worry about short-term political concerns quite so much. I don't I haven't seen any reference to corruption in the Statue put there. In fact has been not quite a bit of discussion about including other crimes like like drug trafficking and terrorism friend stents in the statute and the concern is that the that I think it's difficult to Define these crimes that most of it at least at this stage of of that area of crime needs to be handled by National Police in a Cooperative way with each other. But at this point I think the to make the court successful it's perceived that we need to stick to to whatever. One would agree are the most serious crimes in all things like murder and enslavement and torture in a massive systematic way that these aren't even isolated instances. I'm talking about. These are people who you know are the authors of huge number of crimes. So at this point. It's hard enough to get everybody to agree for the court jurisdiction on those crimes much less things that are more nebulous. Well in there is no International police force, as you know, there hasn't yet been determined where the cord would be situated on. My understanding is the only state that has the Netherlands which is the Hague is the seat of the international criminal court on Yugoslavia. So he has some experience and as well as the seat of the international court of justice which handles their National Commercial disputes and does provide. I mean there is a small set of security guard but in terms of who would arrest the person who would transfer the person who would ultimately jail the person that much relies on the cooperation of the of the states to the street. This is why this is such a long-term process is because one needs to have enough States involved and in agreement that they will be willing to not only two Provide evidence, but to sometimes provide the police work responsible for for getting a person into custody Justice and obviously that sounds great. But it seems like that would be so hard to Define in the world that you know polls so many different views. Yeah, I don't know where you found that but that you won't find that language. I don't think of the statute the sent here is that I'm in the concept of something being Universal is it is not a big one in the international law except for the crime of genocide which everyone agrees there is universal jurisdiction to because there's an existing tree that's been around for fifty years. But but so at this point there are very few crimes that people agree are Universal because what that means is that you would be able to prosecute people in a state that hasn't even accepted that crime. So there's a whole number of of crimes here that were discussing that once a state ratifies the statute it will be held accountable for but until it ratifies the statute one. I'd be held accountable for for those crimes to the conference for an international criminal court. She represents the Minnesota advocates for human rights have a question or comment for bar. Give us a call. 227-6002 to 76002 toll free number one 800-242-2828 we have about 10-15 minutes left in this hour and I quickly want to mention again that there we have some severe weather in the area including a severe thunderstorm warning for Northern Clearwater and Eastern Polk County's and Northwestern Minnesota until 11:55 this morning the other 50 minutes or so. Alyssa go back to the phone and bring in Michael from Saint Paul High the idea sounds very compelling. But I do have a question about the procedure and how it work. If you use Congo as an example, I've got another one. Two months ago the United Nations Commission on human rights issue a report critical of the British government in the orchestrating of the assassination of human rights attorney Patrick to do Kim and the British government kind of poo poo the reporting it despite the urgings to reinvestigate it with this with this family has Patrick Luken be able to take the British government to this court or with their security Council veto prevent that from happening. Well, those are the very issues that hang in the balance right now on the family would not be a party to go to any case before the court but If there were an independent prosecutor who received adequate evidence that a crime against humanity had taken place, they might be able to investigate. However, I must say that a one-time incident as atrocious as it may be I'm does not rise to the level of either a war crime or a crime against humanity. It's very clear in the language of this statute that you there has to be a pattern and policy of these kind of violations. It has to be a large number of commission of crimes that can't just be one isolated case even one bombing of like the Oklahoma bombing or something that kills a lot of people but only one time is not enough. So in a in a case of one individual they would still have to use the existing mechanisms in in the other bodies of the United Nations. The bar anytime there's talk of creating any International Group. I spoiled it somewhat controversial. I wonder if you think this international criminal court has been so much more controversial than then talk about other International groups. I don't think it has been a lot of public awareness or interest in this and that that has allowed us small sector of the of the political Spectrum namely the the military and Senator Helms and and his colleagues and including our own centigrams. I might add to completely try to Shield the United States and and make it look I think pretty bad compared to the rest of our allies. So I I don't sense that. It's controversial. I I sent There's a vacuum that the more isolationist forces in the United States are very eager to film. Bobby what guarantees do you think there are the international Court would be any more effective at dispensing Justice than you know courts in individual countries. Well. That's why the the statutes in the first place recommends that National courts are absolutely the courts of First Resort. That is everybody's preferred is starting place. And and and that's why there's so many safeguards set up so that you know French and let me digress for a moment and suggest that for those people who are concerned that US citizens are going to be Tried by this tribunal. First of all, we have to ratify the treaty second of all, we think will permanent members of the security Council we we we would never refer the security Council would never refer a case to the prosecutor and even if the prosecutor determined on his or her own medication be brought against a US citizen that the nation has the right to to bring a case first, so if we were notified that you know, and and you have to understand the threshold that were talking about it as I said, this is not an isolated incident. Pattern and practice where large-scale Commission of crimes takes place so it could be a war situation but it's in those situations of Security Council has an interest in it in the case. And so, you know, there would be no prosecution so that you know, there are so so little a chance that a US citizen would be tried there plenty of chances that people with grudges would want to bring cases against the US citizen but you're going to have a prosecutor and a set of safeguards around that prosecutor that prevent politically-motivated