Source: International Herald Tribune / LA Times Contact: http://www.iht.com/ Pubdate: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 Author: William Pfaff DON'T BUY U.S. EXCUSE ON GLOBAL CRIMIRLAL COURT PARIS---The American government's hostility to the international criminal court agreed on by 113 nations in Rome last Friday needs a better explanation than has yet been offered. The court for a long time will provide more symbolism than justice, but it is a significant advance in international law. The United States says it fears that troops on peacekeeping missions might be put on trial for war crimes. This explanation does not deserve to be taken seriously. Congress and the press should force the administration to explain what it really fears and why. Of the major democracies, only the United States and France opposed the court (though France eventually voted for it). France's motive was obvious. French troops trained the Rwandan forces that subsequently committed genocide in their country four years ago. French officers fear they could be called before an international tribunal as witnesses to the genocide, or even be charged with complicity in it. In Rome, their government was protecting them. The British proposed a compromise sheltering a country from charges in the new court during the first seven years after it ratifies the founding treaty. This satisfied French concerns, and France voted to establish the court. The United States has no involvement with genocide on its conscience. What really is on the mind of the administration's policymakers? I think a part of the answer can be found in a recent newspaper report describing the Pentagon's Joint Combined Exchange Training program. Under this, American special operations units have for a number of years been active in many countries, despite congressional limitations on foreign military activities. The Pentagon defends these missions as training for the Americans, but they actually serve to train other countries' special forces, which often have political as well as military functions. In some cases, U.S. troops have assumed quasi-operational roles in anti-drug and counterinsurgency operations. The Washington Post describes the program as "unencumbered by public debate, effective civilian oversight or the consistent involvement of senior U.S. foreign affairs officials" (IHT, July 13). One such operation was taking place in Indonesia earlier this year, despite a congressional ban on U.S. military cooperation with the Indonesian govemment. Another is planned for Pakistan in August, despite an American policy of sanctions against Pakistan for having tested nuclear weapons. The program extends to every Latin American country and to nine in the Caribbean, including those with poor human rights records. The Pentagon says it provides access to and influence on the military leadership of foreign countries and, indirectly, upon their governments. The assistant secretary of defense in charge calls these foreign operations of U.S. special troops "the greatest asset we have." The nature of bureaucracy, any bureaucracy, is to aggrandize its power. In the present Washington climate, when various theories of American global responsibilities and "benevolent hegemony" are influential, the Pentagon's natural bent toward acquiring and exploiting its influence on the policy process, and conducting what could be seen as a parallel foreign policy, is automatically encouraged, even if it means evading congressional restraints. However, it was the State Department's spokesman, not the Pentagon's, who said last week that the United States could not support an international criminal court that failed to "comply with and comport with our special global responsibilities." What can that mean? It seemingly says that the special global responsibilities of the United States require it to be exempted from prosecution for war crimes. What are the war crimes the State Department has in mind? The Pentagon's special operations are only a single element in a very extensive American involvement in the military, intelligence and police affairs of smaller countries, justified by the argument that the United States has special global responsibilities and interests. The CIA and American anti-drug agencies are active in this, sometimes with unhappy consequences for the democratic values that the United States says it defends. The atrocities committed in the course of Guatemala's 36-year civil war are still coming to light. Thai war was instigated by a CIA-arranged military coup, and U.S. agencies were implicated in the Guatemalan military government's subsequent suppression of political opponents. El Salvador, Panama, Ecuador and Suriname are other states in which the United States has played a role difficult to defend. The "talking points" provided one American negotiator in Rome included a threat to withdraw U.S. forces from the territory of allies voting for the war crimes court. That was interpreted as diplomatic hardball but was actually a rather good idea, though it was not meant as one. I, for one, would argue that the United States would be a great deal better off with less foreign involvement of this kind, and so would its allies. Instead, American officials promise "active opposition " to other countries ' ratification of the new criminal court treaty and to the eventual operations of the court. If this really becomes American policy, Washington may find its allies asking that U.S. troops go home. A United States that thinks it should be above the law inevitably makes itself a factor of international insecurity. International Herald Tribune. Los Angeles Times Syndicate. - --- Checked-by: (Joel W. Johnson)