Laurent Fabius and Justice, by Thierry Meyssan

Laurent Fabius and Justice, by Thierry Meyssan

Laurent Fabius and Justice

by
Thierry Meyssan

Laurent
Fabius’ proposal to the International Criminal Court for crimes
committed in Syria was rejected by the UN. Indeed, hidden behind the
appearance of justice, the ICC is a tool of Western imperialism. Its
procedure is grotesque, it does not hesitate to invent imaginary crimes
to convict defendants and it participates in NATO propaganda operations.
Yes, we want justice, and it must begin by judging Mr Fabius for his
crimes in Syria.

Thursday evening at the Security Council, at the
initiative of the French Foreign Minister, Laurent Fabius, France filed a
draft resolution referring Syria to the International Criminal Court (
ICC) for crimes committed in Syria. Fabius explained his move,
supported by 64 allied countries, in an open article published in Le Monde. [1]
He stresses that his proposed resolution is not aimed at the
government, but "covers all crimes committed in Syria, whoever the
authors."

We should all support him then. Yet Russia and China are strongly
opposed, even to the point of using their veto for the fourth time on
this issue. Is that because these two states, which are not members of
the ICC, know that Laurent Fabius’ guarantees are pure propaganda? ICC
produces victors’ justice which serves the interests of imperialism.

One-way Justice

Since its inception in 2002, the Court - whose competence is
universal - has opened twenty cases, but has passed sentences only
against nationals of eight African countries (Uganda, Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Central African Republic, Sudan, the Republic of
Kenya, Libya, Côte d’ Ivoire). And in these eight cases, the Court has
condemned only the opponents of Western powers. Therefore, it is clear
that this body does not do justice, but uses it as a tool.


That is why in October 2013, the Summit of the African Union decided
not to honor its commitments vis-à- vis the ICC when it prosecutes the
Heads of State in office.

The Libyan Experience

For my part, my experience of the Court is limited to the case of
Libya. At the request of the Security Council, the Prosecutor decided to
prosecute Muammar al-Gaddafi, his son Saif al-Islam and his brother
Abdullah Senussi, accusing them of having massacred tens of thousands of
opponents in Benghazi and elsewhere. With considerable means, the
prosecutor declared he had evidence. In reality, he based his
accusations on Western press reviews. However, anyone in good faith
present in Libya could see that the alleged crimes had never existed.
So, I searched a long time in the Tripoli neighborhood for the ruins
allegedly caused by bombing by "the regime’s aviation" without finding
any trace of destruction; imaginary bombings which had been strongly
condemned by the Council of Human Rights of the UN and had justified the
mandate given by the Security Council to NATO.


Then, the prosecutor launched the accusation that Muammar el-Qaddafi
had distributed viagra pills to his soldiers so they could rape the
women of his opponents. The prosecutor gave figures on the volume of
these tablets without heeding the fact that these exceeded the global
production of viagra. Thereafter, in the absence of identified victims,
the charge of mass rape was simply dropped. [2]




The most ridiculous part came when NATO took Tripoli. The prosecutor
confirmed to the international press, on August 21, that Saif al-Islam
Gaddafi had been arrested and that his transfer to The Hague was being
organised. But as I listened to his statement on television, Saif
al-Islam was at the Rixos hotel in a room adjoining mine. The prosecutor
had invented this story in order to demoralize the Libyan people and
help NATO conquer the country. Ultimately, Saif al-Islam was arrested
three months later, on November 19.




How can we take this court seriously when its prosecutor decides on
the sole basis of a review of the Western press, does not hesitate to
invent charges to influence public opinion, or to lie to influence the
outcome of an invasion?

The Genesis of the ICC

The International Criminal Court finds its genesis in Article 227 of
the Treaty of Versailles (1919), which intended to create an
international tribunal to try the defeated German Emperor Wilhelm II,
and the London Agreement (1945 ), which instituted the Nuremberg
Tribunal to try Nazi leaders.
At the time, German Chancellor Ludwig Erhard was one of the few
politicians to criticize the Nuremberg tribunal. He argued that a
judgment rendered by the victors against the defendants, all Germans,
had no credibility. He advocated that the Nazis be tried by judges of
neutral countries (Switzerland and Sweden), which would certainly have
profoundly changed the verdict, and by some German judges.


Casamayor, the French jurist, denounced what he saw as a justice of
the victors : Nazi crimes could be punished, but not those of the
Allies. "As from now, there are two types of international law, one for
the Germans, the other for the rest of the world," he wrote. "If the
indiscriminate bombing of London and the use of weapons of retaliation,
such as V1 and V2 rockets, were not to be included among the
accusations, it is doubtlessly to avoid including the indiscriminate
bombing of civilians by the RAF, of which the phosphorus bombing of
Dresden was the paroxism.




In the case of crimes committed in the Great Lakes region, there
certainly were some by African leaders, but most of these crimes were
sponsored by major Western powers : the United Kingdom, Israel, the
United States or France.




In the case of Libya, Muammar Gaddafi had certainly used political
assassination during his 42 years in power, including that of Imam
Moussa Sadr, but he never committed the crimes for which the Court
wanted to judge him. These were pure inventions of Western propaganda to
justify the conquest of Libya. Everyone can also see that, two years
after his lynching by Western agents, nobody mentions these imaginary
crimes.

 

The Laurent Fabius Case

In 1999, Laurent Fabius was tried by the Court of Justice of the
French Republic for manslaughter. He was accused, when he was Prime
Minister, of having favored the industrial interests of a pharmaceutical
company by delaying the removal from market of blood contaminated with
HIV. The Court procedure, having been imagined for his case, doubts
persist regarding the aquittal which he won. [3]
Fabius admitted being responsible for a political mistake, but not
guilty of the criminal offense. That is to say, he admitted to not doing
his job as Prime Minister and allowing his advisers to make bad
decisions. In the past, this confession would have marked his definitive
retirement from political life, but it was to be otherwise. Considering
he was not guilty, but irresponsible, he was elected President of the
National Assembly and remained so during and after his trial ( 1988-1992
), although the judges are parliamentarians. [4]
He served again in this capacity. under Jacques Chirac (1997-2000),
then Minister of Economics (2000-2002) and Foreign Affairs Minister
(since 2012).


In his capacity as Foreign Minister, Laurent Fabius revived the war
in Syria on behalf of Israel and a U.S. group including Hillary Clinton
(Secretary of State), general David Petraeus (CIA) and Patrick O
O’Reilly (missile shield), and Admiral James Stavridis (NATO). He
organized the Paris Conference of Friends of Syria and placed the war
criminal Abu Saleh on the podium alongside President François Hollande
during his speech. Then Mr. Fabius approved the organization of the
attack on July 18, 2012 that decapitated the Syrian National Security
Council; an attack that killed General Daoud Rajha (Minister of Defence,
Orthodox Christian), Assef Shawkat (Deputy Minister, Alawi) and Hassan
Turkmani (National Security Adviser, Sunni ). On August 17, 2012, in
Turkey, he said: "I am aware of the force of what I am saying : Bashar
al-Assad does not deserve to be on Earth," openly encouraging his
assassination. All these facts and many others are theoretically subject
to the ICC, which would surely condemn him if it were just.


The War in Syria Caused at Least 160,000 Deaths.

We Want Justice !

Yes, we must try perpetrators of crimes in Syria, but this cannot be
accomplished ​​by a court in the service of those who attack the country
and torment its people. War financiers must be judged as a priority,
and they are to be found in Washington, London and Paris, Ankara, Doha
and Riyadh. Some of them are even bankrolling the ICC.