Posted on 07/02/2002 6:16:06 PM PDT by mdittmar
The United States proposed a compromise Tuesday to keep American peacekeepers from being prosecuted by the new international war crimes tribunal and avoid a threatened halt to U.N. peacekeeping in Bosnia.
There was no immediate reaction from the 14 other members of the U.N. Security Council, who overwhelmingly support the International Criminal Court which officially came into existence on Monday.
But Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch, said even though the U.S. proposal doesn't use the word "immunity" its effect would be to give permanent immunity to peacekeepers from countries which aren't parties to the treaty that established the court.
"This would be a blatant amendment of the treaty through a Security Council resolution," he said. "It's wholly and completely unacceptable."
President Bush said the United States was trying to resolve the standoff. But White House spokesman Ari Fleisher said it was unclear whether the United States would be able to break the logjam with its allies over the court.
Standing alone in its demand for immunity from the new court, the United States has come under strong criticism from countries around the world as well as some politicians and editorial writers in the United States for threatening to end U.N. peacekeeping in Bosnia.
The United States opposes the treaty because it fears that the court could go after Americans in frivolous political prosecutions because of its status as the global superpower.
High-level contacts were continuing in New York and in key capitals. The Security Council discussed the Bosnia stalemate Tuesday morning and was scheduled to tackle the issue again on Wednesday.
U.N. ambassadors from the 15 European Union countries, which have all ratified the treaty establishing the court, met Tuesday morning and agreed that it was unlikely the United States would change its mind before the mandate for the Bosnian mission runs out at midnight Wednesday, diplomats said.
Britain and France were making contingency plans for an orderly end to the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Bosnia if the dispute isn't resolved, the diplomats said.
At stake is a Security Council resolution that would approve a six-month extension of the 1,500-strong U.N. police training mission in Bosnia and a one-year extension for the 18,000-strong NATO-led peacekeeping force in the country, which was wracked by a 2 1/2-year civil war from 1992 to 1995.
The United States vetoed the resolution Sunday night because it didn't grant immunity to American peacekeepers, and then agreed to a 72-hour extension.
The new court's main targets are the future Pol Pots and Adolf Hitlers of the world, but U.S. officials oppose the court because it exposes U.S. troops and civilians to the risk of being tried by entities beyond American laws and sovereignty.
The court will prosecute those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes on or after July 1, but it will step in only when countries are unwilling or unable to dispense justice.
Supporters say this and other safeguards will prevent frivolous prosecutions. They argue that immunity for American peacekeepers would undermine the court and international law.
Bush told a news conference in Milwaukee that the United States would not back down from its demand.
"We'll try to work out the impasse, but the one thing we're not going to do is sign on to this International Criminal Court," Bush said.
"As the United States works to bring peace around the world our diplomats and/or soldiers can be drug into the court. That's very troubling," the president said.
The U.S. proposal, obtained by The Associated Press, builds on an article in the Rome treaty which allows the Security Council to request the court to suspend an investigation or a prosecution for 12 months, using its authority to maintain international peace and security. This could be renewed by new Security Council action.
The Bush administration's proposal would give the Security Council much more power over determining whether peacekeepers could be prosecuted. It would allow the five permanent members the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China to use their vetoes to permanently block the court's investigation or prosecution of peacekeepers.
The United States is making its stand for immunity over Bosnia because the mandate for its peacekeeping missions was up for renewal just as the Rome treaty establishing the court took effect on July 1. The treaty now has 76 ratifications and 139 signatures.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who has expressed concern at the threat to the 14 other U.N. peacekeeping operations, has called on legal experts worldwide to find a solution.
Four peacekeeping mandates come up for renewal in July Lebanon, Georgia, Western Sahara, and the Prevlaka enclave in Croatia, as well as a new U.N. mission in Angola.
NATO on Monday underlined its commitment to the Bosnian peacekeeping operation, and said it would continue. It said its mandate comes from the 1995 peace agreement signed in Dayton, Ohio, that ended the Bosnian war, not from the U.N. Security Council. U.S. officials said there were no plans to pull the 3,100 American troops out of Bosnia but Germany might have to withdraw its troops because it requires Security Council authorization.
No compromise on one bit of it.
"We'll try to work out the impasse, but the one thing we're not going to do is sign on to this International Criminal Court," Bush said.
Remember this quote.
The coming days will be very interesting.
This might alwo be the other side of "you are either with us or against us..."
Interesting also to hear who was 'with us' but not willingly,
who now might seek a pay back.
This supposed "safeguard" is hogwash -- a country would be forced to prosecute, based on an ICC complaint, in order to protect a serviceman or civilian from prosecution by the ICC, whether or not the country agrees with the complaint. It's nothing more than blackmail, and is definitely not a "safeguard."
Good.
We need to pull our troops out of all U.N. endeavors.
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.