U.S. Backs Down From Immunity Demand

abc ^ | 7/10/02

[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.

[Freedom4US]

A great incentive for the men and women of our armed forces

When I was in Kosovo we were told by the legal types that we were subject to an international court. They went over various scenarios of the ROE and it was a real eye opener. "The US is not at War"; yeah OK. I've got an M60 and I'm wearing funny clothes in a foreign country and people are shooting at us. We may not be "at" war but I sure as hell am in one. We were told, for just one example, that we could only shoot at snipers if we could see and identify them as an enemy combatant. I pointed out that by definition, a sniper can't be seen. Sure, they were only trying to "protect" us with this advice, but the whole thing is a CROCK.

What we need is leaders with Balls. It's one thing to give your life for your country, but entirely another to go in with both hands tied behind your back in the middle of a civil war.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

Were gonna have this shoved down our throats when we should be shoving it up the U.N'S ...A%^&# .....I pray to god every day the un self impodes and every day the powers that be get freindlier with it

So at what point do we set down the bible and pick up the sword?

[MJY1288]

Dont get me wrong... I hope we can't come to an agreement and our troops come home. But unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world. With the threats we face from terrorism we must rely on our allies to work with us in denying these terrorist groups safe places to operate. This is why we are having to work with many of the countries who have signed on to the ICC and it's intrusive nature. Europeans see the ICC much like we see a merger between big U.S. companies. We see it as a direct threat to our Soveriegnty and justifiably so.

Thank God we don't have Al Gore in office becuase he would be lobbying Congress to sign on to this Kangaroo Court

[knak]

We have withdrawn our signature from this ICC treaty, Therefore congress will never get the chance to vote on it. The debate is over immunity... Period

Did you read my post? I know that!! Also, this story is from AP actually. I found it on the ABC sight.

[DoughtyOne]

I agree with you.

[MississippiMan]

Where are all the pollyannas who were blasting me a few days ago when I said Bush was caving on this? No no no, he wasn't caving; the other side was caving. Yessiree. Bush is weak and he will be a one-termer for it. I shudder to think at what will slither into the White House next because Bush doesn't have the strength to hold on to the job.

MM

[Trueblackman]

First of all I just got in from a dinner to honor Tom DeLay and Mitch McConnell for their efforts on CFR. This ICC is all but doomed because behind it all Russia and China are not backing this thing and I bet most of this report is bogus. Remember last time I checked a map Russia was part of Europe/Asia and China was in Asia. Did we not fall for this trick the first time around and President Bush came out and said it ain't going to happen?! Remember these news reports are someone else's opinon on a subject. I would rather play wait and see than pile on enlight of an ABC Report.

[lawdog]

"Jagdish Koonjul"

Are Americans ready to submit to the NWO goon show trials ? Absolutely revolting.

[MJY1288]

AP,ABC,CBS,Rueters,Drudge,NBC,CNN,MSNBC,DU, Maureen Dowd ... What's the difference?

[knak]

sight = site. Woops

[MJY1288]

Thanks Kevin, Always good to read your posts

[Trueblackman]

Thanks for the kind words.

[knak]

Well, I said I'd give this the benefit of doubt and I will. We shall wait and see if the new year long exemption proposal works out, I guess. Or if we have to give in any more.

[SkyPilot]

What the hell is this?

This stinks!

Was all the US "resolve" just a bad played poker game?

Here is some free advice.

"Don't talk tough and then cave early---they will never believe you again."

[christine]

is there nothing that mr. bush doesn't cave on?

he's a globablist.

[christine]

fyi...

[Trueblackman]

Well I will say this I am not going to fall for half-truths from the left-wing press that seek to split the base and hand the Congress(House)back to Democrats. This deal if it exist has been around for awhile and someone leaked it to the press. I mean come on all the other stuff that has been leaked as of late, this fits the Liberal MO.

[MJY1288]

I salute you, I just wish our friends here would consider the source when they read these deceptive ads. Look for many more of these ads by the left as they try to divide conservatives and play on their most sacred issues. The socialist over at the NYT's are professionals at stirring the most conservative among us by playing on our emotions.

When we see articles like this, that do their very best to claim Bush is ignoring our troops, do yourself a favor and email as many of our troops you can and ask them about the changes they see happening, ask them about their pay, and most of all ask them if they trust their Commander-in-Chief. What we are seeing is election year politics that is aimed at trashing the President at every opportunity they get. The left has no agenda, they have no issues to run on, their only avenue is unwarranted attacks that are based on pure lies and speculation. PERIOD

[GretchenEE]

I like the way you think.

[Bandolier]

It took me a while to find this, but I wanted to admit that I was wrong, and fogarty was right.

---

To: Bandolier

You forgot the third option:

3. The UN refuses to back down and the US compromises, allowing for some watered-down form of protection for US armed forces overseas.

118 posted on 6/20/02 1:16 PM Central by fogarty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]