posted 07-02-2002 12:28 AM               

By Anthony Deutsch
Associated Press Writer

Monday, July 1, 2002; 10:31 AM AMSTERDAM, Netherlands –– A four-member team opened for business Monday at the temporary office of the world's first permanent war crimes court, as international criticism mounted against U.S. opposition to the tribunal.

Armed only with a fax machine and a phone, the staffers went to work in a single room of the 16-story office complex set aside as the court's headquarters in The Hague until a permanent court is built. Their main task will be keeping track of complaints until permanent representatives are appointed early next year.

On Sunday, the United States took the extreme step of vetoing the renewal of the mandate for peacekeeping operations in Bosnia after failing to win an exemption for its troops from any proceeding at the new International Criminal Court.

The U.S. move was denounced, even by some of Washington's closest allies, with only Israel fully supporting the American position.In London, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw called the U.S. veto "a serious matter" with which the British government disagreed. But he said talks were continuing to overcome U.S. objections.

"What we are involved in is a very detailed and active conversation with Americans to try and allay their fears," Straw said.Criticism of the U.S. veto also came from the European Union headquarters in Brussels, Germany, Denmark. Bosnia said it feared its vital U.N. police mission would be dismantled, threatening its fragile peace.

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said Monday that the Bush administration "strongly supports Bosnian peacekeeping" but the treaty threatens to overreach and ensnare American diplomats and military personnel on overseas duty.

Fleischer quoted criticism of the treaty made by former President Clinton that echoes the Bush administration's problems with the court, and said the United States wants protections for its citizens similar to those being sought by other countries.

"This is a very important matter of principle about protecting Americans who uniquely serve around the globe in peacekeeping efforts," Fleischer said. "The world should make no mistake the United States will stand strong and stand on principle to do what's right to protect our citizens."With the backing of 74 countries, the Hague-based institute has the authority to prosecute individuals – not states – suspected of war crimes anywhere in the world.

The International Criminal Court cannot try offenses committed before July 1, 2002.On the first day of operations, the court received no allegations, and the four administrators spent most of the day answering questions from the media.

Allegations will be filed and evidence handed to the court's caretakers retained for safekeeping until prosecutors take over next year.The start of the court's jurisdiction signals the beginning of "the greatest institution of peace ever created," said William Pace, head of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court, which includes over 1,000 global organizations.

"All who believe in democracy and justice and the rule of law can celebrate," Pace said Sunday in an interview from New York. "This is truly one of the greatest advances of international law since the founding of the United Nations 57 years ago."

Staff members will keep track of complaints until permanent representatives are appointed early in 2003, said Bart Jochems, a spokesman for the Dutch Foreign Ministry.

The United States opposed the court because it fears U.S. soldiers and leaders could be indicted on political grounds. The Senate adopted legislation authorizing the president to use "all means necessary" to free U.S. citizens held by the court. It also enables the United States to penalize countries for cooperating with the court.

Supporters say there are many safeguards to prevent abuse, including a democratic process to elect a prosecutor and 18 judges. Each member country has one vote.Another safeguard against political prosecution is the aim of an independent prosecutor's office that will weigh claims of war crimes on their merit, not on political grounds.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7724-2002Jul1.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------

A reality: new global criminal tribunal
Barbara Crossette The New York Times
Friday, April 12, 2002

Permanent court is lauded by UN but scorned by U.S.
UNITED NATIONS, New York The world's first permanent criminal court for the prosecution of dictators and war criminals became a reality Thursday, more than half a century after such a tribunal was first proposed in the ruins of World War II.

"The long-held dream of the International Criminal Court will now be realized," said Secretary-General Kofi Annan. "Impunity has been dealt a decisive blow. "

The court closes a gap in international law by holding individuals, not nations or armies, responsible for the most horrific crimes, Mr. Annan said, speaking at a news conference in Rome, where more than 100 countries met in 1998 to propose the establishment of the tribunal. The court is expected to take shape in The Hague over the next year, beside the International Court of Justice, which rules in disputes between countries.

