<The United States and the International Criminal Court
John R. Bolton, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security
Remarks to the Federalist Society Washington, DC November 14, 2002>
(my commentary)
----------------------------
<the problems inherent in the ICC are more than abstract legal issues -- they are matters that touch directly on our national security and our national interests.>
(Agree with that 100%. This is not just about looking good, a "feel-good" issue. I could make an argument in favor of the ICC on moral grounds, or in terms of spreading U.S. ideals (rule of law, equality before the law) throughout the world. But I think I can make a case for the need to support institutions like the ICC, on purely national security grounds.)
<the ICC is an organization whose precepts go against fundamental American notions of sovereignty, checks and balances, and national independence. >
(As far as sovereignty, yes, an international court can only exist, if every national court, every national government, cedes a measure of power to it. Which necessarily decreases the freedom of action and independence of each nation. This can also be said of any treaty.)
<The Court’s flaws are basically two-fold, substantive, and structural. As to the former, the ICC’s authority is vague and excessively elastic, and the Court’s discretion ranges far beyond normal or acceptable judicial responsibilities, giving it broad and unacceptable powers of interpretation that are essentially political and legislative in nature. This is most emphatically not a Court of limited jurisdiction.>
(Yes, the jurisdiction covers "genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression", and those are phrases like "due process", elastic phrases.)
<Numerous prospective "crimes" were suggested at Rome and commanded wide support from participating nations, such as the crime of "aggression,">
(Yes, I can see how a nation that spends as much on its military as the rest of the world combined, and that has a doctrine of preventive war, would be worried about getting accused of that crime. Or "crime", as he puts it.)
<A fair reading of the treaty leaves one unable to answer with confidence whether the United States would now be accused of war crimes for legitimate but controversial uses of force to protect world peace.>
(Any nation being accused of war crimes, is going to say their use of force is "legitimate". The treaty is pointless, the Court would never hear a case, unless the definition of "legitimate force" does not reside with the nation being accused.)
<Our principal concern is for our country’s top civilian and military leaders, those responsible for our defense and foreign policy. They are the ones potentially at risk at the hands of the ICC’s politically unaccountable Prosecutor, as part of an agenda to restrain American discretion,>
(The heart of the matter. American discretion = a free hand to carry out preventive wars, wars that look like wars of aggression to those on the recieving end. The main objection to the ICC, is that it de-legitimises the method we are using to fight the War On Terrorism.)
<Indeed, the supposed "independence" of the Prosecutor and the Court from "political" pressures (such as the Security Council) is more a source of concern than an element of protection.>
(We wouldn't be able to pre-determine outcomes, ensure immunity for ourselves, and veto anything we don't like. We won't play if we aren't guaranteed we'll win every game.)
<Why should anyone imagine that bewigged judges in The Hague will succeed where cold steel has failed?>
(The U.S. has more "cold steel" than anyone else. He's right, if nations that have military power, decide to ignore the ICC, and not back up its decisions, it is powerless.)
<Human conflict teaches that, much to the dismay of moralists and legal theoreticians, mortal policy makers often must make tradeoffs among inconsistent objectives. This can be a painful and unpleasant realization, confronting us as it does with the irritating facts of human complexity, contradiction, and imperfection.>
(What he's saying, is that the U.S. may need to commit war crimes, as defined by the ICC, to pursue our national goals. We don't want to have any limits, none at all, placed on the exercise of our military power in the world.)
(I listed:
10. Start following the Geneva Convention. Let U.S. soldiers abroad be judged by local law, and by international courts.
in my "blueprint for victory".
Message 18752938
Our rejection of the ICC, is a part of a broader unilateralist policy, which has many components: Kyoto Treaty, dissing the UN, trade restraints, etc. We are saying to the world, saying it in many different ways: "We will ignore what you want; we have no need to make any compromises with you, but we expect you to continually pay attention to what we want." Naturally, the world responds in kind, treating our wishes/needs with the same contempt we treat theirs. Our power is not so great, that we can make everyone submit. The French and Chinese and Mexicans can't stop us, but they can refuse to cooperate. And a refusal to cooperate, is all it takes, for us to lose the War On Terror. Because if they don't actively help, then terrorists get Safe Havens, where they can train, raise funds, buy weapons, etc.
Everywhere we look, we are being thwarted by the refusal of other nations to cooperate. Russia selling nuclear plants to Iran. China trading and aiding N. Korea. Our "allies", like Saudi Arabia, globally funding madrassahs that preach Jihad. Turkey not allowing our troops to pass through. France vetoing our Security Council resolutions.
With 5% of the world's population, we cannot fight a global war alone. We must have allies. Our policy of refusing to submit to any international institutions we can't control, means we lose those allies. Or get only grudging and partial cooperation.) |
