|
U.S. opposition to the ICC is not principled
American opposition to the International Criminal Court is both cheering and distressing—cheering, because U.S. elites are finally taking a determined and even impassioned stand against the move toward global governance; and distressing, because the arguments being advanced by the Congress and the Bush adminstration are selfish and utilitarian rather than principled. Their sole stated concern is that the ICC could be used against Americans, namely our military personnel abroad and U.S. government officials who might be charged with war crimes. I have yet to hear any Congressmen or administration spokesmen say that the ICC is a bad thing, not just because it could prosecute Americans, but because it could do the same to the citizens and officials of any country. Thus their arguments make America sound small and mean. There is also the clear suggestion that America sees itself as engaged in its own version of global governance, and doesn’t want the U.N. to muscle in on its act. This is not the basis on which conservatives should want to see America opposing the U.N. and its one-world agenda. Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 02, 2002 10:20 AM | Send Comments
The US government’s argument against the ICC is really a declaration of it’s imperial pretentions. Their contention about politically motivated prosecutions is correct but hypocritical. I’ve no doubt that in future wars anyone who resists American might will be hauled in front of the ICC. I don’t think an international court is necessary but I’m sympathetic to arguments that the US will never prosecute it’s own for war crimes no matter what the evidence. It’s not even looking into the Kosovo matter even though we now know that NATO supplied and instigated the KLA months before the war broke out. They know very well that they violated the law of war in Kosovo and that if an impartial jury ever heard the case it would be a major blow to neocon warmongering. For those you have doubts, read Gen. Wesley Clark’s Waging Modern War. The man is a certifiable monster. Posted by: Jason Eubanks on July 2, 2002 11:17 AMRegarding Gen. Clark, the following statement provides a glimpse into the mad imperial arrogance that drove the U.S. war in Kosovo: The real issues are how the ICC infringes upon national sovereignty, and how little it is obligated to reflect rights American citizens uniquely have (i.e. trial by jury). Overall, however, leaders must apply the same rationale they are using now to the world at large - the ICC could be used as a club to beat down any particular nation the rest of the world is interested in eviscerating. I think US leaders are focusing on the issues of Americans being tried, however, because they aren’t trying to convince the rest of the world that we are right. They want to convince the American electorate. Visions of American soldiers being brought into a kangaroo court accomplishes this best. The problem is that by focusing on the American experience exclusively, they do indeed “make America sound small and mean.” Posted by: Owen Courreges on July 2, 2002 1:05 PMAlso, aren’t Bush et al. threatening to leave “peacekeeping missions” if exemptions aren’t made for American soldiers? What of our allies who have recieved immunity for peacekeeping ops in Afghanistan? Taken together this shows that the ICC is already unprincipled. Either it applies to all peoples at all times or it applies not at all is the argument that the proponents of the Court make to convince the US to enter into it. But, exceptions have *already* been made. And besides, if the court does not grant immunity to American “peacekeepers” and the Bush administration follows through on the threat to pull them out two goals have been accomplished with the same action; no “peacekeeping” and no US involvement in the ICC. Posted by: John on July 2, 2002 4:46 PM |