Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
July 1 — The world’s first permanent war crimes tribunal came into existence Monday, hailed by supporters as a milestone in international justice that will prevent future Hitlers, Pol Pots and Saddam Husseins - but vehemently opposed by the United States. Washington has threatened to shut down U.N.-authorized peacekeeping missions as a result of that dispute, spurring NATO to call an emergency meeting to consider the implications on its operations.
NATO SPOKESMAN Yves Brodeur said that ambassadors of the 19-nation defense alliance would hold a North Atlantic Council meeting later Monday.
“It’s going to be purely information. No decisions will be taken here because there are no decisions we can make here,” he said.
Washington on Sunday renewed its threat to block U.N.-backed missions unless the Security Council granted its forces immunity from arrest or prosecution by the International Criminal Court.
It vetoed a Council resolution extending the mandate of a U.N. police-training mission in Bosnia for six more months, but then backed a second resolution keeping it alive until midnight New York time on Wednesday.
Brodeur said that, strictly speaking, NATO’s separate peacekeeping operation in the war-scarred Balkans state could not fall foul of the diplomatic wrangling because it does not require a U.N. mandate to remain in operation.
OPEN FOR BUSINESS
With the backing of 74 countries, and fierce opposition from the United States, the Hague-based institute will have the authority to prosecute individuals — not states — suspected of war crimes anywhere in the world.
The International Criminal Court will not have the power to try offenses committed before July 1, 2002.
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.”
Staff members will keep track of complaints until permanent representatives are appointed early in 2003, said Bart Jochems, a spokesman for the Dutch Foreign Ministry.
‘PEACEKEEPING IN GENERAL’ IN TROUBLE
Fearing U.S. soldiers and leaders could be indicted on political grounds, the U.S. Senate adopted legislation authorizing the president to use “all means necessary” to free U.S. citizens held by the court.
It also enables the United States to penalize countries for cooperating with the court.
Supporters 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.
U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte warned that “peacekeeping in general” was at stake if a solution isn’t found — not just in Bosnia. He indicated that the United States might try to end the 14 other U.N. peacekeeping missions from East Timor and Cyprus to Congo and the Iraq-Kuwait border if its demand for immunity isn’t met.
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 U.N. 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 U.S. 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.
NATO SPOKESMAN Yves Brodeur said that ambassadors of the 19-nation defense alliance would hold a North Atlantic Council meeting later Monday.
“It’s going to be purely information. No decisions will be taken here because there are no decisions we can make here,” he said.
Washington on Sunday renewed its threat to block U.N.-backed missions unless the Security Council granted its forces immunity from arrest or prosecution by the International Criminal Court.
It vetoed a Council resolution extending the mandate of a U.N. police-training mission in Bosnia for six more months, but then backed a second resolution keeping it alive until midnight New York time on Wednesday.
Brodeur said that, strictly speaking, NATO’s separate peacekeeping operation in the war-scarred Balkans state could not fall foul of the diplomatic wrangling because it does not require a U.N. mandate to remain in operation.
OPEN FOR BUSINESS
With the backing of 74 countries, and fierce opposition from the United States, the Hague-based institute will have the authority to prosecute individuals — not states — suspected of war crimes anywhere in the world.
The International Criminal Court will not have the power to try offenses committed before July 1, 2002.
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.”
Staff members will keep track of complaints until permanent representatives are appointed early in 2003, said Bart Jochems, a spokesman for the Dutch Foreign Ministry.
‘PEACEKEEPING IN GENERAL’ IN TROUBLE
Fearing U.S. soldiers and leaders could be indicted on political grounds, the U.S. Senate adopted legislation authorizing the president to use “all means necessary” to free U.S. citizens held by the court.
It also enables the United States to penalize countries for cooperating with the court.
Supporters 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.
U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte warned that “peacekeeping in general” was at stake if a solution isn’t found — not just in Bosnia. He indicated that the United States might try to end the 14 other U.N. peacekeeping missions from East Timor and Cyprus to Congo and the Iraq-Kuwait border if its demand for immunity isn’t met.
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 U.N. 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 U.S. 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.
