Rumsfeld Says U.S. May Not Join Future Peacekeeping Missions

New York Times ^ | 7/03/02 | THOM SHANKER and JAMES DAO

[kattracks]

efense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld today warned that American forces may not join future peacekeeping missions without a grant of blanket immunity from the jurisdiction of the new International Criminal Court.

Mr. Rumsfeld aggressively defended the Bush administration's demand that American troops be exempt from the court two days after the United States vetoed a Security Council resolution extending the United Nations' peacekeeping mandate in Bosnia. The veto, which was based on the United States' objections to the international court, has triggered pointed criticism from America's allies such as Britain who see it as yet another example of the Bush Administration adopting a go-it-alone, unilateral stance.

Mr. Rumsfeld insisted that the United States would remain committed to current missions overseas.

``It would be inaccurate to say that the United States would necessarily withdraw from every engagement we have in the world between now and the time that that immunity is provided,'' Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon. ``We have no plans to do that. In other words, we're engaged. We have forces in countries all over the globe. We have no intention of pulling back.''

But before committing American troops to future peacekeeping operations, the United States will require all parties to the mission to grant ``those kinds of immunities that will protect our forces before we go in,'' he added.

And for those missions where American troops already are on the ground, the United States will attempt to negotiate new protections from the court's jurisdiction.

The policy says much about how the last, lone superpower will project force abroad. When added to the emerging policy of pre-emptive military action against nations or shadowy terrorist cells armed with weapons of mass destruction, the United States is saying boldly that American power will be exercised unilaterally and, if exercised in alliance with others, on Washington's terms.

This presents America's partners and the world with a stark choice: If American military power is needed to quiet the world's trouble spots, the rules of that operation will be written by America, not by international legal bodies.

``The world is a more peaceful and stable place, as dangerous and untidy as it may be, because of the United States of America working with its coalition partners and alliances and U.N. peacekeeping groups and NATO peacekeeping groups around the world,'' Mr. Rumsfeld said. ``We believe it's useful and helpful to our country and to our friends and allies to be engaged in the world. The existence of this International Criminal Court, which came into effect yesterday, July 1, is a threat to civilian, military, individuals from the United States of America, regardless of whether they're doing peacekeeping or warfighting.''

[caisson71]

President Bush has said it and others have echoed it, the ICC can go pound sand. Western Europeans can very well staff the Bosnian peacekeeping force. They have the men, weapons and knowhow and it is their backyard. They just want to spend the Euro to do so.

[Vidalia]

It is about time. We can print and send thousands of paper targets with bulls-eyes rather than live soldiers...

[afuturegovernor]

That a boy Rummy. (Gee, I thought there wasn't a difference between Rumsfeld and William Cohen and Les Aspen.)

[traditionalist]

Well, it sounds as if Bush is finally going to make good on his campaign pledge.

[varina davis]

The audacity of the ICC/UN is absolutely overwhelming! They watched all the concessions of the Carter and Clinton administrations and thought they could make a clean sweep. All Americans should thank President George W. Bush and his supporters for this day in history --- and urge continued vigilance.

[Ole Okie]

All Americans should thank President George W. Bush and his supporters for this day in history --- and urge continued vigilance.

Yes, and while my Christian duty may be to pray for the salvation of Sick Willie Clinton's eternal soul, I can still curse his actions which were essentially traitorous to the United States.

[11B3]

You're assuming he has a soul.

[foreshadowed at waco]

If American military power is needed to quiet the world's trouble spots, the rules of that operation will be written by America, not by international legal bodies.

Whoa!!! It's so nice to have adults in charge of our foreign policy. Chris Matthews on Hardball last night gave grudging support to GW's position on the ICC. IMHO the Europeans better stop expecting us to spend our money on them via our military so they can keep spending their own money on socialist programs. We've got a great big war to fight and win. They want to benefit from our actions while they stand on the sidelines and cluck their tongues at our crudeness.

[SCHROLL]

Money talks. No exclusion, no dues. Then what will they do?

[WellsFargo94]

Maybe George Michael can join the British military and pull a tour or two in Bosnia - since he's so opposed to the US and our military. He might as well take Tom Cruise, Alec Baldwin, and why not Rosie for the testosterone?

[freebilly]

The veto, which was based on the United States' objections to the international court, has triggered pointed criticism from America's allies such as Britain who see it as yet another example of the Bush Administration adopting a go-it-alone, unilateral stance.

As though there's something wrong with such as stance....

[walden]

In my vocabulary, "unilateral" and "courageous" are close in meaning, and often interchangeable, but leftists and Euroweenies don't see it that way. :)

[RepublicanChick]

I agree with your sentiment 100%!!!!!

[varina davis]

Exactly! Nowhere is it written that the U.S. must police half the world -- on the taxpayer's dime. There may be instances where we need or want to do that on a humanitarian level, but NOT on demand and NOT under subjugation to the ICC.