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.
U.S. Backs Down From Immunity Demand
But if I go to sleep tonight, I just might change my mind...
It has no authority to extend "the Judicial Power of the United States" beyond that vested in a Supreme Court, and such other inferior courts as Congress shall decree.
This ICC is not an Article III court, no American on US territory is subject to its pretended jurisdiction, and President Bush's ambassadors have no authority whatsoever to discuss it with anyone, since the President's Article II powers do not include subversion of the Constitution.
This tactic/method was spelled out by me in a couple of the postings of his "refusal" to go along with the ICC.
The overwhelming refusal to ACCEPT that he would do this by FR "Apologists for Bush" should be remembered. We all know who they are.
Let's invite a few comments from some of the "stars".
It seems to me that from the many reports of abuse by UN peacekeepers they are the one that should be tried. What I read into this is that if we want our troops to be immune from prosecution that ALL FUTURE military actions by the US MUST be sanctioned by the UN. No unilateral wars from now on - just UN peacekeeping. Isn't that in itself a surrender of our sovereignty? And when was the last time we saw victory while fighting under the UN banner?
>>>"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."
>>>... for further 12 month periods for as long as may be necessary.
That means if necessary, forever!
Rule #1
When faced with facts supporting the notion that Republicans are Democratic twins and their chosen idol is a fraud,,,,blame libertarians.
Rule #2,,,
Deny, deny, deny,,,and then blame libertarians.
Yeah, Riiiight ;-)
BTW, you in the market for any really choice real estate?
I wonder if we said that with a straight face. "Ummm, how about if we agree to doing things our way for a year rather than forever." "Okay, that works. We have a deal." "Great! By the way, we'll be requesting these 1 year stays forever-- or else we'll pull out of this thing." "Huh, I thought we had a deal?"
I wonder if we said that with a straight face. "Ummm, how about if we agree to doing things our way for a year rather than forever." "Okay, that works. We have a deal." "Great! By the way, we'll be requesting these 1 year stays forever-- or else we'll pull out of this thing." "Huh, I thought we had a deal?"
Don't count on it, America is much more than the few in Goverment.
Why on earth does he feel the need to help the Globalists "save face" when they are the absolute antithesis of Liberty, American sovereignty, and individual rights? An enemy like that needs to be shamed, often and aggressively, in very public ways. The only way the rest of the world will recognize their evil is to see them scattering when the lights of Truth get turned on. The 12 months of "wiggle room" is nice, but is a poorer position than where we had last week. This was a bad move that will expose Americans to danger. It will blow up the next time a Clinton-clone gets into office.
(If it isn't the spelling, it's the grammar when I change my syntax... *sigh*)
As are many of the posters here. Globalism is destroying the country and the Constitution in the name of corporate profit and, of course, diversity.
They will bring the draft back into play. Hello National ID card.
The American economy would recover, new jobs would be created and we would no longer be a target for terrorism.
Is Bubba-2 now pandering to THE "illegal aliens from Europe" vote,in order to make the Dims look stupid?
Will Bubba-2 now go see Trent Lott to try and borrow some spine? Enquiring minds want to know.
Bubba-2 never had any resolve on this issue. It was just "posing".
There goes our sovreignty.
Of course. How else can he get his nephew George "The Mexican" Bush elected president of the new superstate to be composed of the US,Mexico,and Canada unless we lose our sovereignty? We will no longer be the United States of America when this happens.
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.