Guardian
America has infuriated its allies at the United Nations by threatening to keep US troops out of peacekeeping forces unless they are granted a blanket immunity from prosecution by the International Criminal Court, which comes into being next month.Richard Williamson, a US representative at the UN, said he had warned the security council that "there should be no misunderstanding. If there is not adequate protection for US peacekeepers, there will be no US peacekeepers."
Human rights campaigners accused the US of a "shortsighted and ultimately pathetic" scare campaign.
Mr Williamson's comments reflect long-standing US opposition to the court, which opens its doors on July 1.
The treaty to establish it was ratified by more than 60 countries. But America failed to sign up, saying it was not bound by former president Bill Clinton's support for the court. The decision was interpreted by critics of the Bush administration as a concession to conservative Republicans who fear US citizens could become the victims of politically motivated war crimes trials.
The court, strongly supported by the British government, will have the power to prosecute political leaders or military officers thought to have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity.
Diplomats at the UN dismissed the idea that the security council would agree to a US proposal, made yesterday morning, for a resolution placing all peacekeepers outside the court's reach.
"That will not get support," a western diplomat said. "The US ideal is almost certainly more than the others can accept. Members of the council, even where they haven't yet ratified the court, are supporters, and don't want to do anything that would completely damage the court and the spirit of the court."
Another diplomat said: "Even close friends are very, very nervous. This is really a serious assault on the international legal order."
"This is a scare campaign, driven by a unilateralist animosity towards international institutions, and the rule of law in particular," said Richard Dicker, a legal expert with Human Rights Watch.
"Those in this administration who are the most virulently opposed to extending the rule of law are dictating a shortsighted and ultimately pathetic policy."
Coming soon after reports that the US is planning a new military approach of pre-emptive strikes against suspected enemies, the move highlights the objection some in the Bush administration have to a single worldwide approach to the laws of war.
The framework of the court allows for signatories to reach individual agreements with the US that its citizens will not be subject to the court's rule. Supporters of the court argue that this ought to be enough to protect US troops.
But a US official said yesterday that those agreements were insufficient. "They don't go far enough, they take a long time, and we don't think that's the best approach," the official said. "This resolution is the best way. We're not trying to undercut the court, we're trying to make sure that peacekeeping will be workable in the future and that peacekeepers will not have to worry about having politicised charges brought against them."