Anonymous
1st July 2002, 18:31
UNITED NATIONS, June 30 — The United States on Sunday vetoed a resolution to extend U.N. peacekeeping operations in Bosnia, in a battle with other U.N. Security Council members over a new International Criminal Court. The U.S. took the action, which it had threatened to do earlier, when it failed to win agreement to exempt American peacekeepers from prosecution in the court.
DESPITE THE VETO, U.N. Security Council members were expected to discuss a separate resolution that would briefly extend the Bosnian mandate. This would give more time to try to resolve the dispute that pits the United States against almost all 14 other members of the powerful council.
If no agreement is reached, the 1,500-strong U.N. police training mission in Bosnia would end at midnight Sunday.
The United States is demanding that American peacekeepers be exempt from arrest and prosecution by the court, which comes into existence on Monday. The United States has rejected all compromises that don’t grant blanket immunity.
The United States says immunity is needed to prevent American troops and citizens from frivolous and political motivated prosecutions. Opponents say there are enough safeguards to prevent such abuse.
The 14 other council members — including close U.S. allies Britain and France — support the new court and argue that a U.S. exemption would undermine the tribunal and international law.
The new court is empowered to prosecute heinous wrongdoing such as gross human rights abuses, genocide and war crimes.
No crimes committed prior to Monday can be pursued under the terms of the treaty that created the court, which will be based in The Hague, Netherlands, and will not actually have a prosecutor or judges until early next year. The United States has renounced the court as a threat to its sovereignty.
The U.N. Bosnia mission was launched in 1995 to train a professional multiethnic police force after a three-year war that gave rise to the term “ethnic cleansing.” The United States has 46 police officers in the mission.
NATO-LED FORCE AT RISK?
Complicating the situation, Hans Corell, the top U.N. legal adviser suggested for the first time on Friday that a U.S. move to end the U.N. mission could also close down the Balkan state’s far more strategically important NATO-led multinational peacekeeping force.
U.S. diplomats said that view needed further study. The United States has 2,500 troops in the NATO-led force.
Envoys said they could not recall the last time a Security Council fight pitted Washington against its longtime allies Britain and France. All three have permanent council seats, along with Russia and China.
U.S. officials said they hoped council members’ governments would realize the seriousness of the U.S. concerns and give in.
But most council members are either among the 73 nations that have already ratified the new court or soon plan to. They say that binds them to do nothing to undermine the tribunal.
“We are being asked to choose between peacekeeping and the court, and I don’t think people are willing at this point to step back from the court,” said one council diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity.
U.S. President George Bush renounced the treaty after the United States signed it while his predecessor Bill Clinton was in the White House.
Cheered on by the Pentagon and U.S. conservatives, Bush argues the tribunal could lead to politically motivated prosecutions of its troops or officials working outside U.S. borders.
The U.S. Congress is even weighing legislation authorizing U.S. forces to invade The Hague, where the court will be based, in the event prosecutors grab a U.S. national.
DESPITE THE VETO, U.N. Security Council members were expected to discuss a separate resolution that would briefly extend the Bosnian mandate. This would give more time to try to resolve the dispute that pits the United States against almost all 14 other members of the powerful council.
If no agreement is reached, the 1,500-strong U.N. police training mission in Bosnia would end at midnight Sunday.
The United States is demanding that American peacekeepers be exempt from arrest and prosecution by the court, which comes into existence on Monday. The United States has rejected all compromises that don’t grant blanket immunity.
The United States says immunity is needed to prevent American troops and citizens from frivolous and political motivated prosecutions. Opponents say there are enough safeguards to prevent such abuse.
The 14 other council members — including close U.S. allies Britain and France — support the new court and argue that a U.S. exemption would undermine the tribunal and international law.
The new court is empowered to prosecute heinous wrongdoing such as gross human rights abuses, genocide and war crimes.
No crimes committed prior to Monday can be pursued under the terms of the treaty that created the court, which will be based in The Hague, Netherlands, and will not actually have a prosecutor or judges until early next year. The United States has renounced the court as a threat to its sovereignty.
The U.N. Bosnia mission was launched in 1995 to train a professional multiethnic police force after a three-year war that gave rise to the term “ethnic cleansing.” The United States has 46 police officers in the mission.
NATO-LED FORCE AT RISK?
Complicating the situation, Hans Corell, the top U.N. legal adviser suggested for the first time on Friday that a U.S. move to end the U.N. mission could also close down the Balkan state’s far more strategically important NATO-led multinational peacekeeping force.
U.S. diplomats said that view needed further study. The United States has 2,500 troops in the NATO-led force.
Envoys said they could not recall the last time a Security Council fight pitted Washington against its longtime allies Britain and France. All three have permanent council seats, along with Russia and China.
U.S. officials said they hoped council members’ governments would realize the seriousness of the U.S. concerns and give in.
But most council members are either among the 73 nations that have already ratified the new court or soon plan to. They say that binds them to do nothing to undermine the tribunal.
“We are being asked to choose between peacekeeping and the court, and I don’t think people are willing at this point to step back from the court,” said one council diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity.
U.S. President George Bush renounced the treaty after the United States signed it while his predecessor Bill Clinton was in the White House.
Cheered on by the Pentagon and U.S. conservatives, Bush argues the tribunal could lead to politically motivated prosecutions of its troops or officials working outside U.S. borders.
The U.S. Congress is even weighing legislation authorizing U.S. forces to invade The Hague, where the court will be based, in the event prosecutors grab a U.S. national.