This ought to be interesting to see as it germinates and flowers to full bloom ... if the US does not get what the administration wants, the world is toast, and if yes, the world is buttered toast
news.attbusiness.net
U.S. Demands Immunity for Americans From War Crimes Prosecution
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The United States made clear Wednesday it will not participate in U.N. peacekeeping operations unless the U.N. Security Council grants Americans immunity from prosecution by the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal.
With the International Criminal Court starting business on July 1, the United States moved on two fronts to get blanket protection for Americans taking part in U.N. peackeeping missions and those serving in the NATO-led force in Bosnia.
"We think that can and should be possible," said U.S. deputy ambassador Richard S. Williamson. "We will not put American men or women under the reach of the International Criminal Court while serving in a United Nations peacekeeping operation."
But the U.S. initiative faces an uphill struggle because the new court has very wide support in the 15-member Security Council - including from Britain and France, which both have veto power. They are among six council nations that have ratified the treaty establishing the court. Six others have signed the treaty, negotiated in Rome in 1998, and support its principles.
Former President Bill Clinton signed the treaty but it was never ratified by the Senate. In early May, the Bush administration announced it wants nothing to do with the treaty creating the court or the tribunal itself.
The campaign to create a permanent international criminal tribunal began after the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials for World War II's German and Japanese war criminals. In April, the Rome treaty received the ratifications necessary to become a reality on July 1.
The milestone was hailed by human rights advocates and many nations, but staunchly opposed by the United States, which fears American citizens would be subject to frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions. It remains the court's only vocal opponent.
The United States tried unsuccessfully to get an exemption for Americans in the Rome statute and follow-up negotiations on court procedures.
With the court's start-up imminent, Williamson introduced a Security Council resolution on Wednesday to provide immunity from arrest and prosecution for all people taking part in U.N. peacekeeping operations - not just Americans.
He also introduced an amendment to a resolution which would extend the U.N. police training mission in Bosnia and the authorization for the NATO-led international peacekeeping force there. The amendment would bar any current or former personnel from the Bosnian mission or force from being surrendered to an international tribunal.
Williamson said the United States made clear to other council members that it needed to have the court issue resolved before it could support the Bosnian resolution, expected to be put to a vote on Friday.
"This amounts to the U.S. trying to obtain through the back door what it was unable to obtain at the Rome conference itself - an iron-clad exemption for U.S. nationals," said Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch. "That kind of immunity runs counter to the most basic principle of law, its equal application to all."
Diplomats said none of the dozen countries that spoke during Wednesday's closed Security Council meeting supported the U.S. draft resolution or amendment, though all were willing to try to resolve the U.S. problems.
Colombia's U.N. ambassador, Alfonso Valdivieso, said his country, which is moving to ratify the court treaty, couldn't accept the U.S. proposals because they undermined the spirit and the letter of the court.
"But we know that the United States also has difficulties and we are ready to cooperate with them in order to study alternatives," he said.
Norway's ambassador, Ole Peter Kolby, whose country has ratified the treaty, said "the tribunal has widespread support" and he didn't know "if there is a way" to address U.S. concerns.
Diplomats said that during extensive consultations in recent weeks, the United States has stressed that without a blanket exemption, U.S. personnel will not take part in U.N. peacekeeping missions.
"Obviously, the whole spectrum of United Nations peacekeeping operations will have to be reviewed if we are unsuccessful at getting the protections we demand," Williamson said. "The bottom line (is) that the United States will not endanger U.S. citizens" to prosecution by the court.
Currently, over 700 Americans are participating in operations mandated by the Security Council - from Western Sahara and the Iraq-Kuwait and Ethiopia-Eritrea borders to Bosnia, Kosovo, Georgia, East Timor and the Sinai, a U.S. official said.
U.S. opponents of the court argue that other countries could use it to try American soldiers for war crimes, in effect threatening U.S. sovereignty. But supporters contend there are numerous safeguards in the treaty against this, including a provision that would give the court jurisdiction over a national of any country only if that country refused to investigate an allegation.
The United States has bilateral agreements with nations who host U.S. forces and civilian personnel, but Williamson said "we believe more protection is needed" - and that it must come from the Security Council. |
