|
|
Tlahui-Politic. No. 14, II/2002
Int: 07/02/02 Nizkor Int. Human Rights Team - Derechos Human Rights - Serpaj Europe Information - iv) messages - 02Jul02 i) UN MISSION IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA EXTENDED FOR 3 DAYS; US VETOES LONGER TERM. 30 June – After the United States had vetoed a move to extend the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH) until the end of this year, the Security Council this evening approved [ http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7438.doc.htm ] a three-day extension of the Mission's mandate, which was due to expire at midnight on 30 June. Acting unanimously to adopt resolution 1420, the Council decided that the provisions of its resolution 1357 [ http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2001/res1357e.pdf ] should continue to be in force until 3 July, 2002. That resolution, adopted in June 2001, extended UNMIBH's mandate and authorized the continuation of the multinational stabilization force (SFOR) until 21 June 2002. On that date, the Council adopted a technical resolution 1418 [ http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2001/res1418e.pdf ], extending the provision through 30 June.
The adopted resolution was sponsored by France, United Kingdom, Ireland and
Norway. [ http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7437.doc.htm ] Addressing the Council before the vote, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said UNMIBH's mandate had come to an abrupt end for reasons that were unrelated to the vitally important work it was performing to implement the Dayton Peace Agreement. Unless an agreement could be reached on an orderly wind-down of the Mission, he stressed, the police in Bosnia and Herzegovina would be left unmonitored, unguided and unassisted, and the long-planned handover to the European Union Police Mission, scheduled for the year's end, would be severely compromised. He noted that the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina were beginning to reap the fruits of the international community's assistance. The premature termination of UNMIBH's mandate would be perceived throughout the Balkans as a diminishing of the international community's commitment to stability in the region. Appealing to Council members to intensify the recent high-level negotiations held in capitals, Mr. Annan called for a solution that was acceptable to all concerned and that respected the principles of the UN Charter as well as treaty obligations of Member States. The world could not afford a situation in which the Council was deeply divided on such an important issue, which might have implications for all UN peace operations, he warned. Speaking in explanation of his country's position before the vote, Ambassador John Negroponte of the United States said his delegation would vote against the resolution with great reluctance, and that the decision was not directed at the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He stressed that by vetoing the resolution in the face of its commitment to peace and stability in that country, the US was indicating the seriousness of its concerns about risks to its peacekeepers. Ambassador Negroponte noted that his country would not expose its personnel serving under dangerous situations to promote peace to the additional risk of politicized prosecutions before the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction over its people the Government of the United States did not accept. With the Court coming into effect on 1 July, he said, two hard facts must be taken into account: the United States wanted to participate in peacekeeping, but as a major guarantor of peace and security around the globe it did not and would not accept the jurisdiction of the ICC over the peacekeepers that the country contributed to UN-authorized operations.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ii) DISPUTE THREATENS U.N. ROLE IN BOSNIA; U.S. WIELDS VETO IN CLASH OVER WAR CRIMES COURT.
UNITED NATIONS, June 30 -- The United States vetoed a six-month extension of the
United Nations peacekeeping mission in Bosnia today because the Security Council
refused to grant the small contingent of Americans serving there immunity from
the world's first permanent war crimes court. U.S. and European officials said Washington would use the three days to increase pressure on foreign leaders to meet its demands. The move marked a dramatic escalation in the Bush administration's effort to place U.S. citizens beyond the reach of the International Criminal Court, which comes into existence Monday despite fierce U.S.
Opposition. peacekeeping and the more immediate future of the United Nations in Bosnia, where a force of more than 1,500 U.N. police, including 46 Americans, was preparing to gradually relinquish its responsibilities over the next six months to a mission run by the European Union. The U.N. Mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina and a NATO force have served as the guarantors of stability since the country's bloody war ended in 1995. John D. Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, voted to block a resolution supported by 13 members of the 15-nation council that would have extended by six months the Bosnia mission, whose mandate expired at midnight. Bulgaria, one of nine countries that sponsored the resolution, abstained. Negroponte said he had vetoed the resolution "with great reluctance" and pledged that the United States would "stand by" its commitment to pursue peace and stability in Bosnia. "The fact that we are vetoing this resolution in the face of that commitment, however, is an indication of just how serious our concerns remain about the risks to our peacekeepers." He said the United States would pull out three military observers serving with the U.N. in East Timor if it did not resolve the dispute over the ICC in the coming week. Another U.S. official said Washington was prepared to accelerate the withdrawal of the 46 Americans in Bosnia.
