If President Bush ever asks Blair to jump, his obvious response may well be: "How high?".

The mainstream British media have continued to pillory Blair for aligning himself too closely with Bush - mostly at the expense of the European Union.
The New York Times said that since the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, Blair has been on more than six diplomatic missions in 15 countries playing the role of a cheer leader for the American anti-terror coalition.

Britain's cozy relationship with the United States- irrespective of whether its policies are right or wrong- has evoked strong resentment even within the 15-nation European Union (EU) of which Britain is a key member.

The United States and the EU have, of course, been traditional political allies since the days of the Cold War.

But last week even Britain refused to cave in to the United States when it demanded that Americans serving with UN peacekeeping missions be exempted from being hauled before the International Criminal Court (ICC) for future war crimes or genocide.

The opposition to the United States was led by Britain and France, two permanent members of the Security Council, where the United States was making its case for exemptions.

The ICC, which came into existence on July 1, is the world's first permanent tribunal for war criminals.

The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute that established the ICC, but Britain and France are, along with the 13 other members of the European Union.

The US decision to go it alone has prompted strong reaction from members of the European Union. This time, Britain has no option because it is also one of the strongest advocates of the ICC.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw was forthright. "We do not share their views about this," he said of the US unilateral stand on ICC exemptions.

Straw said Britain saw the disagreement as a "serious matter" between two traditional allies who always stood shoulder-to-shoulder against the diplomatic onslaughts by third world nations.

The Bush administration, which continues to opt for unilateralism over multilateralism, was forced to exercise its veto last week and torpedo a resolution for the extension of the UN peacekeeping mission in Bosnia because the Security Council refused to give the United States the assurances it unsuccessfully sought.

"We are determined that our citizens not be exposed to legal jeopardy before the ICC as a result of participating in peacekeeping," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said last week.

As a result, there is speculation that Washington may pull out of all UN peackeeping missions bringing them to a complete standstill.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has already warned that the United States may not send its forces to any future UN peacekeeping missions without full immunity from ICC prosecution.

The United States has been reduced to a position where it cannot garner the nine votes required (out of 15 in the Security Council) for passage of any resolution seeking ICC exemptions.

These votes include that of the three other veto wielding members of the Security Council, namely Britain, France and Russia.

At last count, China has given indications that it may go along with the United States since it is not a party to the ICC Statute.

The opposition to the United States is also being led by a coalition of more than 1,000 international non-governmental organisations.

The Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC) has argued that if the US demand is met, it could force all countries that have ratified the Statute to breach their treaty obligations by allowing for a two-tiered system of justice in which US nationals would be held above the law.

The implications of the US resolution would not only undermine the ICC, but also negatively impact both the international law making process and the integrity of the Security Council.

The issue was best summed up by Dominique Moisi, a French political analyst, who was quoted as saying that the US challenge to the ICC was motivated both by arrogance and irresponsibility.

"Arrogance - because they are placing themselves outside and above the law. Irresponsibility- because one day they will need the world in which they, too, belong."

Back to Top

Back to Columns

Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.
Webmaster