The proposed International Criminal Court (ICC) may be years from becoming a reality but the United States is quietly taking steps to prevent its nationals from ever facing an ICC trial, according to rights activists.

“The United States is trying to force some governments into agreements that US nationals will not be handed over to the Court” if they are indicted of crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide, says Pierre Sane, secretary-general of Amnesty International.

According to diplomatic sources, at least two governments – South Africa and Poland – have been approached by US officials in recent weeks and asked to include that agreement in bilateral extradition treaties with the United States. South Africa has accepted that request, the sources claim.

Jelena Pejic, senior programme officer for the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, says that rights groups are trying to confirm the possibility that US officials are pushing for clauses prohibiting ICC extradition in agreements with some 30 countries.

Such clauses, rights activists argue, would make a mockery of the Court’s ability to try all suspects equally, regardless of their nationality.

“We are adamantly opposed to the deal that the United States is trying to carve out for itself,” says Richard Dicker, associate counsel for Human Rights Watch. International law, he adds, must apply to all people regardless of the strength or weakness of their nation of origin.

Dicker argues that it is “hardly an accident” that Poland, one of several Eastern European nations that had pushed for early entry into the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), has been prodded by Washington into accepting a new extradition treaty.

Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary all came “under severe pressure” by the US government last year to “stay far away from the ICC treaty”, at the same time that the three were pressing their own NATO bids, he says.

The White House – which initially supported the ICC’s creation, but voted against it during a special meeting in Rome last July to establish the Court – has openly opposed the Court’s ability to prosecute war crimes independently.

The United States last year failed a bid to ensure that the ICC could only prosecute cases upon recommendations from the 15- nation UN Security Council, where Washington holds veto power. Since then, Pentagon officials have warned that the United Stat es cannot support any international court empowered to try USofficials.

During the past year, they have lobbied their counterparts in other countries about the threat the ICC poses to their involvement in peace keeping activities. Nor is Washington only worried about its military personnel.

According to one human rights official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, the US government also is seeking to ensure that Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officers are protected from extradition to the ICC by new bilateral agreements.

Washington’s concern is that operations like the current NATO bombing of Kosovo potentially could snare dozens of military, civilian and intelligence officials for ICC prosecution, says the official.

Despite US fears about its powers, the Court is well on its way to becoming a reality, activists say. In last year’s Rome conference, 120 nations voted in favour of the ICC, while the United States was one of only seven nations – including China and Libya – which opposed it.

Since then, 82 countries have signed the ICC Statute, while two countries – Senegal and Trinidad and Tobago – have ratified it. Sixty countries must ratify the statute before the Court, which is to be based in The Hague, can enter into force.

“This train has left the station and is chugging toward its destination, which is early entry into force,” says Dicker.

It is just that possibility which may be prompting the strong US reaction, Pejic says. “The United States is aware that the Court is going to happen, with or without it,” she contends.

Several hurdles remain to be cleared, however, before the Court can be established.

Rights groups are concerned about the possibility that many countries may want to exercise their rights, under Article 124 of the ICC Statute, to refuse to accept the Court’s jurisdiction over war crimes for seven years. Amnesty International has called the clause a “license to kill” declaration.

“Such a declaration would undermine the very purpose of the Court,” Sane says.