U.S. Drops Plan to Exempt G.I.'s From U.N. Court

UNITED NATIONS, June 23 — The United States bowed Wednesday to broad opposition on the Security Council and announced it was dropping its effort to gain immunity for its troops from prosecution by the International Criminal Court.

"The United States has decided not to proceed further with consideration and action on the draft at this time in order to avoid a prolonged and divisive debate," James B. Cunningham, the deputy American ambassador, said on emerging from the Council chamber.

The envoys from the 15-member Council had spent the morning in closed session, discussing a rewritten version of the American resolution that circulated on Tuesday night to try to meet the objections.

Resolutions granting a year's exemption had passed the Council in each of the past two years, but this year the renewal ran into difficulties because of the prison scandal in Iraq and strong opposition from Secretary General Kofi Annan.

The outcome, while a political defeat for Washington, will have no effect on the vulnerability to prosecution of American soldiers in Iraq. Neither the United States nor Iraq is a member of the tribunal, and its jurisdiction is limited to countries that do not themselves prosecute crimes by their military.

The setback for American diplomacy at the United Nations came just two weeks after the Bush administration was praised there for demonstrating flexibility and a willingness to compromise in securing a unanimous vote on a resolution affirming the arrangements for the transfer of power in Iraq.

This time American diplomats, who had been confident of obtaining a routine "technical rollover" of the measure, appeared to have miscalculated the impact of the publicity given the American mistreatment of Iraqi detainees.

They were also caught off guard by the intervention of Mr. Annan, who told the ambassadors on Friday that a vote in favor of the United States would undermine the new solidarity of the Council.

Shortly after Mr. Cunningham's announcement, Mr. Annan issued a statement saying "the decision by the United States not to pursue a resolution on this matter will help maintain the unity of the Security Council at a time when it faces difficult challenges."

Ambassador Wang Guangya of China, which had supported the measure the past two years, said, "Clearly from the very beginning, this year China has been under pressure because of the scandals and the news coverage of the prisoner abuse, and it made it very difficult for my government to support it."

Spain's ambassador, Juan Antonio Yáñez-Bernuevo, explained his country's opposition, saying, "For us the essential thing is to remain faithful to the International Criminal Court, which we strongly support, and also to the United Nations charter, and to respect the statement made by the secretary general last week, which had a powerful effect."

In calling for the Council to turn back the American request, Mr. Annan said it was "of dubious judicial value," and especially objectionable in the aftermath of the prisoner abuse. Passing the measure, he said, would discredit the Council, the United Nations and the "primacy of the rule of law," and he appealed to the members to maintain the common purpose they had shown on June 8 in their unanimous vote on Iraq.

Mr. Yáñez-Bernuevo said he regretted that the Americans did not mount the same kind of diplomatic effort that secured that unanimous vote. "We would have liked to see a process as we saw in the Iraq resolution, a more collective effort," he said. Instead, he said, "according to what we heard from the U.S., that was the last word, they could not go any further, there was no point in pursuing the matter."

Ambassador Heraldo Muñoz of Chile said Mr. Annan's statement had had "a very important impact on many delegations."

The Bush administration has said it needs the troop-protection measure to prevent people from using the court to bring politically motivated war-crime prosecutions against Americans abroad.

Elaborating on that today, Ambassador Cunningham noted that the United States was the "largest contributor to global security."

"When the United States voluntarily commits its armed forces to participate in peacekeeping missions around the world, we believe it is wholly inappropriate to subject them to a tribunal which cannot provide adequate guarantees of due process," he said.

Asked if the United States would limit its peacekeeping actitivies in the future — a threat it has made in past years — Mr. Cunningham said, "I'm not going to comment on that."

An accompanying statement said that in the absence of a resolution, the United States would "take into account the risk of International Criminal Court review when determining contributions to U.N. authorized or established operations."

Addressing concerns about American military conduct abroad, Mr. Cunningham said, "The United States has a well-functioning system of military justice that will assure accountablity."

