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

Skip to comments.

U.S. Backs Down From Immunity Demand
abc ^ | 7/10/02

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.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: icc; un; unlist; worldcourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 181-199 next last
To: tomahawk
I can assure you that if our troops are not immune from this kangeroo court, President Bush will yank them from every mission where our troops are in jeopardy. My oldest brother works for the State Department and he said this is one area where we will not bend. He is as conservative as anyone here and the stories he tells me about the entrenched liberals in the State Department would curl your hair and they are the most eager to leak anything negative about this administration.
61 posted on 07/10/2002 9:13:11 PM PDT by MJY1288
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Thisiswhoweare
So much for our resolve. There goes our sovreignty.

Try reading.

"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."

This is not a cave, it is politics. It simply puts off the confrontation for 12 months during which we have time to twist some arms, and possibly have to rely on these allies for help in Iraq.

62 posted on 07/10/2002 9:14:10 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Thisiswhoweare
I didn't realize Bush has signed on to the treaty. When did you hear that?

/sarcasm
63 posted on 07/10/2002 9:14:37 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: knak
How many ways can you spell CAVE?

And watch yourself cause KYOTO gonna slap you upside of the head, too.
64 posted on 07/10/2002 9:15:06 PM PDT by edger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
Oh my gosh....how hilarious!

You think Bush will be worse than his father!!

lol

Seriously sir, you need to stop taking the pot.
65 posted on 07/10/2002 9:16:41 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
I am surprised and disappointed that this report by ABC, from the United Nations, is taken as truthful on its face by a lot of posters who should know better by now.

Are you kidding? They eat this crap up. Always delighted to believe the worst possibly thing about Bush. No waiting!

66 posted on 07/10/2002 9:18:16 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
We aren't surrendering our sovereignty. Just how are we doing so when we are seeking exemption from prosecution overseas just as a precaution when we are already NOT A PARTY TO THE TREATY......I.E., NOT ABLE TO BE PROSECUTED.
67 posted on 07/10/2002 9:19:04 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: mlo
All the leftist media outlets are experts at disinformation, They write the story as if Bush ahs agreed to the ICC treaty. The fact is...He pulled our signature from the treaty and that makes it IMPOSSIBLE for Congress to even vote on it.

NO TREATY SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT can be made official without the consent of Congress. In some cases the President can withdrawl from a treaty Congress has ratified if that option is agreed upon from the start, like the ABM treaty. President Bush had the right to withdrawl with a simple six month notice, because that's the way it was written.

68 posted on 07/10/2002 9:21:19 PM PDT by MJY1288
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: mlo
12 months?? He couldn't hold out till July 15th.
69 posted on 07/10/2002 9:28:50 PM PDT by edger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Always delighted to believe the worst possibly thing about Bush

I posted this article and have always liked Bush. I don't just sit here and wait for something to bad mouth him about. I just don't think we should give an inch in regards to this immunity deal. I don't think service men/women will care for this to much either.

70 posted on 07/10/2002 9:29:32 PM PDT by knak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: knak
Our service men and women are smarter than to believe an article from ABC, The President has withdrawn our signature from the ICC treaty and so our troops are assured they will not be subject to this kangeroo court. The debate is over immunity, NOT compliance. The deal is....No Immunity...NO U.S. Troops for missions where our troops are in jeopardy of being brought in front of this "U.S. condemened" Court.

Dont fall for the leftist propaganda

71 posted on 07/10/2002 9:38:53 PM PDT by MJY1288
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: knak
Don't you think you should wait until he actually DOES SOMETHING before you burn him in effigy?

72 posted on 07/10/2002 9:40:36 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: knak
This is fine with me. No immunity. No Treaty. No "Peacekeepers". No involvement of US Military in foriegn affairs, unless there is a formal declaration of war (to protect US interests, including our response to the terrorist threat on our homeland and overseas interests). In that case, pull out all the stops until the job is done, then revert to the status quo. Let the euroleftyknownothingchildpeople defend themselves. Get out of the UN, defund the UN, throw the un OFF US soil. Fine with me.
73 posted on 07/10/2002 9:42:57 PM PDT by Mad_Tom_Rackham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knak
Jorge Bush can forget reelection.

He barely got elected with overwhelming support of GIs and veterans. How's he going to do without them - due to GIs and veterans alienated over his not standing up to the Europeans and their kangaroo court?

74 posted on 07/10/2002 9:43:46 PM PDT by glc1173@aol.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knak
What happened? I thought we were pulling out of this.
75 posted on 07/10/2002 9:47:01 PM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288; Howlin
I know the debate is over immunity only and Bush has said numerous times that we will NOT sign the court thing. I just don't like the way this sounds. BUT, since you and Howlin both say to wait and see I will. This is the first time I've been insecure about Bush's policies. Well the deal with giving minorities grants to buy homes didn't go over to well either, but that's politics as usual. This better be too.
76 posted on 07/10/2002 9:47:06 PM PDT by knak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: michellcraig
Watch not what he said but what he does
77 posted on 07/10/2002 9:49:01 PM PDT by PatriotReporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: glc1173@aol.com
LOL, you certainly don't know anyone in the military. We are not a member of this Kangaroo Court, The issue is our immunity from it, and what must happen in order to keep us from withdrawling our troops from missions where our troops are in jeopardy from the ICC's jurisdiction.

Please read the facts before you jump on the "Bash Bush First" bandwagon

78 posted on 07/10/2002 9:50:35 PM PDT by MJY1288
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: knak
OK, please remember this when you see propaganda from the likes of leftist media outlets like ABC.

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

Our position is.... NO IMMUNITY.... NO PEACE KEEPING FORCES.

This story is about the USA willing to debate the issue while guaranteeing the immunity of our troops from being subject to this Kangaroo Court...NOTHING ELSE

79 posted on 07/10/2002 9:58:37 PM PDT by MJY1288
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
Ah! Thank goodness for the voices of reason on this thread. I saw this thread; and I immediately cringed. I just knew the grumbling, screaming, the "Oh no; he caved again"'s would be warming up down the page. I wasn't disappointed! But I looked down, and read the soothing words of reason coming from you and a few others. When I read "abc"; I knew right away that the article was probably going to be slanted.

I had hoped that some of these posters would have seen that. But I was wrong, the usual suspects who take it as 'gospel truth' were on there squalling away!
80 posted on 07/10/2002 10:05:52 PM PDT by dsutah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 181-199 next last

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