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 1-50, 51-100, 101-150, 151-199 next last
wusses
1
posted on
07/10/2002 7:58:44 PM PDT
by
knak
To: knak
bump
Comment #3 Removed by Moderator
To: knak
Im beginning to notice a patern with Bush. Act conservative then cave into the liberals at the end.
4
posted on
07/10/2002 8:01:51 PM PDT
by
weikel
To: knak
BS
To: knak
So much for our resolve. There goes our sovreignty.
To: knak
The United States on Wednesday backed off from its demand...Makes you wonder who's in charge.
To: *UN_List
To: All
"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 So they just won't ever be able to travel outside the US again huh? That stinks.
9
posted on
07/10/2002 8:07:40 PM PDT
by
knak
To: knak
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.A great incentive for the men and women of our armed forces -- and entirely dependent on who is in office, and/or if the president has the will to pursue another exemption.
To: knak
I wonder what does the Bush Admin say. Apparently it is in the UN best interest to put their spin on negotiations in the public arena.
11
posted on
07/10/2002 8:16:59 PM PDT
by
swheats
To: weikel
Im beginning to notice a patern with Bush. Act conservative then cave into the liberals at the end
you got it
12
posted on
07/10/2002 8:18:03 PM PDT
by
herewego
To: knak
Very nice. Europe and Asia whines, and Bush buckles like a belt, just like when Klinton was in charge. The more things change, the more they stay the same....
To: herewego
He has about only one other thing to 'cave' for....that's the 2nd Amendment. Perhaps he'll adopt the UN position on 'small arms' next???
14
posted on
07/10/2002 8:21:37 PM PDT
by
RCW2001
To: knak
Well, this really bites it.
To: swheats
George Bush - There must be something in the gene pool of the Bush family. Seems he is as big a wimp as his father who didn't have the guts to stand up to Congress and uphold his No New Taxes pledge, and couldn't see fit to rid the world of Sadam Hussein.
Now, we have Junior whose motto is, "Speak loudly (even if in broken English) and wimp out afterwards."
Here is one life-long registered Republican who is about to re-register as an Independent. At least with Clinton we did not have any false hopes. This Bush has been an overwhelming disappointment.
16
posted on
07/10/2002 8:23:29 PM PDT
by
CdMGuy
To: knak
This is just a clever ploy to get them where we want them right?
Like hell.
17
posted on
07/10/2002 8:24:14 PM PDT
by
Bogey78O
To: weikel
"Im beginning to notice a patern with Bush. Act conservative then cave into the liberals at the end." Caving on the ICC will be a big,big mistake.
18
posted on
07/10/2002 8:24:20 PM PDT
by
blam
To: knak
It will be fun to see how this gets spun....
19
posted on
07/10/2002 8:25:58 PM PDT
by
Mulder
To: weikel
sadly, I'm observing the same pattern
To: knak
What a bunch of whiners. Be patient and see how this works out in the long run. This Criminal Court will not happen in Bush's watch.
21
posted on
07/10/2002 8:26:56 PM PDT
by
gramho12
To: knak
I TOLD you he would back down. Hell, he didn't even have the balls to wait until his ultimatum date of July 15th.
Bush is a complete sellout and will turn out to be the worst RINO ever elected.
To: knak
Bush,
Wake up, sir.
You earn our respect for standing up for values, and then you CAVE?
This REEKS of POWELL.
To: knak
She once was a grand old nation. With no borders, dwindling self-determination, a Congress and a President who flip us the bird, there isn't much left that resembles the nation we were gifted with. There's been quite a price paid for what is truning into the American nightmare. May God curse the men who sell us out!
To: knak
Maybe we should wait to see exactly what happens before we start criticizing GW. Man, you people are so transparent.
To: knak
I'm beginning to think our country has a severe yeast infection...
To: knak
The title of this article should be: "Bush Goes Liberal...Again."
To: arkfreepdom
Seems like a way to let everyone off the hook. Bush still should have told them to stuff it though.
To: herewego
Hell, he started caving practicall the day he got elected!
To: knak
A year will give us time to UNSIGN the treaty. This is good! It had to be ratified anyway - and it never was and it never will be. Somehow, we will overcome this stupid treaty that Clinton left us.
30
posted on
07/10/2002 8:34:05 PM PDT
by
CyberAnt
To: Blood of Tyrants
Bush is a complete sellout and will turn out to be the worst RINO ever elected. This is worse than a sellout.
