Global Policy Forum

By Serge Schmemann

The United States, refusing to budge in its demand that American peacekeepers be exempted from the new International Criminal Court, cast a veto today against a Security Council resolution extending the United Nations peacekeeping mission in Bosnia, but then agreed to a three-day extension.

The display of brinkmanship was the sharpest demonstration to date of the Bush administration's determination to preclude any possibility that the new court, which formally comes into being at midnight, could be used to prosecute American peacekeepers.

Other members of the Security Council, most notably Britain and France, have argued as adamantly that the court has ample safeguards against politically motivated prosecutions. They have refused to let the Security Council alter its rules to satisfy Washington.

The three-day extension, through midnight July 3, gave all sides more time to seek a political solution. But the United States' readiness to cast a Security Council veto — its 75th — against a resolution supported by all other members marked a rare instance in which it found itself alone in the council. In the end, only Bulgaria abstained on the resolution.

Though the resolution was specifically about Bosnia, a fundamental difference over international justice is at the heart of the dispute. It has been fanned by growing irritation among many members of the United Nations over what they perceive as a go-it-alone attitude in Washington.

In a tough address explaining the veto, the United States ambassador, John D. Negroponte, declared that the United States had exposed many of its people to risk in peacekeeping efforts around the world.

"Having accepted these risks, by exposing people to dangerous and difficult situations in the service of promoting peace and stability, we will not ask them to accept the additional risk of politicized prosecutions before a court whose jurisdiction over our people the government of the United States does not accept," he said.

The resolution vetoed by the United States affected two forces in Bosnia, a 1,500-member United Nations police training mission, and the 18,000-member NATO-led peacekeeping mission. The former force would have to be terminated without a United Nations mandate, while the latter could continue as a NATO force.

The fate of the forces remained unclear past July 3. One possibility was that the European Union would escalate a planned takeover of the police training mission, in which only 46 Americans participate.

The United States made no threat to pull out of the NATO force, in which 3,100 Americans participate. But Germany, an important member, has refused to participate unless the force has a United Nations mandate.

For both Britain and France, however, the greater issue was what they perceived as a threat to the integrity of the International Criminal Court, which the European Union strongly supports as a major new instrument in international justice and human rights. Seventy-four countries have signed and ratified the treaty creating the court, whose mission will be to prosecute heinous war crimes, genocide or serious human rights abuses if the governments immediately involved refuse or are unable to do so.

The court, based in The Hague, is not likely to be operational until early next year.The court is fervently opposed by conservatives in Washington as an infringement on national sovereignty, and last May the Bush administration revoked President Clinton's signature from the treaty creating the tribunal.

The showdown this evening followed intense efforts at the United Nations, in Washington and in many capitals to resolve the issue.

In an unusual intervention, the United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, came to the Security Council to appeal for a solution that would not compromise the future of peacekeeping operations, which he administered for many years. "The world cannot afford a situation in which the Security Council is deeply divided on such an important issue, which may have implications for all U.N. peace operations," he said.

Mr. Negroponte declared that the United States wanted to continue contributing to peacekeeping operations, but could not without immunity from potential prosecution. "With our global responsibilities, we are and will remain a special target and cannot have our decisions second-guessed by a court whose jurisdiction we do not recognize," he said.

The French ambassador, Jean-David Levitte, said the American veto was "difficult to understand in many ways." He and the British envoy, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, noted that American forces had operated in Bosnia despite the existence of the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, under which Americans theoretically could have been prosecuted.

France and Britain had tried to stave off an American veto by explicitly naming articles in the treaty creating the court that protect international peacekeepers. But they argued that they could not allow the precedent of having the Security Council alter international treaties.

Mr. Negroponte rejected the arguments and said that any damage done to peacekeeping was not the fault of the United States. "None of this is our doing," he said. He said the United States remained committed to peace and stability in the Balkans.

"The fact that we are vetoing this resolution in the face of that commitment, however, is an indication of just how serious our concerns remain about the risks to our peacekeepers."

The American veto also came under sharp criticism from an organization that supports the International Criminal Court."The United States is pitting international law against international peacekeeping," said William R. Pace, of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court. "The U.S. has sunk to its lowest level in its moral and political leadership at the U.N."

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.