Associated Press

Monday, June 12, 2000

U.S. Seeks Immunity From U.N. Court

GEORGE GEDDA

For U.S. policy-makers, the implications are chilling: U.S. forces are

sent to a distant hot spot, hostilities occur, innocent civilians die, and

Americans are held responsible. Some are even arrested and sent for trial.

That scenario may not seem far-fetched now that the United Nations is in

the process of establishing a permanent international criminal court aimed

at holding accountable those responsible for actions deemed to be war

crimes or crimes against humanity.

While offering millions to track down war crimes suspects in the Balkans,

the United States is trying to carve out a blanket exemption protecting

American soldiers from being hunted down and prosecuted by the new U.N.

court.

State Department lawyers are beginning the effort Monday at the United

Nations. Human rights experts fear the U.S. example will encourage other

countries, like Iraq, to follow suit and undercut the United Nations'

campaign against war crimes.

''If an Iraqi military commander committed crimes against humanity against

Iraqi citizens, Iraq as a nonparty state could deny the court the authority

to prosecute. That is in essence what is wrong with the U.S. effort,''

Richard Dicker of Human Rights Watch said.

David Scheffer, the State Department's ambassador at large for war crimes,

insists immunity for U.S. troops is crucial, given the numbers of American

soldiers deployed overseas.

"It is a very inhibiting risk to put on the table every time you decide

whether or not to intervene," Scheffer, head of the U.S. delegation to the

United Nations this week, said in an interview.

Over Clinton administration objections, agreement was reached at a U.N.

conference in 1998 to establish an international criminal court, known

informally as the ICC. Washington feared U.S. troops could become targets

of politically motivated charges.

Only 10 countries have ratified the proposal; five dozen are needed to

create the court.

At present, U.N. war crimes tribunals are dealing with atrocities committed

in the Balkans and in Rwanda.

The State Department has offered a reward of up to $5 million for

information leading to the apprehension of Yugoslav President Slobodan

Milosevic; Radovan Karadzic, the top Bosnian Serb leader during Bosnia's

civil war; Karadzic's military commander, Ratko Mladic; and any others

indicted by the Balkans tribunal on war crimes charges.

Advocates say a permanent global tribunal is needed so suspected war

criminals can be pursued regardless of where their crimes are committed.

Nothing would prevent the court from going after Americans even if the

United States is not a member, or "nonparty state." Scheffer's mission in

New York is to change that.

"We do not believe our armed forces should be subject to surrender to the

court because we are a nonparty to the court," Scheffer said.

He also points out that the United States has its own military justice

system designed to punish to U.S. troops suspected of war crimes.

Dicker said it is unrealistic for the United States to carve out an

exemption for itself, because other nonparty states will demand the same

treatment. Those countries include Iraq and Libya, both listed by the State

Department as terrorist states.

In 1998, Iraq, Libya and the United States were among seven countries that

voted against a treaty to create the court. Voting in favor were 120

countries.

One proposal the Clinton administration is pushing would prevent the court

from pursuing citizens of nonparty states unless the U.N. Security Council

authorizes it, or if such states have been condemned by the council "for

whatever reason."

The U.S. veto in the council would shield U.S. service members, but Iraqis

and Libyans would be fair game.

The United States faced broad opposition when it fought for a similar

exemption two years ago.

"Through the back door, the State Department is trying to obtain the

concession that it could not obtain in negotiations in Rome two years ago,"

Dicker said.

"What makes it all so tragic is that it's all so unnecessary," said Dicker.

He contends safeguards prevent politically motivated prosecutions.

Regardless of the outcome in New York, the prospects of the United States

becoming a court member are doubtful as long as Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C.,

is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Helms, who has the power to block U.S. ratification, says the treaty is a

"flawed and dangerous document" because it limits America's freedom to act

in its own defense.

"So long as there is breath in me, the U.S. will never I repeat, never

allow its national security decisions to be judged by an International

Criminal Court," he said.