Global Policy Forum

By Steven Edwards

Canada accused the United States of launching a "frontal attack" on international law yesterday after Washington threatened to disrupt international peacekeeping operations in a dispute over the UN's new war crimes court. The Foreign Affairs department called on the UN Security Council to stand firm in the first test of Washington's threat.

As a veto-wielding member of the council, the United States could force the closure of a UN policing operation in Bosnia-Herzegovina, whose mandate expired at midnight last night. As it turned out, Washington allowed the mandate to be extended until June 30, the day before the UN's International Criminal Court opens in The Hague. The new tribunal will have the power to prosecute genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity around the world. The U.S. is bitterly opposed to the new body, fearing it will be used as a kangaroo court by U.S. enemies.

Before it will agree to the customary six-month extension, Washington wants a paragraph inserted in the Bosnian mandate saying no peacekeeper will be tried by the ICC for anything done during the tour of duty. It also wants the Security Council to endorse a wider resolution providing immunity for all UN peacekeepers.

"July 1 is when the ICC takes effect. American servicemen will not be subjected to the reach of the ICC under the UN," Richard Williamson, U.S. representative at the UN for special political affairs, said yesterday outside the Security Council.

The United States believes the Rome Treaty that created the court contains insufficient safeguards to prevent states opposed to U.S. foreign policy from launching frivolous prosecutions. "It is very easy to make a charge or an allegation of wrongdoing,"

said Donald Rumsfeld, the U.S. Defence Secretary. "And the defence against that then falls to the person accused, and then you have to spend a pile of money, a pile of time against a politicized charge of wrongdoing which never happened." He said the U.S. experience in Afghanistan showed its adversaries were trained to spread lies about civilian casualties.

He also cited attempts by French and Spanish prosecutors to subpoena former U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger for questioning about the disappearance of dissidents in Chile during the 1973-90 dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet.

Eager to avert a U.S. pullout from peacekeeping missions, Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, yesterday outlined safeguards he and ICC supporters say address Washington's concerns.

"It is only where the government concerned is unwilling or unable [to investigate allegations] that the court steps in," Mr. Annan said.

He also noted the UN never sends peacekeepers to a country without getting an assurance that any troops who misbehave will be sent home for discipline and will not face local justice. "I don't see a problem as far as the peacekeepers are concerned," he said.

The United States faces an uphill battle to win Security Council approval for blanket immunity. Britain and France -- who also possess veto power -- are, like Canada, staunch supporters of the court. What it can do is veto peacekeeping missions as their mandates come up for renewal.

"We oppose the U.S. proposal, which would undermine the Rome statute," said Nancy Bergeron, a Foreign Affairs spokeswoman. "This is a frontal attack on international law and rule of law. The U.S. proposals are unnecessary and Canada urges the Security Council to reject them."

Observers point out the increased U.S. determination to win immunity for its peacekeepers comes as Washington is proposing a new defensive strategy of launching pre-emptive strikes against threats from terrorists or rogue states.

"It could be they know they are going to get involved in something controversial, so they want to be sure there is no possibility they can be prosecuted in the international court," said one Western diplomat, who asked not to be identified.

Seeking to break opposition to its proposals, Washington suggested yesterday its European allies were guilty of hypocrisy after they negotiated an agreement to protect their peacekeepers in Afghanistan. Britain, working on behalf of 19 countries, got the Afghan government to agree all members of the force "may not be surrendered to or otherwise transferred to the custody of an international tribunal."

"Our reaction is that sovereignty is a two-way street and we have the same concerns that they had," said a U.S. official. But he suggested the U.S. was ready to compromise.

"Other members of the Security Council now realize that the U.S. is seriously engaged in this issue. Several have made suggestions and come up with ideas which we will be discussing."

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C íŸ 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.