US Lacks Votes for Immunity from War Crimes Court

Evelyn Leopold , reuters

UNITED NATIONS, June 19, 2004 (Reuters) - Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) and key U.N. Security Council members intensified their opposition to a U.S. draft resolution that would renew the exemption of American soldiers from international prosecution.

Consequently, the Bush administration on Friday still lacked the required nine votes to renew the measure that would give U.S. troops immunity from the new International Criminal Court. The previous resolution expires on June 30.

"We’re going to be coming back to the council by Tuesday with a final plan — with our position in terms of next steps," U.S. representative Stuart Holliday.

The resolution was first approved in 2002 after the United States vetoed a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Bosnia, and threatened to oppose others, one by one.

The immunity would be extended to all nations not among the 94 countries that have ratified a treaty establishing the court, set up to prosecute the world’s worst atrocities — genocide, mass war crimes and systematic human rights abuses.

But this year the abuse by U.S. troops of prisoners in Iraq is largely responsible for opposition among the 15 council members, diplomats said. The court steps only in when a nation refuses or cannot carry out its own probe, making it highly unlikely U.S. citizens would ever appear before the tribunal.

No council member is expected to veto the resolution but a significant number of abstentions would kill the measure.

China’s U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya told Reuters on Friday he decided to abstain, adding his voice to Germany, France, Spain, Brazil, Chile, Benin and Romania.

The only sure "yes" votes at the moment come from Britain, Russia, Angola, the Philippines as well as the United States. Pakistan and Algeria were undecided, council sources said.

ANNAN STEPS UP OPPOSITION

Annan appealed for the second consecutive day to council members to oppose the resolution, distributing a memo at their monthly luncheon on Friday. He said the measure undermined international law and sent an "unfortunate signal any time — but particularly at this time."

The memo, obtained by Reuters, "strongly urges the council not to renew this measure."

After the lunch, Annan told reporters the resolution would shatter the unity achieved in the council when it last week endorsed a new interim Iraqi government and a U.S.-led multinational force. He noted the council was "hopelessly divided" last year, refusing to authorize the war in Iraq.

The Bush administration is opposed in principle to an international court having any jurisdiction over American soldiers abroad and fears politically motivated prosecutions.

Its resolution would exempt from the court’s prosecution military and civilian personnel "related to a U.N.-authorized operation." This includes U.N. peacekeeping operations as well as those endorsed by the council, such as U.S. troops in Iraq.

China’s position is unusual because Beijing has not signed or ratified the court’s treaty. Diplomats believe it is related to disputes with Washington over Taiwan, although Chinese envoys said the prisoner scandal was the reason.

Algerian Ambassador Abdalla Baali, who had been expected to back the United States, said he was now undecided.

"Obviously the Americans don’t have the nine votes," said Baali, the only Arab envoy on the council. "The secretary-general’s statement was quite strong and apparently the Abu Ghraib situation had an impact."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&e=3&u=/nm/20040619/wl_nm/un_court_usa_dc_12