Posted on 06/19/2002 2:57:00 PM PDT by kattracks
June 19— By Evelyn Leopold
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - To the dismay of its allies, the United States on Wednesday threatened to withdraw from U.N. peacekeeping missions if its troops were not exempted from the reach of a new global criminal court.
As part of a U.S. onslaught against the court, the Bush administration introduced a draft U.N. Security Council resolution that would exclude all missions, military and civilian, fielded by the United Nations or even endorsed by the world body, such as the NATO-led troops in Kosovo or Bosnia.
"We will not put American men and women under the reach of the International Criminal Court while serving in a United Nations peacekeeping operation," said U.S. representative Richard Williamson.
A U.S. official said if American personnel were not protected there would "no longer be U.S. peacekeepers."
No one in the 15-member council agreed with the American stance on the court, the world's first permanent tribunal to try the most heinous crimes -- genocide, war crimes and systematic, gross human rights abuses.
Supporters of the court consider it the most important development in international law since the Nazi war crimes tribunal in Nuremberg after World War II.
Several members said they would see if "there was a way out" of the dispute, such as expanding the network of bilateral agreements. Russia, which has signed the treaty, questioned what authority the council had over statutes for a court separate from the United Nations, diplomats said.
"I don't know if there is a way," said Norwegian Ambassador Ole Peter Kolby. Others wondered if the U.S. stand was final.
The treaty establishing the court has been ratified by 67 nations, including all 15 European Union members and Canada.
In the council, Britain, France, Ireland, Norway, Bulgaria and Mauritius have ratified it. All other members, except for China and Singapore, have signed it and several said they would ratify it soon.
The court is not retroactive. No crime committed before July 1 can be prosecuted by the tribunal when it begins functioning in The Hague, Netherlands, sometime next year.
SYSTEMATIC CRIMES
Prosecutions are only valid if national courts are unable or unwilling to bring perpetrators to justice. Only a state ratifying the treaty can make a complaint against its citizens or those of other nations for crimes committed on its soil.
But Williamson was clear he would not be swayed.
"Other members of the Security Council will not change our position," he said. "Obviously the whole spectrum of U.N. peacekeeping operations will have to be reviewed if we are unsuccessful at getting the protection we demand be in place."
The Bush administration and many members of the U.S. Congress oppose the court as a threat to national sovereignty. They also fear U.S. officials and soldiers could be subject to political prosecutions, which Europeans say is unlikely.
The new U.S. draft resolution stipulates the responsibility to investigate any crimes as the duty of "member states contributing personnel participating in operations established or authorized the U.N. Security Council."
U.N. peacekeeping missions usually have such immunity in bilateral agreements but Washington wants to make it air tight. The document says soldiers or civilians would have immunity from prosecution when they go to other countries for cases arising out of a U.N.-backed operation.
The United States has only about 700 personnel in U.N. missions -- police, civilians and a handful of military observers, but no combat troops. It does have 5,200 troops in Kosovo and 2,500 soldiers in Bosnia outside the U.N. command, which it wants exempted.
The Security Council this week intends to renew the U.N. mission in Bosnia, which has ratified the court's treaty. A separate amendment was submitted by Washington to exclude the U.N. personnel as well as NATO-led peacekeepers there.
"We've made it clear we need to have the ICC issue addressed before we support a resolution," Williamson said.
The treaty on the court was signed by former President Bill Clinton and then renounced by President Bush. Its statutes come into force on July 1.
Calling the U.S. stance an "ideological jihad," Richard Dicker of Human Rights Watch said the "text is an effort to hold U.S. participation in peacekeeping missions hostage to unwarranted U.S. fears. It puts the United States on the wrong side of the most important human rights institution created in the past 50 years."
Copyright 2002 Reuters News Service. All rights reserved.
Why stop there? Just withdraw from the U.N. period.
GWB was spot-on on this one. I'm always willing to give him his due when he stands up for a conservative principle, like withdrawing us from the International Criminal Court and the tax cuts he pushed early in his presidency.
Now, can any come-what-may W-supporters be induced to acknowledge the far greater number of issues where he's veered way to the left? (CFR, Farm Bill, tax breaks for selling land to enviro-Nazis, $500,000,000,000.00 in AIDS aid to Africa, appeasing Palestine, outspending Ted Kennedy on Education, the no-money-down mortgages for non-whites, etc.)
Correction: $500,000,000.00; not $500,000,000,000.00.
$500,000,000,000.00 would have been excessive. < /sarcasm>
One of two things happens:
1. The UN backs down on the court they've fought so hard for. (A win for us.)
2. They refuse to back down and we get to bring all our troops home; and it's all the UN's fault.
I criticize Bush when I feel he's wrong, so I gotta' compliment him when he does good.
This one's outta' the park!!!
Well I for one will be happy if this "THREAT" should take place. Perhaps they will remove the UN agenda from OUR public school system if this is the case?
While I see it as faint GLIMMER OF HOPE, until he actually follows thru, it is empty appeasement to his fast running "base". IMHO
"We will not put American men and women under the reach of the International Criminal Court while serving in a United Nations peacekeeping operation,"
What part of this is unreasonable?
God Bless you, Mr. President.
That, of course, is YOUR opinion.
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.