The New York Times

Monday, January 1, 2001

U.S. Signs Treaty for World Court to Try Atrocities

By STEVEN LEE MYERS

WASHINGTON, Dec. 31 - The United States signed a treaty today to establish a permanent international criminal tribunal, after President Clinton overrode objections from the Pentagon and defied Republicans in the Senate.

Mr. Clinton's decision, in the waning days of his second term, is not legally binding without Senate approval, which appears unlikely any time soon. Still, it represents a powerful American endorsement of the treaty's goals, and poses a political and diplomatic challenge for the incoming administration of George W. Bush.

Senior advisers to Mr. Bush, like many Republicans in Congress, have strongly opposed the treaty. One of them is Mr. Bush's selection for secretary of defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, who joined 11 other prominent retired policy makers last month in signing a letter warning that "American leadership in the world could be the first casualty" of the tribunal.

The treaty, if ratified by 60 nations, will create the International Criminal Court, the world's first standing court with jurisdiction to try individuals on charges of genocide, war crimes and other crimes against humanity.

It was a measure of the influence of Mr. Clinton's action that Israel reversed its position on the treaty in the course of day, announcing just hours before the New Year's deadline set by the United Nations that it, too, would sign, though the Israeli cabinet had voted not to do so.

In a statement released by the White House, Mr. Clinton said he remained concerned about "significant flaws" in the treaty that he hoped would be corrected in negotiations before the court becomes a reality. He said that, nevertheless, it was important to sign the treaty to "reaffirm our strong support for international accountability" and to place the United States in a better position to negotiate changes in the court's structure and rules.

"With signature," he said in his statement "we will be in a position to influence the evolution of the court. Without signature, we will not." [Text, Page A6.]

David J. Scheffer, the administration's ambassador at large for war crimes issues, signed for the United States at the United Nations this evening.

"I do so today in honor of the victims of these crimes," he said as he signed, "and also in honor of the United States armed services, who uphold these laws of war and have been so responsible for the foundations of the principles underlying this treaty."

In response to a question, he said he believes that the treaty has a large number of safeguards, and that, by signing, "we remain in the game, negotiating and continuing to represent the interests of the United States government and the United States military."

In addition to Israel, Iran also signed the treaty today, bringing the total of signers to 139. Twenty-seven nations have already approved it, nearly half of the 60 needed for the court to come into being.

When the treaty was negotiated in Rome in 1998, President Clinton refused to endorse it. While administration officials have strongly supported the creation of an international court, Mr. Clinton had until today heeded warnings from the Pentagon that such a court would subject American troops, diplomats and other officials to frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions.

Mr. Clinton, in Camp David for the weekend, made his decision after a final, spirited debate within his administration in recent weeks. While Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and others at the State Department supported signing the treaty, civilian and military officials at the Pentagon remained opposed, said senior officials in both departments.

In announcing his decision, only hours before the critical deadline for submitting notice of signing at the United Nations, Mr. Clinton took the unusual step of saying that he would neither submit the treaty for Senate approval nor recommend that his successor do so immediately.

Ari Fleischer, a spokesman for the president-elect, declined to discuss Mr. Clinton's action today. "We're going to continue to follow our policy that our nation speaks with one voice on foreign policy, and through Jan. 20 that voice is Bill Clinton's," he said.

In his statement, Mr. Clinton said: "The United States has a long history of commitment to the principle of accountability - from our involvement in the Nuremberg tribunals that brought Nazi war criminals to justice to our leadership in the effort to establish the international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Our action today sustains that tradition of moral leadership."

Even without a ratification fight, Mr. Clinton's decision could face vigorous challenges from Republicans in Congress and from Mr. Bush's administration.

Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, the influential Republican chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has not only vowed to block any attempt to ratify it but he has also introduced legislation to block any American effort to support the court.

In a pointed statement today, Senator Helms called Mr. Clinton's decision "as outrageous as it is inexplicable," saying that none of the concerns about the court's reach had been resolved satisfactorily.

"Today's action is a blatant attempt by a lame-duck president to tie the hands of his successor," Senator Helms said. "Well, I have a message for the outgoing president: This decision will not stand."

Once in office, Mr. Bush could also challenge Mr. Clinton's action, though to do so would now have greater diplomatic consequences. While he cannot reverse the fact that the United States has signed the treaty, Mr. Bush could renounce it and declare the United States' intention never to ratify it. He could also submit it to the Senate and advocate its rejection.

Under the treaty's provisions, nations had until the end of today to sign, a step that amounts to a statement of intent to support the court, which will ultimately be created in the Netherlands. After today, nations could only become party to the treaty by taking the formal step of ratification.

An administration official involved in deliberations over the court said today that the administration was not tying Mr. Bush's hands by signing the treaty. He argued that Mr. Clinton in fact had left his successor in a stronger position to seek additional provisions to protect Americans from the court's jurisdiction now that approval by 60 countries appeared very likely.

"It actually enhances the flexibility of the future administration," the official said.

The official said that American negotiators, led Mr. Scheffer, had already had success in ongoing discussions at the United Nations, reaching agreements, for example, that require more precise definitions of crimes and impose strict procedures for future prosecutors to follow.

In Washington, however, the treaty remains a contentious subject - on both ideological and practical grounds.

Opposition is particularly deep within the military, whose leaders fear that the United States' global reach could leave American troops involved in peacekeeping or other operations vulnerable to prosecution.

Senator Helms and Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, wrote earlier this month to Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Henry H. Shelton, urging them to stand by their opposition to the court.

They said it "could inhibit the ability of the United States to use its military to meet alliance obligations and participate in multinational operations, including humanitarian interventions to save civilian lives."

At the same time, international legal experts and advocacy organizations, including the American Bar Association and the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, had pressed Mr. Clinton to sign the treaty before leaving office.

Richard H. Dicker, director of the international justice program at Human Rights Watch in New York, called Mr. Clinton's decision courageous, saying it would reinforce the concept of international accountability for the worst atrocities committed around the world.

"By signing this treaty, President Clinton offers the hope of justice to millions and millions of people worldwide," he said. "He has made history by taking a great step