Monday, June 12, 2000

UN Braces for Battle over Proposed Tribunal: U.S. Wants Changes that Would 'Destroy' International Criminal Court, Critics Say

Mike Trickey, Calgary Herald

Advocates of an International Criminal Court ''with teeth'' are bracing for

a battle with the United States this week as they attempt to fend off American proposals they claim will render the new tribunal useless.

The 1998 treaty to create the court has left the United States at odds with

its traditional allies and on the same side of the debate as Libya, Iraq,

Israel, Yemen, Qatar and China, the only countries to vote with the U.S. in

opposing the statute that created the court.

U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has mounted a full-court

diplomatic press to convince other nations to support an American proposal

that would effectively grant American nationals exemption from ever

appearing before the court. However, opponents of the proposal say the

American idea would also guarantee that some of Washington's worst enemies

would be exempt.

The U.S., in an essentially re-worded proposal that was overwhelmingly shot

down in 1998, is seeking a provision that the ICC be able to try a person

accused of war crimes or crimes against humanity in the course of his

official duties only if his country is a party to the court or has given

permission to the court to go ahead, or if the Security Council has

approved the court's actions.

Opponents of the American position say to adopt the provision renders the

court pointless.

"If you want to put Saddam Hussein or (Slobodan) Milosevic on trial, you'd

have to get their permission," says Richard Dicker, a lawyer with New

York-based Human Rights Watch.

The European Union's response to Albright's request for support in the

three weeks of meetings starting today at the United Nations was terse.

"The U.S. position cannot be accepted," it said in a letter to Washington.

Kenneth Roth, executive director for Human Rights Watch, says the U.S.

initiative puts the effectiveness, independence and impartiality of the ICC

at risk.

"This proposal is aimed at obtaining a 100-per-cent iron-clad guarantee

that no American official accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, or

war crimes could ever be brought before the court. Such an exemption for

the citizens of one nation or set of nations would destroy the universality

necessary for the court to gain broad acceptance and deliver impartial

justice," he argues.

The American position would also essentially guarantee that no national of

China, France, Russia or the United Kingdom -- or their proxies -- would

ever appear before the court because those countries also have Security

Council veto powers.

In letters to American allies, Albright does not mention the probability of

Security Council gridlock and argues instead that the American proposal

would make it difficult for ''rogue states'' to act with impunity and would

address U.S. concerns about its nationals being brought before the court on

trumped-up political charges.

"We must achieve, before it is too late, the proper balance between the

noble aims of the ICC treaty, namely, to bring to justice perpetrators of

genocide, crimes against humanity, and serious war crimes, and the

continued need for responsible nations to maintain or restore international

peace and security and to undertake humanitarian missions," she wrote.

"There is too much at stake for international justice and international

peace to go down a path that would drive a wedge between the United States

and the ICC."

But it is the United States that is opening the wedge, say court supporters.

European Union diplomats note that a number of compromises, particularly

the principle of complementarity, were included in the 1998 founding

conference to address U.S. concerns.

Complementarity guarantees that national courts will always have the first

crack at trying those charged with war crimes, genocide and crimes against

humanity. The ICC will act only when national courts are unable or

unwilling to to take action.

Eleven of the 97 countries that signed the statute in Rome last year have

ratified the court. Another 25 to 30, including Canada, are expected to do

so by the end of the year. The House of Commons will give third reading to

the ratification bill today and then pass it to the Senate.

Sixty ratifications are needed before the court, which will be located in

The Hague, can enter into legal force.