- UNITED NATIONS (Reuters)
- The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously on Friday to exempt Americans
for a year from prosecution by the world's first permanent criminal court,
a deal aimed at saving U.N. peacekeeping missions from a U.S. veto.
-
- After a firestorm of protests against the U.S. position
from its closest allies, the council approved a revised resolution by a
15-0 vote after Mexico, a strong supporter of the court, reluctantly agreed.
-
- The document tells the new International Criminal Court
to allow a 12-month grace period before investigating or prosecuting U.N.
peacekeepers from countries that are not in support of the tribunal "if
a case arises."
-
- It expresses the council's intention to renew the resolution
in a year but does not commit it to do so automatically as Washington had
wanted.
-
- The International Criminal Court was set up to try individuals
for the world's most heinous atrocities: genocide, war crimes and gross
human rights abuses. It is a belated effort to fulfill the promise of the
Nuremberg trials 56 years ago in which Nazi leaders were prosecuted for
new categories of human rights and war crimes.
-
- Opposed to the court as an affront to U.S. sovereignty,
the United States threatened to veto far-flung U.N. peacekeeping missions
if the conflict were not resolved. Washington also fears frivolous complaints
against soldiers and officials.
-
- Following fierce objections from the European Union,
Canada, Mexico and others, the United States backed away from seeking permanent
immunity for its soldiers and civilians.
-
- Most council members believed the issue was ideological
and that U.S. worries its soldiers or civilians could come to the court
for systematic atrocities were illusory. Some supporters of the court,
however, believe the resolution amends a 1998 treaty establishing the tribunal
through the back door.
-
- But most council members believe the last minute revisions
were sufficient to stay within the letter of the law.
-
- "This resolution deals with what is in Washington's
head and stays within the court's statue," said one senior diplomat.
-
- "In practical terms this isn't ever going to be
a case against peacekeepers but the resolution gives a degree of comfort
to Washington," he said.
-
- The deal was difficult to reach in negotiations that
stretched over weeks.
-
- After fierce criticism from the 15 members of the European
Union, Mexico and Canada, the Bush administration on Wednesday backed down
from its demand for indefinite immunity from the court and settled for
the 12-month protection.
-
- 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, prompting more revisions.
-
- BOSNIA PEACEKEEPING MISSION APPROVED
-
- Without a resolution of the court dispute, the United
States had threatened to stop all peacekeeping and on July 1 vetoed a mission
in Bosnia.
-
- But the moment the resolution on the court was adopted
the council quickly approved the Bosnia mission as well as a small one
on the Prevlaka Peninsula in the Balkans.
-
- Some 76 nations have ratified the 1998 Rome treaty, creating
the court, and 139 have signed it.
-
- 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 contain 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.
-
- Philippe Kirsch, the Canadian chairman of a commission
on the court's work, questioned whether involvement of the Security Council
was legal in this instance and indicated the new court could ignore it
if the council was amending treaties through the back door.
-
- "The role of the Security Council here is a bit
open to question" and may violate the "principle of equality
for all before the law," he told a news conference.
|
