Stewart Stogel
Thursday, June 24, 2004

The current agreement with the Council expires June 30.

Story Continues Below

Washington was working with the Council members for one final year of exemption.

The ICC, which the U.S. has yet to recognize, was created by the UN in the late 1990's in an effort to provide a permanent mechanism under which war crimes (such as the genocides in Rwanda and Burundi) could be addressed without forming special commissions.

The Court has the power to try nations and individuals and issue punishment. The concept of U.S. forces or officials being held accountable to an outside international body has blocked the ICC's authority from being recognized by Congress.

President George W. Bush has publicly stated that as commander-in-chief, his responsibility is to protect U.S. soldiers, not turn them over to an international court.

Under its "proposed" arrangement with the Security Council, the U.S. exemption would have lasted for one final year. That extension was timed to overlap with Washington's declared intention of reducing U.S. forces in Iraq beginning in late 2005.

The exemption has been in effect for the past two years and there was growing concern in the Council about the "special treatment" being accorded U.S. forces.

While several Council ambassadors insisted the extension would not be renewed beyond next year, the U.S. delegation to the U.N. had been mum on the subject.

On Wednesday, the State Department decided to halt the "negotiations" but was unclear on what happens next.

A spokesman at the U.S. mission to the U.N. would only say that no further negotiations are planned (at this time).

The exemption concept had taken on new importance in light of the Iraq prison abuse scandals.

Currently, Iraq does not recognize the ICC, but that could change with a new government.

If U.S. troops were subject to ICC jurisdiction, the alleged abuses by U.S. soldiers could be prosecuted in the ICC, independent of any internal US action.

In concept, U.S. soldiers who may be exonerated in American courts, could face yet another trial in the ICC, where standards of accountability could differ. It could also violate Federal laws on double jeopardy.

While any punishment issued by the ICC could be ignored by U.S. authorities, should any U.S. national convicted of a crime by the Court travel outside the country, he (or she) could run the risk of being legally imprisoned by a third nation.

In the event one county sues another, the ICC also has the power to issue a confiscation of the convicted party's assets as a possible punishment.

In theory, if the U.S. was convicted of criminal action, the ICC could order the seizure of American asserts (ie. embassies, bank accounts, trade offices etc.) overseas.

Regarding soldiers serving abroad, the U.S. already has numerous bilateral treaties pertaining to possible prosecution.

In those instances, U.S. military courts act in coordination with local authorities.

A spokesman at the U.S. mission to the U.N. explained that the White House might opt to pursue such bilateral arrangements on future U.S. troop deployments and avoid the Security Council entirely.

The ICC under its U.N. charter, acts independently.

There has been talk of attempting to bring President Bush and Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon before the Court on allegations of "war crimes" in Iraq and in the West Bank and Gaza.

So, it is easy to understand the lack of enthusiasm for such a court in Washington and Jerusalem.

Conversely, the ICC could also provide a forum for the prosecution of people such as Osama Bin Laden.

"it's a real mess," explained one U.S. diplomat. Just how the Bush administration or a possible Kerry White House intends to eventually deal with the ICC issue is a question with no apparent answer.