Editorial: US welcome back in the mainstream

Like a shame-faced miscreant, the United States is continuing to be drawn back into the international mainstream. Its dire circumstances in Iraq leave no option. The latest consequence of that quagmire is the abandonment of the White House's campaign to guarantee American soldiers immunity from the new International Criminal Court. President George W. Bush, facing defeat in the United Nations Security Council, has chosen to bow to international opinion. The contrast to what happened when the same body refused to endorse the US invasion of Iraq could not be more stark.

The White House is, in effect, paying the price for the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal. It may well have achieved a new year-long exemption from the court for its troops had not the abuse of prisoners cast prolonged attention on their behaviour. Now, as much as the Bush Administration seeks to distance itself from Abu Ghraib, it cannot escape the fallout. Support for renewing the exemption would, said the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, send "an unfortunate signal at any time - but particularly at this time".

Ironically, the abuse at the Baghdad jail would not be a matter for the International Criminal Court. The war crimes tribunal tries only individuals from countries that refuse or are unable to press charges. Essentially, it is aimed at rogue regimes; an investigation into reports of "mass murder" in the Democratic Republic of Congo is its first case. In all likelihood, Americans would never be tried. But the stain, and shame, cast by Abu Ghraib has made such facts irrelevant. China, for one, said the prison scandal was paramount in its decision to stop supporting an exemption.

The US has not submitted to the Security Council without leaving a veiled warning hanging in the air. Since the court's formal establishment nearly two years ago, it has made a practice of threatening to veto all UN peacekeeping missions if an exemption was not granted. Now, the State Department says it will examine all missions case by case to determine "what the risk of prosecution might be by a court to which we're not a party". That risk has always been virtually non-existent. Aside from the court's restricted orbit, its charter dictates that cases will be based on facts - and nothing else. This nullifies the long-standing American complaint that its soldiers could be subjected to frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions.

The Bush Administration has, in fact, worked feverishly to ensure that its nationals will enjoy a special status. In the past two years, it has signed 90 bilateral agreements with countries that pledge not to prosecute American officials abroad. That, and the strong US interest in trouble spots such as Liberia and Haiti, suggest it has little to gain, and much to lose, from thwarting UN peacekeeping.

More than that, however, the Bush Administration is now heavily reliant on the international body. Given its ailing state in opinion polls, its very survival may depend upon that reliance. Only UN support can hand the US a relatively smooth, and quick, exit from Iraq. Thus, it has been prepared to cosy up to the likes of France and Germany, make concessions and hammer out compromises. The Security Council's unanimous adoption of a resolution charting Iraq's path to self-government and self-determination was a fruit of that process. So, now, is the backdown over the International Criminal Court.

Renewed cordiality is also in the interest of the international community. The retreat of a humiliated US from world affairs would be a sorry outcome. But astute prodding can ensure America's difficulties in Iraq work to international advantage. A majority of Security Council members seized the chance to strike a blow for the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal - and a jolt to American unilateralism. If they can continue to ease the US back into the international fold, so much the better.

Herald Feature: Iraq