Posted on 07/10/2002 7:58:44 PM PDT by knak
UNITED NATIONS July 10 — The United States on Wednesday backed off from its demand for permanent immunity for U.S. peacekeepers from the new war crimes tribunal, proposing instead a ban on any investigation of its peacekeepers for a year.
In the face of intense criticism from countries around the world, including close allies, U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte circulated the new proposal to the U.N. Security Council after an open council meeting.
The United States earlier had threatened to end U.N. peacekeeping if it didn't get open-ended immunity for peacekeepers from countries that have not ratified the Rome treaty establishing the court, which came into existence on July 1. The treaty has been signed by 139 countries and ratified by 76, including all 15 members of the European Union.
The United States has been demanding immunity on grounds that other countries could use the new court for frivolous and politically motivated prosecutions of American soldiers. The position has put the Bush administration at odds with its closest allies and the rest of the world.
The new draft U.S. resolution asks the court for a 12-month exemption from investigation or prosecution of peacekeepers and "expresses the intention to renew the request ... for further 12 month periods for as long as may be necessary."
Many Security Council members said the new U.S.-proposed resolution didn't go far enough. Nonetheless, they called the mood positive and said for the first time the United States appeared willing to negotiate.
Britain's U.N. Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, the current council president, called the U.S. proposal "a fair basis for discussion" and said consultations would continue on Thursday.
At the open council meeting, ambassadors from nearly 40 countries criticized the U.S. demand for immunity, saying it would affect peacekeeping and stability from the Balkans to Africa. Only India offered some sympathy to the U.S. position.
Canada's U.N. Ambassador Paul Heinbecker, who requested the open meeting, warned that the United States was putting the credibility of the Security Council, the legality of international treaties, and the principle that all people are equal and accountable before the law at stake.
Washington last month vetoed a six-month extension of the 1,500-strong U.N. police training mission in Bosnia and a yearlong extension of the authorization for the 18,000-strong NATO-led peacekeeping force and then gave the missions two reprieves, the latest until July 15.
Its argument of the fear of politically motivated prosecutions was rejected by speakers from the European Union, Latin America, Africa and Asia who countered that the Rome treaty had sufficient safeguards to prevent. First and foremost, the court will step in only when states are unwilling or unable to dispense justice for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
The draft U.S. resolution makes no mention of immunity.
Under the U.S. proposal, any peacekeeper who was exempt from investigation or prosecution for a year could then be investigated and prosecuted if the exemption was not renewed though no U.N. peacekeeper has ever been charged with a war crime.
"We have for one year a total freedom," said Richard Grenell, spokesman for the U.S. Mission, who said this was sufficient time to bring any American suspect home, thus out of reach of the court.
"What we have been focused on is ensuring that American men and women are not within the reach of the International Criminal Court," he said. "What we have been able to offer today ... (is) that for a period of 12 months they would have that immunity."
But the U.S. draft still raises serious questions for some council members.
The Rome treaty allows the Security Council to request a 12-month deferral of investigation or prosecution by the court on a case-by-case basis.
Diplomats said some council members argued that the U.S. draft would change the statute's intent by giving blanket deferral to peacekeepers.
"It's a very positive attitude on the part of the U.S. to bring a new text which is a step in the right direction," said Mauritius' U.N. Ambassador Jagdish Koonjul, a council member. "I think we are getting closer."
Colombia's U.N. Ambassador Alfonso Valdivieso, also a council member, called the U.S. draft "an improvement" because it was not "in perpetuity."
But both said the blanket deferral for peacekeepers was still an issue.
I certainly empathize with your frustration and anger. However, Bush is NOT a RINO, he is a CINO (conservative-in-name-only). Bush is the face of the Republican Party. The Republican Party is a socialist party! Period!
Bush is domestic-policy-socialist and a foreign-policy-globalist! He's not a sell-out. He is what he is. He gets his marching orders from his bosses and he carries 'em out like a good little globalist soldier.
Oh for sure he won't cave on that, naw, that there is sure something we can rely on...set in concrete that is...no caving on this one, nope, no worries here, that's the line in the sand, the tumb in the dike, the cornerstone of the arch, unless of course he caves on this and we need to move the line back for him in order to excuse EVERYTHING he caves on.
Oh listen...is that the sound of Bush reversing his stance on the ICC?
Earth to RC and any Bush Cheerleaders (no accusations against you personally):
The latest Congressional bill authorizing pilots to carry firearms in the cockpit was voted on over Bush's objections.
LOL!
Not to mention that he's rich and he's an oilman, and he's an heir to a dynasty. So of course he is thinking global. Afterall, he ain't protecting the world's leading terrorist of all time for the sake of just our economy.
There's plenty of evidence to suggest you're absolutely correct although, you might get a few people who'll call you a "blame america firster" for suggesting it.
It usually means they know you're right.
Bingo! That's because our government is run by globalists -- New World Order, one-world government elitists. Allegiance is not to the American citizens or to the Constitutional Republic, but to the international banking cartel that prints fiat currency in virtually every country in the world. They're the ones running the show. Bush is just a puppet! The leadership in the Republican and Democratic Parties are also little puppets. They get their orders from the same people who Bush gets his from. And it ain't the American electorate!
Secondly, what do you think would happen if our President decided to become America First and stated that we were going to return to the Gold Standard, pull out of foreign alliances (UN, NATO, etc.), and be America-first in our economic policies?
Yep, and the "War on Terrorism" will never end. When can it end? What's the criteria? When can the "War on Drugs" end? When can the "War on Poverty" end? You see, a war on a "thing" never ends. Only wars on countries or peoples can have an ending. The government does not want our wars to end. Then they wouldn't be able to steal our liberty and property as efficiently.
"Terror" is a state of mind -- a feeling for cripes sake. How does that end? When not one of the 6 billion people on the planet feels a sense of terror? It's all so ridiculous -- this war on thingy's crap!
Looks like they decided to regather for posts after #99. It almost seemed coordinated, like they knew that there was good non knee jerk thorough analysis on posts between 50 to 100, but once it got to post 100(and when a new mini thread of replies appeared), the malcontents jumped, hoping people don't look at the analysis on the mini-thread of replies 50-100.
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.