International Criminal Court

Via Gavin' s Blog: Maria Cristina Caballero, a Colombian Journalist and fellow at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School fo Government writes that "Key allies are casualties of U.S. war on court". U.S. insistence on bilateral agreements giving indemnity from the International Criminal Court (ICC) has already seen 14 Caribbean and Latin American countries punished by the withholding of military aid. Support for the war in Iraq has not helped Colombia for whom $5 Million has been withheld so far.

Were the U.S. philanthropic enough that this financial support was without strings then withholding funds would be an effective method of encouraging agreement. As it is the security of the U.S. and the war on drugs is consigned to irrelevance in a global game of cat and mouse.

"Caribbean nations, which also depend on U.S. aid to fight drugs, recently declared in a statement: 'The punitive action from the U.S. will weaken U.S. efforts to protect its own borders and security in the region.'"

As of 14 July 2003, 91 countries have ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The ICC achieved sufficient ratifications on the 11th of April 2002 and the statute came into force on 1st July 2002.

Human Rights Watch which calls the ICC, "potentially the most important human rights institution of the last 50 years" recently commented, "American contempt for the court - and its determination to bring the court's supporters to heel - sends a disastrous message worldwide. It suggests that there is one standard of justice for Americans and another for everybody else. Such haughty foolishness makes the world a less safe place - for Americans too."

The States which voted against the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998 were China, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Qatar, Israel and the United States of America. With friends like these...

Posted by Paul at July 22, 2003 06:03 PM |
Visitor Feedback

It is outrageous how the USA try constantly to elude International Law.How is it possible that the US so blatantly ignore the decision of the International Court of Justice in the Nicaragua Military and Paramilitary Activity case just to claim protection for its own interests before the same court a few years later in the Elettronica Sicula case? The US has systematically refused to adhere to the Anti personnel mine treaty, not because under its provision it was obliged to remove the mines it had placed -the treaty provided for a 10 year period to do that- but because it was indeed intent on placing more in the Corean peninsula. Let me also remind you that the US is not a party to the Convention regarding the rights of the children. Could that be due to the low age requirement for the US military? The list could go on, whether we speak about treatment of POW's or the more recent US efforts to undermine the ICC. The bottom line is that the US are in a position now, economically and militarily, where they really don't have to -and cannot be forced to- abide by any rule of international law that it feels is unsuitable to its 'superpower' status. However, history has shown that empires have collapsed preciselly due to their cinical disregard for morality and ethics. It is what the US are doing now. I just hope that the American people can wake up and realise that if there is to be peace, justice must be equal for all.

Posted by: Cristina Mucuta at August 16, 2003 09:47 PM

Hey Cristina,

Thanks for visiting my site and for leaving the comment below. US Isolationism seems to have been a recurring theme throughout its history, let's hope that this time it is short lived.

With regard to the Court though it seems that Clinton was only going along for the ride and never intended to sign it into law. Maybe the problems in Iraq are making it clear to the US that they can't do everything themselves (or at least that it isn't desirable to try), there does seem to be hopeful progress at the Security Council on widening the UN role.

Paul.

Posted by: Paul at August 29, 2003 03:52 AM