U.S. Peacekeepers Dodge Global Court
After a firestorm of protests against the U.S. position, security council members agreed by a 15-0 vote on a resolution Friday that would exempt U.S. peacekeepers from prosecution by the new war crimes tribunal for a year, diplomats said.
The 15-member council was expected to approve the resolution unanimously after Mexico, a staunch supporter of the International Criminal Court, decided to support it, diplomats said.
Approval of the resolution will lift a U.S. threat to end the U.N.'s far-flung peacekeeping operations if it didn't get sufficient protection for Americans serving on U.N. missions. The 1,500-strong U.N. police training mission in Bosnia had faced a July 15 cutoff.
The United States welcomed the agreement and almost all of the court's supporters on the council said it did not violate the Rome statute that established the tribunal. But some countries and organizations continued to argue that the resolution undermined the court.
"This one-year directive is a temporary immunity from the International Criminal Court for not only the U.S. but for any country that is not a party to the treaty," said Richard Grenell, spokesman for the U.S. Mission.
Under intense opposition from its closest allies and countries around the world, the United States started backing down late Wednesday from its demand for permanent immunity for American peacekeepers.
Court supporters argued that the demand even for a one-year exemption would have 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 an indefinite blanket deferral for peacekeepers.
The impasse was resolved when key court supporters — Britain, Mauritius and France — made a new proposal Friday morning that would ask the 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."
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 didn't use the phrase. Court supporters said it had the same meaning.
The council has been working against the July 15 expiration of the mandates for the 1,500-strong U.N. police training mission in Bosnia and the small U.N. observer mission in the Croatian enclave of Prevlaka.
Diplomats said they expect the mandates for both missions to be approved once the resolution on the exemption for peacekeepers is adopted.
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.
Washington says other countries could use this for frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions of American troops. 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.