UNITED NATIONS – The Bush administration wants the UN Security Council to renew on Friday a controversial resolution exempting American peacekeepers from prosecution by the new International Criminal Court.
Although the resolution is expected to be adopted, diplomats expect opposition among the wider UN membership following the US abuse of prisoners in Iraq and general complaints about American unilateralism.
Two years ago the same resolution was adopted unanimously after the United States threatened to veto UN peacekeeping missions, one by one. A year ago, three countries abstained.
This year at least four nations — Brazil, Spain, Germany and France — are expected to abstain. But US officials are confident they will reach the minimum nine votes needed for adoption in the 15-nation council.
Although all 15 European Union nations have ratified the treaty creating the court and are financing most of its costs, close US ally Britain is expected to vote in favour.
Some 94 countries have ratified a 1998 treaty creating the court. But Washington has signed bilateral agreements with 89 countries who promised not to prosecute American citizens anywhere as well as anyone under contract to the United States, said Richard Grenell, spokesman for US ambassador John Negroponte.
Some of those who ratified the treaty also signed the agreement with the United States, which in some cases is tied to aid.
As the first permanent global criminal court, the ICC was set up to try perpetrators for the world’s worst atrocities — genocide, mass war crimes and systematic human rights abuses.
The tribunal went into operation in The Hague, Netherlands, this year and is investigating massacres in the Congo and by the brutal Lord’s Resistance Army in northern Uganda.
The draft resolution, introduced by the United States on Wednesday, would place US troops and officials serving in UN-approved-missions beyond the reach of the court.
Specifically, it would exempt “current or former officials” from prosecution or investigation if the individual comes from a country that did not ratify a 1998 Rome treaty that established the tribunal.
The United States argues it cannot put itself under the jurisdiction of a foreign court it did not authorise and says its many troops abroad would be open to politically motivated prosecutions.
Proponents of the court say that there are enough safeguards in its statutes to protect countries like the United States, which has a functioning judicial system that would take priority over egregious cases.
“It’s outrageous, considering everything that has happened to US armed forces in Iraq — and then to flip it through with less than 48 hours notice,” said Richard Dicker, a counsel with the New York-based Human Rights Watch.
In response Grenell said everyone knew Washington would attempt to renew the resolution before it expires next month.
“It certainly is not 48 hours notice, It was more like 48 months. No one should be surprised at the US position a on the International Criminal Court.”
Of the 15 Security Council members, Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Brazil, Romania and Benin are among the 94 nations whose legislatures have ratified the treaty creating the court.
Russia, Chile, Algeria, Angola and the Philippines have signed but not ratified it and China and Pakistan have neither signed nor ratified.
The United States, under former President Bill Clinton, was one of 135 nations that signed the treaty, but the Bush administration rescinded the signature.
We appreciate your support
Our website includes affiliate links, which means we get a small commission — at no additional cost to you — for each qualifying purpose. For instance, as an Amazon Associate Religion News Blog earns from qualifying purchases. That is one reason why we can provide this service free of charge.