It remained unclear what impact today's decision would have on a much larger
NATO peacekeeping force in Bosnia, which was established under the U.S.-brokered
1995 Dayton Accords. U.S. and European officials said Washington is exploring
ways to determine whether the NATO force in Bosnia, which includes a contingent
of about 3,100 U.S. troops, can remain in place. "This isn't about the vulnerability of Americans deployed in peacekeeping operations," said Richard Dicker, a court proponent at the New York-based Human Rights Watch. "The United States is using the Security Council as a battering ram against the integrity of the treaty." The standoff in the council dampened what court advocates had hoped would be a celebration of the court's birth. The treaty creating the criminal court has been signed by 138 countries and ratified by 74. The ICC was established to prosecute alleged dictators and war criminals for the most serious crimes, including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Although the Clinton administration signed the treaty in December 2000, the Bush
administration renounced it in May, arguing that the tribunal might conduct
politically motivated trials against Americans. But the Bush administration insists it needs explicit protections for all current and former American nationals from the ICC, which will be based in The Hague. France's and Britain's envoys said that U.S. police and peacekeepers had little to fear from an international court and that Washington could obtain adequate assurances of immunity through provisions in the ICC treaty, including one that would allow the United States to negotiate bilateral agreements with countries that host American forces. "While we understand the United States' concerns regarding the court, we do not share them," said Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's U.N. ambassador. "We believe that the risk of peacekeeping personnel appearing before the court is extremely small." France's U.N. ambassador, Jean-David Levitte, urged Washington to withdraw a small unit of American citizens, which includes the U.N.'s top official, Jacques Klein, and 46 American police officers rather than shut down the Bosnia mission. "What is at stake is the very capacity of the United Nations to continue peacekeeping operations," Levitte said. "For the United States the simplest thing is to withdraw the 46 U.S. police. . . . There is simply no need to kill off UNMIBH." U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan raised concern over the possibility that Washington could sacrifice some of the U.N.'s 14 other peacekeeping operations when their mandates come before the council for renewal. And he warned that the abrupt closure of the U.N. mission in Bosnia would "severely compromise" the transfer of responsibility to the European Union. "The [Bosnian] state and its institutions are still fragile and under pressure from nationalist forces," Annan said. "Unless an agreement can be reached on an orderly wind-down of the mission, the police in Bosnia and Herzegovina will be left unmonitored, unguided and unassisted." [Source: By Colum Lynch, Special to The Washington Post - Monday, July 1, 2002; Page A01] ------------------------------------------------------------ iii) BOSNIA MISSION THREAT CLOUDS WORLD COURT'S BIRTH SARAJEVO
(Reuters) - The birth of the first global war crimes court on Monday was overshadowed by a U.S. threat to United Nations peacekeeping missions, but fears that U.S. troops would pull out of Bosnia appeared unfounded. Washington has demanded immunity from prosecution for its forces by the new International Criminal Court and threatened to block U.N.-backed missions if its demands were not met. On Sunday it wielded an axe over a U.N. police-training taskforce in Bosnia, throwing into doubt the future of a much larger NATO-led peacekeeping force in the former Yugoslav republic in which the United States has 2,500 soldiers. But the U.S. ambassador in Sarajevo on Monday reassured Bosnians U.S. troops would remain in the 18,000-strong Stabilization Force (SFOR). "U.S. troops will stay in Bosnia. The mandate of SFOR is based on the Dayton Peace Accords and the decisions of the Peace Implementation Council," said ambassador Clifford Bond. "Our strategic commitment to the Balkans and to Bosnia remains strong," Bond said. The ICC, which President Bush has firmly repudiated, was launched on Monday in The Hague to handle complaints of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes worldwide. The Security Council refused the U.S. immunity demand, and the United States on Sunday vetoed a resolution extending the mandate of the U.N.
