New York - Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged the UN Security Council not to shield American peacekeepers once again from international prosecution for war crimes, citing the abuse of Iraq prisoners by US forces.
Annan urged council members not to support a US resolution calling for the blanket exemption for a third straight year. The current exemption expires on June 30.
"For the past two years, I have spoken quite strongly against the exemption, and I think it would be unfortunate for one to press for such an exemption, given the prisoner abuse in Iraq," he told reporters Thursday.
Blanket exemption is wrong
"It would be even more unwise on the part of the Security Council to grant it. It would discredit the council and the United Nations that stands for rule of law," Annan said. "Blanket exemption is wrong. It is of dubious judicial value, and I don't think it should be encouraged by the council."
The United States introduced the resolution last month but has delayed calling for a vote. Despite intensive lobbying, Washington doesn't have the minimum nine "yes" votes on the 15-member council to approve a new exemption, council diplomats said.
US President George W Bush's administration argues that the International Criminal Court could be used for frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions of American troops.
The 94 countries that have ratified the 1998 Rome Treaty establishing the court maintain it contains enough safeguards to prevent frivolous prosecutions.
This year, human rights groups argue that another US exemption is even more unjustified in the wake of the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal. And council nations that support the court say nobody should be exempt.
Bilateral agreements
Besides seeking another year's exemption from arrest or prosecution of US peacekeepers, Washington has signed bilateral agreements with 89 countries that bar any prosecution of American officials by the court and is seeking more such treaties.
The International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction over the events in Iraq, first because neither the United States nor Iraq has ratified the Rome Treaty, and second because of the UN exemption.
When the court was established, the United States threatened to end its involvement in far-flung peacekeeping operations established or authorised by the United Nations if it didn't get an exemption for American peacekeepers.
British Foreign Office minister Bill Rammell said his country strongly supports the court but is prepared to consider extending the US exemption because a defeat could harm peacekeeping operations around the world.
"And we need American support for those at a time when the need for those operations has never been greater," he told a briefing on Thursday morning.
"If it is approved this year, I would hope that it is not necessary to roll it over in future," Rammell said.
News24.com
Annan urged council members not to support a US resolution calling for the blanket exemption for a third straight year. The current exemption expires on June 30.
"For the past two years, I have spoken quite strongly against the exemption, and I think it would be unfortunate for one to press for such an exemption, given the prisoner abuse in Iraq," he told reporters Thursday.
Blanket exemption is wrong
"It would be even more unwise on the part of the Security Council to grant it. It would discredit the council and the United Nations that stands for rule of law," Annan said. "Blanket exemption is wrong. It is of dubious judicial value, and I don't think it should be encouraged by the council."
The United States introduced the resolution last month but has delayed calling for a vote. Despite intensive lobbying, Washington doesn't have the minimum nine "yes" votes on the 15-member council to approve a new exemption, council diplomats said.
US President George W Bush's administration argues that the International Criminal Court could be used for frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions of American troops.
The 94 countries that have ratified the 1998 Rome Treaty establishing the court maintain it contains enough safeguards to prevent frivolous prosecutions.
This year, human rights groups argue that another US exemption is even more unjustified in the wake of the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal. And council nations that support the court say nobody should be exempt.
Bilateral agreements
Besides seeking another year's exemption from arrest or prosecution of US peacekeepers, Washington has signed bilateral agreements with 89 countries that bar any prosecution of American officials by the court and is seeking more such treaties.
The International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction over the events in Iraq, first because neither the United States nor Iraq has ratified the Rome Treaty, and second because of the UN exemption.
When the court was established, the United States threatened to end its involvement in far-flung peacekeeping operations established or authorised by the United Nations if it didn't get an exemption for American peacekeepers.
British Foreign Office minister Bill Rammell said his country strongly supports the court but is prepared to consider extending the US exemption because a defeat could harm peacekeeping operations around the world.
"And we need American support for those at a time when the need for those operations has never been greater," he told a briefing on Thursday morning.
"If it is approved this year, I would hope that it is not necessary to roll it over in future," Rammell said.
News24.com
