13 July 2002
Negroponte Calls Exemption for U.N. Peacekeepers "a First Step"
(Ambassador's remarks after U.N. Security Council vote on ICC
jurisdiction)
United Nations -- The United States July 12 called a Security Council
resolution exempting U.N. peacekeepers from International Criminal
Court (ICC) prosecutions for one year "a first step."
The exemption applies to peacekeepers from countries such as the
United States that do not accept the ICC's jurisdiction. Commenting on
the vote, U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said that "this resolution
respects those who have decided to submit to the International
Criminal Court and for one year it protects those of us who have not.
We will use the coming year to find the additional protections we
need, using bilateral agreements expressly contemplated in Article 98
of the Rome Statute."
Invoking Article 16 of the Rome Statue, which establishes the
International Criminal Court (ICC), the Security Council unanimously
adopted a resolution that will prevent the court from prosecuting a
current or former member of a U.N. peacekeeping mission for one year,
if a case should arise. The resolution was passed after weeks of
intense negotiations when the United States sought protection for its
citizens from the ICC. The council also indicated its intention to
renew the resolution each July 1.
The United States, which has not ratified the Rome Statute, sought the
resolution to protect Americans serving in U.N. established or
authorized peacekeeping missions from politically motivated
prosecutions. The court was established to prosecute war crimes.
In his remarks, Negroponte was firm that the United States "will never
permit Americans to be jailed because judges of the ICC, chosen
without the participation of those over whom they claim jurisdiction,
so decide."
"The President of the United States is determined to protect our
citizens -- soldiers and civilians, peacekeepers and officials -- from
the International Criminal Court. ... No nation should underestimate
our commitment to protect our citizens," he said.
"The American system of justice can be trusted to punish crimes,
including war crimes or crimes against humanity, committed by an
American -- and we pledge to do so," the ambassador said.
Following are the text and transcript of the ambassador's remarks
after the vote:
(Begin text of the ambassador's Security Council explanation of vote)
Mr. President,
This resolution represents the culmination of weeks of work by my
government and many of the other governments represented here. Some
members of this Council are members of the International Criminal
Court while others, including the United States, are not and never
will be. The United States has therefore sought a resolution that
would allow those in the Court to meet their obligations to it, while
it protected those of us who reject the jurisdiction of that
institution.
At risk were the peacekeeping activities of the United Nations, in the
first instance in Bosnia but ultimately throughout the globe. The
United States is therefore very pleased that we have successfully
reached agreement. It offers us a degree of protection for the coming
year.
For the United States, this resolution is a first step. The President
of the United States is determined to protect our citizens -- soldiers
and civilians, peacekeepers and officials -- from the International
Criminal Court. We are especially concerned that Americans sent
overseas as soldiers, risking their lives to keep the peace or to
protect us all from terrorism and other threats, be themselves
protected from unjust or politically motivated charges. Should the ICC
eventually seek to detain any American, the United States would regard
this as illegitimate - and it would have serious consequences.
No nation should underestimate our commitment to protect our citizens.
Our government was founded by Americans to protect their freedom. Our
Declaration of Independence states that and I quote "governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of
the governed," in order to secure their rights.
We have built up in our two centuries of constitutional history a
dense web of restraints on government, and of guarantees and
protections for our citizens. The power of the government is very
great, but those restraints are equally powerful. The history of
American law is very largely the history of that balance between the
power of the government and the rights of the people. We will not
permit that balance to be overturned by the imposition on our citizens
of a novel legal system they have never accepted or approved, and
which their government has explicitly rejected.
We will never permit Americans to be jailed because judges of the ICC,
chosen without the participation of those over whom they claim
jurisdiction, so decide. We cannot allow that Americans who have been
acquitted of accusations against them in the United States shall be
subject to prosecution for the same acts if an ICC prosecutor or judge
concludes that the American legal proceedings were somehow inadequate.