police mission for six months. The United Nations now has until 0400 GMT on
Thursday to find a deal. Bosnia's International High Representative, Paddy Ashdown, spoke to Secretary of State Colin Powell about his concerns. "He said he hoped the U.S. Administration would not do anything that placed at risk the huge progress toward peace and stability" Bosnia has achieved since the 1992-95 war, Ashdown's office reported. In Brussels, European diplomats complained that the row was another sign of the Bush administration's readiness to thumb its nose at the world, said the message it sends could jolt the war-scarred Balkans. "I deeply regret this dramatic step that threatens U.N. peace operations in general," Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller said in a statement on the day that his country assumed the six-month rotating presidency of the European Union. EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana accused the United States of taking hostage the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Bosnia but said he hoped a deal could be reached over the spat. "The (U.S.) position is very tough," Solana said in an interview on French LCI television. "I didn't expect such a hard reaction, of taking hostage the operation in Bosnia." NATO called an extraordinary meeting of the ambassadors of its 19 nations to consider the implications for SFOR. The Security Council resolution up for renewal also authorizes member states to continue contributing to SFOR. "There was no tasking, no decision, this was simply an exchange of information," said alliance spokesman Yves Brodeur. Ironically, if the Security Council endorsement for SFOR lapsed because of a U.S. refusal to extend the mandate, Germany might have to pull troops out because its constitution requires U.N. sanction before it can join any peacekeeping mission. FIRST TEST Renewal of the police mission is the first test of the U.S. campaign to keep its troops out of the reach of the new court. Washington says the court could infringe on national sovereignty and lead to politically motivated prosecutions of its officials or soldiers working abroad. In the Hague, without fuss or fanfare, the ICC's first four workers arrived at temporary quarters in an office block on the outskirts of the city. Human rights groups hail the court as global justice's biggest milestone since an international military tribunal in Nuremberg tried Nazi leaders after World War II. The skeleton staff will pave the way for 18 judges and a chief prosecutor expected to be chosen in January. The court is unlikely to start investigations before the end of 2003. Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, pointing out that the court could have a disproportionate impact on America, said the Bush administration was "quite rightly playing hardball." "Can a more liberal international order be built by hobbling the most powerful defender of that order?" he wrote in The Washington Post. "That's a question our EU allies might want to start asking themselves." But even the United States' closest European ally, Britain, expressed disappointment with the threat to U.N. peacekeeping and said it was trying to change Washington's mind. Canada expressed dismay at the U.S. move, saying it was an unnecessary threat threatening peace and stability in the Balkans. Diplomacy aside, the prospect of the U.N. mission ceasing to exist on Thursday left the EU with an operational headache. The 15-nation bloc has already agreed to take over the police task force at the end of this year, marking the debut of its crisis management operations. European Commission spokesman Gunnar Wiegand told a news briefing that the United Nations had approached European states to see if they could advance their takeover by half a year, but said this would be "logistically tight and quite difficult." [Source: By Nedim Dervisbegovic - Reuters - July 01, 2002 05:44 PM ET] --------------------------------------------------------- iv) HAGUE INVASION ACT SET TO BECOME LAW. Despite the promises of War Crimes Ambassador-at -Large Pierre Prosper, not to "go to war against the Court," the House and Senate have passed anti-ICC legislation. The American Servicemembers Protection Act's (aka the Hague Invasion Act) next stop is a House/Senate conference committee that must approve it before it can go to President Bush for signature. The bill includes the largest Congressional grant of war powers to the President since the infamous 1964 Vietnam Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Background: The misnamed American Servicemembers Act (ASPA) was passed in the House and Senate as part of a supplemental appropriations bill. The Bush Administration pledged not to actively undermine the Court and to respect the decision of those who ratified the Rome Statute. This legislation is unnecessary after the recent decision to "unsign" the Treaty, and rubs salt into the wounds of our allies. Every European Union nation has ratified the ICC treaty. The Dutch Parliament has held hearings and passed legislation condemning this unilateral U.S. bill. The House version of the bill is similar to one proposed last year when Rep. Delay threatened to hold up US repayment of dues to the United Nations pending the administration's acceptance of the provision. It a particularly virulent form of ASPA with phony waivers, restrictions on military assistance, and conditions on participation in peacekeeping operations. It could severely threaten our ability to function effectively in conflict areas. The Senate version, thanks to Senator Dodd, includes an amendment stipulating that "Nothing in this title shall prohibit the United States from rendering assistance to international efforts to bring to justice Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Osama bin Laden, other members of Al Qaeda, leaders of Islamic Jihad, and other foreign nationals accused of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity." However, even with the Dodd amendment, the legislation could still be interpreted to: - Prohibit U.S. cooperation with ICC; - Maintain that Peacekeeping Operations must exempt U.S. Armed Forces from criminal prosecution by the ICC; - Prohibit U.S. Armed Forces prohibited from Peacekeeping missions unless in possession of presidential waiver; - Prohibit sharing of classified information to ICC; - Prohibit military assistance to countries who are parties to ICC except NATO countries, major non-NATO allies and Taiwan; - Provides authority to the President for U.S. to invade Holland to free members of U.S. armed forces, civilians and allies held captive by ICC. - Prohibit any funding, response to request of assistance, legal assistance, sharing of evidence, transferal of documents, extradition of persons, or any other form of cooperation with the Court or parties acting on behalf of the Court. [Source: Don Kraus, Campaign for U.N. Reform - 15Jun02 - http://www.cunr.org ]  Búsqueda - Search - Recherche: Tlahui-SiteEducación - Education - Éducation: Tlahui-EducaCursos - Cours - Courses: Educa-MedRegresar a - Go back to - Retourner à: Tlahui-Politic 14Libros - Books - Livres
|
Internacional - International - International