The establishment of the International Criminal Court, which assumes jurisdiction over genocide and war crimes cases, beginning July 1, has been broadly welcomed by most democratic nations, American lawyers' associations and human rights groups. But it has an implacable foe in President George W. Bush's administration, which appears to be on the verge of, not only renouncing the tribunal, but also removing the signature of the United States from the treaty that created it.

The treaty, White House officials say, will never be sent to the Senate for ratification. Congress has already passed a law forbidding Americans at all levels of government from cooperating with it.

Michael Posner, executive director of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, said in an interview that rescinding the signature from the treaty would be a terrible precedent.

"No American president in 200 years has unsigned a treaty, as far as we can find," he said. "It would also send a signal to other governments around the world that treaties they signed are unsignable." Arms control advocates fear that the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which bars nuclear explosions, might be next in line.

The treaty was signed by the Clinton administration in 1996 and rejected by the Senate in 1999.

The International Criminal Court, created to try individuals accused of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity - future Hitlers and Pol Pots - officially came to life in a ceremony at the United Nations on Thursday morning, when 10 nations deposited their ratifications, increasing the number of countries ratifying the treaty to 66, half a dozen more than the required 60.

"A page in the history of humankind is being turned," said Hans Corell, a Swedish judge and international lawyer and the United Nations top legal officer, who accepted the 10 ratifications.

Corell accepted ratification papers from Bosnia, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Congo, Ireland, Jordan, Mongolia, Niger, Romania and Slovakia.

International law groups and human rights organizations say that American opposition to the court, not all of it from Republicans, has been successful in portraying it as a danger to American sovereignty and a threat to American officials and troops because so little is known in the United States about the tribunal.

Richard Dicker, director of international legal programs at Human Rights Watch, said: "There has been such an active disinformation campaign about this court, and those who are behind this enjoy a real advantage in that they are describing an institution that does not yet exist. What they have done is describe it in the most nightmarish terms, with all kinds of scenarios of innocent Americans' being persecuted by individuals from governments that are actively hostile to the United States."

"It will be much harder to do that when we will run up against the reality of this institution that will be staffed by judges from the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, South Africa, Senegal, Argentina - states that are committed to the rule of law," he said.

Annan tried to allay U.S. fears. "The court will prosecute in situations where the country concerned is either unable or unwilling to prosecute," he said. "Countries with good judicial systems, who apply the rule of law, and prosecute criminals and do it promptly and fairly, need not fear. It is where they fail that the court steps in."

90 to 100 signers expected

Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch, said "signs are good" that between 90 and 100 countries will have ratified the treaty by early next year, The Associated Press reported from the United Nations.

"The International Criminal Court is potentially the most important human rights institution created in 50 years. It will be the court where the Saddam Husseins, Pol Pots and Augusto Pinochets of the future are held to account," Dicker said, referring to Iraq's president, Cambodia's late Khmer Rouge leader, and the former Chilean dictator.

Philippe Kirsch, chairman of the commission preparing for the court's operation, said he believed that once the court showed it will act in "a very judicial and nonpolitical way," there would be less opposition.

"In my view, given the United States' tradition of commitment to international justice, it is a matter of time before there is some form of cooperation developing between the United States and an institution of this importance," he said.

In the past 50 years, more than 86 million civilians have died in 250 conflicts around the world, and more than 170 million people have been stripped of their rights, property and dignity, according to the Coalition for the International Criminal Court, which represents about 1,000 organizations and legal experts.

"Most of these victims have been simply forgotten and few perpetrators have been brought to justice," the coalition said.

http://www.iht.com/articles/54458.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Published on Thursday, May 23, 2002 in the Boston Globe

US Pushes to Keep Its Troops Exempt From World Court

by Elizabeth Neuffer


UNITED NATIONS - The Bush administration, facing a July 1 deadline when war crimes could be prosecuted by a new world criminal court, is stepping up efforts to exempt American troops and other US officials from the tribunal's jurisdiction.

Preparing for a battle likely to play out in the United Nations, world capitals, and the US Congress, administration officials and key Republican allies say they are pursuing a range of approaches to ensure the United States, which opposes the International Criminal Court, will not be subject to it.

