Browse by Region
Peter Gabriel and Gillian Caldwell (WITNESS) discuss ICC on Charlie Rose Show
01 Feb 2005
Co-founder of WITNESS (www.witness.org) and musician Peter Gabriel
and WITNESS Executive Director Gillian Caldwell appeared on the
Charlie Rose Show on PBS on Monday, 30 January 2006. During the
interview, Mr. Gabriel mentioned the importance of supporting the
International Criminal Court and noted that he thought it to
probably be "the most important thing in my lifetime." When Mr. Rose
asked about US opposition to the Court, Ms. Caldwell provided
clarification on the Court's mandate and jurisdiction.
Please find below the relevant excerpt from the transcript of this
discussion. More information about this segment, including how to
order tapes and transcripts, is available at
http://www.charlierose.com. In addition, the film is available on
Google Video for a $0.99 fee at http://video.google.com/videoplay?
Sally Eberhardt and Esti Tambay
"[...] PETER GABRIEL: And let us empower the International Criminal
Court. Because I think probably the most important thing in my
lifetime, anyways, is the creation of this International Criminal
CHARLIE ROSE: The United States doesn`t support it.
PETER GABRIEL: The United States doesn`t support it, and it is
absolutely shameful. You know, if the United States that represented
a dream of freedom an justice for so many people can`t get behind
this, you know, what is it -- what is it there for?
CHARLIE ROSE: Well, they are worried that Americans will be hauled
away to some kind of.
PETER GABRIEL: Of course there is fear.
CHARLIE ROSE: (INAUDIBLE) and that didn`t deserve to be there.
PETER GABRIEL: But surely if you stand up, if you are willing to
stand up for anything, you should be willing to stand up and be
counted for your principles.
GILLIAN CALDWELL: And the ICC would only adjudicate in an instance
where a country was unwilling or unable to prosecute the relevant
crimes now. We may face that situation in the context of the United
States, who don`t think they have moved as proactively as they might
have in the context of Abu Ghraib and a variety of incidents that we
have all -- that have come to light. But the bottom line is that,
you know, it should be in the very few instances in which the ICC
actually has to intervene. Grave abuses of humanity, like what we
are seeing in Uganda and the Congo today.
CHARLIE ROSE: How do you make distinctions between people who may be
abusing an Abu Ghraib situation, and someone who sends a -- someone
who recruits and sends a suicide bomber into combat as violators of
GILLIAN CALDWELL: Yeah, well, I think the biggest difference in the
human rights context, is that human rights is all about holding
governments accountable for violations of human rights. And what you
are talking about in the context of an individual suicide bomber is
individual action, which in fact isn`t covered by human rights
treaties and principles.
Same thing when you look at, for example, multinational investment
and involvement in the conflict diamond issue, for example. I mean,
the businesses, as it stands right now, aren`t held accountable
under a human rights regime. So, in fact, the administration of
justice looks at it very differently, the human rights context, and
then you have the national legislation which would be pertinent to a
CHARLIE ROSE: Thank you. Thank you, Peter. Thank you, Gillian. Thank
you, Van. Pleasure to have you here.
VAN JONES: Thank you very much. [...]"