Both sides declare victory in war court wrangle

Negroponte, left, and Bulgarian Ambassador Stefan Tafrov vote to support the compromise Friday in the Security Council.

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Both sides of the dispute over the new U.N. war crimes tribunal claimed victory after the Security Council agreed to exempt U.S. peacekeepers from the court's jurisdiction for a year.

The unanimous vote Friday evening gives U.S. troops some protection from the newly established International Criminal Court, but the exemption falls short of the blanket immunity the Bush administration had sought for American troops serving in U.N. peacekeeping missions.

"This resolution respects those who have decided to submit to the International Criminal Court, and for one year it protects those of us who have not," said John Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

In the compromise, the United States got a one-year suspension of investigations or prosecutions by the court for any U.S. peacekeepers accused of war crimes on U.N.-approved missions. The Security Council also pledges to renew the suspension each year.

The agreement means the United States will lift its opposition to the renewal of any peacekeeping missions. Two weeks ago, the Bush administration vetoed a renewal of the Bosnian mission to force a compromise over the ICC issue.

MORE STORIES Europe edgy on U.S. war court deal    EXTRA INFORMATION • Q&A: The ICC  • Text of U.S. letter to U.N.

Friday's agreement allows the Bush administration to say that it held firm to its principles while negotiating in good faith with its allies, who can, in turn say that they defended international law and won concessions from the United States.

"France is satisfied with the result which has been achieved. For us what was paramount was the authority of the newborn International Criminal Court," French Ambassador Jean-David Levitte said.

Added Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the British ambassador, "There is no mention of blanket immunity. What is being provided is in effect if a case arises a time out for the right action to be taken by the member states whose national is accused or indicted."

The ICC will fill the role previously held by ad hoc tribunals formed to investigate and prosecute specific incidents, such as the tribunals set up for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

Virtually all of America's strongest allies are supporters of the court, which they say is essential to uphold the rule of law globally and hold the worst human rights violators accountable. They say that U.S. concerns about its peacekeepers being brought before the court are based on a misconception.

Court supporters criticize deal

Canadian ambassador Heinbecker called the vote "a sad day for the United Nations."

"It is almost inconceivable that a U.N. peacekeeper would ever become the subject of investigation by the court. That has never happened," Greenstock said.

Some of the court's biggest supporters criticized the compromise.

"We think this is a sad day for the United Nations," Canadian U.N. Ambassador Paul Heinbecker said. "We are extremely disappointed with the outcome and we don't think it's in the mandate of the Security Council to interpret treaties that are negotiated somewhere else."

But the court is fiercely opposed by conservatives in the U.S. Congress, and Friday's deal does not mean the United States will be joining the tribunal.

"The president of the United States is determined to protect our citizens -- soldiers and civilians, peacekeepers and officials -- from the International Criminal Court," Negroponte said.

The court was established by treaty on July 1. It is the first permanent tribunal capable of trying individuals for the most serious war crimes and other violations of international human rights law, including genocide.

President Clinton signed the treaty before he left office, but the Bush administration withdrew from the agreement and refuses to submit it to the Senate for ratification. The administration said the treaty does not go far enough to avoid the risk of politically motivated prosecutions.

Greenstock said it was "almost inconceivable" that peacekeepers would end up before the tribunal.

The United States initially tried to get a complete exemption from prosecution for non-members of the court, but a firestorm of criticism from close allies and other nations prompted Washington to change that position. Determined to get some assurance of protection from the court on paper, Washington then worked to exploit a loophole provision in the treaty that established the court.

According to that provision, the Security Council could suspend any investigation or prosecution on a case-by-case basis.

The original goal of the provision was to allow action by the tribunal to be suspended if the cooperation of an alleged war criminal were needed in peace talks.

-- CNN Correspondent Brian Palmer contributed to this report.