U.S. insists that its peacekeepers be exempt from prosecution b

UNITED NATIONS -- The United States stuck to its demand that American peacekeepers be exempt from prosecution by the new international criminal court, putting at risk U.N. peacekeeping operations in Bosnia.

Standing alone against the 14 other Security Council members, the United States on Friday threatened again to veto a U.N. resolution to extend the Bosnian operations without immunity for U.S. participants.

Washington rejected a French-British compromise that would require the court to defer any investigation of an American peacekeeper for 12 months. It would allow the United States time to bring the individual home, but it would not grant the Americans immunity.

Standing equally tough, the other council members -- including close allies Britain and France -- refused to accept the U.S. demand for immunity, saying it would undermine the court and international law.

With the International Criminal Court coming into existence on July 1 and the mandate for the Bosnia peacekeeping operations expiring at midnight on June 30, the council met twice Friday to see if there was room for compromise.

"We haven't resolved anything. The differences still remain," said U.S. deputy ambassador James Cunningham at the end of the second closed door meeting. "Our concerns are still there. They haven't been addressed."

Cunningham said the United States believes it's time for decisions to be made "at a political level to get a solution." Diplomats said they expect senior government officials in key capitals to tackle the issue in the next 48 hours.

The council scheduled another meeting on Sunday, just eight hours before the Bosnia mandate expires.

Undersecretary-General for Peacekeeping Jean-Marie Guehenno said Friday that if no solution is found, there would be "serious implications" for U.N. peacekeeping operations.

The United States is seeking a blanket worldwide exemption from prosecution by the court for U.N. peacekeepers.

If Washington doesn't get it, it could veto every peacekeeping operation as its mandate came up for renewal.

At stake is not just Bosnia's 1,500-strong U.N. police training mission and the 17,000-strong NATO-led force there, but all 15 U.N. peacekeeping operations from Cyprus to East Timor as well as the NATO-led force in Kosovo.

Cunningham was asked why the United States didn't just withdraw Americans participating in U.N. and other peacekeeping missions rather than threaten to shut down peacekeeping altogether.

"We want to find a solution that allows us to continue to contribute to peacekeeping ... and not to adopt halfway measures, and we're not seeking to exclude ourselves from cooperation with our partners overseas," he said.

But supporters of the court accused the United States of using peacekeeping to undermine the tribunal.

"If the U.S. believes in the importance of peacekeeping, they would just withdraw all their troops and let the peacekeeping missions continue," said William Pace, the head of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court, which includes over 1,000 global organizations.

"The message that they're delivering is that it's more important for them to torpedo the International Criminal Court than to preserve peacekeeping at the United Nations and around the world," he said.

The new court will prosecute those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, but it will step in only when countries are unwilling or unable to dispense justice themselves.

Former President Clinton signed the treaty but the Bush administration announced last month it wants nothing to do with the court.

The United States 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 treaty -- even if the United States is not a party. It says that would leave U.S. troops and citizens vulnerable to frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions.

But the court's supporters say there are safeguards to prevent such abuse.

Sixty-nine countries have ratified the Rome treaty establishing the tribunal, with supporters pointing out that 14 ratifications happened since the U.S. launched its campaign in April. The six council members ratifying it include U.S. allies Britain and France. Six others have signed and plan to ratify.