U.S. Gets War Crimes Tribunal Exemption

U.S. Gets War Crimes Tribunal Exemption
U.N. Gives One-Year Exemption to U.S. Peacekeepers From Prosecution by War Crimes Tribunal

The U.N. Security Council on Thursday approved another one-year exemption for American peacekeepers from prosecution by the new international war crimes tribunal, but it faced opposition from France, Germany and Syria.

France, Germany and Syria abstained, despite a U.S. appeal not to further strain the bitter trans-Atlantic division over the war against Iraq. The three argued that a special U.S. exemption was not necessary and only weakens the International Criminal Court.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan spoke out strongly against any attempt to try to make the exemption permanent which the United States initially sought. He warned that this would not only undermine the court but the authority of the U.N. Security Council "and the legitimacy of United Nations peacekeeping."

The resolution adopted by a vote of 12-0 with the three abstentions, authorizes a yearlong exemption from arrest or trial for peacekeepers from the United States and other countries that have not ratified the Rome treaty establishing the court.

France and Germany, both members of the European Union, were in the forefront of opposition to the U.S.-led war against Iraq. Last week, the United States warned the EU that its criticism over the exemption request was putting more strains on trans-Atlantic relations.

France's deputy U.N. ambassador Michel Duclos said agreeing to the renewal "risks in effect giving credence to the perception of permanent exceptions which can only weaken the court and impair its authority."

During an open Security Council debate before the vote, Greece's U.N. ambassador Adamantios Vassilakis, speaking on behalf of the 15-nation bloc, put the United States on notice that "automatic renewal would be undermining to the letter and the spirit of the Rome Treaty and its fundamental purpose."

All 15 EU nations are among the 90 countries that are party to the court, which will prosecute cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed after July 1, 2002. The court will step in only when countries are unwilling or unable to dispense justice themselves.

The court got a boost Wednesday when China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Yingfan said his country was "positively considering" ratifying the Rome Treaty. Beijing was one of seven countries that voted against the Rome statute but in the last four years has taken a more positive attitude.

"China's change reflects a growing support worldwide for the ICC and international justice," said William Pace, who heads the Coalition for the International Criminal Court, which represents more than 1,000 organizations supporting the tribunal.

Then President Bill Clinton's administration signed the 1988 Rome treaty setting up the court, but the Bush administration has rescinded the U.S. signature.

President Bush contends that Americans could be subject to the court's jurisdiction even if it is not a party to the pact. Washington argues that the court could be used for frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions of American troops. In addition to the exemption, it also has signed bilateral agreements with 37 countries not to prosecute American officials and is seeking more.

During Thursday's debate, Canada's U.N. Ambassador Paul Heinbecker appealed to the council to keep the exemption from becoming permanent and emphasized that "the ICC is not a court for frivolous prosecutions." He noted safeguards put in the treaty at U.S. request to ensure that such prosecutions will be screened out.

Last July, the council unanimously approved a one-year exemption after a diplomatic battle in which the United States threatened to end far-flung peacekeeping operations from Afghanistan to Sierra Leone.

Washington had asked for a quick vote on its resolution. But non-council nations asked for and got an open council meeting before the vote.

The final deal dented the court's underlying principle that no one should be exempt from punishment for war crimes, and it angered court supporters and human rights groups.

U.S. deputy ambassador James Cunningham called the Rome Treaty "fatally flawed" and said the resolution represented a compromise that should be respected by all nations. He denied that it violated the treaty.

23:08 Gepost door AlphaGamma | Permalink | Commentaren (3) |  Facebook |


what's the problem? Last, I checked, the US was a sovereign nation and thus has the right to decide what treaties to sign, just as you have the sovereign right to whine about it.

Gepost door: Dog of Flanders | 13-06-03

You're missing the point The US has just attacked another sovereign state based on lies. The Bush administration knew all along that there were no mor WDM's. You want proof? How many weapens did they find so far? Was Sadam a threat to the world and the US? He was a brutal dictator, yes, but so are many others in the world that are, as we speak, doing bussines with the US and Europa as nothing is going on.

We can not speak neither accept double standarts. And while the US has started a war based on more than one lie, this war on Iraq is and was illegal and thereby a crime of war. Chirac was right, so was Schröder, Bush was wrong, so was Blair.

And all in all, this war was about oil, where is the democracy in Iraq, the social order, public safety, and on and on!! And as the UN's credebility was denied by the US, the UN has lost a lot of its power, as far as we can see based on the facts, the US is the bulliest country in the world run by the big corporations.

And now they also got away with the war crime tribunal of the UN for another year. This means there are more war crimes to expect from the US. This is the point.


Gepost door: AlphaGamma | 13-06-03

Whoah, Dude, I'm not missing the point, I'm quite aware of it.
The point is that the midget nations led by France want to contain the military power of the US by this legal fiction. It's not gonna work.

Gepost door: dog of flanders | 13-06-03

De commentaren zijn gesloten.