U.S. Drops Effort to Gain Immunity for Its Troops

    U.S. Drops Effort to Gain Immunity for Its Troops
    By Warren Hoge
    New York Times

    Wednesday 23 June 2004

    United Nations - The United States bowed to broad opposition on the
Security Council today and announced that it was dropping its effort to gain
immunity for its troops from prosecution by the International Criminal Court.

    "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," the deputy American ambassador, James B. Cunningham, said
on emerging from the council.

    The envoys from the 15-member council had spent the morning in closed
session discussing a rewritten version of the American troop exemption
resolution circulated among them Tuesday night to try to meet the widespread
objections.

    A resolution granting a year's exemption had passed the council the past
two years, but this year the attempt to renew it ran into difficulties
because of the prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq and a strong statement of
opposition from Secretary General Kofi Annan.

    The rare setback for American diplomacy at the United Nations came just
two weeks after the Bush administration was praised in the world
organization for demonstrating flexibility and a willingness to compromise
in securing a unanimous vote on a resolution affirming the arrangements for
the transfer of power in Iraq.

    Ambassador Wang Guangya of China, a country that had supported the
measure the past two years, said, "Clearly from the very beginning this
year, China has been under pressure because of the scandals and the news
coverage of the prisoner abuse, and it made it very difficult for my
government to support it."

    "My government," he added, "is under particular pressure not to give a
blank check to the U.S. for the behavior of its forces."

    Spain's ambassador, Juan Antonio Yáñez-Bernuevo, explained his country's
opposition by saying, "For us, the essential thing is to remain faithful to
the international criminal court, which we strongly support, and also to the
United Nations charter and to respect the statement made by the secretary
general last week, which had a powerful effect."

    Last week Secretary General Annan called on the Security Council to turn
back the American move, saying it was "of dubious judicial value" and
particularly objectionable in the aftermath of the prisoner abuse cases in Iraq.

    In his remarks, Mr. Annan said that passing the measure would discredit
the council, the United Nations and the "primacy of the rule of law," and he
appealed to the members to maintain the common purpose they had shown
earlier this month in their unanimous vote on the Iraq resolution.

    Mr. Yáñez-Bernuevo said that he regretted that the Americans had not
mounted the same kind of diplomatic effort that secured the June 8 unanimous
vote behind the resolution covering the arrangements for the June 30
transfer of power to Iraq and its aftermath.

    "We would have liked to see a process as we saw in the Iraq resolution,
a more collective effort that would have maintained the council's unity," he
said. Instead, he said, "According to what we heard from the U.S., that was
the last word, they could not go any further, there was no point in pursuing
the matter."

    Heraldo Muñoz of Chile said of Mr. Annan's statement: "It has a very
important impact on many delegations. It certainly created a new context for
the consideration of this resolution."

    The Bush administration has said it needs the protection to prevent
people from using the court to bring politically motivated war crimes
prosecutions against Americans abroad.

    Elaborating on that today, Mr. Cunningham noted that the United States
was the "largest contributor to global security" and said, "When the United
States voluntarily commits its armed forces to participate in peacekeeping
missions around the world, we believe it is wholly inappropriate to subject
them to a tribunal which cannot provide adequate guarantees of due process."

    Asked if the United States would limit its participation in peacekeeping
activities in the future - a threat it has made in past years when
disagreement over the resolution has emerged - Mr. Cunningham said, "I'm not
going to comment on that."

    Addressing concerns about American military conduct abroad, he said,
"The United States has a well-functioning system of military justice that
will assure accountability."

    Since the international court was created two years ago, the Bush
administration has made bilateral agreements with 90 countries to exempt its
troops, and Mr. Cunningham said that that effort would continue.

    This year's draft resolution, introduced last month and then withdrawn
in the face of objections, extended protection to American soldiers
participating in United Nations-approved peacekeeping forces beyond the
current expiration date of June 30.

    That same day, next Wednesday, Iraq regains sovereignty and the
predominantly American force there becomes a United Nations-mandated one.
The United States had consequently been pressing hard for a vote before then.

    Though there were three abstentions in last year's vote and several more
expected this year, American diplomats in May said they felt confident they
could obtain support for a routine "technical rollover" of the measure.

    Mr. Annan's appeal to Security Council unity, however, caused several
nations to rethink their backing of the original resolution and of their
reluctance to be seen as defying the United States. By Monday, 8 of the 15
countries let it be known that they would abstain - an outcome that would
deny the United States the votes needed for passage.

    Tuesday evening, American diplomats circulated a new version aimed at
meeting a major objection - language in the original proposal that expressed
the intention to renew the one-year exemption each July 1 for further
12-month periods "for as long as may be necessary."

    Mr. Annan had protested that this clause served to perpetuate United
Nations approval of what had been considered a temporary emergency departure
from international law.

    That paragraph had been eliminated in the new version, and new language
was inserted that pledged that this request for a one-year exemption would
be the final one.

    That attempt to bridge the differences did not work, and Mr. Muñoz said
that while he thought the United States decision had been "too rushed," it
was probably the best one under the circumstances.

    "Better not to present the draft resolution to a vote when the council
appears to be divided," he said. "Better not to be divided after the
consensus and the unity that we showed on Iraq."

_______________________________________________
heads mailing list
[email protected]
http://ballistichelmet.org/mailman/listinfo/heads/
http://ballistichelmet.org/donate/