All US ambassadors were told last month by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to explore whether other nations were open to creating mutual agreements that would protect their ''nationals'' from the ''reach of the ICC,'' according to a copy of a diplomatic cable obtained by the Globe. Meanwhile, the US mission at the United Nations is seeking support for a resolution that would keep all UN peacekeepers from being prosecuted, and it has threatened to withdraw Americans from UN peacekeeping missions if they are not shielded from the court's reach.

Should these diplomatic efforts fail, congressional Republicans are ready to block US funds to UN peacekeeping missions . And a bill that would ban the US from cooperating with the new court is part of a homeland security appropriations bill that is expected to be voted on by the House this week.

Although the United States has announced it will not be bound by the court, it is undertaking these strategies to avoid a situation in which an American could be brought before it.

'When the ICC treaty enters into force this summer, US citizens will be exposed to the risk of prosecution by a court that is unacceptable to the American people,'' said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld when Washington announced on May 6 that it would not be a party to the treaty that created the court.

The idea of a world court that could bring dictators to the dock has been supported by several countries since the Nuremberg Trials after World War II. The idea gained momentum after the creation of two UN war crimes tribunals in the mid-1990s for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. But US officials - led mostly by the Pentagon - have always opposed such a court, fearful that it would not protect American troops and officials from politicized prosecutions, and that there were insufficient checks and balances on its prosecutors' powers.

A treaty establishing the court was adopted in Rome in 1998 over American objections. Intended as a court of last resort, the ICC, which will sit in The Hague, Netherlands, is intended to prosecute alleged war criminals when their own country does not do so.

Former President Clinton, who had serious reservations about the court, signed the treaty creating it in the final hours of his second term. He recommended further protections for soldiers be added before it was ratified.

The Bush administration has chosen to oppose the court rather than change it further. Earlier this month, Washington notified UN Secretary General Kofi Annan it would ''unsign'' the treaty, meaning the US no longer had any legal obligations to abide by it.

The administration's tactics have already frustrated some allies, who say Washington's fears are unreasonable. ''There are enough guarantees in the treaty to accommodate American concerns,'' said Hanns Schumacher, Germany's acting permanent representative to the United Nations. ''The US is chosing the wrong target.''

Germany is among the 66 countries that have ratified the 1998 treaty. Tempers flared last week when the United States tried to offer an amendment to a UN Security Council resolution on a peacekeeping mission to East Timor that would extend criminal immunity to all former or current UN personnel.

The measure was soundly defeated amid arguments that it would undermine the world court. ''The whole point of the court is that it is to be universal,'' said one UN Security Council diplomat. In addition to protecting US soldiers who serve abroad, administration officials aknowledge that ''the long-term concern is for persons in leadership.'' That, proponents say, is dangerous ground.

''They are opening the door to chipping away at this treaty,'' said Don Kraus, executive director of the Campaign for UN Reform in Washington, which supports the ICC. For now, Washington's immediate concern is to guarantee that Americans abroad are immune from the court before the treaty that created it takes effect on July 1.

While the ICC is not likely to begin work at The Hague until later this year, it could prosecute alleged war crimes committed as of July 1. One approach the administration is considering is to renegotiate military and political treaties with hundreds of countries to include guarantees that any American charged with a war crime abroad can only be tried in the United States and not in the ICC or home countries.

A provision of the ICC treaty recognizes existing agreements between countries. But revising hundreds of agreements before July 1 is not feasible, so the Bush administration appears focused instead on protecting those US personnel it considers most vulnerable - the 712 Americans currently in UN peacekeeping missions.

Only one of those Americans is an active soldier; the rest are military observers or civilian police who are serving primarily in Bosnia or Kosovo. Still, Washington wants the UN Security Council to pass a resolution exempting all UN personnel, whether or not they are American, from prosecution by the court. UN Security Council diplomats say that is unlikely.

''(The Americans) are going to have to find another way,'' said one European diplomat. ''It is impossible to adopt something undermining the ICC treaty.'' If such an effort is blocked, the US Congress may come into play. North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms, the leading Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is firmly opposed to the ICC.