Surrending our sovereignty, for which millions of Americans have shed blood for, is something I would expect of a known traitor, like Klinton.
31
posted on
07/10/2002 8:35:10 PM PDT
by
Mulder
To: CyberAnt
Somehow, we will overcome this stupid treaty that Clinton left us. Did the Senate ratify this "treaty"?
If not, it has no more force of law than a piece of crapped-on newspaper.
32
posted on
07/10/2002 8:36:50 PM PDT
by
Mulder
To: knak
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. But in the end, he sold out America's troops because he doesn't have the nuts to stand up to Europe and the U.N. When the first bunch of American servicemen are rounded up, imprisoned, and executed, we'll see how good Bush feels about selling out American troops to countries that hate us.
To: christine11
Check this out....
34
posted on
07/10/2002 8:39:30 PM PDT
by
Mulder
To: knak
First slip on the slippery slope!
vaudine
35
posted on
07/10/2002 8:40:32 PM PDT
by
vaudine
To: DoughtyOne
The ultimate joke is these boys and girls in Washington are going to clean up the crime and corruption in corporate America, as if there isn't massive fraud and accounting abuse in the federal government. The only things that keeps the Federal bureaucracy afloat are the standing armed forces, the printing press at the US mint, and a public school system which has produced an alliterate, innumerate, and apathetic electorate. The Department of Agriculture has billions unaccounted for, and the buffoons in both parties just passed a massive farm bill. This after a few years ago they promised to wean agriculture from the government busom with the Freedom to Farm Act. I have nothing but the highest respect for the House managers of the impeachment, the rest of those slugs are worth less than a bucket of warm spit.
To: knak
Email Bush at president@whitehouse.gov and let him know that you see thru his conservative pose.
37
posted on
07/10/2002 8:44:19 PM PDT
by
etcetera
To: knak
PUKE!
38
posted on
07/10/2002 8:45:16 PM PDT
by
ibme
To: CyberAnt
The President already unsigned it.
To: michellcraig
clinton gets to go to the Hague.Not to the ICC, he doesn't. Crimes committed before the court came into effect are immune from prosecution.
40
posted on
07/10/2002 8:46:11 PM PDT
by
altair
To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
Ole Bubba must stay awake nights wondering why he couldn't get away with his stuff while this president walks all over conservatives & they act like the NOW crowd for Bubba.
41
posted on
07/10/2002 8:46:18 PM PDT
by
Digger
To: vaudine
Watch out, that first step is a lu-lu!!
To: knak
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.Interesting spin. The first two are just fine with me. The third has never been and will never be true. The Clintons of the world who are above the law now will still be above the law ICC or no ICC.
43
posted on
07/10/2002 8:52:13 PM PDT
by
altair
To: knak
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. I even see the names of a few of the same suckers who were jumping up and down a few weeks ago when that silly "EPA-man-causes-global-warming-Bush-admits" report came out. Only to be laughed off the next day by Bush himself.
Of course, I also see the names of a few "liberaltarians" who like to take a break from their DU circle jerk to stop in and bash Dubya on FR from time to time. Yawn.
To: knak
Bush Caves, what a surprise.
45
posted on
07/10/2002 8:53:12 PM PDT
by
Blackyce
To: knak
W's moral equivalent to "read my lips". They figure the conservatives will forgive him come November. Inevitable slide to the left.
46
posted on
07/10/2002 8:53:21 PM PDT
by
Check6
To: arkfreepdom
Maybe we should wait to see exactly what happens before we start criticizing GW. Man, you people are so transparent.When something hits the fan and lands all over your face, you can tell by the smell what happened!
47
posted on
07/10/2002 8:54:10 PM PDT
by
ibme
To: Blackyce
What'd you guys expect; he still hasnt ever vetoed anything by the way.
48
posted on
07/10/2002 8:54:18 PM PDT
by
Blackyce
To: CyberAnt
A year will give us time to UNSIGN the treaty.I thought the treaty already was unsigned.
49
posted on
07/10/2002 8:54:44 PM PDT
by
altair
To: BikerTrash
Makes you wonder who's in charge.Man, I was giving him accolades for his move a week or two ago; now this. This better be a trick. I'm beginning to wonder who is in charge as well.
50
posted on
07/10/2002 8:56:41 PM PDT
by
meyer
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-100, 101-150, 151-199 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson