U.S. Offers UNITED NATIONS Compromise on Immunity for Its Troops International Criminal Court

By Irwin Arieff UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States, hoping to avert a defeat, floated a compromise proposal on Tuesday to seek just one more renewal of a U.N. resolution exempting American soldiers from international prosecution,

But it was uncertain whether the proposed change in the resolution on the International Criminal Court would be enough to win U.N. Security Council approval due to international fury over prisoner abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib detention center.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan last week urged council members to oppose the resolution, saying it would undermine international law and send an "unfortunate signal any time -- but particularly at this time."

James Cunningham, the U.S. deputy ambassador, said that before seeking a vote, "we would like to know if this approach of ours will provide a basis for going forward that will avoid ... divisiveness in the council."

The United States has proposed asking the council to renew an existing exemption, which expires on June 30, once more, in return for which the United States would pledge not to ask for another extension next year, Cunningham said.

"The members of the council are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with this kind of arrangement, and we are acknowledging that," he said.

The Bush administration opposes in principle an international court having jurisdiction over American soldiers abroad and fears politically-driven prosecutions, although in practice the court's statutes make it highly unlikely any American would ever appear before the tribunal.

The U.S. amendment was formally put forward by Ambassador Lauro Baja of the Philippines, the current council president, who said Washington had asked his help to avoid an impasse.

At least eight council members have previously indicated they would abstain -- France, Germany, Chile, Benin, Spain, Romania, China and Brazil. But the new proposal may sway some to vote in favor after consulting their governments.

A minimum of nine "yes" votes are needed for adoption of a resolution in the 15-member council. More than six abstentions would kill the measure.

The U.S.-drafted 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.

The resolution was renewed in 2003. But the abuse by U.S. troops of prisoners in Iraq played a major role in generating opposition in the council this year.

The International Criminal Court, based in The Hague, Netherlands, is considered a tribunal of last resort and would only hear complaints against a person from a nation that was unable or unwilling to probe potential war crimes. This would exclude the United States and the abuses in Iraq, which Washington is investigating.

Separately, the United States has sought bilateral agreements with nations that would exempt them from prosecution, and so far has signed 90 of them.

The proposed resolution would extend immunity from the court to all nations not among the 94 countries that have ratified the treaty establishing the court, created to prosecute the world's worst atrocities -- genocide, war crimes and systematic human rights abuses.

It would exempt from prosecution all military and civilian personnel "related to a U.N.-authorized operation." This would include U.N. peacekeeping operations as well as missions endorsed by the council, such as the U.S. troops in Iraq.

United Nations Law-of-the-Sea Treaty Threatens U.S. Sovereignty
Written by Tom De Weese
Sunday, June 20, 2004

Those driving the battle to entangle the United States in the United Nations’ Law-of-the-Sea Treaty (LOST) are fighting back, determined to paint any opponent as a radical who is out of touch with the way the world really works.

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and his allies are mad because they had hoped to sneak LOST through the Senate before anyone noticed. Opponents to the treaty foiled that trick and blasted it to the nation. Americans rose up in protest and now the Law-of-the-Sea Treaty is stuck. Lugar seemed genuinely shocked by the strength of the anti-treaty protests. Now it appears LOST is being held up without a scheduled vote by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.)

So Lugar and the pro-LOST forces have taken off the gloves, fighting back by increasing lobbying efforts, invoking the list of powerful government offices and departments which testified in favor of the treaty. These include the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the chief of Naval Operations, the Departments of Defense, State, Commerce, Justice, and the EPA. Lugar insists that the Bush ''Administration even helped write the resolution of advice and consent accompanying the treaty.''

In addition, Lugar insists that:

· ''Contrary to some claims, the Law of the Sea Treaty provides no decision-making role for the United Nations. The words ‘United Nations’ appear in the title of the Convention only because that is where negotiations physically took place.”

· “…The Convention affirms unchallenged American rights to our ocean resources.”

· “…Every major American ocean industry supports the Convention…”

· “…The Convention does not levy taxes or require any technology transfers.”

· “…Some claims have tried to portray President Reagan as being against the treaty. In fact, in 1983 he proclaimed that the United States would abide by all provisions of the Convention except those dealing with deep-seabed mining in the open ocean…”

Those are pretty powerful arguments in favor of ratification of the

Law-of-the-Sea Treaty, if true. The fact is not one of these statements by Sen. Lugar is true.

Amazingly, sources close to President Bush reported just days after Sen. Lugar started the drive for ratification in the president’s name that the president said he knew nothing about it. Others have reported that President Bush is actually opposed to ratification. So who in the administration is pushing the Law-of-the-Sea Treaty that President Ronald Reagan not only refused to sign, but actually fired the U.S. State Department staff that had negotiated it?

Some have speculated that Vice President Dick Cheney is the driving force behind the sudden move to ratify a treaty that should have been dead twenty years ago. The real force behind the renewed efforts for ratification appears to be John Turner, assistant secretary of state for oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs. Turner comes from the world of radical environmentalism, having served as the CEO of the Conservation Fund and on the boards of the Land Trust Alliance, the National Wildlife Refuge Association, the Trumpeter Swan Society, and several more ''green'' groups. These groups stand to gain massive power over the oceans through ratification of LOST. That’s why they have been the main forces in demanding its passage.

Moreover, Turner is a close buddy of Dick Cheney, so his efforts for the treaty have been interpreted as being official White House policy. If Turner wins this round, his next attack will be for ratification of the U.N.’s Biodiversity Treaty that the Senate refused to consider ten years ago.

