|
US drops UN bid for war crime shield
(Agencies)
Updated: 2004-06-24 08:44
Facing global opposition fueled by the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal, the
United States on Wednesday dropped its attempt to renew a U.N. exemption
shielding American troops from international prosecution for war crimes.
The U.S. move raised concern that Washington might carry out its threat to
shut down or stop participating in U.N.-authorized peacekeeping operations.
James Cunningham, U.S. deputy
ambassador to the U.N., speaks to the media outside the Security
Council Chamber at the United Nations headquarters in New York June 23,
2004. Facing strong opposition, the United States announced Wednesday it
was dropping a resolution seeking to renew the exemption for American
peacekeepers from international prosecution for war crimes. Woman on the
right is an unidentifed U.S. diplomat. [AP]
| State Department spokesman Richard Boucher told
reporters that every request would be examined "both in terms of voting for a
peacekeeping mission" and providing Americans to participate. A key factor will
be "what the risk might be of prosecution by a court to which we're not party,"
he said.
While the United States won praise for not pushing for a vote that would have
deeply divided the U.N. Security Council, the Bush administration suffered a
defeat in its lengthy battle against the world's first permanent war crimes
tribunal.
William Pace, head of the Coalition for an International Criminal Court,
which represents more than 1,000 organizations supporting the tribunal, called
the U.S. decision "a victory for international justice."
The court can prosecute cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against
humanity committed after it was established on July 1, 2002.
But it is a court of last resort and will step in only when countries are
unwilling or unable to dispense justice themselves, a condition proponents say
makes it highly unlikely an American would be prosecuted.
Washington has also signed bilateral agreements with 90 countries that bar
any prosecution of American officials by the court.
The court's chief prosecutor announced its first investigation on Wednesday -
of war crimes in Congo.
When the court was established - the culmination of a campaign for a
permanent war crimes tribunal that began with the Nuremberg trials after World
War II - Washington threatened to end its involvement in U.N. peacekeeping
operations if it didn't get an exemption for Americans.
President Bush's administration argues that the court could be used for
frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions of American troops.
After lengthy negotiations, the Security Council agreed to a one-year
exemption, which was renewed a year ago. The court started operating last year.
The 94 countries that have ratified the 1998 Rome Treaty creating the court
maintain it contains enough safeguards to prevent frivolous prosecutions and
insist that nobody should be exempt.
Last month, the United States circulated a resolution that would have
authorized a new one-year exemption after the current one expires on June 30.
But it put off a vote to work on a resolution endorsing the June 30 handover
of power in Iraq, which was unanimously adopted on June 8.
One council diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Washington
probably would have gotten the minimum nine "yes" votes in the 15-member council
if it had called for a vote immediately after introducing the resolution.
But over the past five weeks, the scandal over the abuse of Iraqi detainees
by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison has grown, and last week Secretary-General
Kofi Annan made a rare intervention into council affairs. He urged members to
oppose the resolution, questioned the legality of an exemption and warned
against dividing the council.
Several council members said the prisoner abuse and Annan's opposition were
factors in their refusal to back the original resolution and a last-minute U.S.
attempt at compromise that would have made this one-year exemption the final
one.
France, Germany, Spain, Brazil, Chile and China had said they would abstain
on the original resolution, and Romania and Benin had indicated they were likely
to join them.
When Spain and China - key nations the U.S. needed to change their votes -
announced before Wednesday's council meeting that they wouldn't support the
compromise, the United States knew the resolution would be defeated, so
Washington decided to abandon it.
"We believe that our draft and its predecessors fairly meet the concerns of
all. Not all council members agree, however," U.S. deputy ambassador James
Cunningham told reporters after informing the council of the decision.
"The United States has decided not to proceed further with consideration and
action on the draft at this time in order to avoid a prolonged and divisive
debate," he said.
He stressed that the United States is "the largest contributor to global
security and has special well-known interests in protecting our forces and our
officials."
Cunningham said the United States will "continue to negotiate bilateral
agreements" to protect Americans.
Both Spanish and Chilean envoys said Annan's opposition had great influence
on the outcome.
Annan said the U.S. decision "will help maintain the unity of the Security
Council at a time when it faces difficult challenges," his spokesman, Fred
Eckhard, said in a statement.
China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya said the prisoner abuse scandal was
paramount in ending China's support for an exemption.
"China is under pressure because of the scandals and the news coverage of the
prisoner abuse" and it couldn't give the United States "a blank check," he said.
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
Today's
Top News |
|
|
|
Top World
News |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
