Facing strong opposition fueled by the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal, the United States on Wednesday withdrew its United Nations (UN) resolution that sought to renew an exemption shielding US troops from international prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

James Cunningham, the US deputy ambassador, made the announcement after UN Security Council members turned down his compromise to renew the immunity for one year.

The current exemption expires on June 30, the day Iraq regains its sovereignty and US troops become part of the kind of UN-approved force that the renewal was meant to cover.

While the United States won praise for not pushing for a vote that would have deeply divided the UN Security Council, Washington suffered a hefty blow in its lengthy battle against ICC, the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal.

The 94 countries that have ratified the 1998 Rome Treaty creating the court maintain it contains enough safeguards to prevent frivolous prosecutions and insist that nobody should be exempt.

Yet the Bush administration, backed by Congress, wants airtight guarantees and fears politically motivated prosecutions.

The Bush team argued that the court - which started operating last year in The Hague - could be used for frivolous or politically motivated prosecution of US troops abroad.

This speculation seems to be understandable in light of the abuse of foreign prisoners held by American troops in Iraq. But the worry is unfounded if US service personnel overseas do their job in line with international law.

When the court was formally established nearly two years ago, the United States threatened to end its involvement in far-flung peacekeeping operations established or authorized by the United Nations if it did not get an exemption for US peacekeepers.

Resolutions granting a year's exemption were thus approved by the Security Council in each of the past two years.

In calling for the Security Council to reject the latest US request, Secretary General Kofi Annan questioned the legality of the exemption and warned against dividing the council.

He said the US move was "of dubious judicial value" and especially objectionable in the aftermath of the prisoner abuse.

Passing the measure, he said, would discredit the Council, the United Nations and the "primacy of the rule of law."

The outcome, while a political setback for Washington, will have no effect on the vulnerability to prosecution of US soldiers in Iraq.

Neither the United States nor Iraq is a member of the tribunal, and its jurisdiction is limited to countries that do not themselves prosecute crimes by their military.

There is little likelihood it would ever be called upon to deal with the United States, which has a functioning military justice system.

In addition to seeking a new UN exemption, Washington has signed bilateral agreements with 90 countries that bar any prosecution of US officials by the court for alleged war crimes committed on their territory. And negotiations on bilateral agreements to protect US civilians continue.

US deputy ambassador James Cunningham stressed that the United States is "the largest contributor to global security and has special well-known interests in protecting our forces and our officials."

Those special interests should not necessarily mean that US troops can do whatever they want - like abusing Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib.

(China Daily 06/25/2004 page6)