The Christian Science Monitor

Tuesday, June 13, 2000

Rift Grows Between US, Allies over War Crimes Court

By Justin Brown, Staff writer of DATELINE: WASHINGTON

US wants immunity to protect against international vendettas. Allies say it

would render the court useless.

A widening dispute between the United States and its allies is threatening

efforts to create a permanent international court to try accused war

criminals.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) - already approved by 97 nations -

has been hailed as a breakthrough in global justice. If realized, it would

replace the United Nations-backed war-crimes tribunals and handle cases of

some of the world's most feared dictators.

But while the US has traditionally led efforts to prosecute accused war

criminals, such as Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia, it is wary of the ICC,

primarily out of concern that US soldiers and policymakers could fall prey

to international vendettas and trumped-up prosecution.

"The concern about having a court that could prosecute American officials

for American foreign policy is general and broad," says Jeffrey Pryce, a

former Defense Department official who represented the US when the treaty

to establish the court was adopted in Rome in July 1998.

As a result, US officials are pushing for a rule change, which will be

discussed this week in New York at a session of the court's preparatory

commission.

Already, the ICC has made concessions to get the US aboard, such as adding

a provision that would give functioning national courts priority to try

their own nationals.

However, the US wants to extend immunity to countries that have not

ratified the treaty, but over whom the court still has jurisdiction,

including the US, Russia, China, and "rogue" states such as Iran, Iraq,

North Korea, and Yugoslavia. If citizens or leaders of one of those

"nonparty" countries were indicted, their governments would not have to

turn them over to the court unless ordered to do so by the UN Security

Council.

"Unless this proposal is embraced in some manner, then one has to expect

there would be some consequences," said David Scheffer, the US ambassador

for war crimes issues, in an interview. "This is really the best we can do."

But commission members, many of whom represent close US allies, strongly

oppose the US proposal.

Most rogue states have an ally on the Security Council, which could use its

veto power to protect them. The US, Russia, and China have permanent seats

on the council, and could exempt themselves.

"This will benefit the very kind of people the court wants to prosecute,"

says a European delegate, speaking on condition of anonymity. "It will

hamper the ability of the court to do its work, and it will weaken the

court's jurisdiction."

The US proposal would also break an international precedent set by the 1945

Nuremberg war crimes trials, which established that official government

acts were not exempt from international law.

Mr. Scheffer says he would refine the rule to prohibit certain nonparty

countries from using the exemption. But no such distinction exists in a

version of the proposal that has been circulated to delegates on the

court's preparatory commission.

Among the allies chafing at the US rule change are all European Union

members, Canada, Australia, and Switzerland.

The treaty establishing the ICC has been signed by 97 nations and is now

being considered for ratification. The court will become official when 60

countries complete that process, but will probably not come into force

until about 2003. It would focus on prosecuting dictators along the lines

of former Chilean Gen. Augusto Pinochet and Cambodian Khmer Rouge leader

Pol Pot.

Nevertheless, the court makes US officials nervous.

Most recently, accusations were brought to the UN criminal tribunal for the

former Yugoslavia that the US-led NATO military alliance had committed war

crimes when it bombed Yugoslavia last year. Also, Amnesty International, a

human rights group, this week called aspects of the bombing "unlawful,"

citing an attack on the headquarters of Serbian state television and radio

that killed 16 civilians. But the chief prosecutor for the UN court, Carla

del Ponte, decided the allegations lacked enough legitimacy to warrant an

investigation.

In recent years, the US has sent mixed signals about its attitude toward

international bodies and agreements. The US has rejected global measures

that would ban nuclear-weapons testing, ban land mines, and reduce

greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. At the same time, the

US has preached the necessity for globalization, and in particular the

lowering of trade barriers.