John Whitehead's Commentary
Demanding Special Treatment Is Not the American Way
The world's first permanent war crimes court became a reality on July 1, 2002, a step most human rights organizations view as a milestone in their efforts to secure international justice.
Ratified by 74 countries and signed by 139, the treaty appoints the Dutch-based International Criminal Court to preside over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It also is vested with the authority to prosecute anyone, regardless of nationality, wealth or rank, for human rights violations, including systematic murder, torture, rape and sexual slavery.
Yet while most of America's allies have agreed to place themselves under the jurisdiction of the ICC, the U.S. has joined the ranks of such countries as China and Russia to oppose the court's authority to intervene in matters involving international wrongdoing. Suddenly, the U.S. has been pitted against many of the allied nations we have come to rely on for international support during our war on terrorism.
Unfortunately, the principal reason offered by the Bush Administration for doing so--a fear of politically motivated or frivolous prosecution of its peacekeepers and other officials--strikes a suspiciously false note in light of President Bush's recent bouts of bravado and the protocol required by the ICC.
If an American really were to be charged with a war crime such as rape--a crime that several American soldiers have been found guilty of in the past few years--the incident would first have to be dealt with by U.S. courts. Only if a prosecutor were able to convince the international court that such a proceeding was a sham would it go before the ICC.
When the Bush Administration's ensuing demand that U.S. soldiers be granted blanket immunity from any possible court action is followed with a barely veiled threat to pull all U.S. forces from peacekeeping missions abroad--specifically from Bosnia and any of the other 14 peacekeeping missions based in East Timor and Cyprus, to Congo and the Iraq-Kuwait border that might come up for renewal--an unpleasant odor of something spoiled rotten begins to waft into the atmosphere.
In attempting to justify U.S. demands, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld explained that the treaty "puts people that we would put at risk for their lives also at risk legally, in a process that's not controlled by any organization, that is assuming jurisdiction over people that had not participated in the treaty, that has no time limit and no supervision whatsoever."
But what Rumsfeld really seems to be saying is that we don't want America to be held to the same standards as other countries when international disputes arise--and critics from a host of human rights organizations worldwide have been quick to point out the weakness and hypocrisy in this argument.
As one senior European diplomat at the United Nations commented to the New York Times, "If the U.S. says we are from a different nature, we cannot be compared with others, discipline is good for others, but not for the United States, then the future of humanity is at stake. If the United States believes it doesn't need to respect multilateralism and international rules, how do you get China to respect them?"
The implication that America is nothing but a spoiled bully unhappy at not getting its way is unavoidable. It becomes especially so when our government shows itself more than willing to use threat tactics about our role in securing peace in international trouble spots--which is in our best interest--to get our way on the issue of blanket immunity from the war crimes court.
What is most disturbing, however, are the accusations of immorality being leveled at the Bush Administration. William Pace, head of a coalition of over 1,000 international organizations supporting the ICC, had this to say about the matter: "By pitting international peacekeeping against international justice, the United States government has sunk to a new low in terms of its moral and political leadership at the United Nations."
Had the Bush Administration provided a less selfish reason for opposing the formation of the court, perhaps our actions might have been better received. But too often, when presented with a choice between taking a strong moral stand on an issue as opposed to a personally and financially advantageous one, we have prioritized our bankbook and self-interest over our moral responsibility.
Two examples highlight U.S. hypocrisy in international relations. Even in the midst of outcries against the human rights violations in China, we continue to trade freely with the Chinese. Even knowing that the Saudis mistreat their women and contribute to the efforts of terrorists engaged in anti-American activities, we continue to kowtow to their royal family.
There is a lot to be said for doing the right thing for the right reason. And there may very well be a right reason for not ratifying the treaty for the ICC and refusing to uphold our commitment to peacekeeping efforts abroad. But thus far, the U.S. seems to be doing the wrong thing for all the wrong reasons.
And that is not the American way.
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Grasping for the Wind. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.
Ratified by 74 countries and signed by 139, the treaty appoints the Dutch-based International Criminal Court to preside over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It also is vested with the authority to prosecute anyone, regardless of nationality, wealth or rank, for human rights violations, including systematic murder, torture, rape and sexual slavery.
Yet while most of America's allies have agreed to place themselves under the jurisdiction of the ICC, the U.S. has joined the ranks of such countries as China and Russia to oppose the court's authority to intervene in matters involving international wrongdoing. Suddenly, the U.S. has been pitted against many of the allied nations we have come to rely on for international support during our war on terrorism.
Unfortunately, the principal reason offered by the Bush Administration for doing so--a fear of politically motivated or frivolous prosecution of its peacekeepers and other officials--strikes a suspiciously false note in light of President Bush's recent bouts of bravado and the protocol required by the ICC.
If an American really were to be charged with a war crime such as rape--a crime that several American soldiers have been found guilty of in the past few years--the incident would first have to be dealt with by U.S. courts. Only if a prosecutor were able to convince the international court that such a proceeding was a sham would it go before the ICC.
When the Bush Administration's ensuing demand that U.S. soldiers be granted blanket immunity from any possible court action is followed with a barely veiled threat to pull all U.S. forces from peacekeeping missions abroad--specifically from Bosnia and any of the other 14 peacekeeping missions based in East Timor and Cyprus, to Congo and the Iraq-Kuwait border that might come up for renewal--an unpleasant odor of something spoiled rotten begins to waft into the atmosphere.
In attempting to justify U.S. demands, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld explained that the treaty "puts people that we would put at risk for their lives also at risk legally, in a process that's not controlled by any organization, that is assuming jurisdiction over people that had not participated in the treaty, that has no time limit and no supervision whatsoever."
But what Rumsfeld really seems to be saying is that we don't want America to be held to the same standards as other countries when international disputes arise--and critics from a host of human rights organizations worldwide have been quick to point out the weakness and hypocrisy in this argument.
As one senior European diplomat at the United Nations commented to the New York Times, "If the U.S. says we are from a different nature, we cannot be compared with others, discipline is good for others, but not for the United States, then the future of humanity is at stake. If the United States believes it doesn't need to respect multilateralism and international rules, how do you get China to respect them?"
The implication that America is nothing but a spoiled bully unhappy at not getting its way is unavoidable. It becomes especially so when our government shows itself more than willing to use threat tactics about our role in securing peace in international trouble spots--which is in our best interest--to get our way on the issue of blanket immunity from the war crimes court.
What is most disturbing, however, are the accusations of immorality being leveled at the Bush Administration. William Pace, head of a coalition of over 1,000 international organizations supporting the ICC, had this to say about the matter: "By pitting international peacekeeping against international justice, the United States government has sunk to a new low in terms of its moral and political leadership at the United Nations."
Had the Bush Administration provided a less selfish reason for opposing the formation of the court, perhaps our actions might have been better received. But too often, when presented with a choice between taking a strong moral stand on an issue as opposed to a personally and financially advantageous one, we have prioritized our bankbook and self-interest over our moral responsibility.
Two examples highlight U.S. hypocrisy in international relations. Even in the midst of outcries against the human rights violations in China, we continue to trade freely with the Chinese. Even knowing that the Saudis mistreat their women and contribute to the efforts of terrorists engaged in anti-American activities, we continue to kowtow to their royal family.
There is a lot to be said for doing the right thing for the right reason. And there may very well be a right reason for not ratifying the treaty for the ICC and refusing to uphold our commitment to peacekeeping efforts abroad. But thus far, the U.S. seems to be doing the wrong thing for all the wrong reasons.
And that is not the American way.
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Grasping for the Wind. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.
ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.
Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission
John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.
