Helms acts to block U.N. court

Once again, Sen. Jesse Helms has taken action to do what the Clinton
administration is either unwilling, or unable to do -- protect U.S.
citizens from the growing power of the United Nations.

This time, Helms tackled the

International Criminal
Court by introducing legislation that would prohibit U.S. cooperation with the court, and seriously restrict relations with other countries that support the court (S-2726). The court would be prohibited from conducting an investigation in "any territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

The bill instructs the president to veto any U.N. Security Council resolution calling for the use of American troops, unless the resolution specifically provides permanent exemption for U.S. military personnel from prosecution by the U.N. court.

To ensure that the law is obeyed, the bill prohibits the participation of U.S. military in U.N. peacekeeping projects, until the president has certified to Congress that U.S. military personnel have been exempted from prosecution.

TRENDING: Madison Cawthorn introduces bill to protect border wall by declaring it a national monument

To sharpen the law's teeth, Helms specified that U.S. troops in a U.N. operation may not set foot on the soil of a nation that has ratified the U.N. court, unless the president certifies that the nation has entered into an agreement preventing the U.N. court from prosecuting U.S. personnel.

The bill also prohibits the transfer of "national security information" to the court, or to any nation that has ratified the court, unless the president provides a written agreement with the nation that the information will not be made available to the U.N. court.

The straw that is likely to break the court's back is the prohibition of military assistance to any nation that has ratified the U.N. court -- unless the president provides certification in the form of a written agreement with the nation, preventing the U.N. court from proceeding against an American citizen in that nation.

To put it mildly, the Clinton administration is annoyed by Helm's intervention in international diplomacy. After years of pushing for the court's creation, the Clinton administration was forced to vote against the final document -- one of only six negative votes -- in Rome in 1998, when 120 nations would not allow the United States to exempt its citizens from the court's jurisdiction.

Nonetheless, negotiators have continued working with the court's preparatory committee in an effort to find a way to exempt high officials in the U.S. government through ambiguous document language. U.S. efforts failed again when the preparatory committee refused to accept the language of U.S. Ambassador David Scheffer who proposed that the court prosecute citizens from only "irresponsible nations."

The document adopted in Rome provides authority for the court to prosecute citizens of any nation -- whether or not the nation has ratified the document. While the purpose of the court is said to be the prosecution of war criminals and international terrorists, there is nothing in the document limiting the court's jurisdiction. The court itself defines its jurisdiction, and many of the delegates in Rome openly anticipated the court's prosecution of violations of all international law, especially human rights and environmental law.

The court will go into force 60 days after the Rome document is ratified by 60 nations. Presently, 97 nations have signed the document, indicating the intention to ratify, and 12 nations have actually presented documents of ratification. France is among the most recent ratifying nations.

Introduction of the Helms bill will give pause to nations that have not yet ratified the document. Should the bill become law, the U.N. court would most likely stop dead in its tracks, until the court document is ratified by the U.S. Senate, which would automatically repeal the Helms legislation. Could the Senate ratify the U.N. court? Helms has vowed to block the treaty "so long as there is breath in me."

Realistically, it would take extraordinary maneuvering to get the bill passed by both houses of Congress during the last days of election-year law making. Should it pass both houses, it would likely face a presidential veto, thus leaving the door open for further diplomatic finagling to find language that would allow the court to proceed, while also providing immunity to Clinton, Albright, and other high government officials, if not for the rest of the people in the United States.