|
|
|
Annan
has voiced his opposition of the US draft resolution
|
UNITED
NATIONS, June 24 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) - After facing
a strong opposition fuelled by the Iraq abuse scandal, the United
States withdrew a UN resolution to guarantee American soldiers
immunity from the new International Criminal Court (ICC).
Meanwhile,
the Washington Post, quoting unnamed US officials, reported
Thursday, June 24, that the Bush administration has decided to take
the unusual step of bestowing on its own troops and personnel immunity
from prosecution by Iraqi courts for killing Iraqis or destroying
local property after the occupation ends and political power is
transferred to an interim Iraqi government.
"The
administration plans to accomplish that step - which would bypass the
most contentious remaining issue before the transfer of power - by
extending an order that has been in place during the year-long
occupation of Iraq.
"Order
17 gives all foreign personnel in the US-led Coalition Provisional
Authority immunity from "local criminal, civil and administrative
jurisdiction and from any form of arrest or detention other than by
persons acting on behalf of their parent states," according to
the Post.
The
issue of immunity to US-British occupation troops in Iraq has
been extensively receiving covering by US and British media since last
May.
The
Bush administration pulled out the resolution Wednesday, June 23, to
renew an exemption from the court after it failed to get enough votes
in the U.N. Security Council.
Members
cited worldwide anger over the Iraqi prisoners' abuse scandal and
strong opposition from UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Reuters
reported.
The
United States has rarely faced such opposition in the Council, with
the notable exception of its attempt to get UN endorsement for the
invasion of Iraq last year.
But
the U.S. abuse of detainees in Iraq made it difficult for members to
extend the resolution for the third time, even though none of the
abuse cases could be brought before the court.
Algeria's
UN Ambassador Abdallah Bali said the Iraqi scandal "had a strong
impact on many delegations."
And
Chilean Ambassador Heraldo Munoz said Annan's statements had "a
very important impact on many delegations."
Annan
toughened opposition to the resolution last week when he asked Council
members to reject the measure, saying it undermined international law
and sent an "unfortunate signal any time - but particularly at
this time."
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.
Damaging
Abuse-Related Documents
|
|
U.S.
officials would "take into account" the lack of a
resolution "when determining contributions to UN authorized
or established operations," said Cunningham
|
The
about-turn at the UN came less than 24 hours after the White House
released secret
internal documents saying that US Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld had approved the use of aggressive interrogation techniques,
such as the use of stress positions, forced nudity and dogs in the
infamous detention prison in Guantanamo Bay, the Independent said
Thursday, June 24.
The
move underlines how, despite the punishment being meted out to the Abu
Ghraib guards involved in the abuse, the scandal continues to damage
the Bush administration, the British daily added.
The
Washington Post had unveiled earlier in June that the Justice
Department advised the Pentagon that torturing detainees outside the
United States "may
be justified".
A
US soldier making her presence in most of the Iraqi abuse photos had
said she was "instructed"
by her commanders to pose for photographs with naked Iraqi detainees.
Threats
The
withdrawal was a victory for strong advocates of the court, such as
France, Germany, Brazil and Spain. Among European Union members on the
Council, only close U.S. ally Britain was prepared to vote in favor.
Some 139 nations have signed a treaty creating the court and 94 have
ratified it.
William
Pace, head of the Coalition for an International Criminal Court, which
represents more than 1000 organizations supporting the tribunal,
called the US decision "a victory for international
justice".
The
United States in the past had threatened to shut down U.N.
peacekeeping missions and in 2002 actually vetoed one when the Council
hesitated in approving the resolution.
"We
will have to examine each of these missions case by case," State
Department spokesman Richard Boucher said in Washington.
"We
will have to look at it in terms of staffing, providing Americans to
participate in peacekeeping missions, what the risk might be of
prosecution by a court to which we're not party."
James
Cunningham, the US deputy Ambassador, who announced the US decision,
would not comment on future US actions.
He
said officials would "take into account" the lack of a
resolution "when determining contributions to UN authorized or
established operations."
At
the same time diplomats said the United States might have difficulties
curtailing UN missions at a time it was seeking troops to help in Iraq
and had a strong interest in operations in Liberia, Haiti and a future
venture in Sudan.
The
ICC, which started operating a year ago in The Hague, Netherlands, was
created to try individuals for the world's worst atrocities -
genocide, war crimes and systematic human rights abuses.
It
is a tribunal of last resort and would only hear cases of individuals
from a country that refused or was unable to press charges, making it
unlikely an American would be tried.
But
the Bush administration, backed by Congress, wants airtight guarantees
and allegedly fears politically motivated prosecutions. In the last
two years, Washington has signed 90 bilateral agreements with
countries that pledge not to prosecute US officials abroad.
