US, "obstructionist" on human rights: Report

“If the US Government persists in its dismissive posture towards International Human Rights Law, the international community should simply leave the United States behind,” the report said. Human rights standards should apply equally to all countries but this ideal came under “sustained attack” from the United States and Europe during 1997, it said. These two areas gave priority to economic or strategic interests at the expense of rights issues, according to the report.

On land mines, the report faulted the United States for refusing to join with other governments in accepting the military inconvenience of abandoning land mines in the interest of a strong international norm that would curtail their humanitarian cost.

The United States has said it could sign a land mine treaty only if exemptions were made to protect its troops in Korea and allow continued use of its anti-tank munitions. In response to a question yesterday, Rubin said the United States spends more money and effort than all nations combined on finding and destroying mines.

The critique by Human Rights Watch came as representatives of 125 nations, assembled in Ottawa, were signing a treaty to ban anti-personnel mines. The United States is attending the ceremony as an observer.

On child soldiers, the report said the United States stands “virtually alone” in opposing a ban on the use of children under 18 as soldiers. “Such a ban would end a practice that leaves children as many as 250,000 worldwide physically at risk, emotionally traumatised and a danger to anyone they encounter.”

Pentagon officials were not available for comment on the subject. On the proposal for an International Criminal Court, the report noted that the Clinton administration wants the UN Security council to give prior approval before a prosecution against a suspected war criminal can move ahead. This condition, according to the report, “would allow the United States to veto any inconvenient prosecutions.” It added that “the US goal appears to be avoiding even the remotest possibility that an American might wind up on the dock.”

The State Department says a Security Council green light is needed to head off the possibility that a council effort to roll back aggression could be disrupted by international court proceedings against the aggressor.