trials. So, you know, you've finally getting to your point. Why is this would this be more successful? Well, it wouldn't actually be more successful than National courts, but in cases like Cambodia with Pol Pot or Guatemala with its internal conflict or Algeria Afghanistan Liberia, you know, it's so sad that you can just you know, listen like this. It's the gov Prince themselves that are committing large-scale atrocities against their own citizens or in places where there are internal conflicts where there are no Guerrilla groups that are fighting against the government forces there. The government is incapable of having these trials. And so I think we must use every effort every vehicle we can to try and intervene in these situations of of terrible violations against against civilians, especially and to prevent the rise of of of criminal I guess today is Barfly of the Minnesota advocates for human rights. If you like to give us a call and weigh in on the international criminal court good idea bad idea. I'll give us a call 227-6020 cities or one 800-242-2828 invention that the Senate has two would have to ratify this so that seems unlikely and there seems to be opposition from other major countries, you know, do you see this going anywhere? Oh and we are one of the criticisms of the US of course is that it's so unlikely that will ratify at least for 20 30 years that's been our record in the past on the human rights treaties. So it's ironic that we would have so much Cloud over what the content of the tree is since we probably won't ratified for many years in terms of other support. I think that despite the fact that there are countries that want to restrict the power of the prosecutor and you know, maybe restrict the reach of the court of it. I don't sense that. There's a lot of a lot of countries that are against the idea. I think there may be an idea that isn't as ripe as it should be but one hopes that we don't have to live through another genocide in order for people to finally get the political resolved understand that this that this could be a useful tool so Vacations while there is a push to have a low number of ratifications bring the document into Force. I'm so 20 or 30 instead of 60 or 70 countries. I sense that there are plenty of countries that are our will be willing to step in and ratified pretty quickly. They're committed to their Latin America Africa or things like that. And how is that going to Really have V and 1/2 quarts is the real problem. And I are you saying that most of the violence that takes place is funded by Northern countries with the United States France and I can lift a lot of a lot of situations that it's letters. I think that those are perceptions that people have it somehow that you'll certainly their western guns involved in these conflicts and there have been you know, the CIA and there been other US military interest that have gotten involved in internal conflicts around the world. I don't think that this court is intended to solve that. I think this court is in 10 To deal with people who are motivated by ethnic racial or whatever kinds of nationalist hatreds perpetrate mass of atrocities upon civilians. Now if the us or some other country is accused of having hand in that. I think those are the kind of issues that get debated at the level of the security Council. I don't think those are necessarily going to be considered appropriate for this court. But you know in my own optimistic point of view if if countries realized that this court exists and that there's an option that they may be investigated if they're considered to be individuals who have some responsibility even in other countries, then maybe we'll rethink policies that might entangle Us in situations that that could get ugly. Get us a couple of minutes left. So let's go back to the phone. Tom and Saint Paul go ahead bigger named criminals with his new statute milosovici. Someone like that. That seems to just stay in power. Yeah, and I think that that's the intention, you know, the names that float around is examples. They said they don't float in a lot of it just made because he's currently in power but now the examples are pull pot or Saddam Hussein, you know people who use their their political clout to commit atrocities. And yes, I do think that that's the purpose of this is if people again who commits them as part of a plan and a policy not just isolated instances. So milosovici is an interesting case. I my dad because he could be convicted. He sees me he could be indicted under the current war crimes tribunal on former Yugoslavia. But because he is the subject of negotiations regarding Kosovo. The prosecutors are are prudent enough not to bring a charge against him until it's Percy. Is that politically it's the appropriate thing to do so clearly these political bodies within you and you two work together to use whatever tools they can sit to stop these kind of horrible actions Stephen Northfield. Very quick question or comment US military might not like awkward example. We didn't find the landmine Ban Treaty because we use fastcam temporary Minefield. It seems to me under under this even though if we aren't a signatory to the treaty commander who orders one of these is Mine Fields as he's trained to do could be prosecuted by this court and I'll take my answer off the air. Thank you. Will only if that is is part of the definition of the crime in the statute and landmines and nuclear weapons are not a part of the statute. There's been a strong Lobby to put them into the statute but it has failed and I think it's because of that very reason the only weapons that are prohibited in the statute are things that are already prohibited in international legal Treatise. If you could likely scenarios to come out of the conference optimistic point of view at this point, is that the as a cam like-minded States pay the majority of states will come up with some ability. However difficult to allow the prosecutor to bring cases on his or her own so that the security Council doesn't control the process entirely if the screen Johnson Controls it entirely we won't have moved the ball very far forward. A very good will bar with your appreciate your taking time out of your busy schedule to conference to join us today. Thank you. Thanks again. Good. Thanks for joining us from Rome Italy fry as a delegate to the conference for Minnesota advocates for human rights. She is an international human rights law consultant and University of Minnesota professor. She has been a role in for a conference charged with coming up with rules governing and international criminal court. Thanks again to Barb and thanks to all the folks who have called in today with their questions and comments. I'm Ray Suarez Jeff Hitchcock of the center for the study of white American culture explains why it's important to discuss the issue of whiteness in order to work in a week for the meaning for fashion on race relations. You need to be aware of what it does mean to be white. We'll talk about the controversial field of whiteness studies and how it's affecting the dialogue on Race on the next Talk of the Nation from NPR news. And you can hear Talk of the Nation right after midday. If one right here on Minnesota Public Radio hits now 5 minutes before 12 noon. Let's hear from Garrison Keillor and The Writer's Almanac.