U.S. a Loner at Talks on a Criminal Court

In a speech that underlined the divisions between the United States and some of its closest allies over the scope and operation of a proposed international criminal court, U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson called Wednesday for a narrowly defined tribunal firmly harnessed to the U.N. Security Council.

The U.S. envoy was addressing a treaty conference in Rome, where representatives of more than 150 countries have begun negotiations aimed at constructing an international tribunal to prosecute war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.

The court is envisioned as a new weapon in the international arsenal against pariah leaders such as the late Cambodian dictator Pol Pot and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. It would prosecute leaders who engage in mass murder and other large-scale crimes if national courts could not or would not do the job.

But, as the closed-door bargaining began in earnest Wednesday, Richardson’s speech and remarks by representatives of other nations exposed widely different views of how the court should work and raised questions of whether negotiators can bridge those gaps.

The United States, responding to Pentagon fears that American soldiers could be harassed by politically motivated prosecutions, is arguing for tight restrictions on the court.

“Soldiers deployed far from home need to do their jobs without exposure to politicized proceedings,” Richardson said. “More generally, we are not here to create a court that exists to sit in judgment on national systems, to second-guess each action and intervene if it disagrees. We are here to create a court that focuses on recognized atrocities of significant magnitude and thus enjoys near-universal support.”

The U.S. is at odds with a coalition of more than 50 Western democracies, including such allies as Britain, Canada and Germany, that favors a more expansive tribunal with broad jurisdiction to conduct investigations without the advance approval of the Security Council. Delegates from some of these countries argue that they should push through their version even if the U.S. refuses to go along.

American officials privately contend that such a court could not succeed without U.S. support, because it would be unable to enforce its decisions without the implicit backing of the U.S. military. Richardson made a subtle reference to that in his speech.

“Experience teaches us that we must carefully distinguish between what looks good on paper and what works in the real world,” he said.

The speech disappointed independent human rights activists at the conference, who were hoping the U.S. would move closer to its allies. William Pace, the coordinator of more than 230 human rights organizations participating in the talks, said the U.S. isolation may prevent the American delegation in Rome from playing a leadership role in the bargaining. Richard Dicker, associate counsel for New York-based Human Rights Watch, called the U.S. position “shameful.”

On two issues that have been particularly contentious in the early bargaining--the roles of the Security Council and the court prosecutor in triggering investigations--Richardson reiterated long-standing U.S. positions.

The U.S. wants the court linked to the Security Council because as one of five permanent members--the others are Britain, China, France and Russia--it could veto any investigation it did not want. Similarly, the U.S. opposes proposals that would permit the court prosecutor to initiate an investigation.

“Because of the Security Council’s legal responsibilities for maintaining international peace and security, the United States believes that the council must play an important role in the work of the permanent court,” Richardson said. “ . . . The court must operate in coordination--not in conflict--with the Security Council.”

Critics argue that this would place the court at the mercy of the five major powers and are pushing a compromise proposal, put forth by Singapore and endorsed by Britain, that would allow the Security Council, by majority vote, to halt an investigation for up to a year but would not permit a single state to kill a case using its veto.

In a sign of the increasing U.S. isolation on the issue, France, which had been closely adhering to the American position, shifted Wednesday and endorsed the Singapore plan.

Some delegates to Rome contend that the differences between the U.S. and many allies reflect the realities of the post-Cold War era. Except for Britain, none of the countries pushing for an expansive court is a significant military power, and thus they are less likely to be exposed to prosecution.

The talks are scheduled to last five weeks, with final action on a court treaty by July 17.