|
FACT OR FICTION
Security Council Members Never
Intended Renewal to Become Automatic June 22, 2004 -- Richard Boucher, spokesperson for the State Department, recently claimed, "The council has, two years ago, provided for such a resolution and in that resolution talked about its renewal. We think it's a technical roll-over that should be done and it should be renewed the way the council said it would."
There is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, Security Council members seem to take the opposite view: that this resolution was never intended to be renewed as a "technical roll-over."
In 2002, Security Council members and other countries expressed strong disapproval and concern over the U.S. proposal, with the sole exception of India. Indeed, countries were so focused on listing the many problems with the resolution that few felt the need to even address its possible renewal in 2003. Not a single member of the Security Council publicly proposed annual renewal of this resolution; in fact, most made clear that they were only voting for the resolution
to rescue important peacekeeping missions that the U.S. was threatening to veto. Only Mexico, then a Security Council member, addressed the renewal question, and its position was emphatic:
"We cannot accept the need to grant a general suspension with regard to events that have not yet occurred. Even less can we accept that such a suspension might become unlimited."
In 2003, faced with the U.S. request to renew Resolution 1422, Security Council members made explicit their position that the resolution could not be renewed automatically nor indefinitely:
Sir Jeremy Greenstock of the UK
We regard Security Council resolution 1422 (2002) as an exceptional measure. It is not permanent; nor is it automatically renewable. It is subject to scrutiny in the Council, at least annually. We look forward to the day when it or its successor will no longer be required.
Michel Duclos of France
Lastly, at the very time the International Criminal Court is being established, we did not consider it appropriate to renew for one year the exemptions accorded to certain personnel of States not Parties to the Rome Statute participating in forces or missions under UN auspices. Agreeing to the renewal risks in effect giving credence to the perception of permanent exceptions which can only weaken the Court and impair its authority.
Mr. Arias of Spain
I would like to add that from our point of view, it should not be taken for granted that invoking article 16 will become a regular practice. It is clear that in every case the Council will have to study the circumstances that prevail at the time, which could vary in the future. For this reason, Spain considers that the Council is still the master when considering whether to renew or not, as necessary, without renewals being automatic, in accordance with the resolution.
Mr. Tidjani of Cameroon
Along with Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Cameroon also hopes that today's renewal exercise will not become a routine, given the consequences for international law and for the credibility of the International Criminal Court and the Security Council.
Mr. Lucas of Angola
It is our view that the international community must ensure that . the review of the resolution that the Council adopted today does not lead to automaticity in its renewal.
Mr. Traoré of Guinea
My country's support for renewing resolution 1422 (2002). should in no way be considered automatic renewal year after year.
The stated intentions of Benin, Brazil, Chile, France, Germany, Spain and potentially China and Romania to abstain from the upcoming vote for the second renewal of this resolution are not deviations from their past positions. They are, in fact, the logical extension of
them. Full transcripts:
June
2002 debate, Part I (PDF)
June
2002 debate, Part II (PDF)
June 2003 debate
(PDF)
+
READ MORE: U.S. withdraws demands for renewal of Resolution 1487
+
TAKE ACTION
|
