Posted on 07/01/2002 5:03:27 AM PDT by Alouette
Mon Jul 1, 6:59 AM ET
By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer
The world's first permanent war crimes tribunal officially came into existence Monday, hailed by supporters as a milestone in international justice that will prevent future Hitlers, Pol Pots and Saddam Husseins — but vehemently opposed by the United States.
On the eve of the birth of the International Criminal Court, the United States made the depth of its opposition crystal clear: It dramatically vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution to extend U.N. peacekeeping in Bosnia because it didn't exempt American peacekeepers from prosecution by the court — and then agreed to a three-day extension to try to find a solution.
But U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte warned that "peacekeeping in general" was at stake if a solution isn't found — not just in Bosnia. He indicated that the United States might try to end the 14 other U.N. peacekeeping missions from East Timor and Cyprus to Congo and the Iraq-Kuwait border if its demand for immunity isn't met.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan, a strong backer of the court, questioned how the United States could join the Security Council in supporting war crimes tribunals for former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone — yet now oppose a permanent tribunal and threaten the future of U.N. peacekeeping.
"It would be unfortunate if the peacekeeping tool which has served the world so well, and we are going to need in the future, was to be hampered," he said. "I think the council's credibility and the organization's is on the line. And not only that, how do we explain these contradictory attitudes?"
The U.S. brinkmanship was clearly aimed at underscoring the Bush administration's decision to have nothing to do with the court, but it also underlined Washington's willingness to stand alone against virtually all other council members, including its close allies, who support the court.
The United States is demanding immunity because it fears American troops and citizens could be targets of frivolous and politically motivated prosecutions.
Diplomats said the standoff is the most serious — and potentially the most polarizing — between the United States and the rest of the council in many years, and could have repercussions on President Bush's campaign to build an international coalition to fight terrorism.
The U.S. willingness to put its demand for immunity for its soldiers above the U.N. mission to train Bosnia's police force, and possibly the NATO-led peacekeeping force in the country — which Washington helped create — angered many council members.
"By pitting international peacekeeping against international justice, the United States government has sunk to a new low in terms of its moral and political leadership at the United Nations," said William Pace, head of the International Coalition for a Criminal Court, a coalition of over 1,000 organizations supporting the tribunal.
Nonetheless, Pace said, "international justice has actually won and the U.S. government lost" because the Rome treaty establishing the court came into force on Monday, ratified by 74 countries and signed by 139.
The committee preparing for the court's operation opens a two-week meeting on Monday and representatives of many of these countries are expected to attend, and to celebrate its launch.
The new court will prosecute those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes on or after July 1.
Pace said the main targets are "the genocidal Pol Pots, the Saddam Husseins who use nerve gas against ethnic groups, the ethnic cleansing wars of future (Slobodan) Milosevics', the Hitlers, the military monsters who hack off children's arms to terrorize civilian populations."
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 Rome treaty that established the court — even if the United States is not a party.
"With our global responsibilities, we are and will remain a special target," Negroponte said, "and cannot have our decisions second-guessed by a court whose jurisdiction we do not recognize."
The court's supporters contend that the Rome treaty provides adequate safeguards against abuse. First and foremost, it will step in only when countries are unwilling or unable to dispense justice themselves.
France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-David Levitte said U.S. peacekeepers can also be legally protected through bilateral agreements with countries where they are based. France and Britain proposed a year's delay in investigating an alleged war crime, time to bring a peacekeeper home — but Washington objected because it did not grant immunity.
Both Annan and Levitte noted that the United States had staked out a tough position — choosing to challenge U.N. peacekeeping operations in Bosnia — rather than simply withdraw Americans participating in them.
While Annan expressed hope that the world's best legal minds would find a solution in the coming days, U.S. officials indicated the time would be used to figure out how to wrap up the peacekeeping mission.
Hah. More likely the Pol Pots, the Saddams, the Mugabes and the Arafats will be sitting on the bench cooking up "war crimes" charges against the U.S. and Israel.
Sure it will. I can't wait till they try to arrest Saddam.
Besides the US Constitution prevents the US from ceding any of the Bill of Rights for US citizens. Clearly, the protections of our rights are not guaranteed by this kangaroo court.
The "show trial" of Milosevic is merely a "dress rehearsal" of what's in store for Ariel Sharon and George W. Bush. While a genuine genocidal war criminal like Mugabe will be invited to sit on the tribunal.
What does this mean? Doesn't seem like a complete sentence. Or even a complete thought.
So much for the "International Criminal Court". Next.
--Boris
Balony. The UN is RUN by Hitlers, Pol Pots and Saddam Husseins. Syria, Sudan, and China to name a few UN countries which would be sitting around dreaming up "war crimes" against the likes of Ariel Sharon, while their OWN "war crimes" go unpunished (by them) because they don't do that sort of thing. Just ask them they'll tell you.
On second thought, maybe we should send him to one of the places which signed the ICC agreement and see what happens.
Oh, the irony! Clinton signed the agreement for the US.
Thank The Good Lord that Dubya "unsigned" it.
I wouldn't bet on that.
And the USA can actually end it, too. As usual, the USA is providing 90% of the resources and paying for 90% of the operations while the Euro-weenie countries send out a few dozen-man delegations to represent their countries. Whenever a U.N. operation gets underway, American does and pays for 90% of everything while all the other countries barely bother to show up. The whole thing is a joke and needs to be ended right now.
I label this an averted Klinton trainwreck.
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.