Global Policy Forum

By David Hencke and Rob Evans

The government has been accused of undermining the international criminal court in the Hague by bowing to American pressure for a new extradition treaty. The British decision has caused dismay among rights groups. It means anyone extradited from the US to Britain will not be handed over to the international criminal court. The UK recognises the court, but the US has refused to accept it and has put pressure on many countries to prevent anyone in the US being sent for trial there. The court tries those accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The Americans object to any of their armed forces serving throughout the world being hauled before the court. They have seized on a need to renegotiate the US/UK treaty to push their agenda of not recognising the court. Britain would be, critics claim, in breach of its agreement with the rest of the European Union if it followed the US line - but extradition law is a grey area. The decision will not affect many people, but they will be facing serious charges: from insider trading to drug and people smuggling, murder, rape and violent crime. In 1998 the UK wanted to extradite 10 people from the US, while the US was seeking to extradite 55. The agreement applies to Americans and other nationalities in the US and all its overseas territories, including Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Midway Islands - many of them places where the US has bases. It would also protect US military personnel and holidaymakers in Britain, provided they had already returned home. Richard Dicker, counsel to Human Rights Watch, the respected New York-based international group, said: "Britain played a leading role in setting up the court and it was in the Labour manifesto. "The international criminal court is not another state, and the perverse result of this could mean that a person extradited from the US for one offence could use Britain as a safe haven if they are being sought for horrific crimes against human rights." Lord Goodhart, the Liberal Democrat spokesman in the Lords, said : "Whether this provision is legal or not, it is still clear quite clear that the home secretary [David Blunkett] has gone against the spirit of the law governing the new court."

The demand over the court was made by the Americans during secret negotiations for a new US-UK extradition treaty. The treaty, slipped through parliament before Christmas, comes into effect once it has been scrutinised by the US Senate, expected to be later this year. Agreement appears to have been helped by the strong friendship between David Blunkett and John Ashcroft, the US attorney general, in the aftermath of September 11, as shown in documents released to the Guardian under the US freedom of information act. In one letter Mr Ashcroft told Mr Blunkett: "It is my prayer that God will continue to bless you and your service to United Kingdom." And in a hand-written note he praised Mr Blunkett for his "warm friendship, kind hospitality and wonderful lunch" when they discussed the "war on terrorism". In letters, released by the Home Office, Mr Blunkett confirms to Mr Ashcroft that "the UK would contest any request from the international criminal court for [the] surrender" of anyone extradited from the US. His decision has been strongly defended by Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, in a letter to Sir Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman. Mr Straw says he informed all European Union countries and they raised no objection: "The provisions of the extradition treaty are entirely compatible with the UK's obligations under the Rome statute [which set up the International Criminal Court] and in no way contravene the EU common position." The new treaty has also been criticised for being one-sided. Britons facing extradition to the US for crimes with jail sentences of a year or more will lose their right to argue in a British court that there must be prima facie evidence to link them to the offence. US citizens, protected by a written constitution, will still have that right. One document shows that American officials were irritated by the British courts' attitude to handing over criminal suspects: "The UK is one of our busiest extradition partners" and "also one of the most difficult countries from which to obtain extradition", because "hearsay evidence is not accepted".