Does the Law-of-the-Sea Treaty give the United Nations decision-making power over the world’s oceans? Of course it does. It is a common trick used by those who seek to implement U.N. policy to mention only the particular document in question as if it lived in a vacuum. In fact, most of the U.N. treaties and programs are designed to couple and piggyback on other such programs, creating an all-encompassing web of control.

The Law-of-the-Sea Treaty is closely integrated with the Convention on Climate Change, the World Heritage Treaty, the Convention on Desertification Treaty, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on Ozone Depleting Substances and its Montreal Protocol, the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species, and several more that can be traced back directly to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

Six departments of our federal government (including the Department of State) and 44 U.S. environmental organizations are members of the IUCN. The IUCN uses the United Nations as the conduit to funnel the treaties to member countries for ratification. As such, the United Nations becomes the monitor for enforcement and implementation of the treaties. For Sen. Lugar to imply that the United Nations is not even part of the process is beyond disingenuous; it’s downright deceitful.

That’s not Sen. Lugar’s first attempt to mislead and deceive on the issue of LOST. His Foreign Relation’s Committee hearings would not allow a single negative word to be spoken against the treaty. Those testifying were carefully chosen to paint an urgent need for LOST.

Sen. Lugar claims that LOST ''affirms unchallenged American rights to our ocean resources.'' This Lugar falsehood completely ignores Article 2, Paragraph 3 of the treaty which says, ''The sovereignty over the territorial sea is exercised subject to this Convention and to other rules of international law.'' In addition, LOST’s most powerful creation, the International Seabed Authority (ISA) will be the entity to enforce that section.

According to testimony submitted to the House International Relations Committee by Dr. Peter Leitner, the Center for Naval Analysis believes that the International Seabed Authority may one day be able to ''take on a variety of low-intensity policing functions in support of international agreements.'' In other words, the Seabed Authority could become an ocean police force answerable to the United Nations.

The International Seabed Authority has the power to set production controls for ocean mining, drilling, and fishing, to control ocean exploration, issue permits and create regulations, and settle disputes in its own court. Private companies seeking to drill oil or mine ocean floors must first obtain a permit from the Seabed Authority. The Seabed Authority will be a regulatory agency, police force, and court system all in one.

If the permit is granted and production begins, the Seabed Authority then charges a royalty fee or tax. Those royalties are then evenly distributed to all participating nations. Land-locked nations with no interest in the oceans will now profit from the efforts of private companies. Such a taxing system is now seen as a model for the creation of a global taxing system. Sen. Lugar tell outright lies when he says the treaty levies no taxes.

Sen. Lugar says, ''every major American ocean industry supports the Convention.'' That is blatantly false. However, those who are in support do so because they believe that by being part of the process they will get a leg up on the competition. They believe in the system of ''pull'' rather than in free market competition. Pull is a system of powerful, non-elected bureaucrats who pull the strings, set the prices, dictate the playing field and control the market. It’s how things are done when there is no freedom of choice. Businesses that have signed on to LOST are either lazy or scared.

Even worse, the Seabed Authority doesn’t just have the power to issue or deny permits and collect royalties. It also has the power to directly compete with private companies in the mining and drilling of the ocean floor through an entity called the ''Enterprise.'' In this way, royalties paid to member nations would be much higher because they wouldn’t have to share any profits with private companies. Now, a reasonable person may conclude that an agency that has the power to issue permits to private companies or compete on its own for higher profits would likely chose the latter. Of course it would! And that’s the point.

Imagine what such a system would do to the world economy? Imagine what will happen to oil prices and mineral prices needed to sustain our nation? Imagine such power in the hands of small, corrupt, jealous nations as would make up the seabed authority and you can understand why the Law-of-the-Seas Treaty is a trap for the United States.

The mantra put forth by Sen. Lugar and the other proponents of LOST is that we need to ratify it in order to get ''a seat at the table'' so we can make decisions as to who serves on the International Seabed Authority, but the United States would have only one vote out of abut 140. China, Cuba, and Barbados will have an equal vote. A block of small, third world nations that see LOST as an opportunity to ''make America pay'' can form a cartel to control policy.

There is little understanding on Capitol Hill as to just how powerful and all encompassing the Law of the Sea Treaty can be. During hearings by the Senate Armed Services Committee, Chairman James Inhofe asked former U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, ''What about the air over the sea?'' Does LOST have jurisdiction there? Her answer: not only the air but also the space could become subject to U.N. authority under this treaty.

Most opponents of LOST truthfully argue that it will give the U.N. control over all of the world’s oceans that includes 70% of the earth’s surface. The situation may be even worse than that.

The tangle of international agreements to be policed by the Law-of-the-Sea Treaty leads one to be wary of a new report by the United States Commission on Ocean Policy which calls for new federal regulations to affect oceans and coasts. The Commission’s report calls for an ''eco-system management approach that goes far beyond the political boundaries like state lines'' to strengthen the link between coastal and watershed management. Such language is straight out of the U.N.’s Biodiversity Treaty.

The report is concerned with protecting estuaries where oceanic species breed. Estuaries are fed by rivers. American rivers are lined with cities. Under the excuse of protecting the oceans, will the policing powers of LOST allow it to sail right up into the rivers of America, giving the UN inland control as well?

The Law-of-the-Sea Treaty doesn’t provide anything to the United States that we don’t already have. It blatantly takes away our rights to free movement and private enterprise, and endangers our national sovereignty and independence. We don’t need this treaty. If we allow it to pass we will regret it.

There is only one way to stop this madness. Keep the United States from ratifying the Law-of-the-Sea Treaty and ignore its authority. Do that and there won’t be any ''table'' to sit at.

Tom DeWeese is the publisher/editor of The DeWeese Report and president of the American Policy Center, an activist think tank headquartered in Warrenton, Va. The Center maintains a website at www.americanpolicy.org.

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.