Since the international court was established, the Bush administration has made bilateral agreements with 90 countries barring any prosecution of American officials by the court.

The current exemption expires on June 30, the day Iraq regains its sovereignty and American troops become part of the kind of United Nations-approved force that the renewal was meant to cover.

But the court has no jurisdiction in Iraq, which is not a signatory to the 1998 treaty establishing it, or in the United States, which is also not a signer. In addition, backers of the court argue that since it only accepts cases when a nation is unwilling to prosecute, there is little liklihood it would ever be called upon to deal with the United States, which has a functioning military justice system.

The court, formed in July 2002, is to hear cases of war crimes, genocide and systematic human rights abuses. Coincidentally on Wednesday, it announced that its first case would be an investigation of mass killings in Congo.

The resolution that was withdrawn on Wednesday included a revision intended to meet a major objection: language in the original proposal that expressed the intention to renew the one-year exemption each July 1 "for as long as may be necessary."

Mr. Annan protested that this clause served to perpetuate United Nations approval of what had been considered a temporary departure.

That paragraph was eliminated and new language inserted that pledged that this request for a one-year exemption would be the final one. But the attempt to bridge the differences did not work, and Ambassador Muñoz, of Chile, said that while he thought the United States' decision had been "too rushed," it was probably the best one under the circumstances.

"Better not to be divided after the consensus and the unity that we showed on Iraq," he said.

Bush has been showing his true colors the last few months.He is a globalist and will betray our troops and countryman for a bunch of bastards on some stinking "world" court.He is no conservative. I'm starting to doubt his loyalty to the American people.It just gets worse and worse.

Bush has not betrayed anyone regarding this issue!Sheesh! -- Read the article, or if that is too much trouble for you, read the excerpt (that another poster already posted): The outcome, while a political defeat for Washington, will have no effect on the vulnerability to prosecution of American soldiers in Iraq. Neither the United States nor Iraq is a member of the tribunal, and its jurisdiction is limited to countries that do not themselves prosecute crimes by their military

There was no point in pushing this to a vote when Bush knew we didn't have the votes necessary to win.

Quess we don't agree on what a leaders other roll is.To be an inspiration. It's still a betrayal.

I don't understand what you expected Bush to do in this situation. We had mud on our faces after the prison debacle and the court of public opinion around the world has condemned us, in spite of the fact that no one was physically harmed, and our military courts are pursuing it.

Unless we take over the Al Jezeera network, the BBC, and all alphabet soup networks in our own country, we will not be able to sway that opinion. Should we care what they think? No, not when it comes to protecting our sovereignty, but we need to pick our battles well. This one was lost before we fought it, so we decided to save face by not pressing it. And yet we lost nothing substantial, because our troops are already immune from this kangaroo court.

I mean politically he had no choice. After those rogue soldiers perpetrated the prison abuse, the US needed to do something to change the world perception. Continuing the fight was not it.

I think it will eventually come back to haunt though, and whoever is President at the time is going to have to deal with it. If there is any hint that US soldiers are being railroaded by an international tribunal, you can expect a major backlash in the US against international agencies.

I think that part of the article is misleading. My understanding is that it was that particular part that was the focus of the US efforts to get the document changed. The US did not like the language on that point, and proposed alternative language that the article suggests actually got into the draft. The other negotiating parties rejected it, however. I am not sure exactly what the difference is between what the US wanted and what was actually adopted, but my understanding is that it is different.

Oh, go stuff a sock in it. We're fighting for our lives in this election, and you guys are carping so much it looks like you're trying to lose the war and the country to boot.

Either you speak a different language thn I do, or you responded to the wrong post, because I fail to see how you got from my post to yours. Unless, that is, you think that Bush is somehow saving the country by letting himself be put on the defensive.

