Replies

US drops call for military immunity

Jun 24, 2004

The United States has abandoned efforts to extend a UN resolution which would exempt US soldiers from prosecution overseas.

US deputy ambassador James Cunningham said a Security Council resolution had been withdrawn to avoid "prolonged and divisive debate" on the issue.

The resolution was first adopted in 2002 after the Untied States began to veto UN peacekeeping operations.

It was renewed again last year but will run out on June 30, the date on which the US led administration in Iraq is to hand over sovereignty to an interim government.

US attempts to garner support for a third renewal of the resolution for a third time however, met with stiff opposition following the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan by US servicemen.

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged Council members last week to oppose the measure, saying it sent an "unfortunate signal any time - but particularly at this time."

The Bush administration needed a minimum of nine "yes" votes in the 15-member Security Council for an exemption from the new International Criminal Court. But more than seven countries signaled they would abstain.

The new court is to try individuals responsible for the world's worst atrocities, including genocide, war crimes and systematic human rights abuses.

The Bush administration opposes on principle an international court having jurisdiction over US soldiers abroad. It argues the court would hinder global peacekeeping obligations.

U.S. drops effort to shield troops from world court

By Colum Lynch
The Washington Post

UNITED NATIONS — The Bush administration has abandoned its plan to seek passage of a Security Council resolution providing an open-ended exemption for U.S. personnel serving in U.N.-authorized peacekeeping missions from prosecution by the International Criminal Court, senior U.S. and Security Council diplomats said.
Under increasing criticism of abuses of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States was facing a diplomatic defeat in the 15-nation council over the U.S.-sponsored text. Instead, it is now pressing for a resolution that would shield U.S. personnel from prosecution only through June 2005.

The court was established under a 1998 treaty to prosecute individuals responsible for the most serious crimes, including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Since the court began its work, in July 2002, the United States has demanded the council grant its personnel exemption from prosecution in order to carry out its peacekeeping obligations.

In reducing that demand, senior U.S. officials said yesterday they have written assurances from 90 countries that they would not surrender U.S. personnel to the court, based in The Hague, Netherlands.

Still, without a Security Council grant of exemption, there is a possibility, however slim, that U.S. troops accused of massive human-rights violations could be prosecuted by the court if U.S. authorities refused to try the cases. In such cases, the crime must have occurred on the soil of a country that ratified the 1998 treaty but did not sign an agreement with the United States.

Afghanistan, for example, has ratified the treaty, but also has signed an agreement with the United States pledging not to hand over U.S. personnel to the court. Iraq has not ratified the treaty.

The International Criminal Court

The 1998 Rome Treaty established The International Criminal Court, based in The Hague, Netherlands, which started operating last year.

The governments of 94 countries have ratified the treaty signed by 135 countries.

President Clinton signed it in December 2000, but the Bush administration renounced it in May 2002, cautioning it could be used to carry out frivolous trials against U.S. troops.

An exemption resolution was first approved in 2002 after the United States vetoed a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Bosnia and threatened to kill off other U.N. missions, one by one, unless the council went along with its demand. But the abuse by U.S. troops of prisoners in Iraq played a major role in generating opposition in the council this year.

It is considered a tribunal of last resort and would only hear complaints against a person from a nation unable or unwilling to probe potential war crimes, thereby excluding abuses in Iraq, which Washington is investigating.

At the request of the United States, the Philippines' U.N. ambassador, Lauro Baja, said he intends to introduce an amendment calling for a final one-year extension of a July 2002 resolution, that shields troops from countries, like the United States, that have not ratified the treaty.

Last week, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan urged the Security Council to oppose the U.S. resolution seeking an open-ended exemption.

In a confidential memo, Annan told the council it would discredit the United Nations and undercut efforts to "promote the rule of international law."

Annan's remarks have hardened opposition to the resolution. Several key council members — including Chile, Algeria and Pakistan, which recently considered supporting the U.S. resolution — say they are now undecided.

"Everybody is watching to see what the others are going to do," said Algeria's U.N. ambassador, Abdullah Baali.

The treaty establishing the court has been signed by 135 countries and ratified by 94. President Clinton signed it in December 2000, but the Bush administration renounced it in May 2002, cautioning it could be used to carry out frivolous trials against U.S. troops.

Only a month ago, the administration was confident the council would adopt the resolution. But the initiative began to unravel after Chile decided to abstain and China warned it might do likewise or even veto the resolution, citing abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

U.S. officials said China, which has also not ratified the treaty, opposed resolution because the United States recently supported Taiwan's bid for observer status in the World Health Assembly.