On Thursday September 7th, Miriam Clements submitted Donald Trump and Nikki Haley
to the World's Highest Court for the second time, arguing the International Criminal Court's
power and responsibility to hold these individuals Criminally Liable for their
Threat of Genocide Against the North Korean population
READ THE INTRODUCTORY LEGAL ARGUMENT TO THE COURT
for publicly inciting military action that will bring about the physical destruction
of the North Korean population, by promoting false narratives to rally war,
for the profit of their defense companies, which is illegal under international law
The path to peace is not through war.
An introduction to my second submission to the International Criminal Court against Trump in the US and Haley at the UN, where I interpret existing international law governed by the world's highest court to compel the I.C.C.'s power to prevent the North Korean War from initiating beyond the current 'war of words', toward billions in US defense company profits.
This follows my submissions since the court accepted my legal argument for review in August 2016 against the Syrian War.
Basis of Information submitted to the International Criminal Court by Agency SQP,
against US Nationals Donald Trump and Nikki Haley
on the matter of conflict with North Korea
[ www.sustainablequalitypurpose.com ] Author: Miriam Clements
For the attention of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court,
The threat of war against North Korea, by the President of the United States, Donald Trump, and the US Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley; is violating the Rome Statute by ‘publicly inciting’ taxpayers support for the US military to engage in yet another illegal war of aggression against another nation state. This is evidenced to be motivated by arms trade profits and the US imperialist expansion of global territorial control; while fostering further loss of peace and security for all other populations across the world.
Trump’s threats are ‘inducing’ preparation toward military aggression that will inflict conditions of life upon the North Korean people, that will bring about their physical destruction, as defined by the Crime of Genocide, Article 6.(c) and Crimes Against Humanity, Article 7.1.(b). If their ‘attempted commision of this crime’ renders the Crime of Aggression in the form of physical conflict, then this will inevitably result in another genocidal devastation of an innocent population; thus establishing a manifest pattern for their modus operandi of illegal US military action.
Therefore, please find this Basis of Information request for the court to act in their power and responsibility to prevent this inevitable mass murder of civilians; that has otherwise been so clearly demonstrated by other wars in which the US has illegal attacked legitimate nation states, such as in Syria and Iraq.
The ‘Early Warning Signals’ [Kofi Annan’s United Nations 5 Point Plan to Prevent Genocide] for this increasingly likely ‘Genocidal Crime against Humanity’ are clear.
Both Trump and Haley have “directly and publicly incited others to commit “the conditions of life upon North Korea that will bring about their physical destruction” as is the definition of both Crimes Against Humanity and The Crime of Genocide” [ Article 25.3.(e) ]; where in accordance with The Rome Statute [ Article 25.3.(e) ] in respect of the crime of Genocide, [ Article 25.1 ], “where the Court shall have jurisdiction over natural persons [2.] who shall be individually responsible and liable for punishment.
These two individuals are also alleged criminally liable, where they [ Article 3.(b) ] induce the commission of such a crime which in fact occurs or is attempted; in that they succeed in [ persuading, convincing, prompting, inspiring, instigating, influencing, pressing, urging, inciting, encouraging, motivating ] or leading the population into a state of willingness to have their taxes spent and military might inflicted against the people of North Korea, by way of unlawful aggression.
Perhaps on its own, the crime of terrifying the North Korean people with the implied threat of nuclear war or armed conflict “unlike any nation has ever seen before”, with the intent to profit, can be interpreted as Article 25.3.(d), where the individual contributes to the commission or attempted commission of such a crime by a group of persons acting with a common purpose, “in any way”. Such contribution shall be intentional and shall either: (ii) Be made in the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit the crime. The “group” benefit extends through the military, political, industrial and financial complex, with evidence of the defense companies generating billions in value and profit, based on the threat of progressing this war, thus confirming their motivation to incite it against international law.
Media also benefit as they demonstrates the driving force of profitability that may be motivating this threat of war and Genocide against the population of North Korea:
The International law of hostes humani generis must be interpreted to recognise these individuals are the worst 'enemies of the human race'. With respect to erga omnes, where justice is owed to the entire world community, and jus cogens – where certain international legal obligations are binding on all states when crimes are so grievous that they are universally condemned; the International Criminal Courts should be compelled to prevent this crime.
When reporters have asked Donald Trump “will you attack North Korea”, he has responded “we will see”; earlier confirming “We are sending an armada, very powerful” with a fleet of warships on its way to North Korea to foreseeably inflict his further threat of “fire and fury like the world has never seen”, thus disclosing his intent to “deliberately inflict conditions of life upon the population of North Korea, that will bring about their physical destruction in whole or in part, of one or more persons. [Article 6.c, Article 7.1.b, Elements of the Crime]; with awareness of the consequences that will occur against civilians within the ordinary course of events [ Article 30 ].
