Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US Under Fire, Tries New Proposals on Global Court
Reuters ^

Posted on 07/10/2002 5:41:26 PM PDT by RCW2001

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Under attack from its allies, the United States late on Wednesday introduced a new compromise proposal that would exempt its peacekeepers from prosecution by the world's first permanent criminal court for 12 months.

The American draft resolution, presented to the 15-nation U.N. Security Council, drops an earlier demand -- rejected by most members -- that immunity from the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction be automatically renewed every 12 months.

Whether the new proposals will be approved is not yet clear after a day of public debate in which dozens of countries flailed the Bush administration for trying to stand above the law. Washington has threatened to kill all U.N. peacekeeping missions if its moves against the court were not approved.

British Ambassador Sir Jeremy Greenstock, this month's council president, said he viewed the draft resolution as "a very fair basis for discussion" and that council members would send it to their capitals.

But France's U.N. ambassador, Jean-David Levitte, told closed council consultations that the resolution was "a step" in the right direction but fell short of getting his country's support, diplomats said. France has threatened an abstention, rather than using its veto power to kill any U.S. proposal.

The United States, Britain, France, Russia and China are permanent council members with veto rights.

The main obstacle, according to many nations, was the sweeping exemption they say misinterprets a 1998 Rome statute creating the court. This allows the Security Council to provide exemptions only on a "case-by-case" basis.

THREAT TO PEACEKEEPING MISSIONS

The Bush administration has threatened to veto all U.N peacekeeping missions, starting with U.N. police and civilian personnel in Bosnia, if its soldiers and civilian personnel were not exempted from the court's jurisdiction. The council has to vote by Monday.

The ICC is the first global permanent tribunal to try individuals for genocide, war crimes and systematic, gross human rights abuses, a belated effort to fulfill the promise of the Nuremberg trials 56 years ago, when Nazi leaders were prosecuted for new categories of war crimes.

The U.S. draft resolution would exclude "investigation or prosecutions" of current or former peacekeeping personnel from a country that had not ratified the treaty creating the court, such as the United States.

The new court came into existence on July 1 and 76 nations have ratified the treaty establishing the tribunal, including all 15 European Union members as well as major African and Latin American nations.

Earlier on Wednesday, Canadian Ambassador Paul Heinbecker organized a public debate so countries could tell Security Council members to reject Washington's position.

And some two dozen nations did so, from New Zealand to South Africa and Jordan to Brazil. Only India took Washington's side, saying the council should consider opposing views.

Germany's deputy ambassador, Hanns Heinrich Schumacher, said that if the Security Council met U.S. demands it risked "undermining its own authority and credibility."

"BLOODIEST OF CENTURIES"

For Washington, the issue is mainly one of principle and ideology because peacekeepers, in bilateral pacts, are already excluded from prosecution in Bosnia.

Furthermore, the ad hoc U.N. court for the former Yugoslavia, which has fewer safeguards than the new tribunal, has jurisdiction in the Balkans. The United States has some 3,000 soldiers under NATO rather than U.N. command in Bosnia.

But the Bush administration argues that countries could use the court to try American soldiers or political figures for war crimes and jeopardize U.S. sovereignty.

"Failure to address concerns about placing peacekeepers in legal jeopardy before the International Criminal Court, however, can impede the provision of peacekeepers to the United Nations," U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte told the council. "It certainly will affect our ability to contribute peacekeepers."

Supporters of the court say there are so many safeguards, they fear few cases will come before the tribunal. The court, for example, can only prosecute individuals whose governments are unable or unwilling to do so.

"We have just emerged from a century that witnessed the evils of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Idi Amin, and the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, and ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia," Heinbecker said.