''This is a court that contains enormous potential for abuse,'' said Lester Munson, a committee spokesman. ''It doesn't look so bad on paper, but then Dr. Frankenstein never intended for his monster to run amok.'' Helms may try to block US funding for UN peackeeping if the UN Security Council efforts fail. Meanwhile, the House may later this week approve its own version of the American Serviceman's Protection Act, which bars US cooperation with the ICC, as part of a larger appropriations bill.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0523-02.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Today: July 01, 2002 at 14:45:10 PDT

International Criminal Court: Q&A

ASSOCIATED PRESSWASHINGTON- The United States is challenging the creation of an international war crimes court and threatening to pull out of U.N. peacekeeping forces in Bosnia and elsewhere unless Americans are given immunity from prosecution.

The conflict has been building for months as President Bush's desire to protect Americans from possible bogus claims clashed with an international drive to punish people responsible for crimes against humanity.

The United States has refused to ratify the 1998 treaty that created the International Criminal Court and at the United Nations on Sunday vetoed a six-month extension of the mandate to continue peacekeeping in Bosnia.

The extension would have made Americans in Bosnia subject to the court's jurisdiction. The United States agreed to a 72-hour extension of the U.N. mandate in Bosnia to try to work out a compromise. Some questions and answers:

Q: What is this court?
A: As of now, it's a four-member team with a phone and fax machine at offices in the Netherlands. The court opened for business Monday under a 1998 treaty ratified by 75 countries.

It is the first general international criminal court created to try individuals. Other courts have been created for specific conflicts, such as World War II and the ethnic warfare in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

The countries involved will elect the court's 18 judges, as well as a lead prosecutor and deputy prosecutors. They should be in place early next year.

Q: What crimes are prosecuted by the court, and what penalties can it give?
A: The court will try cases of alleged genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity. Genocide is defined as organized attempts to wipe out a specific ethnic, religious or national group.

War crimes and crimes against humanity include systematic attacks on civilians; most uses of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons; and violations of Geneva Conventions on the conduct of war, such as torturing prisoners.

The court can try only cases that involve acts that occur from Monday onward. Those found guilty could be sentenced to up to 30 years in prison or, in extreme cases, to life in prison.

Q: Who could be charged?
A: The court claims jurisdiction over any acts committed on the territory of ratifying nations, Bosnia among them, or by citizens of those nations.

Citizens of countries which have not ratified the treaty could be charged for acts that happened in a ratifying country.

Q: What is the United States worried about?

A: Officials say they don't want American soldiers, diplomats or others caught up in politically motivated prosecutions.

They object to the fact that the court claims power to prosecute people from the United States and other countries that have not ratified the court treaty.

"A politicized or a loose cannon prosecutor in a court like that can impose enormous difficulties and disadvantages on people," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said last week. Supporters of the international court, including staunch U.S. allies such as Britain and France, say the court has safeguards to prevent politicized prosecutions.

Judges and prosecutors will be elected by the countries that have ratified the treaty. The court's charter says prosecutors should bring cases based on facts and nothing else.

Q: How does the United States handle crimes by U.S. peacekeepers?
A: U.S. soldiers who commit crimes overseas, during military or peacekeeping operations or otherwise, usually are handled by U.S. military courts.

For example, a U.S. military court in 1999 sentenced Staff Sgt. Frank J. Ronghi to life in prison for raping and murdering a girl in Kosovo while serving in the peacekeeping mission there.

U.S. soldiers also may be subject to the laws of countries where they commit crimes. American service members in Japan, for example, have been convicted and imprisoned for committing crimes outside U.S. bases there.

Q: What's going to happen to U.N. peacekeeping efforts now?
A: That's unclear. Both U.S. and U.N. officials say Bush's position on the international court could jeopardize peacekeeping operations elsewhere, such as in Kosovo and East Timor.

There has been no formal action taken on peacekeeping operations besides Bosnia, although the United States said it will withdraw three military observers from East Timor.

In Bosnia, 46 Americans participate in a 1,500-member U.N. operation training a multiethnic police force. The 18,000-member NATO-led peacekeeping force in Bosnia includes about 3,100 U.S. soldiers. U.S. officials say they are trying to work out a solution that would exempt from the international court's jurisdiction any forces participating in peacekeeping operations.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2002/jul/01/070100814.html

posted 07-03-2002 01:20 AM               

MILWAUKEE - President George W. Bush said Tuesday his administration will work with U.S. allies toward ending a stalemate over the International Criminal Court that jeopardizes the U.S. peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. But he said he won't budge in his opposition to the new court.

