I was pleased to see your recent balanced coverage of the International Criminal Court. As you noted, the ICC Treaty entered into force on July 1, 2002. The United States promised in May 2002, when it “unsigned” the ICC Treaty, that it would respect the rights of the countries who have supported the ICC and pledged not to “wage war” on the ICC. Clearly, however, the United States is in fact waging war on the ICC. The administration reminds me of a child who wants his way, and says to friends that if he doesn’t get it, he’ll take his toys (soldiers, guns) and go home.

Many nations interpret U.S. actions in the Security Council as an attempt to unilaterally re-write a treaty that more than 75 nations have already ratified. Tensions in the Security Council arising from this dispute threaten to further isolate the U.S. from its allies. This does not bode well for the future of our cooperation with major allies in the war on terrorism.

The ICC is designed to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, and only if the government of the accused is unable or unwilling to prosecute. United Nations peacekeepers are already protected from prosecution through various existing agreements. The likelihood of a U.S. citizen being detained and tried by the ICC is practically zero. The New York Times described the ICC as a “nonexistent threat” that “contains ample safeguards against frivolous prosecutions”. The United States admits the chance of prosecution is slight, but it also insists upon complete protection anyway, as a matter of principle. But the damage done will far exceed the value of any slight protection.

More than 75 countries have ratified the ICC, even though the Bush administration mounted a furious attempt to convince countries not to ratify. Many of these countries ratified after the U.S. “unsigned” the treaty in May, 2002. The court will proceed with or without U.S. support.

The 15 U.N. peace operations currently deployed prevent minor skirmishes from developing into more major conflicts, help in post-conflict reconstruction and the development of a responsible military and police force, and facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid to millions of people. In the East Timor and Kosovo mission the U.N. has developed effective structures for democratic governance, and developed the institutions of civil society. However, this progress will be lost if the region lapses into conflict. U.N. peacekeeping forces are essential in providing security and guidance as these post-conflict environments stabilize.

There are approximately 56,000 participants in U.N. peacekeeping worldwide; only 704 of these individuals are U.S. citizens. There are only 46 U.S. civilian police in UNMIBH, the mission under death threat by U.S. veto. The United States has announced it will not terminate the U.S. military presence in Bosnia that is part of the NATO forces in that country. It is therefore going to extraordinary lengths solely to protect unarmed police officers hired by an outside firm under contract to the State Department. This conflicts with the assertion by U.S. diplomats that they are acting to protect American servicemen and women.

UNMIBH serves to train police forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina and is mandated to provide executive police services until the native police force is sufficient. The premature termination of this mission places stress on the EU to assume responsibilities in the region six months before planned, and will therefore create a lapse in international support for the region.

A U.S. veto in the Security Council cannot directly terminate the NATO mission in the Balkans. However, a number of NATO countries, including Germany, will be unable to participate in these missions without a Security Council Resolution in support of it.

If the U.S. concern was truly about protecting U.S. personnel in peacekeeping, the United States could simply exercise the option to withdraw all of its citizens from these operations and thus avoid ICC jurisdiction without ending U.N. peacekeeping. One must conclude, therefore, that this action by the United States is indeed part of a larger attack against the ICC, against multilateral efforts to strengthen international law, and against peacekeeping in general.

Shirley L. Davis is a member of the Orono Peace Group.