Posted on 9-5-2002

U.S. Rejects Court on Atrocities
By NEIL A. LEWIS, NY Times

Bush administration officials said today that the new International
Criminal Court should expect no cooperation from the United States, and
that its prosecutors would not be given any information from the United
States to help them bring cases against any individuals.

On the day the Bush administration formally renounced support for the
treaty, as expected, Pierre-Richard Prosper, the State Department's
ambassador for war crimes, said "If the prosecutor of the I.C.C. seeks to
build a case against an individual, the prosecutor should build the case on
his or her own effort and not be dependent or reliant upon U.S. information
or cooperation."

Mr. Prosper was one of several government officials who fanned out today to
explain the administration's decision to drop support for a treaty that
democratic nations have ratified. In a letter to Kofi Annan, the secretary
general of the United Nations, the Bush administration said the Clinton
administration's signature on the treaty creating the court was no longer
legally binding.

"The United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty," John
R. Bolton, an undersecretary of state, wrote to Mr. Annan in a
one-paragraph letter. "Accordingly, the United States has no legal
obligations from its signature on the December 31, 2000."

Officials said that Mr. Bolton's statement was also intended to relieve the
United States of obligations under the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties, a 1969 agreement that requires states to refrain from taking
steps to undermine treaties they sign, even if they do not ratify them.

The decision was a victory for a faction of policy makers in the
administration who had argued that the treaty was flawed and dangerous. The
group, led by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Mr. Bolton, the
undersecretary of state for arms control and international security,
contended that the treaty would require the United States to cede some of
its sovereignty to an international prosecutor who would be answerable to
no one and could initiate capricious prosecutions of American officials and
military officers.

Senator Russell D. Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, said he too believed the
treaty had problems that required further discussion. But Mr. Feingold
added that the sharp disavowal could harm American efforts to combat
terrorism and would contribute to the mistrust of Washington in Europe and
elsewhere, where some view the United States as quick to follow a
unilateral path.

"Beyond the extremely problematic matter of casting doubt on the U.S.
commitment to international justice and accountability," Senator Feingold
said, "these steps actually call into question our country's credibility in
all multilateral endeavors.

"As we continue to fight terrorism worldwide," he added, "we are asking
countries around the globe to honor important commitments, to crack down on
the financial and communications networks of terrorists and international
criminals, and to share sensitive intelligence with the United States. This
is not the right time to signal a lack of respect for multilateralism."

Mr. Rumsfeld said he believed that the court would be an obstacle to the
fight against terrorism. He said the court would "necessarily complicate
U.S. military cooperation" with countries that were party to the treaty by
potentially opening American servicemen and women to prosecution. Mr.
Rumsfeld said the United States would try to convince countries that would
incur obligations to hand over Americans that any such action would be
illegitimate.

"By putting U.S. men and women in uniform at risk of politicized
prosecutions," Mr. Rumsfeld said, the court "could well create a powerful
disincentive for U.S. military engagement in the world."

The decision produced widespread criticism from officials at several human
rights organizations. Richard Dicker of Human Rights Watch said: "This will
further aggravate Washington's closest allies who are the main supporters
of this court. The administration is seeking to delegitimize it by casting
doubt as to its credibility and effectiveness."

The court, which will soon begin work in The Hague, will assume
jurisdiction over charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and war
crimes committed after July 1 of this year. Until now, such courts have
been set up on an ad hoc basis.

Mr. Prosper said the United States would not allow itself to become a safe
haven for people sought by the court. Asked what the United States would do
if it had custody of a non-American sought by the international court, Mr.
Prosper said Washington might consider sending the suspect back to the
country where the crime was committed.