Last week, the US recorded its 75th veto in the United Nations. No other countries have exercised such militancy in the 57-year-old world body. Not even when 'evil empire' Soviet Union was around. Indeed, their nyets were only a mere fraction of the Americans'.

The latest US nyet is against the renewal of a UN peacekeeping force in Bosnia. The reason? Because the 15-member Security Council — in which the US is a permanent fixture — refused to exempt the peacekeepers from prosecution by the newly created International Criminal Court.

The veto came on the eve of the court's launch, which was heralded by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan as an "historic occasion".

And it was. For the first time in history, international laws will have some bite. Those who defy them — perpetrators of genocide and war crimes (read: state terrorism) as well as international terrorists — can be prosecuted when individual states are unable, or unwilling, to bring them to justice.

Clear signs

The court, backed with the signatures of 120 countries, was given the go-ahead in Rome four years ago. Yes, the US was not among them.

The majority of the world representatives then agreed that the court would come into being two months after 60 nations ratified the treaty

That happened on April 11 this year when 10 countries joined 50 others to give formal endorsement to the treaty — Bosnia, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Ireland, Niger, Congo, Jordan, Mongolia and Cambodia. Since then another 14 nations have joined the list.

The US opposition is the fear that American citizens, and especially its leaders, would be hauled before the court.

Even in Rome, it had sought exclusion from the treaty of states which refuse to sign — in short, if dictators do not ink the pact, they are untouchable. Even then, there were clear signs that the US would not back the treaty.

One would ask: why should the Americans be exempted from the jurisdiction of the court? What happens to the principle that everyone is equal before the law? Isn't this, as we are reminded by the Americans often enough, the linchpin of democracy?

Attempt to kill the treaty

By vetoing the extension of UN peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia, the Americans are telling the world that they are willing to jeopardise all peacekeeping missions unless they have their way.

According to them, US military cooperation with countries that are parties to the Rome treaty may incur an obligation to hand over American citizens to the court.

Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld said the US would consider any such action to be "illegitimate".

American diplomats in the UN have justify their nyet as an effort to make peacekeeping more "effective" (read: soldiers can be more efficient if they are given immunity from international laws).

This latest action from the US is clear: if you can't stop it, kill it.

Such belligerency from the Americans must be condemned. By taking such a stand, the US has put itself in league with the rogue states which it is so fond of admonishing — Burma, Iraq and China.

True, the US is the most powerful nation on earth. It has always called the shots. Some Americans may argue that there is no reason why the US should now succumb to the dictates of global rules. The problem is a growing number of global citizens no longer buy such pax-Americana nonsense.

Respect for international laws

The Malaysian government has rightly chided the US' demand for immunity for its troops. Even our soldiers in UN missions, said Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar, are bound by the court.

Perhaps Malaysia too should back words with action. Malaysia is not among the countries which inked the Rome treaty. The Southeast Asian nations that have done that are Thailand and the Philippines. And only one has so far got its parliament to ratify the treaty — Cambodia.

As the 74 countries which have ratified the treaty, they will have to get by without the Americans. One day, and hopefully soon, the US will come around and join the global community in building a regime where international laws are respected and upheld by all countries — big and small, rich and poor, powerful and weak.

And until then, every time Washington talks about human rights, democracy, even the war against terrorism, we will have to take it with a pinch of salt.