DON'T BUY U.S. EXCUSE ON GLOBAL CRIMINAL 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 whatcould 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: Melodi Cornett