On Marli Street, crime, and the ICC

Our intention when we held a press briefing on Wednesday July 9 was to throw some light on the Marli Street and ICC issues because of the amount of misinformation in the media and misunderstanding by citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. Of course, the steady diet of misinformation is the cause of much of the misunderstanding.

On Thursday, July 10, was pleased with the accuracy, clarity and moderation of the Guardian’s and Newsday’s stories about the press briefing. I cannot similarly characterise the Express’ headlines that “Barriers will stay at Marli Street, says Austin,” and “US HITS TT on crime” (my emphasis). I knew immediately that these inaccurate headlines would reflect negatively on me and other Americans, especially given the emotionalism already pervading these issues. Regarding Marli Street, I direct readers to a quotation in the Express article taken from my statements: “We did not block the street. We attend to the barriers and perhaps I’ll leave it there.” This quote makes it perfectly clear what our role is with respect to the barriers. To say that I shall “leave” the barriers there is not to say that the barrier “will stay.”

Furthermore, the Express article mentions that I quoted from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations “in another attempt to explain the presence of the police barriers.” What I quoted was Article 22.2 of this Convention: “The receiving State is under special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.” That is, the local authorities bear the responsibility for the security of the Embassy. Local authorities were responsible for the placement of the barrier, and local authorities can remove the barrier at their discretion. I did NOT say that the barrier will stay because I do not have the authority to make that decision. Nor did I say, as stated in a question to Prime Minister Manning “that the barriers will not be removed” (Newsday, July 11, 2003, p 5).

On the matter of crime, the Express article quotes me as responding with the following statement to a question about “whether the US Government was dissatisfied with the efforts at containing crime.” “Are we dissatisfied? We think that more could be done but we are not out there fighting crime.” The Express also reports that I refused to provide any more information because I feared giving “valuable hints, particularly to those involved in the drug trade.” Newsday (Friday July 11, 2003) reports that National Security Minister Howard Chin Lee revealed two days earlier that the TT government plans to upgrade the country’s existing coastal radar network. The article also reported that “the American Government will be purchasing two vessels for the Coast Guard to use in maritime, anti-narcotic operations. Readers should now understand my statement that “more can be done” to fight crime.There should be no need for me to so soon remind readers about our position on the ICC because Thursday’s Guardian (p 3) and Newsday (p 5) provide laudable accounts of my comments at our press briefing on Wednesday. However, a statement in one of Friday newspapers leads me to repeat that we are not telling TT or any other country not to support the ICC.

The Article 98 Agreement we have been trying to sign with TT and other countries is based on Article 98.2 in the Rome Treaty that created the ICC. The United States did not ratify the Treaty because our efforts to have important flaws removed failed. Statements about President Clinton signing the Treaty are misleading when they omit his recommendation against ratification while the flaws remained. Additionally, contrary to statements about our desire to have our war criminals escape prosecution, our Army prosecuted at least 23 cases from the Vietnam war. Moreover, during President Theodore Roosevelt’s time, a GENERAL was prosecuted for war crimes committed in the Philippines. As for other crimes, we often punish the guilty more severely than local jurisdictions seem likely to do. The media have an important role in any nation, to provide reliable information. Columnists and reporters alike must remember that misinformation, disinformation, and sensationalism destroy their credibility. Columnists are expected to opine, but it is dishonest to marshal evidence selectively like an attorney in an advocacy procedure. Too many members of the media in this country and elsewhere do a great disservice to readers by engaging in these discreditable practices while trying to give a different impression.