US threatens world’s first permanent war crimes court

The existence of the world’s first permanent war crimes tribunal was threatened today as the United States made clear its opposition to the project.

The International Criminal Court was to target future dictators, having the power to prosecute war crimes committed anywhere in the world.

But the US dramatically vetoed a UN Security Council resolution to extend UN peacekeeping in Bosnia because it did not exempt US troops from prosecution by the court in The Hague.

A three-day extension was granted to the mission, but US Ambassador John Negroponte warned that ‘‘peacekeeping in general’’ was at stake if a solution was not found.

He said the US might try to end the 14 other UN peacekeeping missions from East Timor and Cyprus to Congo and the Iraq-Kuwait border if its demand for immunity is not met.

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, a strong backer of the court, questioned how the US could join the Security Council in supporting war crimes tribunals for former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone - yet oppose a permanent tribunal and threaten the future of UN peacekeeping.

‘‘It would be unfortunate if the peacekeeping tool which has served the world so well, and we are going to need in the future, was to be hampered,’’ he said.

‘‘I think the council’s credibility and the organisation’s is on the line. And not only that, how do we explain these contradictory attitudes?’’

The US brinkmanship underlined Washington’s willingness to stand alone against virtually all the other council members, including its close allies.

The US is demanding immunity because it fears American troops and citizens could be targets of frivolous and politically motivated prosecutions.

The US willingness to put its demand for immunity for its soldiers above the UN mission to train Bosnia’s police force, and possibly the Nato-led peacekeeping force in the country - which Washington helped create - angered many council members.

Nato called an emergency meeting in Brussels for later today to consider the implications of Washington’s threat.

Diplomats said the standoff is the most serious - and potentially the most polarising - between the US and the rest of the council in many years, and could have repercussions for President George Bush’s campaign to build an international coalition to fight terrorism.

‘‘By pitting international peacekeeping against international justice, the United States government has sunk to a new low in terms of its moral and political leadership at the United Nations,’’ said William Pace, head of the International Coalition for a Criminal Court, a coalition of over 1,000 organisations supporting the tribunal.

Nonetheless, Pace said, ‘‘international justice has actually won and the US government lost’’ because the Rome treaty establishing the court came into force today, ratified by 74 countries and signed by 139.

The committee preparing for the court’s operation opens a two week meeting today and representatives of many of these countries are expected to attend, and to celebrate its launch.

The new court will prosecute those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes on or after July 1.

Pace said the main targets are ‘‘the genocidal Pol Pots, the Saddam Husseins who use nerve gas against ethnic groups, the ethnic cleansing wars of future Slobodan Milosevics’, the Hitlers, the military monsters who hack off children’s arms to terrorise civilian populations.’’

The US objects to the idea that Americans could be subject to the court’s jurisdiction if a crime is committed in a country that has ratified the Rome treaty that established the court - even if the United States is not a party.

‘‘With our global responsibilities, we are and will remain a special target,’’ Negroponte said, ‘‘and cannot have our decisions second-guessed by a court whose jurisdiction we do not recognise.’’

The court’s supporters contend that the Rome treaty provides adequate safeguards against abuse.

First and foremost, it will step in only when countries are unwilling or unable to dispense justice themselves.

France’s UN Ambassador Jean-David Levitte said US peacekeepers can also be legally protected through bilateral agreements with countries where they are based. France and Britain proposed a year’s delay in investigating an alleged war crime - time to bring a peacekeeper home - but Washington objected because it did not grant immunity.

While Annan expressed hope that the world’s best legal minds would find a solution in the coming days, US officials indicated the time would be used to figure out how to wrap up the Bosnia peacekeeping mission.