Iraq and Afghanistan

The American campaign against the International Criminal Court (ICC) is back in the news. Samantha Power in today's Op-Ed points out that the decision of the international community to try to bring the crimes against humanity committed in the Darfur region of Sudan to the ICC at the Hague is being blocked by a coalition of Sudanese intransigents and American hardliners. She finds this ironic since the United States has been the major power most willing to condemn what Sudan has been doing. However, when it comes to actually making a case against the criminals, it is the United States that insists that a new court be set up somewhere in Africa to handle the case. This is in spite of previous American criticism of the United Nations war crimes tribunal in Tanzania on which such a court would be modeled. Taking the American suggestion would mean a considerable delay in the trial, be more costly, and set up a court with a less adequate and capable staff.

This campaign is being undertaken by the Administration as part of its more general strategy to undermine the ICC in every way possible. We have of course not joined the Court (standing tall with Sudan on this). We have also been going to all the countries with which we have military assistance arrangements, requesting and sometimes demanding that they agree to Bilateral Immunity Agreements. These agreements, of doubtful validity, mean that we and our partner state agree that we and they will not surrender a long list of people (identified by position) to the ICC for trial. Congress has also passed an American Servicemember's Protection Act according to which American forces will only take part in international peacekeeping if there is a prior agreement granting impunity for American peacekeepers. The act even allows the American government to "take all necessary steps" to enforce this impunity if this becomes necessary.

There is an argument that since the United States is the ideological target of many groups around the world, including some members of the United Nations, there is a danger that charges would be brought for specious reasons against American personnel. This is the reason that the Clinton administration also refused to join the court, although without mounting the determined campaign against it of the Bush people. American fears should be eased by the fact that the ICC would not be able to carry out a death sentence no matter what the crime, suggesting thereby that even great miscarriages of justice could be corrected without a disaster for the Americans concerned. Against the rather theoretical likelihood of this actually occurring in a court based in the Hague (Netherlands has supported the Iraq adventure more than much of Europe, and the judges are mostly educated in Western traditions), is the fact that our refusal to take part in the Court and the subsequent campaign against it is going directly against American policy in other respects, such as achieving a world under law. It also makes us few friends. Recently both Senators Biden and McCain have announced that they support our adhering to the ICC agreements. Both want more safeguards, but believe that we should press forward to achieve these so that we can become a part of the process.

The unfortunate reason that lies behind the Administration's intransigence is its desire to play to the prejudices of its base against the United Nations and the small but influential neocon lobby that identifies the United Nations as the enemy of Israel. Millions of Americans actually believe that the United Nations has an army ready and willing to attack the United States and enforce UN law as a replacement to American law. The investigations being carried on in the Congress to undercut Kofi Annan have the same virulently anti-UN origin. (It is too bad the United Nations bureaucracy actually is open to a great deal of criticism). What the United States must eventually realize that while we might be able to rule the world for now, for the longer term we will have to rule with the assistance of others. Our long-term future as the leader of the world has to be as the leader of the United Nations. After some time this role will subtly change to that of a leader of the United Nations. There is actually no other game in town. We must begin now to reestablish our credibility in the UN, help it in the strengthening of its agencies, and then move forward.