"We'll try to work out the impasse, but the one thing we're not going to do is sign on to this International Criminal Court," Bush said during a tour of a local church to promote his domestic agenda.

The United States faces criticism from across the globe for threatening to end United Nations peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and elsewhere unless U.S. peacekeepers are exempt from prosecution by the international war-crimes tribunal.

More than 100 countries celebrated the birth Monday of the International Criminal Court as a milestone for global justice and vowed not to let U.S. opposition sabotage the tribunal's mission to deter and prosecute war criminals.

The U.S. government maintains that the court would put American soldiers and civilians at risk of prosecution under laws that are outside America's control, calling the court a potential violation of U.S. sovereignty.

"As the United States works to bring peace around the world our diplomats and/or soldiers can be drug into the court. That's very troubling," Bush said.

His spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said other U.S. allies have negotiated immunity for their soldiers and civilians under the court — something the United States can't do because it doesn't belong to the group.
Fleischer said it was unclear whether the United States would be able to break the logjam with its allies.

Though the dispute is jeopardizing U.S. participation in the Bosnian peacekeeping mission, Fleischer said, "The president thinks it is a vital matter of principle to protect American men and women peacekeepers ... the United States has a lot at risk."

Fleischer said it is "absolutely not" Bush's intention to use the dispute as an excuse to pull out of the peacekeeping mission.

posted 07-10-2002 09:22 PM               

U.S. Backs Down From Immunity Demand

ASSOCIATED PRESSUNITED NATIONS- The United States on Wednesday backed off from its demand for permanent immunity for U.S. peacekeepers from the new war crimes tribunal, proposing instead a ban on any investigation of peacekeepers for a year.

U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte circulated the new proposal to the U.N. Security Council after an open council meeting where the United States faced intense criticism from countries around the world, including its closes allies.

The United States earlier had threatened to end U.N. peacekeeping if it didn't get open-ended immunity for peacekeepers from countries that have not ratified the Rome treaty establishing the court, which came into existence on July 1.

The treaty has been signed by 139 countries and ratified by 76, including all 15 members of the European Union. The United States has been demanding immunity on grounds that other countries could use the new court for frivolous and politically motivated prosecutions of American soldiers.

The position has put the Bush administration at odds with its closest allies and the rest of the world. The new draft U.S. resolution asks the court for a 12-month exemption from investigation or prosecution of peacekeepers and "expresses the intention to renew the request ... for further 12 month periods for as long as may be necessary."

Many Security Council members said the new U.S.-proposed resolution didn't go far enough. Nonetheless, they called the mood positive and said for the first time the United States appeared willing to negotiate.

Britain's U.N. Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, the current council president, called the U.S. proposal "a fair basis for discussion" and said consultations would continue on Thursday.

At the open council meeting, ambassadors from nearly 40 countries criticized the U.S. demand for immunity, saying it would affect peacekeeping and stability from the Balkans to Africa. Only India offered some sympathy to the U.S. position.

Canada's U.N. Ambassador Paul Heinbecker, who requested the open meeting, warned that the United States was putting the credibility of the Security Council, the legality of international treaties, and the principle that all people are equal and accountable before the law at stake. Washington last month vetoed a six-month extension of the 1,500-strong U.N. police training mission in Bosnia and a yearlong extension of the authorization for the 18,000-strong NATO-led peacekeeping force - and then gave the missions two reprieves, the latest until July 15.

Its argument of the fear of politically motivated prosecutions was rejected by speakers from the European Union, Latin America, Africa and Asia who countered that the Rome treaty had sufficient safeguards to prevent. First and foremost, the court will step in only when states are unwilling or unable to dispense justice for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

The draft U.S. resolution makes no mention of immunity. Under the U.S. proposal, any peacekeeper who was exempt from investigation or prosecution for a year could then be investigated and prosecuted if the exemption was not renewed - though no U.N. peacekeeper has ever been charged with a war crime.

"We have for one year a total freedom," said Richard Grenell, spokesman for the U.S. Mission, who said this was sufficient time to bring any American suspect home, thus out of reach of the court. "What we have been focused on is ensuring that American men and women are not within the reach of the International Criminal Court," he said. "What we have been able to offer today ... (is) that for a period of 12 months they would have that immunity."

