News and Document archive source
copyrighted material disclaimer at bottom of page

NewsMinecabal-eliteeuropean-unionicc-hague — Viewing Item


War crimes treaty { June 17 2002 }

Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
   http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-un-court-usa.html

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-un-court-usa.html

June 17, 2002
US Tries Again to Evade Reach of New Global Court
By REUTERS


Filed at 4:03 a.m. ET

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - In its uphill battle against a new global criminal court, the Bush administration wants the U.N. Security Council to exclude all peacekeeping operations from the tribunal's jurisdiction, diplomats said.

No resolution has emerged, but the United States last month vowed to propose some action before the court's statutes come into force on July 1, which means a draft is expected this week or next.

British and French officials, among others, have been sounded out by U.S. envoys about the International Criminal Court, the world's first permanent tribunal to try the most heinous crimes -- genocide, war crimes and systematic, gross human rights abuses. One such encounter took place recently on the fringe of the recent Group of Eight industrial nations foreign ministers meeting in western Canada.

Both Britain and France, who have veto power in the 15-member Security Council, have ratified the treaty creating the court as have all other European Union members. So far no council member believes Washington even has the minimum nine votes needed to bring such a resolution to the floor.

``But they will make a strong effort, even though the French have already give them a blunt, stern 'no,''' said one diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The Bush administration and conservative Republicans in Congress passionately oppose the court as a threat to national sovereignty. They also fear U.S. officials as well as soldiers abroad could be subject to political prosecutions, an action supporters of the court say is extremely unlikely.

Backers of the court consider it the most important development in international law since the Nazi war crimes tribunal in Nuremberg after World War II.

The United States has only about 700 personnel in U.N. missions, police, civilians and a handful of military observers but no combat troops. Therefore, any proposed resolution would probably include all U.N.-endorsed missions -- such as NATO-led troops in Bosnia and Kosovo where there are American troops.

Nevertheless, since such a resolution has little chance of being adopted, diplomats are asking whether the United States will raise the ante -- such as refusing to participate in U.N. peacekeeping missions or making sure Congress cuts off or reduces drastically peacekeeping funds.

U.S. officials deny this. ``We want to make them as strong

as possible, as potent as possible'' said one official.

FRICTION AHEAD

But in a harbinger of what may come, U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte last month attempted unsuccessfully to set this precedent by preventing U.N. personnel serving in newly independent East Timor from being tried by the court.

``We put down a marker,'' Negroponte told a group of reporters. ``We want to make clear that when we participate in peacekeeping missions, we intend to seek some kind of exception to the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction.''

At the May meeting, no one in the council budged. Six nations in the 15-member body have ratified the treaty and among the others, all but Singapore and China have signed it.

And even China opposed the U.S. move, although Asian nations have been slow to sign the treaty, some fearing the court would be used by the West against developing countries.

The court's proponents say there are so many safeguards they fear the new court will have few cases.

Prosecutions are only valid if national courts are unable or unwilling to prosecute serious crimes. And only a nation ratifying the treaty, which Bosnia has done, can make a complaint against its own citizens or those of other nations for crimes committed on its soil.

The court is not retroactive. No crime committed before July 1 can be prosecuted by the court when it begins functioning in The Hague, Netherlands, sometime next year.

The treaty on the court was signed by former President Bill Clinton and then renounced by President Bush.



Copyright 2002 Reuters Ltd. | Privacy Policy



Attack hague
Belgium wavers to us pressure { June 13 2003 }
Columbia denies us { August 20 2002 }
Countries face loss aid over court
Court orders us to review mexican cases
Eu caves to us { September 30 2002 }
Eu warns immunity
Exempt troops { May 23 2002 }
Exemption rebuffed { July 10 2002 }
Former pres george bush for 1991 { February 12 1991 }
Hague invasion
Hrw hague invasion { August 3 2002 }
Int court
Israel shields { August 7 2002 }
Israel us pact
Peace keepers
Rights groups
US abandons bid for world court exemption { June 23 2004 }
Us cuts aid over immunity refusals
Us plays aid card fix exemption { June 12 2003 }
Us renounces tribual { May 7 2002 }
Us scourned court { April 12 2002 }
Us threatened new nato headquarters { June 14 2003 }
Us threatens cutting off military aid { July 2 2003 }
Use force { May 13 2002 }
War crimes treaty { June 17 2002 }
War tribunal starts without us
World court fear { July 2 2002 }

Files Listed: 28



Correction/submissions

CIA FOIA Archive

National Security
Archives
Support one-state solution for Israel and Palestine Tea Party bumper stickers JFK for Dummies, The Assassination made simple