WASHINGTON — For U.S. policymakers, the implications are chilling: U.S. forces are sent to a distant hot spot, hostilities occur, innocent civilians die, and Americans are held responsible. Some are even arrested and sent to trial.
That scenario may not seem far-fetched now that the United Nations is in the process of establishing a permanent international criminal court aimed at holding accountable those responsible for actions deemed to be war crimes or crimes against humanity.
While offering millions to track down war crimes suspects in the Balkans, the United States is trying to carve out a blanket exemption protecting American soldiers from being hunted down and prosecuted by the new U.N. court.
State Department lawyers began the effort Monday at the United Nations. Human-rights experts fear the U.S. example will encourage other countries, like Iraq, to follow suit and undercut the United Nations' campaign against war crimes.
"If an Iraqi military commander committed crimes against humanity against Iraqi citizens, Iraq as a nonparty state could deny the court the authority to prosecute. That is in essence what is wrong with the U.S. effort," Richard Dicker of Human Rights Watch said.
David Scheffer, the State Department's ambassador at large for war crimes, insists immunity for U.S. troops is crucial, given the numbers of American soldiers deployed overseas.
"It is a very inhibiting risk to put on the table every time you decide whether or not to intervene," Scheffer, head of the U.S. delegation to the United Nations this week, said in an interview.
Over Clinton administration objections, agreement was reached at a U.N. conference in 1998 to establish an international criminal court, known informally as the ICC. Washington feared U.S. troops could become targets of politically motivated charges.
Only 10 countries have ratified the proposal; five dozen are needed to create the court.
At present, U.N. war crimes tribunals are dealing with atrocities committed in the Balkans and in Rwanda.
Advocates say a permanent global tribunal is needed so suspected war criminals can be pursued regardless of where their crimes are committed.
Nothing would prevent the court from going after Americans even if the United States is not a member, or "nonparty state." Scheffer's mission in New York is to change that.
"We do not believe our armed forces should be subject to surrender to the court because we are a nonparty to the court," Scheffer said.
He also points out that the United States has its own military justice system designed to punish to U.S. troops suspected of war crimes.