The international community, including some of the United States' closest allies, heaped criticism on Washington for its stance against a new permanent war crimes court. The court officially opened on Monday, in spite of US opposition.
Equipped only with a fax machine and a phone, a four-member team opened for business Monday at the temporary office of the world's first permanent war crimes court. The staffers went to work in a single room of the 16-story office complex set aside as the court's headquarters in The Hague until a permanent court is built. Their main task will be keeping track of complaints until permanent representatives are appointed early next year.
The court's mandate is to handle cases of heinous crimes such as gross human rights violations. However, the Bush administration fears the court will overreach and subject US personnel on duty overseas to 'politically motivated prosecution'.
On Sunday, the United States took the extreme step of vetoing the renewal of the mandate for peacekeeping operations in Bosnia after failing to win an exemption for its troops from any proceeding at the new International Criminal Court.
US STANDS ALONE, ALMOST
Only Israel fully supported the US position on the court.
In London, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw called the US veto "a serious matter" with which the British government disagreed. But he said talks were continuing to overcome US objections.
"What we are involved in is a very detailed and active conversation with Americans to try and allay their fears," Straw said.
German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer told reporters in Berlin that he "regretted the United States' negative stance" toward the court, and that he hoped for a "long-term re-think" in the US position.
Criticism of the US veto also came from Denmark, Norway and the European Union headquarters in Brussels, Belgium. Bosnia said it feared its vital UN police mission would be dismantled, threatening its fragile peace.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, a strong backer of the court, questioned how the United States could join the Security Council in supporting war crimes tribunals for former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone - yet now oppose a permanent tribunal and threaten the future of UN peacekeeping.
"It would be unfortunate if the peacekeeping tool which has served the world so well, and we are going to need in the future, was to be hampered," he said. "I think the council's credibility and the organization's is on the line. And not only that, how do we explain these contradictory attitudes?"
The US brinkmanship was clearly aimed at underscoring the Bush administration's decision to have nothing to do with the court, but it also underlined Washington's willingness to stand alone against virtually all other council members, including its close allies, who support the court.
SUPPORTERS CELEBRATE MILESTONE
At the start of a final meeting to prepare for the court's operation at UN headquarters in New York, many of the 139 nations that signed the Rome treaty establishing the tribunal hailed its entry into force as a historic milestone for international justice.
Australia deposited its ratification on Monday morning, bringing the total number of countries now legally bound by the treaty to 75.
Supporters of the court say there are many safeguards to prevent abuse, including a democratic process to elect a prosecutor and 18 judges. Each member country has one vote.
Another safeguard against political prosecution is the aim of an independent prosecutor's office that will weigh claims of war crimes on their merit, not on political grounds.
Canada's Ambassador to Sweden Philippe Kirsch, who chairs the meeting, praised the vast majority of Security Council members for supporting the court on Sunday and called the US veto over its concerns of frivolous prosecutions "unwarranted."
"The difficulties that brought about this vote have not gone away, but I firmly believe that these difficulties are temporary, while the International Criminal Court is a permanent institution," he said. "Therefore, the real historical day is not yesterday but today, the day when the International Criminal Court enters into the annals of international justice."
BOSNIA COMMITMENT
After a special meeting in Brussels of NATO ambassadors to discuss the dispute Monday, the United States and alliance representatives underlined their commitment to peacekeeping in Bosnia.
"Our commitment to Bosnia remains, based on the Dayton accords," said NATO spokesman Mark Laity. NATO insists that its 18,000-strong force in Bosnia is not directly affected by the US threat since it is not a UN operation. Instead, its mandate comes from the 1995 agreement signed in Dayton, Ohio, to end the war in Bosnia. However, the lifting of UN backing for the mission could affect some nations' participation.
In Oslo, Norway, former Balkan peace broker and US Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke also expressed regret at the US decision.
"I don't think there is any danger to Americans in the peacekeeping forces in Bosnia, and to jeopardize this force in this way is unnecessary," he said in an interview on Norwegian state radio NRK. "I want to point out that if this continues it will affect not only Bosnia but Kosovo, Africa, East Timor and most importantly Afghanistan."
White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said Monday that the Bush administration "strongly supports Bosnian peacekeeping" but the treaty threatens to overreach and ensnare US diplomats and military personnel on overseas duty.
US military sources also said that the United States has no plans to pull US troops out of Bosnia. In fact, Washington expects the multinational peacekeeping force there to remain largely intact.
US DEFENDS POSITION
Fleischer quoted criticism of the treaty made by former President Clinton that echoes the Bush administration's problems with the court and said the United States wants protections for its citizens similar to those being sought by other countries.
"This is a very important matter of principle about protecting Americans who uniquely serve around the globe in peacekeeping efforts," Fleischer said. "The world should make no mistake the United States will stand strong and stand on principle to do what's right to protect our citizens."
The Hague-based institute has the authority to prosecute individuals - not states - suspected of war crimes anywhere in the world.
The US Senate adopted legislation authorizing the president to use "all means necessary" to free US citizens held by the court. It also enables the United States to penalize countries for cooperating with the court.
DAY ONE FOR COURT
The International Criminal Court cannot try offenses committed before July 1, 2002.
On the first day of operations, the court received no allegations, and the four administrators spent most of the day answering questions from the media.
Allegations will be filed and evidence handed to the court's caretakers retained for safekeeping until prosecutors take over next year.
The start of the court's jurisdiction signals the beginning of "the greatest institution of peace ever created," said William Pace, head of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court, which includes over 1,000 global organizations.
"All who believe in democracy and justice and the rule of law can celebrate," Pace said Sunday in an interview from New York. "This is truly one of the greatest advances of international law since the founding of the United Nations 57 years ago."
(China Daily July 2, 2002)
