A unanimous Security Council vote to exempt American
peacekeepers from prosecution by the new war crimes tribunal for a year ended a US threat to halt UN peacekeeping – but angered many court supporters.
After a long and contentious dispute that pitted the survival of peacekeeping against the integrity of the court, the United States and the court’s supporters reached a compromise late on Friday that all 15 Security Council members could accept.
But many non-council backers of the world’s first permanent International Criminal Court questioned the legality of the council’s action – and accused the Bush administration of trying to break the fundamental principle that nobody is above the law.
The United States has not ratified the Rome treaty that established the court and objects to the idea that Americans could be subject to its jurisdiction even if it is not a party.
Washington argues that the court could be used by other countries for frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions of American troops.
Supporters argue that the court can step in only when states are unwilling or unable to dispense justice, one of many safeguards to prevent such abuses.
But after Friday’s vote, US Ambassador John Negroponte made a very tough statement threatening ”serious consequences” if the court ever detains an American, and warning that ”No nations should underestimate our commitment to protect our citizens”.
The resolution calls for a 12-month exemption in investigating or prosecuting current or former personnel from peacekeeping operations established or authorised by the United Nations from countries that haven’t ratified the Rome treaty ”if a case arises”.
The exemption can be renewed every year. Britain’s UN Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, the current council president, said the exemption will provide ”a time out for the right action to be taken by the member state whose nationals are accused or indicted”.
Negroponte said the resolution offered ”a degree of protection for the coming year”. But he made clear that the United States wants nothing to do with the new tribunal, which came into existence on July 1 with ratifications from 76 countries and signatures from 139.
”We cannot accept a structure that may transform the political criticism of America’s world role into the basis for criminal trials of Americans who have put their lives on the line for freedom,” Negroponte stressed. He added that Washington will seek bilateral agreements to strengthen its safeguards against the court.
Some of the court’s supporters were equally tough.
Canada’s UN Ambassador Paul Heinbecker, who was in the
forefront of the campaign against the American demand for permanent immunity, claimed the resolution didn’t have the support of many countries outside the Security Council.
”We think this is a sad day for the United Nations,” he said.
”We are extremely disappointed with the outcome and we don’t think it’s in the mandate of the Security Council to interpret treaties that are negotiated somewhere else.”
In addition, Heinbecker said, ”It’s not appropriate to create two classes of people under international law, one which is for peacekeepers and one rule for everybody else.”
Vienna Colucci of Amnesty International USA called the
resolution ”unlawful” and accused the Bush administration of rolling ”a diplomatic tank” over the court. ”In time, the fears that drove this offensive will be seen to have been unwarranted,” she said.
”For all its arm-twisting, Washington got only a temporary reprieve of dubious legality and a strong taste of global outrage,” declared Richard Dicker, head of the International Justice Programme at Human Rights Watch. ”The court will begin its work in a matter of months with greater international support than every before.”
Even though the six council members who ratified the Rome treaty and the six other who have signed it all voted for the resolution, it was not done with enthusiasm.
Britain’s Greenstock, who brokered the compromise, said council members decided that ”they had to make a decision that preserved two very important institutions – the newly born International Criminal Court and its integrity and United Nations peacekeeping with the full contribution of all major members.”
France’s UN Ambassador Jean-David Levitte, a strong court supporter, insisted the resolution ”is absolutely in line with the statute of Rome”.
”There is no blanket immunity given to peacekeepers or soldiers participating in operations authorised by the Security Council.
There is no preventive, permanent and general immunity – and this for us is what is most important,” he said.
Last month, the United States threatened to veto UN
peacekeeping operations as their mandates came up for renewal if American troops weren’t granted permanent immunity from prosecution by the court.
But facing intense international opposition, the United States backpedalled this week, proposing instead a year-long exemption from any prosecutions.
Court supporters argued that that would amount to an amendment of the treaty, which provides for deferrals only on a case-by-case basis.
The impasse was resolved when key court supporters made a new proposal on Friday morning that would apply to peacekeepers ”if a case arises”.
The exemption applies not only to the 15 current peacekeeping missions but also to the NATO-led forces in Bosnia and Kosovo which are authorised by the United Nations.
After approving the resolution on the court, the council immediately voted unanimously to extend the UN police training mission in Bosnia until December 31, to authorise Bosnia’s 18 000-strong NATO-led force for another 12 months and to extend the UN observer mission in the Croatian enclave of Prevlaka until Oct. 15. The mandates were set to expire on Monday. ? Sapa-AP