Resolution may face veto

UNITED NATIONS -- The United States asked the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday to provide immunity for all people taking part in U.N. peacekeeping operations, a move aimed at protecting Americans from prosecution by the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal.\nThe U.S. draft resolution faces an uphill struggle in the 15-member council where the International Criminal Court has wide support, including from two veto-wielding members, Britain and France.\nIn April, the new tribunal received the ratifications necessary to become a reality on July 1. The milestone was hailed by human rights advocates and many nations but staunchly opposed by the United States.\nDiplomats said that during extensive consultations in recent weeks, the United States has made clear that without a blanket exemption, U.S. personnel will not take part in U.N. peacekeeping missions.\nCurrently, over 700 Americans are participating in operations mandated by the Security Council -- from Western Sahara and the Iraq-Kuwait and Ethiopia-Eritrea borders to Bosnia, Kosovo, Georgia, East Timor and the Sinai, a U.S. official said.\nLast month, U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte tried to amend a Security Council resolution creating a new peacekeeping mission in East Timor to exempt prosecution of all U.N. troops by any international tribunal. But he dropped the amendment in the face of strong opposition from other council members.\nIn addition to Thursday's draft resolution which would cover all future U.N. missions, the United States also proposed an amendment to a resolution which would extend the U.N. police training mission in Bosnia and the authorization for the NATO-led international peacekeeping force in the country.\nThe amendment would bar any current or former personnel from the Bosnian missions from being surrendered to an international tribunal. The council is currently debating the extensions.\nThe United States fears American citizens would be subject to frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions by the court. U.S. opponents of the court argue that other countries could use it to try American soldiers for war crimes, in effect threatening U.S. sovereignty.\nSupporters contend there are numerous safeguards in the treaty against this including a provision that would give the court jurisdiction over a national of any country only if that country refused to investigate an allegation.\nTo win passage of the draft resolution, the United States needs at least nine "yes" votes -- and no veto.\nDuring the debate on the East Timor amendment, diplomats said France, Britain, Ireland and Norway, which have all ratified the treaty establishing the court, and Colombia, which is in the process of ratification, voice strong opposition, saying it would undermine the principles on which the tribunal was founded.\nChina and Singapore are the only nations on the council that haven't signed the Rome statute creating the court. But diplomats said China and Russia, which both have veto power, are also sympathetic to the new tribunal.\nFormer President Bill Clinton signed the treaty, but it was never ratified by the Senate and President Bush has made no secret of his opposition to the tribunal. In early May, his administration announced that it wants nothing to do with the treaty creating the court or the tribunal itself.\nThe draft U.S. resolution circulated Thursday says all participants in U.N. operations "shall enjoy in the territory of all member states other than the contributing state immunity from arrest, detention, and prosecution with respect to all acts arising out of the operation." This immunity, it says, "shall continue after termination of their participation in the operation for all such acts."\nIt also says all member states contributing personnel to operations established or authorized by the Security Council should have the responsibility to investigate and prosecute "offenses alleged to have been committed by their nationals in connection with the operation"