We know that prosecutors who are responsible to no one constitute a
danger, and we will not expose our citizens to such a danger. We
cannot accept a structure that may transform the political criticism
of America's world role into the basis for criminal trials of
Americans who have put their lives on the line for freedom.
The American system of justice can be trusted to punish crimes,
including war crimes or crimes against humanity, committed by an
American -- and we pledge to do so. But we do not believe the
International Criminal Court contains sufficient safeguards to protect
our nationals, and therefore we can never in good conscience permit
Americans to become subject to its authority. The power to deprive a
citizen of his or her freedom is an awesome thing, which the American
people have entrusted to their government under the rules of our
democracy. Thus does an American judge have the legal and moral right,
founded in our Constitution and in democratic procedures, to jail an
American. But the International Criminal Court does not operate in the
same democratic and constitutional context, and therefore does not
have the right to deprive Americans of their freedom.
The United States does not oppose special tribunals to prosecute
international offenses, and indeed has been a key supporter of them.
But we believe that these existing mechanisms, within the framework of
the U.N. Charter and the Security Council and already accepted by the
international community, are adequate.
Once again I thank the members of the Security Council for their hard
work in reaching a successful agreement today. I would also like to
pay a special tribute to our President, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who led
us through this very difficult debate. This resolution respects those
who have decided to submit to the International Criminal Court, and
for one year it protects those of us who have not. We will use the
coming year to find the additional protections we need, using
bilateral agreements expressly contemplated in Article 98 of the Rome
Statute. We will seek your cooperation, that is to say, the
cooperation of the Council in achieving these agreements, so as to
provide the protection that our understanding of the rights and
freedoms of our citizens requires.
(end speech text)
(begin transcript of the ambassador's remarks outside the Security
Council)
I would be pleased to entertain any questions that you might have.
Question: Ambassador, once you have sort of established this network
of bilateral agreements, Article 98 agreements and status of forces
agreements, will you then end your efforts to renew this resolution
every July 1st, or is this something that you see that the U.S. would
like to be enforced for many years to come -- forever?
Ambassador Negroponte: As you know, our initial drafts provided for
virtually automatic extension of those provisions on an annual basis.
That turned out not to be acceptable to other members of the Council,
and we reached the compromise that is reflected in the resolution that
you have before you.
Yes, indeed, it is our intent, in accordance with the second
paragraph, the operative paragraph, of the resolution, to seek renewal
of this resolution on an annual basis; but the resolution is clear
that this will be an annual decision and no doubt there will be debate
within the Council prior to actually taking action, so I wouldn't want
to try to prejudge or predict the outcome of any such discussion at
this point.
Question: Ambassador, those of us who have covered this for many years
know that the American bottom line has always been a cast-iron
guarantee that no American would ever come before this court. You
haven't achieved that result in this resolution. Why did you give up
on that principle?
Ambassador Negroponte: Well, I think that we certainly achieved in
operative paragraph 1 a request to the Court that no investigation or
prosecution start before this one year period. So, in effect, I think
for practical purposes it achieves the kind of protection for a
one-year period that we were seeking. We would have preferred that
this protection be for an indefinite period of time.
Question: But obviously, in the situation where somebody were to
commit an atrocity, hypothetically in that one year, it would
obviously be hard for you to get a renewal of the deferral and
therefore the jurisdiction would attach to that atrocity.
Ambassador: Well, I think that perhaps we ought to take this on a
stepwise basis. We have achieved these protections for a one-year
period. As Sir Jeremy pointed out in virtually in any hypothetical
situation of this kind, I don't think either the United States or
Great Britain or other countries doubt that we ourselves would
administer the requisite justice to the accused individual.
But yes, I think it adds an important measure of protection for the
year ahead and then we are going to seek through a multifaceted
approach to also build additional protections under Article 98 of the
Rome Statue and other mechanisms that I referred to in my statement.
Thank you very much.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
