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.
Glad you were amused. You should have quit while you were laughing.
Antonin Scalia is a "twin" of Stephen Breyer; Ron Paul is a "twin" of Bernie Sanders; Rick Santorum is a "twin" of Patrick Leahy; Ann Coulter is a "twin" of Eleanor Clift; etc.
Leave Paul off this list unless you are ready to make the case that he is typical of the elected officals from your party.
I truly believe that you "not-a-dimes-worth-of-difference" people don't realize how utterly stupid you sound.
I never said "a dimes worth" but what the hell, as long as we are making comparisons, shall we list all the things both parties agree upon? It will be a more telling list than a bunch of names of lefties and righties.
But, hey, I guess I should be happy that at least you're not Democrats anymore.
Never been a Democrat. But nice try.
Or should I say chicken little?
Hopefully the pigs will stay on message as the outcome of their policies becomes more evident.
Yes. A well-known family trait.
Have we got any good graphics people, amongst the conservatives on FR? We need one of those images where GWB's face morphs into his father's. That'd be handy, for this type of thread.
1st time the Government allows the U.N. to bring a U.S. serviceman up on charges..(valid ones or not)...we need to be there...with weapons.
Let 'em know that we will not allow that to happen...no matter how cowardly those in our government are.
redrock
And when these socialist sonsabeaches complained, I'd further inform them the US days of carrying their water are over....that they have 48 hours to get the UN out of the United States, along with the so-called diplomats, else they will all be arrested and tried for espionage and attempts to overthrow the government of the United States of America.
Alas, I'm dreaming.......neither the Dems or the Pubs have spines or testosterone. Too spineless to stand up for a principle!
The problem with the USA is just like the Pubbie politicians, we always start from the wrong premise--we let the sonsabeaches set the premise and fall for it every single time!!
And I've taken the time to watch and read who gets behind entities such as the ICC, WTO, etc., as well as read oodles about these entities to be able to form an opinion as to whether I think they are good or bad.
For those who would make the traditional kneepad, kneejerk reaction in support of 'their' President as being one who would never stand for such a thing, unless they are privy to some private conspiracy to keep 'their' President as King for Life, they need to step back and take a look at what can happen when the next guy or gal steps up to the plate as President.
This is why it is so important that conservatives, or more correctly, the right side of the aisle make a determine effort to refuse to deal with the Democrats from any premise the Democrats start from!!!
The stupidity of trying to grapple with the size of the fedgov with a starting premise that it isn't big enough already GUARANTEES you lose before you even start the game.....this bullshit of -bipartisanship- or -compromise- needs to be stopped. Who gives a damn if there is only 1 piece of legislation passed during the whole year! Just flat out refuse to play their game.....let them rant and rave [they do it anyway] and you continue holding hearings and appear to be doing the peoples business; or *gasp*, how about just returning to the districts and actually getting out and about meeting with constituents ALL the time!!
Stay frosty. DON'T get kicked off FR, you'll regret it.
Because looking around the Forum I see that even the diehard Bushies are having doubts. Many, many a time, a clique has attempted to force their preferred version of reality on FR. It's never worked yet.
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.