"Surely, we have all learned the fundamental lesson of this bloodiest of centuries, which is that impunity from prosecution for grievous crimes must end," he said.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: nwo; sovereignity; unitednations; unlist; warcrimes; worldcriminalcourt

1 posted on 07/10/2002 5:41:26 PM PDT by RCW2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
Am I wrong or is this the Bush Administration capitulating on one more issue?
2 posted on 07/10/2002 5:43:16 PM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
Stay tuned...you may be right!
3 posted on 07/10/2002 5:45:00 PM PDT by RCW2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
The American draft resolution, presented to the 15-nation U.N. Security Council, drops an earlier demand

The Administration blinked. Looks like they might be caving on this. Bad news if they do.
4 posted on 07/10/2002 5:50:18 PM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
At a minimum, the US non-negotiable demand must be that the International Criminal Court adopt US judicial standards and procedures, as well as the common law, and that it's judges be subject to Senate confirmation every year.

Once the rest of the world agrees to that, then we can negotiate.

5 posted on 07/10/2002 5:51:12 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
--just say "no"--
6 posted on 07/10/2002 5:58:56 PM PDT by rellimpank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
If GWB caves on this, then I give up on everything outside my personal circle. Atlas shrugged? If this goes down, Ed's going to shrug too... and become as worthless to the machine as possible. I was a long-haired pain in the ass thirty years ago, and I remember it as being pretty soft. As disdainful of the freeloading socialist maggots as I have become, they NEVER get sold out, and that must be a pretty good feeling.

Forget the markets- this one has me worried.

7 posted on 07/10/2002 6:08:02 PM PDT by niteowl77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
If son of wimp caves on this, I'm gone. I'm conservative by principles, but at my age I ought to be concerned with which party will give me the best prescription drug benefit. Actually I will not have deserted Bush. He will have deserted me.
8 posted on 07/10/2002 6:29:32 PM PDT by PolishProud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
Do not budge on this issue, do NOT budge. Walk away Dubya, it will pay dividends that you can not even imagine.

I think a lot of the pressure you are seeing today on the market, you're history, etc. are all a result of these weasels playing hardball, still.....do not budge.

9 posted on 07/10/2002 6:37:10 PM PDT by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *UN_List; *"NWO"; madfly
.
10 posted on 07/10/2002 6:43:46 PM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
or is this the Bush Administration capitulating on one more issue?

What to you expect from a full time appeaser?

11 posted on 07/10/2002 6:44:34 PM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
and that it's judges be subject to Senate confirmation every year.

Brilliant idea! If Bush nominates judges, Dasshole will make sure they are never confirmed :)

12 posted on 07/10/2002 6:47:39 PM PDT by Colonel_Flagg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
I'm looking at my watch to see how long the Bush faithful are here to say this all part of the secret plan to defeat the Democrats.

My only question is: How many American soldiers and American nationals will be sacrificed to achieve the ends of this 'secret' plan?

13 posted on 07/10/2002 7:04:50 PM PDT by Tench_Coxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
Supporters of the court say there are so many safeguards, they fear few cases will come before the tribunal. The court, for example, can only prosecute individuals whose governments are unable or unwilling to do so.

So if under our Constitution, we don't prosecute one of our citizens, the the world Court will intervene? Oh I feel sooo much better now -- ARE THEY KIDDING???

14 posted on 07/10/2002 7:47:34 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999
Do not budge on this issue, do NOT budge. Walk away Dubya, it will pay dividends that you can not even imagine.

I think a lot of the pressure you are seeing today on the market, you're history, etc. are all a result of these weasels playing hardball, still.....do not budge.

I'm praying -- hard -- that our President will read your message and others like it.

15 posted on 07/10/2002 7:51:45 PM PDT by varina davis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines
I PRAY you are wrong. We need to dump this organization of corruption and if we stand alone, so be it.
16 posted on 07/10/2002 8:45:06 PM PDT by brat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: brat
In fact, we need to email the WhiteHouse with this one. There are 80,000 of us...LETS ROLL FREEPERS! president@whitehouse.gov
17 posted on 07/10/2002 8:48:04 PM PDT by brat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
If the President backs down against the UN, then he will no longer have me as a fan. I hope he is just doing this to be diplomatic and that he has no intention of going along with the ICC.

He should follow through on his original threat to pull peace keepers. Let the EU handle their own problems. They want to talk like they are the new superpower, let them stop pretending and start taking care of their own problems!

I think the White House needs a freep email campaign.

18 posted on 07/11/2002 12:19:23 AM PDT by Crispy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson