U.N. crimes court gets support without U.S.
NEW YORK
The United States has resigned itself to the eventual creation -- over
Washington's objections -- of a U.N. International Criminal Court to be
modeled after war crimes tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.
Even if the United States does not ratify the treaty, American citizens
will be subject to arrest and trial as the treaty document is
now drafted.
International backing for the court became apparent this week as legal
experts gathered at the United Nations to discuss fine print in a treaty
that would establish the world judicial body.
David Scheffer, assistant secretary of state for war crimes issues,
acknowledged that the court is on track, even without the United States.
"We expect many nations to ratify by the end of next year," he told
The Washington Times.
He also said that the presence of many U.S. allies on the court would
ratchet up pressure on the United States to join, but added: "We're never
going to sign a treaty we can't support."
The United States voted against creating the court last summer, saying
that the structure of the tribunal would not protect American troops from
frivolous or politically motivated indictments and prosecutions.
Although 90 nations have already signed the treaty, only five have
formally ratified the document.
Ratification by 60 nations is required for the tribunal to begin working
-- something experts expect to happen within the next two years.
Mr. Scheffer said the U.S. delegation was still hoping to secure language
in the treaty that would provide protection for Americans -- enough that
the United States could eventually join.
He said negotiators were hoping to make strong provisions for national
prosecutions that would pre-empt the international tribunal's jurisdiction.
They are also hoping to define agreed-upon crimes and rules of procedure
in such a way that U.S. troops would be highly unlikely to ever be called
before the court.
Mr. Scheffer said Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright was discussing
the tribunal with her counterparts in numerous foreign ministries.
In voting against the court's creation, the United States was joined
by a curious collection of nations: Iraq, Libya, Israel, Russia, China
and India.
But supporters range from Germany to South Africa to Australia: an
increasingly diverse and powerful bloc of nations that experts say will
provide the political leadership and financial heft to ease concerns of
smaller and more cautious nations.
All of the European Union has signed the treaty, and Italy has ratified
it.
The German government on Tuesday announced that it would ratify the
treaty but did not say when.
France has committed to ratifying it within the next few months.
The governments of Britain, Canada and the Netherlands say they will
complete ratification within the next year.
The entire European Union is expected to approve the statute by the
end of 2000, said a statement read by a diplomat from Finland. Finland
currently holds the rotating EU presidency.
The European Union has promised financial and legal assistance to the
court, to be located in The Hague.
The court will prosecute allegations of war crimes, genocide and other
crimes against humanity, and will do so without direct
authorization of the U.N. Security Council, where the United States
holds a veto.
Although it has no enforcement mechanism, all nations -- including
the United States -- would be subject to the international court's jurisdiction,
the treaty document says.
This means that all nations will be required to comply with the court's
demands for information, evidence, witnesses and suspects, the treaty says.
"We cannot recognize the court's competence in bringing prosecutions
against U.S. personnel engaged in official actions when the U.S. government
is not a party," Mr. Scheffer told the U.N. legal committee in October.
The court will not be retroactive, but the existing tribunals for Rwanda
and the former Yugoslavia will eventually be rolled under its umbrella.
The financing of the court has not been decided, but many nations hope
that the bulk of the court's expenses -- particularly in the start-up years
-- will be paid from the U.N. regular budget.
This means that Washington could be assessed up to one-quarter of the
court's budget, even if it does not accept the treaty.
Legal experts and delegates from around the world have repeatedly said
that the court will be severely limited without the financial, legal and
intelligence-gathering capacities of the United States.
"There is no doubt the court would be much stronger with the United
States than without," said Bruce Broomhall, an observer with the Lawyers
Committee for Human Rights.
However, he said, it is "out of the question" that signatories would
allow Washington to renegotiate portions of the treaty.
Foreign delegates say they increasingly doubt whether Washington can
be reassured.
Several nations and legal experts have complained that any protections
afforded to American troops would be more than enough to shield notorious
rulers such as Iraq's Saddam Hussein who could be accused of war crimes.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms, North Carolina
Republican, has said the treaty will be "dead on arrival" if the president
ever submits it for Senate ratification.
Mr. Scheffer said that U.S. officials have not yet decided whether
to simply ignore the court, or actively work against it. "We're not going
to make that decision until the end of next December."