U.S. Drops demand To Exempt Troops From War Crimes

[Aaron]

CBC

NEW YORK - The U.S. dropped a proposal to keep its troops immune from prosecution for war crimes Wednesday after the United Nations signalled its firm opposition to the plan.

In 2002 the U.S. won an exemption from the UN, to be renewed annually, after it threatened to veto any UN peacekeeping mission if its citizens were not granted special status.

U.S. deputy UN ambassador James Cunningham said the U.S. was withdrawing its proposal after a compromise failed to win support from the UN Security Council. The compromise would have limited U.S. troops' exemption from International Criminal Court prosecution to one final year.

"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," said Cunningham.

The U.S refusal to support the court from its inception has proved a major stumbling block in American attempts to find multilateral and UN support as it fights its "war on terror."

Recent revelations of prisoner abuse by the U.S. of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan have heightened international concern over U.S. unilateralism in the pursuit of its foreign policy agenda since the September 11, 2001 attacks on America.

Spain and China had said before a closed council meeting that they would abstain if the resolution were put to a vote. Philippines Ambassador Lauro Baja, the current council president, said he doubted the United States had the minimum nine "yes" votes needed.
The ICC came into existence last July 1 after 60 countries – but not the U.S. – ratified the 1998 Rome Treaty. As of March 2003, some 89 countries had ratified it.

The court has power only over the 80-odd countries that have ratified the treaty, but U.S. troops could be affected if they are on missions in such a countries.

Washington fears a politicized court could unfairly target its citizens, as U.S. troops engage in controversial international missions like Iraq and Afghanistan.

"We believe it is wholly inappropriate to commit them [U.S. troops] to a tribunal that does not guarantee due process," the U.S. deputy UN ambassador continued to insist Wednesday even after the U.S. pulled its exemption resolution.

The U.S. has secured bilateral agreements with more than 20 countries granting U.S. citizens immunity from the court's authority.

UN tribunals are currently prosecuting war crimes committed in a number of jurisdictions including the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

Former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic is the most high-profile defendant in one of the cases of alleged war crimes.

Looks like the USA has finally seen the light of reason.

[Axis Kast]

I doubt we'll see American citizens dragged before any international tribunal before the U.S. government signs off on it directly - or unless the American(s) in question is/are captured, and thus beyond our reach.

Going through the U.N. to seek justice for war crimes was always - and still is - a terrible idea. It's not the "light of reason." It's exposing ourselves to the claims of potentially hostile parties who simply want to drag American officials before the political shooting gallery.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The image I get is the US populace simply doesn't want to acquiesce to the ICC as the Supreme Court in the US is the highest arbiter for any American citizen.

[Aaron]

From what I understand, the ICC only takes on cases that the countries that are involved refuse to take up the case. Axis why should the troops of your country be above international law?

[Admiral Valdemar]

From what I understand, the ICC only takes on cases that the countries that are involved refuse to take up the case. Axis why should the troops of your country be above international law?

It would show the dismissal of sovereignty and that's something a lot of Americans can't swallow.

[Aaron]

It would show the dismissal of sovereignty and that's something a lot of Americans can't swallow.

I don't think that they'll be losing any sovereignty over this. The court exists to prosecute war criminals that are not being persued by their governments.

[Stormbringer]

It would show the dismissal of sovereignty and that's something a lot of Americans can't swallow.

I don't think that they'll be losing any sovereignty over this. The court exists to prosecute war criminals that are not being persued by their governments.

Which is a potential violation of their soveriegnty waiting to happen. The reason of course being that the US doesn't necessarilly follow the same legal code as the ICC and there aren't necessarily the same legal protections.

And if some of the totally farcical attempts to try various public figures with in the US and with out are any indication, this is going to become a simple means of playing out politics, not a court.

[Aaron]

Which is a potential violation of their soveriegnty waiting to happen. The reason of course being that the US doesn't necessarilly follow the same legal code as the ICC and there aren't necessarily the same legal protections.

And if some of the totally farcical attempts to try various public figures with in the US and with out are any indication, this is going to become a simple means of playing out politics, not a court.

Understood. Is this the same court that is trying Slovodan Milosovich?

[Stormbringer]

Which is a potential violation of their soveriegnty waiting to happen. The reason of course being that the US doesn't necessarilly follow the same legal code as the ICC and there aren't necessarily the same legal protections.

And if some of the totally farcical attempts to try various public figures with in the US and with out are any indication, this is going to become a simple means of playing out politics, not a court.

Understood. Is this the same court that is trying Slovodan Milosovich?

Supposed to be. But it doesn't seem the thing will actually get around to it any time soon.