Posted on 07/11/2002 9:14:34 AM PDT by milestogo
Filed at 2:36 a.m. ET
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - After a day of fierce criticism from its closest allies, the Bush administration softened demands for blanket immunity for American peacekeepers from the world's first permanent criminal court.
The new U.S. proposal, to be discussed by U.N. Security Council members on Thursday, would prevent the investigation or prosecution of peacekeepers for a year, subject to renewal.
Previously Washington demanded a permanent exemption from the tribunal's jurisdiction for soldiers from countries that had not ratified a 1998 Rome treaty creating the International Criminal Court, which came into existence on July 1.
Nevertheless, many of the Security Council's 14 other members said the new U.S. draft resolution still violated the letter and spirit of the court's treaty, signed by 139 countries and ratified by 76 nations.
But the U.S. modification was the first indication that a resolution of the dispute, in which the United States threatened to shut down all U.N. peacekeeping missions, might be resolved soon.
Washington has made Bosnia the test case. It vetoed an extension of the 1,500-member U.N. police training mission and the council's endorsement of a 18,000-strong NATO-led peacekeeping force, unless its demands were met. Another vote is due by Monday.
The ICC is the first global permanent tribunal to try individuals for genocide, war crimes and gross human rights abuses, a belated effort to fulfill the promise of the Nuremberg trials 56 years ago, when Nazi leaders were prosecuted for new categories of war crimes.
MORE CHANGES POSSIBLE
Unclear is whether the U.S. proposal will be adopted without more changes. Britain's U.N. ambassador, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, said the draft was ``a very fair basis for discussions.''
French Ambassador Jean-David Levitte told colleagues it was ``a step'' on in the right direction but fell short of getting his country's support. But he has not threatened a veto.
France and Britain belong to the European Union, all of whose 15 members have ratified the court's treaty. Both nations, along with the United States, Russia and China, have veto power on the Security Council.
On Wednesday, Canada organized an open meeting so countries around the world could tell Security Council members the U.S. proposals were unacceptable.
And some two dozen nations did so, from Asia, Latin America, Africa, the Middle East as well as the European Union. Only India took Washington's side.
``We have just emerged from a century that witnessed the evils of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Idi Amin, and the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, and ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia,'' Canadian Ambassador Paul Heinbecker said.
``Surely, we have all learned the fundamental lesson of this bloodiest of centuries, which is that impunity from prosecution for grievous crimes must end,'' he said.
Passionate in their opposition to the court, conservative Republicans have long considered the tribunal an affront to U.S. sovereignty. Washington argues that countries could use the new court for frivolous and politically-motivated prosecution of Americans soldiers and officials.
PLENTY OF SAFEGUARDS
But nearly all speakers countered that the treaty had more safeguards than any tribunal of its kind. The main one is that the court can only step in when countries are unable or unwilling to bring perpetrators to justice.
Specifically the new U.S. draft proposes that the court not investigate or prosecute officials or personnel of United Nations missions for a year, after which the Security Council could but does not have to vote to renew the exemption.
The United States for the first time also eliminated language asking for permanent immunity for peacekeepers from countries opposed to the court.
But the U.S. proposals are based on Article 16 of the treaty that allows the Security Council to request a 12-month deferral of an investigation or prosecution by the court on a case by case basis
``Article 16 was never intended for generic, general immunities,'' said Hans-Peter Kaul, who led Germany's delegation at the 1998 Rome treaty conference.
Instead, he told reporters the provision was designed to delay indictments while delicate peace negotiations were underway, such as the U.S.-led 1995 talks in Dayton that ended the Bosnian war.
It seems as though it just gets a little worse each day.
Some UN slug, earlier this week, claimed that the coming starvation of almost a million in Southern Africa would be a "crime against humanity," and that they had only 30 million of the 500 million necessary to prevent it. So, next year after some well publicized picture of Africans looking unhappy and hungry and claims that millions had starved (but, no bodies), someone will raise charges in the court that the US, by providing the 470 million, was guilty of not preventing a "crime against humanity." Defending our borders, using timber taken from an area where a species has gone extinct, use of fuels causing global warming (kyoto) will all be claimed to be the "equivalent" of a "crime against humanity." The jurisdiction of these slugs will expand until they find something equivalent to the interstate commerce clause, and then every aspect of life in the US (and, the world) comes under the jurisdiction of these theiving socialists in Europe.
Remember: Republican spinelessness isn't a flaw, it's a characteristic.
You want to wish them on New Jersy?
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.