U.S. Rejects British-French Compromise on Exempting U.S. Troops From Prosecution

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The United States rejected a compromise at the Security Council Friday, renewing its threat to veto an extension of Bosnian peacekeeping operations unless U.S. soldiers are exempted from prosecution for war crimes.

The United States stands alone against the other 14 members of the council, most of whom backed the compromise plan put forward by London and Paris.

It would require the new International Criminal Court to defer any investigation of an American peacekeeper for 12 months. That would allow the United States time to take an accused soldier home, but it would not grant the Americans immunity - the key U.S. demand.

Court supporters, including council members and close U.S. allies Britain and France, say granting immunity would undermine the tribunal and international law.

With the court coming into existence on July 1 and the mandate for the Bosnia peacekeeping operations expiring at midnight on June 30, Security Council members met twice Friday to see if there was room for compromise.

At the end of the second closed door meeting, U.S. deputy ambassador James Cunningham said: "We haven't resolved anything. The differences still remain. ... Our concerns are still there. They haven't been addressed."

Cunningham said the United States believes it's time for decisions to be made "at a political level to get a solution." Diplomats said they expect senior government officials in key capitals to tackle the issue in the next 48 hours.

The Security Council scheduled another meeting Sunday afternoon, just eight hours before the Bosnia mandate expires.

Last week, the council extended the Bosnia missions until June 30. But U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said Thursday the United States would oppose any further extension.

"A veto is definitely an option if the issue is not resolved in a way that provides the kind of immunity" that the United States is seeking, Negroponte said after a council meeting Thursday during which diplomats said there was no support for the U.S. position.

The United States also has threatened to pull out of all U.N. peacekeeping operations if it doesn't get immunity, and it could stop paying its 25 percent share of the U.N. peacekeeping bill.

At stake is not just Bosnia's 1,500-strong U.N. police training mission and the country's 17,000-strong NATO-led force, but all 15 U.N. peacekeeping operations from Cyprus to East Timor as well as the NATO-led force in Kosovo. The United States could veto every peacekeeping mission that comes up for the same reason.

Undersecretary-General for Peacekeeping Jean-Marie Guehenno said Friday that if no solution is found, there would be "serious implications."

The International Criminal Court will prosecute those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, but it will step in only when countries are unwilling or unable to dispense justice themselves.

The United States objects to the idea that Americans could be subject to the court's jurisdiction if a crime is committed in a country that has ratified the treaty - even if the United States is not a party. Washington says that would leave U.S. troops and citizens vulnerable to frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions for war crimes.

Former President Clinton signed the treaty but the Bush administration announced last month it wants nothing to do with the court.

The U.S. position has put Washington at odds with its closest allies. All 15 European Union members have ratified and are legally bound by the treaty - including Britain and France, both veto-wielding council members.

Sixty-nine countries have ratified the Rome treaty establishing the tribunal, with supporters pointing out that 14 ratifications happened since the U.S. launched its campaign in April. The six council members ratifying it include U.S. allies Britain and France. Six others have signed and plan to ratify.

Cunningham was asked why the United States didn't just withdraw Americans participating in peacekeeping missions rather than threaten to shut them down altogether.

"We want to find a solution that allows us to continue to contribute to peacekeeping," he said, "and not to adopt halfway measures, and we're not seeking to exclude ourselves from cooperation with our partners overseas." AP-ES-06-28-02 2108EDT

It's interesting how we're not arguing whether peacekeeping operations, or even involvement in the UN is constitutional or not. There should not even need to be a discussion about this court.

Euroweenies again...give them the UN as a consolation prize...include a boat load of assorted lefties...(you know who)

"It would require the new International Criminal Court to defer any investigation of an American peacekeeper for 12 months. That would allow the United States time to take an accused soldier home, but it would not grant the Americans immunity - the key U.S. demand."

Is it me or is this just plain idiotic? What the heck difference would it make if they haul the offender off this year or next?

I'd hold out until the sissies cave in to our demand for excluding American Soldiers from Prosecution......then after they give us that, I'd still shut down the Bosnian Op.

It is high time these Eurofags figured it out...

There's a new sheriff in town.

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.