Today, September 7th, President Trump has announced “I am allowing Japan and South Korea to buy a substantially increased amount of highly sophisticated military equipment from the United States”. In addition to the media articles provided which demonstrate already skyrocketing market value and sales generated for US defense companies, due to this expressed intent to attack North Korea with “fire and fury”. The court may also consider that such deals are worth billions to companies like Raytheon, of which Donald Trump has declared he is a shareholder. Thus, unless threatening war is an extremely aggressive, superficial arms sales technique, which if involving sales to Raytheon, will personally profit Trump, as it did when he dropped 59 Tomahawk missiles on the Syrian airbase; then this is the beginning of a new international genocide which must be prevented.
This war will clearly generate GDP and enormous profitability for an industry crucial to his country's economy. These recent US arms deals to South Korea and Japan demonstrate that ‘intent’ is evolving to the ‘attempted’ commision of the crime that will inflict devastating conditions of life upon the people of North Korea, which will evolve when these arms sold to Japan and South Korea are used against them.
Similarly, as she did against Syria, Nikki Haley is using the United Nations Security Council platform to publicly incite war against North Korea. [ As detailed in multiple SQP submissions to the ICC, for case reference #: 226/16 against the illegal coalition forces perpetrating the Syrian war ] Most recently, Haley has promoted the false narrative of Kim Jong Un 'begging for war' [http://cnn.it/2gxRs1w], when the Korean Leader is only promoting his capability to ‘potentially’ defend North Korea from the escalating narrative for war, which threatens his population with an inevitable genocide if the International Criminal Court does not act to prevent it.
In contrast, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has consistently asked for peace, alongside his freedom to have nuclear weapons. He has acted upon this intent, by sending a directive to diplomats to "negotiate a peace treaty with the U.S” and repeatedly stating that he does not want a war, but must prepare for one under the threat of U.S. aggression. “The Kim government is seen as wanting the weapon for its own security against South Korea and the United States, and the North has said as much” [http://cnn.it/2gxRs1w http://bit.ly/2w9T9s2 ]
Ironically, as of 2017, the U.S. has an inventory of 6,800 nuclear warheads; of these, 4,018 are part of the ‘ready for war’ U.S. stockpile. In comparison, North Korea has only 10 Nuclear Weapons. We should also give weight to the fact the United States are the only nation in the history of the world to have brazen used Nuclear Warfare against civilian populations, causing mass genocide without accountability. The two bombs that the US dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima during World War II without justice for the people who were slaughtered and maimed for generations to come; also taught this nation that they may be arrogant enough to commit such a crime, without expectation of any ramifications. The International Criminal Court have the power to change this and thus protect millions of people from impending death or displacement.
Also presenting a stark contrast between the aggressor and the aggressed; of the 2,000 nuclear test explosions since the United State’s first bomb in 1945, the US have officially conducted around 1,054 nuclear tests disclosed until 1992, including 216 atmospheric, underwater, and space tests. Any nuclear tests performed by the US since, are not publicly disclosed. In contrast, since 2006, North Korea have only conducted 6 underground Nuclear tests, only 4 of which were at the behest of Kim Jong Un; which are reasonably conducted with intent to be prepared for publicly incited US aggression.
Other than the limited Nuclear tests, the Human Rights narrative to incite this war is not justification. While neither dictatorships nor the alleged national violations of human rights are acceptable; there are international legal remedies and diplomatic solutions to address these grievances. The implications of aggression by an international superpower, only serves to escalate the chance of such violations, as a natural response to the pressure and stress imposed by the threat of war, upon the nation and its leader. The path to peace, is not through war and thus, the US is both irresponsibly and illegally attempting the commission of the gravest possible human rights abuse by inflicting war upon the population, in response to allegations of lesser human rights abuse.
The US waived their right to Immunity from the charge of Genocide without consent, under their agreement to the The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1674, adopted by the UNSC on 28 April 2006. This agreement asserted that their impunity would end, with respect to the Crimes of Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. This nullified their previous proviso of ‘immunity from prosecution for genocide without state consent’ as they required when originally signing The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1948.; that later formed the basis of Article 6 for the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Under Article 21 of the Rome Statute, the court can invoke its right to apply the international law of Universal Jurisdiction, against US nation-state individuals, who have not ratified the statute. While not expressly written in the statute, Article 21.b allows the court to apply and enforce law of its choice, “where appropriate, applicable treaties and the principles and rules of international law, including the established principles of the international law of armed conflict” are relevant.
In the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, the US also agreed to the world’s responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity to prevent civilian populations from suffering gross human rights violations. Yet Haley and Trump’s threats against North Korea reflect their threats against Syria, which create a media narrative that is fast establishing itself as the manifest pattern of statements [Article 6. Element 4] to establish a false, populist legitimacy for illegal political and military follow-through, with total disregard for the international law that should otherwise protect populations from mass murder at the hands of psychopaths.
A legal precedent must be established to ensure that individuals who influence the world from the credibility of the United Nations Security Council platform, will be held individually criminally accountable for publicly inciting the world’s most serious crimes. Only this will ensure that those at the highest level of world governance are forced to speak truthfully and act responsibly, given they influence the fate of world peace; whereby they inflict words powerful enough to kill and escalate world wars between superpowers; that in this case will inflict displacement, devastation and death, amounting to a Genocide of North Koreans.