But the U.S. draft still raises serious questions for some council members. The Rome treaty allows the Security Council to request a 12-month deferral of investigation or prosecution by the court on a case-by-case basis. Diplomats said some council members argued that the U.S. draft would change the statute's intent by giving blanket deferral to peacekeepers.

"It's a very positive attitude on the part of the U.S. to bring a new text which is a step in the right direction," said Mauritius' U.N. Ambassador Jagdish Koonjul, a council member. "I think we are getting closer."

posted 07-12-2002 02:13 PM               

U.N. Nears Deal on Crimes Tribunal

ASSOCIATED PRESSUNITED NATIONS- The U.N. Security Council neared agreement Friday on resolving a dispute between the United States and supporters of the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal that has threatened the U.N.'s far-flung peacekeeping operations.

Diplomats said all 15 council members agreed to a new proposal that would ask the International Criminal Court for a 12-month delay in investigating or prosecuting former or current U.N. peacekeeping personnel from countries that don't support the court "if a case arises."

Under intense opposition from its closest allies and countries around the world, the United States late Wednesday backed down from its demand for permanent immunity for American peacekeepers. But its proposal for a yearlong exemption for participants in U.N. peacekeeping operations from countries that have not ratified the treaty establishing the court still posed serious problems for the court's supporters - and did not have enough backing in the council to be adopted.

Court supporters argued that it amounted to an amendment of the treaty, which allows the Security Council to ask for a 12-month deferral on a case-by-case basis - not a blanket deferral for peacekeepers.

Council members said the new proposal addressed that problem by inserting language that would make it applicable only "if a case arises." U.S. officials said this language was acceptable to all 15 council members. There were still some difference over whether the Security Council should be just asked to renew the request for another 12 months - or to be asked to renew the request on "a case-by-case basis."

The council scheduled further consultations Friday afternoon, and Britain's U.N. Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, the current council president, said he hoped to be able to vote later in the day. He said the new draft had been met with "warmth" by all 15 council members. The United States has threatened to end the U.N.'s 15 peacekeeping operations if its demand for protection for U.N. peacekeepers from the court's reach was not met.

The council is working against the July 15 expiration of the mandates for the 1,500-member U.N. police training mission in Bosnia and the small U.N. observer mission in the Croatian enclave of Prevlaka. Establishment of the court culminated a campaign that began after World War II for a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. The court will prosecute crimes committed after July 1, when it came into existence with ratifications from 76 countries and signatures from 139.

The United States objects to the idea that Americans could be subject to the court's jurisdiction if a crime is committed in a country that has ratified the treaty, even if the United States is not a party. Washington says other countries could use this for frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions of American soldiers.

posted 07-12-2002 09:34 PM               

U.N. Passes Deal on War Crimes Court
ASSOCIATED PRESS

UNITED NATIONS- The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Friday to safeguard American peacekeepers from any war crimes prosecutions for at least a year, ending U.S. threats to veto future peacekeeping missions.

The vote concluded one of the most contentious disputes between the United States and its closest allies as well as countries around the world over the International Criminal Court.

"This resolution respects those who have decided to submit to the International Criminal Court, and for one year it protects those of us who have not," said U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte. But he warned it was only "a first step" and said any attempt by the court to detain an American would have "serious consequences." He added the United States will be seeking additional protections through bilateral agreements.

The resolution calls for a 12-month exemption in investigating or prosecuting peacekeepers who are from countries that don't support the court "if a case arises." It can be renewed every year.

The United States opposes the tribunal, arguing that it could be used by other countries for frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions of American troops.

"We cannot accept a structure that may transform the political criticism of America's world role into the basis for criminal trials of Americans who have put their lives on the line for freedom," Negroponte said.

After approving the resolution, the council quickly extended the mandates of the 1,500-strong U.N. police training mission in Bosnia and the small observer mission in the Croatian enclave of Prevlaka. Both were set to expire on Monday.

The court's supporters said the resolution did not violate the treaty that established the tribunal, though some countries argued it undermined the court.

