US Yanks 3 Out of East Timor in Anti-Court Fight

By Irwin Arieff
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Washington said on Monday it was pulling all three U.S. soldiers out of a U.N. force in East Timor to back up its hard-line threat to kill off U.N. missions one by one until its concerns about a new global war crimes court were met.

"It has started in East Timor. We are pulling out our three peacekeepers there," a U.S. official told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

But U.S. officials had no quick answer when asked what it would do about another 75 Americans in East Timor who were helping train the new Asian nation's nascent police force.

The other 14 members of the 15-nation U.N. Security Council and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan insist that the treaty creating the court provides adequate protection for U.S. and other peacekeepers.

The U.S. move came a day after Washington used its veto power in the council to kill off the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Bosnia, only to relent within hours and agree to keep the mission alive until Wednesday midnight (0400 GMT on Thursday).

The high-stakes game of brinkmanship between Washington and the rest of the council has been driven by U.S. antipathy for the new International Criminal Court, which came into force on Monday.

The court was created to pursue heinous wrongdoing such as gross human rights abuses, genocide and war crimes. As of late Monday, 76 countries had ratified the 1998 treaty creating the court, agreeing to open their territory to its jurisdiction. The latest were Australia and Honduras, on Monday.

But the United States, while it has rejected the treaty, says it still fears politically motivated or frivolous prosecution of its peacekeepers and other officials who might find themselves in a country that has ratified it.

Washington has asked the council to pass a resolution granting U.S. peacekeepers blanket immunity from the court.

Failing that, it has threatened to veto the renewal of U.N. peacekeeping missions, as they come up throughout the year, unless each one provides for U.S. immunity.

The council has been divided 14-1 on the issue since Washington first brought it up in May when the East Timor mission came up for renewal. The council refused at that time to go along with a U.S. request for immunity.

The resolution to renew the Bosnia mission was the next to come up, and U.S. officials said Sunday's rare veto was intended to impress on its fellow council members the gravity with which Washington viewed the matter.

"The United States vetoed the Bosnia peacekeeping extension, not from lack of commitment to Bosnia or to peacekeeping, but because the council has continued to fail to address the unacceptable risks that are posed for U.S. peacekeepers by the International Criminal Court," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said in Washington.

"The United States does not recognize the jurisdiction of this court. We are determined that our citizens not be exposed to legal jeopardy before the International Criminal Court as a result of participating in peacekeeping. A solution has to be found," Boucher told reporters.

But the 14 other members of the Security Council said no resolution of the standoff was yet in sight.

"The idea that with a U.S. veto, we're all going to turn around on this is a serious miscalculation," said one council diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Several envoys raised the question of how Washington would respond when the council considers renewing the U.N. mission in southern Lebanon, which polices the volatile border between Israel and Lebanon.

Shutting down that mission would have serious implications for close U.S. ally Israel, they warned.

The envoys also wondered why the United States pulled three soldiers out of East Timor but left thousands of other U.S. troops in place around the world if Washington was truly convinced that they were vulnerable to prosecution.

"It has started in East Timor."

This is a great line. I get chills reading it. This is a conservative's wet dream, a US administration sticking it to the UN and EU!

I will forgive the President all his previous transgressions if he just doesn't compromise on this one.

It's time to jettison the U.N.

Send them packing to France, the frogs deserve them.

The U.S. should get out of the U.N., stop funding it, and bring our troops home from these wasteful, disasterous, "peacekeeping" missions.

We need our troops here to protect our borders and in the field to crush the terrorists.

To hell with the Klintoon global meals on wheels program.

**Several envoys raised the question of how Washington would respond when the council considers renewing the U.N. mission in southern Lebanon, which polices the volatile border between Israel and Lebanon. **

Israel may be better off without it. The U.N. has a record in Lebanon of protecting terrorists from the IDF.

Really, Reuters seems to have gone to bed with The Guardian. The USA is not determined to "kill off UN missions", which Reuters suggests. Rather, actions that are to be taken are consistent with American law and in no way contravene international law. The fact that we have so angered some European one-worlders means we must be doing the right thing.

I'm thrilled that Bush is standing up to the world in the terrible world criminal court business. Besides, Bush said during his campaign he was against putting U.S. troops in all of these peacekeeping missions. It's a win-win for Americans. I wrote to VP Cheney yesterday telling them bravo and to stay strong. Letters to the President or VP showing support can't hurt.

I wrote to VP Cheney yesterday telling them bravo and to stay strong. Letters to the President or VP showing support can't hurt.

That's a good idea.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.