< < <
Date Index > > > |
Int'l Crimial Court & Other issues: US Vs. Europe........ by Saima Alvi 03 July 2002 07:47 UTC |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |
US distaste for international court has deep historical roots --------------------------------------------- By Matthew Engel WASHINGTON: As the international criminal court quietly became a reality in the Hague, European diplomats tried to stay optimistic that the Americans would eventually stop sulking and join in its operation. But the US's absence is seen by analysts in Washington as something far deeper than an aberration by the Bush administration, but instead reflects a strand in American political philosophy that can be traced back to George Washington. As an issue, the court is not even on the radar screen in US politics, and it barely rates a mention except in the elite newspapers. "If you asked anyone 10 miles outside Washington about the ICC, they'd think it was the latest boy pop band," said James Lindsay of the Brookings Institution. But distaste for it runs deep among those who care. President Bush's instincts are against international bodies of this kind, and current politics ensure there is little reason for him to contemplate changing his mind. This is an issue on which there is no institutional split between the two traditional bureaucratic antagonists: the departments of state and defence. Inside the administration, the intellectual leader of opposition to the ICC is believed to be John Bolton, the under-secretary of state, who in January last year - barely a fortnight before the Bush administration took office - launched a public attack on President Clinton's decision to sign the treaty creating the court. He said the move was "injurious as well as disingenuous", and that the court would be "an object of international ridicule and politicised futility". He added: "The ICC's supporters have an unstated agenda, resting, at bottom, on the desire to assert the primacy of international institutions over nation states." In the Pentagon, dislike of the court is both more widespread and more visceral. The Boltonesque instincts of political appointees, from Donald Rumsfeld down, are matched by the military's understandable desire to avoid any threat to their own servicemen. Even Clinton, being pushed by the Republicans, said he would not recommend ratification but argued - in a tactic akin to traditional British relations with European institutions - that signing it would allow the US to influence the court's development. Now congressional Democrats, sensing no mileage in the issue, are almost silent when rightwingers trumpet their opposition. In May Tom DeLay, the Republican whip in the House of Representatives, persuaded the appropriations committee to authorise the president to rescue any American held by the court. One lone Democrat did ask if DeLay understood that he was proposing an invasion of the Netherlands. "There is a deep-seated and deeply held belief in the Republican party that American security depends on minimizing constraints on American freedom," Lindsay said. "This is a world view that can certainly be traced back to Theodore Roosevelt, and arguably to George Washington's warning that the country should avoid foreign entanglements. This strain in political thought was largely dormant for 40 years because of the cold war. It has become dominant again now."-Dawn/The Guardian News Service. http://www.dawn.com/2002/07/03/int13.htm Europe angry as US goes solo ---------------------------- By Richard Norton-Taylor, Ewen MacAskill & Ian Black LONDON: America's European allies expressed "deep regret" on Monday over US threats to pull out of UN peacekeeping operations, the latest in a string of disputes shaking the trans-Atlantic alliance. The Bush administration said it would not budge in its opposition to the new international criminal court, which was created on Monday. Threatening to block a renewed mandate for the Bosnian peacekeeping force, it argues that the ICC could be a forum for politically motivated actions against its troops serving overseas. "This is a very important matter of principle about protecting Americans who uniquely serve around the globe in peacekeeping efforts," said Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary. "The world should make no mistake the United States will stand strong and stand on principle to do what's right to protect our citizens." The European commission president, Romano Prodi, said he was deeply concerned by Washington's opposition. "It's another movement of division between Europe and the US that we have to avoid at any cost," he said. Per Stig Moeller, foreign minister of Denmark - which has just taken over the EU presidency - angrily condemned the American stance. Tony Blair insisted that safeguards built into the ICC's statute made it "inconceivable" for British peacekeeping forces - or their American counterparts - to risk prosecution for alleged war crimes. Individual members of armed forces would only be prosecuted for war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide if their own courts took no action. Lord Ashdown, the UN's high representative in Bosnia, expressed his concern directly to Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, in a phone conversation. He hoped that the US administration "would not do anything that placed at risk the huge progress towards the peace and stability achieved since the end of the war". The other day Nato played down the risks to the S-For peacekeeping force in Bosnia, saying it could continue whatever the US position because the mission had been authorised by the 1995 Dayton peace accords. But the US threat has been criticized across Europe as a galling example of America's rapidly accelerating trend towards unilateralism under the Bush administration. EU diplomats warned there were now worries about other UN-mandated peacekeeping operations, including the Nato-led K-For mission in Kosovo. "This is a question with implications that go far beyond Bosnia," said one. The increasingly rancorous dispute between Britain and the US over the ICC is the latest in a string of quarrels ranging from the treatment of Al Qaeda prisoners to steel tariffs, from the conduct of military operations in Afghanistan to Yasser Arafat's Palestinian leadership. In London, government advisers are angry and deeply worried. Such phrases as "very unhelpful", "bloody-minded", "playing to the gallery" are being used across departments - including at the UK Ministry of Defence. In addition to the row over the ICC, British officials are increasingly sceptical about US military conduct in Afghanistan. The clearest divide came in the wake of Bush's speech on the Middle East, in which he declared Arafat to be someone with whom his administration could no longer do business. Blair took a different tack, reflecting the European view that while Arafat had been a disappointment, he was the elected leader of the Palestinian people. The Middle East has thrown up other disagreements. "Iraq is approaching down the track," one worried British official said. Amid bellicose statements from the White House, Bush has made the overthrow of Saddam Hussein one of the main objectives of his administration. But though Britain acknowledges that his demise would be welcome, regime change is not a policy aim. There is a widespread feeling in London that the Bush administration is playing a dangerous game by trying to combat terrorism but ignoring its causes. Issues of dispute: International criminal court: The court, which came into being on Monday, is intended to act as a deterrent to tyrants who embark on widescale human rights abuses. Afghanistan: The US has been accused of allowing Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden to flee from Tora Bora because it was afraid of putting its troops on the ground. There is also strain over policy towards Afghanistan. Guantanamo Bay: The US says Al Qaeda prisoners at its camp in Cuba should not be covered by the Geneva convention. Europeans are concerned about their legal rights. Israeli-Palestinian conflict: The US is seen as leaning towards Israel and Europe towards the Palestinians. Blair was mainly in the US camp until last week when he diverged from Bush's statement that Washington would no longer do any business with the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat. Iraq: Europe still favours the containment of Saddam Hussein. The US, by contrast, has regime change as a policy objective. Iran: Britain since 1997 has adopted a policy of "constructive" engagement, in contrast with the US, which places Iran high on its list of countries that form the "axis of evil." Defence: Europe is sceptical about the US missile defence project. Washington says Europe is not spending enough on defence. Galileo satellite system: The US says Europe's rival to its GPS (global positioning system) network is a potential threat to its security interests. Steel tariffs: Europe says the US action to slap tariffs on steel imports is protectionist and goes against free trade. Europe is planning a raft of retaliatory counter-tariffs.-Dawn/The Guardian News Service. http://www.dawn.com/2002/07/03/int14.htm __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com
< < <
Date Index > > > |
World Systems Network List Archives at CSF | Subscribe to World Systems Network |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |