|
U.S. Strikes Deal With Security Council On ICC
 |
|
Resolution 1422 means that should the ICC decide to detain any American, the US will regard this move as illegitimate |
UNITED NATIONS, July 13 (IslamOnline & News Agencies) - The U.N.
Security Council Friday unanimously approved a compromise on the
International Criminal Court (ICC) that assures continued U.S.
participation in United Nations peacekeeping missions, news agencies
reported.
The agreement would permit a yearly review of ICC jurisdiction over
U.S. peacekeepers and a review of accusations on a case-by-case basis
by the Security Council, reported Agence France-Presse (AFP).
"If a case arises involving current or former officials or
personnel from a contributing state not a party to the Rome Statute
over acts or omissions relating to U.N. established or authorized
operations, shall for a twelve month period starting July 1st, 2002,
not commence or proceed with investigation or prosecution of any such
case unless the Security Council decides otherwise," Resolution
1422 said.
Shortly thereafter, the Security Council unanimously renewed until the
end of this year the mandate of the U.N. mission in
Bosnia-Herzegovina, which had been threatened by a U.S. veto over the
issue.
Over 15 days of intense negotiations, diplomats pored over three
alternative U.S. positions and combined two of them into the final
formula.
The resolution grants citizens of U.N. member nations who are not
signatories of the Rome treaty that establishes the court partial
immunity from prosecution when they participate in U.N. peacekeeping
missions.
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, in a statement through his
spokesman, said he was "deeply gratified that members of the
Security Council have resolved the difficult issue that they faced and
have been unanimous in their decision."
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte outlined what
Friday's accord means. "Should the ICC eventually seek to detain
any American, the U.S. will regard this as illegitimate and it would
have serious consequences," Negroponte said.
"The resolution respects those who have decided to submit to the
ICC and for one year it protects those of us who have not," he
said. "We will use the coming year to find the additional
protection we need using bilateral agreements. We will seek your
cooperation in achieving this agreement."
To date, 71 countries have ratified the Rome statute and another 68
have signed it.
Among those which have not are the United States, China, Iraq and
Afghanistan. U.S. President George W. Bush withdrew the U.S. signature
that had been affixed under then-president Bill Clinton.
If charges are brought against the citizens of these countries, the
Security Council may review those cases and allow the court to try the
case, acting as a kind of filter against frivolous charges.
The agreement says the Security Council may renew this immunity
agreement every 12 months.
The ICC is the first permanent court to try war crimes, crimes against
humanity and genocide. It is expected to start work in The Hague in
about a year, but its jurisdiction began July 1.
The United States had initially demanded blanket immunity from the
ICC's jurisdiction for all U.S. citizens who participate in UN
peacekeeping missions.
Unable to convince the United Nations, the United States vetoed a
resolution extending the 1,536-strong UN police mission in
Bosnia-Herzegovina, or UNMIBH.
A public debate before the Security Council underscored U.S. isolation
on the matter Wednesday when India was the only country to back it.
"We think this is a sad day for the United Nations," said
Canada's Ambassador Paul Heinbecker. "We don't think it's in the
mandate of the Security Council to interpret treaties that are
negotiated somewhere else," reported BBC’s online news service.
“The emergence of the United States as the sole military, economic
and cultural superpower has only deepened the resistance, especially
among American conservatives, to potential international restraints on
U.S. powers,” reported the International Herald Tribune on July 3.
"An 800-pound gorilla just doesn't like anything to restrict its
freedom of action, unless it thinks it can control it
completely," said Stephen Walt, professor of international
affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, reported the
Tribune.
He added that there is a sincere fear among many U.S. officials that
Americans engaged in military or other operations overseas could
become subject to politicized prosecution. "The fairly extensive
role the U.S. military has taken around the world makes it leery of
being tried by a tribunal whose standards we can't control," he
said.
Hugo Young, writer of the U.K. newspaper the Guardian said on July 2:
“The court cannot act retrospectively. Henry Kissinger is safe, as,
for that matter, is Margaret Thatcher.”
“The chances of any American, from soldier to president, being
indicted for their actions in Afghanistan or Bosnia are zero - as
France and Britain, equally engaged in peacekeeping and other
sharp-end activities, have recognized by their consistent support,
through every American tantrum, for the ICC,” he said.
He said that it was a “pitiful world” and added that “to place
oneself, even hypothetically, in the hands of prosecutors and judges
who, for all the safeguards, might form a praetorian guard of
juridical aggressors fashioned in Syria, Vietnam and the Congo
Republic, is a fate perhaps best avoided.”
The same day, U.K. daily newspaper the Independent also said that the
issue about U.S.’s refusal is not for the safety of its
peacekeepers. “Washington's obstinacy reflects its visceral
opposition to the ICC, as a threat to the supremacy of its own
judicial system.”
It
dubbed Washington’s position as “both arrogant and unacceptable”
and added that it that same hostility was behind its refusal to submit
to other international treaties, including those covering global
warming, nuclear testing, landmines, and chemical and biological
weapons.
|
