Global Policy Forum

By Evelyn Leopold

The United States was close on Friday to getting a one-year grace period for any prosecutions of its peacekeepers by the new global criminal court after a firestorm of protests forced some compromises.

The text before the U.N. Security Council, introduced by Mauritius on the basis of new American, British and French language, was agreed on in principle by most nations in the 15-member council, diplomats said.

"It was received with some warmth by virtually every member of the Security Council," said British Ambassador Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the current council president.

But he said there were other proposals that had to be discussed before the resolution could be adopted, which he hoped would happen on Friday.

After fierce criticism from its closest allies and a host of other nations, the Bush administration on Wednesday backed down from its demand for indefinite immunity from the International Criminal Court for its soldiers and officials and proposed a 12-month exemption from prosecutions, subject to renewal.

But even then, at least seven council members, led by France, opposed the new U.S. proposals as being in conflict with the statutes of the court, set up to try to world's most heinous crimes, depriving Washington of the necessary votes.

The court's treaty allows the Security Council to defer action on a case-by-case basis. These provisions were designed to defer prosecutions if peace negotiations were under way.

The revised resolution says that if a case involving civilian or military personnel in a U.N.-authorized action actually gets before the court in the next 12 months it would be deferred "unless the Security Council decides otherwise."

This would apply only to countries, like the United States, that have not ratified a 1998 Rome statute establishing the court, which came into existence on July 1.

The document expresses the council's intention to renew such requests after 12 months but does not commit the 15-member body to do so automatically as Washington had wanted.

THREAT TO STOP U.N. PEACEKEEPING

Without a resolution on the court, the mandate of the Bosnian peacekeeping mission expires on Monday, followed by other U.N. operations as they come up. Threatening to halt peacekeeping, Washington vetoed the Bosnian mission on July 1 to get its way on the court.

The International Criminal Court is the first permanent global 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 in which Nazi leaders were prosecuted for new categories of war crimes.

Some 76 nations have ratified the 1998 Rome treaty and 139 have signed it.

The issue had evolved into a firestorm between the United States and its closest allies, including all 15 members of the European Union, Canada, Mexico and many other nations around the world. Only India openly sided with Washington.

Conservative Republicans consider the tribunal an affront to U.S. sovereignty. Washington argues that countries could use the new court for politically motivated prosecutions of U.S. soldiers and officials.

In practice, however, the court's statutes numerous safeguards. First and foremost, the court can only step in when countries are unable or unwilling to bring to justice perpetrators of systematic abuses.

Unclear is whether the compromise suits Canada and Germany, two prime movers of the court who do not have seats on the council but have been lobbying behind the scenes.

Richard Dicker, a legal expert on the court for Human Rights Watch, said Friday's last-minute changes "amounted to plastic surgery and left intact the generalized exemption for peacekeepers that the United States wanted."

"I think there will be a question of the legality of this attempted amendments by the council of a multilateral treaty, whether it is warranted under international law," he said.

But despite the U.S. achievement, Dicker believed Washington's stand had aroused the attention and interest of the world in favor of the court. "The Americans came out with something very different than what they had intended or expected," he said.

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.