If they are successful in ‘publicly inciting and inducing others to commit’ [ Article 25.3.(e) ] ‘wanton and unlawful willful killing and extensive property damage’ [Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 8.1(iv) ] by brazenly declaring their nation's intent to illegally take unilateral military action - that is foreseeably ‘calculated’ [Article 6(c), Element 4] to kill, cause serious bodily and mental harm; and transact the Crime of Aggression; then Haley will have violated Article 6 (a), (b) and (c) by preemptively promoting what can be calculated to result in extensive civilian death. Article 25.3.(e)
In accordance with this Statute, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if that person: In respect of the crime of genocide, directly and publicly incites others to commit genocide, in accordance with Article 6, where “For the purpose of this Statute, ‘genocide’ means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; and finally Article 6.(c) “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, ... in part” which by its very nature implies two distinct time-frames, where one triggers the other. The first is where the action to ‘inflict conditions’ applies, as occurs when they publicly incite the conflict’ or inflict a range of conditions upon the people; and thus subsequently the second time-period of that definition occurs whereby the consequential “physical destruction” is brought about as a result of their contribution to the crime.
Prosecutor v Akayesu defined ‘National Group’ as members share a ‘legal bond, based on common citizenship coupled with reciprocity of rights and duties’. (Case No ICTR-96-4T).
In accordance with Article 30, ‘Where these acts are committed, the intent to destroy is broadly defined as 1. a person has intent where: (a) In relation to conduct, that person means to engage in the conduct; (b) In relation to a consequence, that person means to cause that consequence OR is ‘aware’ that it will occur in the ordinary course of events; where in this case, 3. ‘knowledge’ means awareness that a circumstance exists or a consequence will occur in the ordinary course of events. Thus malicious intent, hatred or rage is not required, yet arms trade profitability and territorial control is well evidenced.
In order to protect global populations from the potential of a global conflict that will further develop this illegal model of war, the court has the duty under Article 92, to ‘In “urgent cases”, order the provisional arrest of the person sought immediately; in order to prevent any further bloodshed or provocation. Alternatively in accordance with Article 68, the court my request “The immediate summons to the court of those alleged criminally liable” for questions, where this is necessary “to protect the safety, physical and psychological well-being and dignity of the victims, soon to be devastated in North Korea; in hope to deter this war from eventuating. This submission, requests the court consider summoning Donald Trump and Nikki Haley to the I.C.C. for questioning or perhaps issuing a warrant of arrest for them, based on the alleged charges as outlined above.
The I.C.C. has the power to enforce penalties of up to 30 years to life imprisonment, in addition to fines or forfeiture of personal wealth and assets of those accused or profits derived from the crime.
[Article 77.1] Applicable penalties.
The Court may impose one of the following penalties on a person convicted
1.(a) Imprisonment for a specified number of years, which may not exceed a maximum of 30 years;
1.(b) A term of life imprisonment when justified by the extreme gravity of the crime.
[Article 92] The court can order the provisional arrest or a summons to court of those alleged criminally liable.
[Article 68] The Court shall take appropriate measures to protect the safety, physical and psychological well-being, dignity and privacy of victims and witnesses.
[Article 58] Issuance of a warrant of arrest or summons to appear immediately upon transition to investigation
1. At any time after the initiation of an investigation, the Pre-Trial Chamber can issue a warrant of arrest of a person if, it is satisfied that:
(a) There are reasonable grounds to believe that the person has committed a crime and
(b) The arrest of the person appears necessary:
(i) To ensure the person's appearance at trial;
(ii) To ensure that the person does not obstruct or endanger the investigation or the court proceedings;
or (iii) to prevent the person from continuing with the commission of that crime or a related crime.
* This provides the court with the power to issue an interlocutory order to prevent the continuation of the narratives and military preparation, which threaten the population.
Furthermore, the court holds the power to render the arms trade and defense companies effectively not for profit, if any of these weapons are used in illegal warfare; or if the court deems that the threat of their use, which led to their sales and increased company values, constitute indirect value generated by or related to the crime; and thus the court has the power to seize all directly and indirectly related funds to this conflict; as per the following articles:
[Article 77.2] The Court may impose
(a) A fine, against those found criminally liable,
or 2.(b) A forfeiture of proceeds, property and assets derived directly or indirectly from that crime.
[Article 75] Reparations to victims.
The Court may determine the scope and extent of any damage, loss and injury to, or in respect of, victims and may order directly against a convicted person specifying appropriate reparations to, or in respect of, victims as restitution, compensation and rehabilitation.
[Article 79] The Court may order reparations through money and other property collected through fines or forfeiture to be transferred to a Trust Fund.
[Article 109] State parties shall effect fines or forfeitures ordered by recovering proceeds, property or assets.
It is conceivable that unless the International Criminal Court act in their responsibility to protect the population of North Korea and prevent this Crime of Aggression from advancing; then the Crime of Genocide and Crime Against Humanity will further destabilize the peace and security of the entire world; affecting all who live now and in the future.
Please act in your power to protect the population of North Korea and the world.
Director of Environmental, Human Rights, Sustainable Transition and Events Agency: www.sustainablequalitypurpose.com
Standing for Member of Parliament, New Zealand. www.logic.org.nz