I'm probably being naive here, but lets hope the "I aint voting for Bush because he did something I'm against" crowd are only venting. They know the alternative is worse. I wish I could remember the commentator who said this and articulate it like he did, but the jist was, no president will EVER satisfy every issue of it's own party, and that the only person who would, would be themself [as president]. I know I butchered that but hopefully I got "jist" across.

The way I look at it: because of Bush, the pro-life agenda has made much progress; the security of our country has improved significantly, countries that might have messed with us before the Iraq war are having second thoughts; hubby and I have received some significant tax relief; and this great president has made me proud to be an American again. So, if people are going to desert their party like they did for G.H.Bush, then they deserve what they get, another Clinton.

Flame away!

Despite this, the Court of Rome treaty that set up the ICC specifically states that it is the supreme court of planet earth, with authority to try any person on the planet, regardless of whether that person is a citizen of a country that ratified. The ICC claims to "outrank" all national courts. Every article I read on the ICC-and I made a point of reading every one posted to FR(posted a few myself) reiterated that point : That the global kangaroo court claims superiority over ALL national laws, of both ratifying and nonratifying countries.

So has the ICC quietly dropped that claim, which incidentally goes against the UN's own bylaws on national sovereignty (ie, it is an offense against national sovereignty to claim a country is bound by a treaty it did not ratify).

Or is that proviso still in effect, and all this "we have bilateral treaties with 90 countries" just a song-and-dance routine by globalists in the GWB administration, to keep the "uneducated redneck trailertrash" (ie, people who still think national sovereignty is important) pacified till a later administration can openly support the ICC?

I wish the ambassador to the UN had reiterated that the US's supreme law is the Constitution, that we are not bound by the ICC, and we are willing to respond to attacks on our sovereignty with all means at our disposal including economic and military reprisals.

Politics is like making sausages. You wouldn't go for either if you could see the process by which they are made.

The up side of the coin about all the news now available is that one can get alternative news to the liberal propaganda blitz. The down side is that you see the nitty-gritty of how things are done in the real world, and it can be upsetting to people who do not make sausages or understand and accept the realities of the world.

It is the liberal Democrats' (left wing fascists) great hope that all the little stories they play up about the process of governance will turn off the base of principled conservative voters. They want you all to stay home so they can take over again.

I share a fundamental disagreement with some posters about criticizing the President. It isn't because I don't have my concerns, too. But we are in two wars right now, one with jihadist Muslims who want to kill us and destroy our way of life, and one with socialist liberal fascists in this country and in Europe who are allied to destroy America as we know it and love it. These are both fights to the death.

In a fight to the death, you don't give the enemy aid and comfort by showing dissention in the ranks. I'm an old-fashioned American in this respect. My family fought in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WWII. My genes tell me it is totally stupid to show any weakness to the enemy, that one presents a solid flank around the CIC, whether he be George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, or George W. Bush.

To do less puts our troops on the line at greater risk and jeopardizes our cause. It literally means real lives of people out there that I treasure, soldiers and leaders alike, when the level of ire here is raised, because it encourages terrorists and assassins, not just independent voters.

For these reasons, in war, I can't abide nitpickers.

FWIW Department : The garbage of the world, particularly European garbage, is spinning this as the US dropping its refusal to allow the ICC to try its citizens-that the US has agreed that the ICC has authority over the Constitution and our courts. That's because their media is using weasel words to give that impression , rather than that the US is simply going to rely on the 90 bilateral treaties. As one might expect, the BBC and the Guardian have been especially egregious in their coverage.

Prediction : The EU, and perhaps even China (also a non ICC member)will now quietly go about offering trade concessions, bribes, God knows what else, to at least some of those 90 countries, in exchange for rescinding those treaties. We will counteroffer,of course....But if they're successful, they will have found a way to nullify or at least cripple our military strength. We need those treaties so we can station troops overseas-what happens to our overseas bases if these countries will not promise to not turn our troops over to a court of which we are not a member? I know some say we should become Fortress America, and bring all the troops home anyway.

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.