The New York Times

Tuesday, June 16, 1998

Annan Urges Formation of War Crimes Court

By Alessandra Stanley

Rome, June 15 - Warning that the eyes of past and future victims "are fixed upon us" the United Nations Secretary-General today urged establishment of a global war crimes court as a "bulwark against devil."

The Secretary-General Kofi Annan, opened a five-week conference here to develop rules for a permanent tribunal that could prosecute individuals for crimes against humanity. He urges that delegates, from 156 nations, to take a firm stand: "I trust you will not flinch from creating a court strong and independent enough to carry out its task. It must be an instrument of justice, not expediency."

But just how strong and independent such a court will be is one of the critical issues to be decided.

The United States wants to limit the court's jurisdiction. Washington is concerned that unless the Security Council has a say in what crimes are brought to trial. American soldiers around the globe could be prosecuted on politically motivated charges.

But such traditional American allies as Britain and Canada say the court should work as independently as possible and are leading a coalition of 40 to 50 nations, the "like-minded group," that to minimize Security Council involvement. Before hunkering down in private to debate more than 400 disputed articles in the draft, the two sides moved quickly today to stake claims in the battle for public opinion.

There is broad consensus that the court should be called in only when national courts are unable or unwilling to act, and only for the gravest of crimes, like genocide and civilian massacres.

Responding to the systematic use of sexual assault in wars in the Balkans and Rwanda, the court is expected to include rape as a recognized war crime for the first time, alongside torture, prisoner abuse, and violence against civilians.

Support is not quite as widespread for a provision mandating the court to prosecute crimes committed during internal conflicts, which account for 90 percent of the victims of war today. Some states argue that the court should only investigate crimes in conflicts between nations. These arguments are viewed as fatally obstructionist by human rights groups.

France, for example, is leading an effort to require the court to obtain o nation's consent before investigating crimes committed by its leaders or soldiers. Rights groups have denounced that proposal as tantamount to destroying the court's credibility.

Canada, which holds the chairmanship of the conference, has warned that members of the "like-minded group" might walk away from a treaty rather than allow it to be watered down.

"We want to make it very clear to those who are trying to compromise down to the lowest common denominator that they have no chance," warned the Canadian Foreign Minister, Lloyd Axworthy. Having no court "is better than a Potemkin village."

Both Mr. Axworthy and Mr. Annan cited the treaty to ban the use of land mines as a promising precedent to build popular support for the court.

Last year more than 120 nations signed a treaty to ban the production and use of anti-personal land-mine in a conference in Ottawa that was organized outside United Nations channels. The United States, Russia and China

did not sign the treaty.

Hinting at the way the United States was isolated on the land-mine issue, Mr. Annan told reporters, "No one country, I hope, will want to be responsible for the failure of this conference."

Mr. Axworthy said that in terms of public relations, the court would be a harder sell than the ban on land mines.

"On land mines, we had Princess Diana looking at broken children in Angola," he explained. "The court is more abstract; people don't get as excited by legal issues, especially where lawyers are concerned."