Canada's U.N. Ambassador Paul Heinbecker claimed the resolution didn't have the support of many countries outside the Security Council.

"We think this is a sad day for the United Nations," he said. "It's not appropriate to create two classes of people under international law, one which is for peacekeepers and one rule for everybody else."

Last month, the United States threatened to use its veto power in the Security Council to halt U.N. peacekeeping operations if its troops weren't granted permanent immunity from prosecution by the court.

But facing intense international opposition, the United States backpedaled this week on its demand, proposing instead a yearlong exemption from any prosecutions.

Court supporters argued that that would amount to an amendment of the treaty, which provides for deferrals only on a case-by-case basis.

The impasse was resolved when key court supporters - Britain, Mauritius and France - made a new proposal Friday morning that would apply to peacekeepers "if a case arises."

A second issue was whether the Security Council should be asked to renew the request after 12 months on "a case-by-case basis" or not.

The United States opposed the reference to the "case-by-case basis," so compromise language was found that expresses the council's intention to renew the exemption for 12 months but didn't use the phrase. Court supporters on the council said it had the same meaning.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan has stressed that no U.N. peacekeeper has ever been accused of a war crime.

"Nobody on the council ... believes that what we have provided for in this resolution will actually ever be triggered," said Britain's U.N. Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, the current council president, who called the unanimous vote a "significant achievement."

He said council members decided that "they had to make a decision that preserved two very important institutions - the newly born International Criminal Court and its integrity and United Nations peacekeeping with the full contribution of all major members."

Establishment of the court culminated a campaign that began after World War II for a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. It will prosecute crimes committed after July 1, 2002, when it came into existence with ratifications from 76 countries and signatures from 139.

The United States objects to the idea that Americans could be subject to the court's jurisdiction if a crime is committed in a country that has ratified the treaty, even if the United States is not a party.

Supporters argue that the court can step in only when states are unwilling or unable to dispense justice, one of many safeguards to prevent such abuses.

"In the face of overwhelming opposition, the United States came away from the table with a lot less than it was demanding - permanent immunity for peacekeepers," said Richard Dicker, head of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2002/jul/12/071200928.html

posted 09-04-2002 01:48 AM               

By Betsy Pisik

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

NEW YORK — Signatories to the International Criminal Court convened for talks yesterday amid strong signs that European nations were ready to bend to U.S. demands for immunity from the court for its armed forces.

Legal analysts from three dozen nations have gathered at the United Nations for a two-week session to discuss the financing and structure of the nascent tribunal. But it is the question of bilateral accords exempting U.S. forces that has dominated much of the conversation.

"The real-world way is to find ways to deal with Washington without jeopardizing the statute," said one European official, whose country has taken a hard line against the U.S. demands for exemptions under Article 98 of the court's founding treaty.

"Believe me, we would very much like to find a way out with our American friends because it is important. The U.S. is part of the process to end impunity. But this is a highly sensitive issue bilaterally for us."

Another diplomat went further during the weekend, telling Reuters news agency that bureaucrats in the European Commission had been rebuked for their tough criticism of the United States by their member governments.

"Has the commission been reined in by the member states? You bet," said the diplomat in Brussels, where European legal analysts are meeting today to seek a common position on the accords.

"Of course, no one wants the court neutered, but no one wants an unnecessary fight with the United States."

John Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control and the Bush administration's point man on the ICC, said by telephone from Washington that he was confident that a large number of countries would exempt American forces.

"I don't see any reason why we can't reach agreements with most of the countries we have diplomatic relations with," he said. "We have four, and we expect more in the coming weeks."

So far, Israel, Romania, Tajikistan and East Timor have signed the so-called Article 98 agreements, under which the countries promise not to extradite U.S. soldiers or officials to the ICC.

Alternatively, the United States is seeking to rewrite existing Status of Forces Agreements to achieve the same purpose.

Failure to sign could mean a loss of U.S. military support.

Mr. Bolton said U.S. diplomats have been discussing the matter in foreign capitals and that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell would discuss the exemptions with world leaders on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly debate next week.

The subject is divisive in Europe, where sympathy for U.S. concerns varies widely and support is strong for the principle of the court, designed to hear accusations of genocide, crimes against humanity and other heinous war crimes.

