Posted on 06/30/2002 5:45:24 PM PDT by Pokey78
America's role as the world's policeman was thrown into doubt last night as it threatened to withdraw support for peacekeeping operations in protest at today's birth of the International Criminal Court.
The Bush administration was poised to use its United Nations veto to pull the plug on missions in the Balkans.
It has set its face against the court because it fears that it could subject US and possibly British troops to politically inspired prosecutions.
President Bush wants American troops on peacekeeping operations to be be immune from prosecution.
The British Government believes that its troops will not be at risk because of the principle in the court's constitution that a case must be declared inadmissible if a nation state is "genuinely" investigating or prosecuting it.
This has brought Tory accusations of complacency.
Whatever America does, the court comes into existence in The Hague, although it will be a year before it starts investigating cases.
There was intense diplomatic activity at UN headquarters in New York as the 15 members of the Security Council met in full session to try to prevent a crisis that could lead to America withdrawing its troops from peacekeeping operations around the world.
Late last night senior UN sources said it appeared inevitable that Washington would veto new mandates for the Nato-led stabilisation force (Sfor) in the Balkans and a UN mission to train police in Bosnia.
It was likely, however, that John Negroponte, the American ambassador to the UN, would agree to a 48-hour delay before the vetoes came into effect so that further discussions over American objections to the scope of the court could take place.
Seventy-four countries, including all EU members, have ratified the Rome statute of 1998 that established the court. America, with China, Russia and Israel, has refused to do so, but its citizens will be subject to the court's jurisdiction if they commit war crimes in the territory of a state that has signed the treaty.
European diplomats have said that the row, which has pitted President Bush against Tony Blair, who strongly supports the court, is evidence of the president's unilateralism and deep distrust of international organisations.
"It is hard to see what the US is trying to do," a European diplomat said at the Security Council.
She said that at first Britain and other countries had shared US concerns. But they were now satisfied that national courts would be used to try most offences and that the International Criminal Court would be highly unlikely to consider accusations against peacekeeping troops.
The diplomat added: "The Americans have already got 99.8 per cent of what they want on this and they are ready to bring down all UN peacekeeping operations to get an extra 0.1 per cent.
"It is moot whether the Security Council would override the ICC, so even if we do what the Americans say, they are not going to get 100 per cent certainty."
Although Sfor does not need a fresh UN mandate to continue, Germany, Finland and the Irish Republic cannot commit their troops without such authorisation.
Failure to reach agreement on the court would almost certainly lead to America withdrawing its 3,300 troops from Sfor and call into question involvement in other peacekeeping operations. America could also withdraw its 27 per cent share of funding for UN peacekeeping.
Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, said recently that America should be exempt from its provisions to avoid "political harassment that can take place unfairly, particularly when you are fighting the global war on terror and the terrorist training books are encouraging people to make those kinds of charges and allegations".
The more conservative elements in Washington see the dispute as a "win-win situation": either the court will be damaged or there will be an end to involvement in costly peacekeeping operations that are highly unpopular in America.
Britain and other European countries have argued that the court would be rendered impotent if countries were allowed to pick and choose whether their citizens were covered by it.
The European diplomat said:"Rogue states and dodgy dictators of the world would be applauding if we agreed that countries somehow not party to the court would be completely out of reach."
In a letter to The Telegraph today, Bernard Jenkin, the shadow defence secretary, writes: "The United States is worried, just as we should be, that the propaganda operations of terrorist organisations will be constantly campaigning to get American and British soldiers in the dock for simply carrying out their duties."
Unless one of these countries decides to take Belgium off the map.
I think I know why this guy is a diplomat and not a mathematician . . .
Milosevic is a murderer; he never tried to hide it.
Because in the real world, the USA ain't the same as Serbia.
In general, I like the idea of an international court to try war criminals that would otherwise go scot free. The problem is how to achieve that without undue risk that miscarriages of justice will ensue.
June 30, 2002 06:36 AM ET
By Paul Gallagher
THE HAGUE (Reuters) - The world's first permanent war crimes court starts work on Monday but faces opposition from Russia, China and the United States, which wants immunity for its overseas peacekeeping troops and other U.S. officials.
The Dutch-based International Criminal Court (ICC) will have authority over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as of July 1, 2002. Human rights groups have hailed the court's creation as the biggest milestone for international justice since top Nazis were tried by an international military tribunal in Nuremberg after World War Two.
But the United States wants to keep its peacekeepers out of reach of the ICC and has threatened to stop the U.N. mission in Bosnia if it did not get its way.
The 15-nation U.N. Security Council faces a midnight Sunday (0400 GMT on Monday) deadline to renew the Bosnia mission, set up in 1995 to train a multi-ethnic police force after Bosnia's three-year war that gave rise to the term "ethnic cleansing."
Washington has threatened to veto the resolution unless its peacekeepers and U.S. officials are provided with immunity from the ICC.
Critics say Washington is trying to cripple the tribunal before it starts, saying its campaign is against the court itself, which has been ratified by 69 countries.
The United States says the court would infringe on national sovereignty and could lead to politically motivated prosecutions of its officials or soldiers working outside U.S. borders.
COURT STARTS WORK
The row will not remove the symbolism of Monday's opening.
"I am delighted to see the progress that is being made to carry out the principles we articulated in Nuremberg so long ago," Benjamin Ferencz, a Nuremberg prosecutor, said on a visit to The Hague.
Anyone -- from a head of state to an
ordinary citizen
-- will be liable to ICC prosecution for human rights violations, including systematic murder, torture, rape and sexual slavery.
A handful of staff will start work at the ICC to pave the way for 18 judges and a chief prosecutor in early 2003.
The ICC is not expected to start investigating cases before the end of next year. Judges and a prosecutor are expected to be chosen next January by those countries backing the court.
The ICC, set up under a 1998 Rome Treaty, will not probe crimes committed before its inception and will not supersede national courts, interceding only when those courts are unable to investigate or prosecute serious crimes.
Cases can be referred by states that have ratified the Rome Treaty, the U.N. Security Council or the tribunal's prosecutor after approval from three judges.
The Security Council also has the power to suspend an ICC investigation or prosecution if it believes it could obstruct its efforts to maintain international peace and security.
The U.S., Russia and China are three of the five permanent members of the 15-seat Security Council.
WAR CRIMES
The impetus to create the ICC came from the 1992-1995 Bosnia war and the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, which spawned two U.N. war crimes tribunals with localized scope.
But the idea for a global criminal court originated in the late 1940s.
The U.N. first recognized the need for a world court to deal with the kinds of atrocities witnessed during the Holocaust in Nazi Germany when it approved a convention to prevent and punish genocide in 1948.
The Cold War stymied progress for decades but in 1998 the U.N.-backed conference in Rome paved the way for the ICC. The Rome treaty won its crucial 60th ratification in April.
America should withdraw its 27 per cent share of funding for UN peacekeeping... and why not all the funding she grants to the bunch of lefty diaper-heads in the UN as a whole?
New York would become to expensive for their HQ and they could relocate it to... Baghdad?
The US is right to wash it's hands of everything having to do with the UN and world government....... slipry slope.
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.