Germany, the Netherlands and France are among the nations most committed to a strong ICC and oppose side deals that they fear could dilute its power.

Britain and to a lesser extent Italy have taken heat from their neighbors for being the most receptive to Article 98 agreements with Washington.

Several nations have accused London of betraying the European Commission's earlier advisory that no nation should undertake any bilateral agreement that weakens the court.

However, the Europeans have been softening their rhetoric in recent days. Several diplomats in New York yesterday said it was important to reach an accommodation with Washington. None would be identified by name.

So far, 78 nations have ratified the ICC, which will be based in The Hague.

Professional staff has begun to assemble temporary offices there, and it is expected that the court could begin to take complaints within a year and begin trials in less than three years.

A seat was reserved at this week's New York talks for the United States, which signed the treaty on the last open day under President Clinton. But the Bush administration has repudiated the signature and has no plan to participate formally in the meeting.

In July, U.S. diplomats delayed a routine extension of the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina, demanding a resolution saying its peacekeepers should be immune from prosecution.

After several weeks of negotiations, the Americans settled for a one-year deferral from prosecution while it pursued the strategy of negotiating bilateral agreements with individual nations.

This sort of tactic, which one European diplomat yesterday described as "unbelievably heavy-handed," reduced sympathy for Washington's fear of political prosecutions.

Nonetheless, the European Commission's nonbinding advisory handed down a year ago, saying that any bilateral agreement could undermine the value of the court, has gained little support.

"Most states looking at the advisory coolly and rationally think it's at least partly wrong," said one European diplomat. "We are trying for a common EU position, but that may just be that each country makes its own decisions."
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020904-6324280.htm
__________________________________________________________________

Today: September 03, 2002 at 19:05:22 PDT

International Criminal Court Meets

By EDITH M. LEDERER

ASSOCIATED PRESS

UNITED NATIONS- The governing body of the International Criminal Court met Tuesday without referring to U.S. efforts to exempt Americans from its jurisdiction, but countries opposed to the U.S. drive called for closed-door talks on the issue. There was loud applause when U.N. Undersecretary-General for legal affairs Hans Corell pounded the gavel to launch the Assembly of States Parties, made up of the 76 nations that ratified the treaty creating the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal.

It plans to be fully operational by next year. At the opening meeting, the assembly elected Prince Zeid bin Raad, Jordan's envoy to the United Nations and a cousin of King Abdullah II, as its president.

Sierra Leone's deputy U.N. Ambassador Allieu Kanu and Uruguay's U.N. Ambassador Felipe Paolillo were elected as vice presidents. Representatives of dozens of nations that support the court, but haven't ratified the treaty, were in the U.N. conference room as observers.

Many of the more than two dozen countries that haven't signed or ratified were also there to watch. But the seat for the United States was conspicuously empty.

"We see the dawn of a new age in the pursuit of justice," Corell said. "Impunity for those who commit the most heinous crimes will be curtailed."

The court is the culmination of a campaign that began with the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials for World War II's German and Japanese war criminals. It has jurisdiction over war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity that take place after July 1.

The United States objects to the idea 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, especially of American troops.

At the end of Tuesday's session, it was announced that a number of court supporters planned to meet on Thursday to
discuss "matters related to Article 98."

All interested countries were invited to attend.

Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch, said the discussion was being organized by Switzerland, Canada and New Zealand which have all opposed the U.S. position.

During the session, the only oblique reference to the U.S. campaign against the court was in Prince Zeid's acceptance speech. He said it wasn't the number of countries supporting the court or the mix that was important, but "the justness of its cause and its inherent moral logic."

Supporters argue that the court can step in only when states are unwilling or unable to dispense justice, one of many safeguards to prevent such abuses. The Bush administration rescinded President Clinton's signature on the treaty in May.

In July, the United States got a yearlong exemption for American peacekeepers from prosecution by the court after a lengthy battle with the court's supporters in the U.N. Security Council.

Since then, Washington has been lobbying countries around the world to sign bilateral agreements exempting Americans from trials by the court. It says this can be done under Article 98 of the Rome Treaty establishing the court - court - which many court supporters dispute.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2002/sep/03/090305536.html