h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Can somebody explain to me in a sensible and non-yank-bashing way why America doesn't want its citizens to be subject to the international criminal court (ICC).

I have heard some things on the news like the Americans used their veto to block renewal of the UN peacekeeping mandate in Bosnia in protest against the powers of the ICC for war crimes.

I really, really, really don't understand what the objections can be from any civilised country to the ICC. I probably just don't have the international political information to understand this so I'd be grateful for any rational explanation.

Ta

k

There is no use for the ICC. If some other country does something bad, America will deal with it themselves. And if an american does something bad during war, well then of course they don't want him to be subjected to ICC.

An international court is a stupid idea to begin with. A law is useless unless you have the force to uphold it.

I think it goes without saying that I am not an apologist for Uncle sam, but your reasoning is grossly simplified, Xanatic.

The US concern with the ICC is that it will be used by anti-American states (ie Palestine, most of Central and South America, huge chunks of Asia) would use the court in order to launch politically motivated prosecutions against citizens of the USA.
Much like the recent attempt by someone to get Kissinger indicted for war crimes at the Hague.

In principal, the idea is a good one. I, for one, am in favour of ratufying the whole thing with or without the US participatuion. One day theUSD government might work out why it is that most of the Third World believes that America doesn't share a common goal with them.

I was hoping Xanatic was being sarcastic!

In my opinion if the USA refuses to be subject to the ICC (although it will almost certainly insist that the ICC investigate and prosecute other countries because their soverignty is not American and therefore different) then it can only be because it thinks it will commit war crimes in the future.

And i thought I was cynical.
The difficulty with defining a war crime is that it is always the victors in any given conflict who decide who are the criminakls and who are the heroes.
Man who invented blitz campaign and deliberate bombing of civilian targets-criminal.
Man who ordered fire-bombing of Dresden-Hero.

I don't think that the Americansd believe that at all. What they do believe, and rightly,to an extant, is that prosecutions brought in the ICC will be politically motivated.
Given the number of enemies they have made for themselves over the last couple of years, I'm not surprised that they find it concerning.

I can see why the US might be scared that other nations may try to persecute them through this court, but wouldn't there have to be a war crime to prosecute in the first place? And wouldn't trivial cases be thrown out?

I don't really understand how this court will work so maybe theirs is a justified fear.

That's a fair point, but do you really think an International (not anti-American) court would let a bunch of regimes with an axe to grind try and prosecute the US for every little thing? Remember Yugoslavia's writ against NATO being thrown out?

I don't believe it for one instant, but I think t's a very real fear for the Americans, who do feel that they don't get a fair crack on these things.
You've only got to look at the way they have manipulated man, many aspects of UN policy over the years to realise that they have a genuine fear. (For the most recent example, check out what they did on the Chemixcal Waeapons commision in the UN)
Theese are not, really, people that wake up and think 'Hey, we'll have a war with Afghanistan tomorrow'. They bumble around, just like the rest of us. Only when you are an Elephant in the doll's house, it has worse consequences.

They *don't* understand why the rest ogf the world hates them, but they do fear that an ICC controlled by a power that was 'hostile' to them could be manilpulated for political gain. Imagine if a judge from, Venezuale had the casting vote. If I was European, I might not worry too much, but if I was a US citizen, I mught be atad concerned given recent US attempts to unseat the elected leader of Venezuala. (And remember, to the US, that was entirely justified.)
Kelli asked for a non-Yank bashog reply, which is what I've tried to give. I could be sarcastic and vitriolic, but that doesn't help explain the very real fears the US has about the ICC.

Thank you Blues , that is exactly what I was after - I wanted to know *their* reasons without instant condemnation. It didn't seem possible to me that there could be an objection to something like the ICC but it sounds like they do have a genuine worry about it.

Do you think that it may cause some self-examination to discover *why* they have these worries? And what they can do so that they are in a situation where they can feel they will be given fair treatment by all countries?

k

It would be tempting to say that this distrust of foreigners can be traced back to 11/09, but Clinton had always been opposed to the ICC as well.

My guess is that American politicians have a pretty firm grasp of why large parts of the world don't like the US, but that there's no votes in telling Mr and Mrs Voter of Podunk, Idaho that their right to drink Coke and eat McDonalds is going to be curtailed in order to make fairer working conditions is the Phillipines. The two are, of course, not connected, but I think you will see my point.

The problem is the staggering insularity of the States and the inward loking nature of it's people. They don't really understand that Coke Mcdonalds, Disney and Nike trainers (to quote some bvious examples) aren't;
a) freely available to the rest of the world
b) aren't necessarily what the rest of the world wants, even if they were available.
How you go about solving that problem, I don't know.

i might have picked the thing up wrongly but i thought that 'trials' by the ICC would only get underway if the country in question had failed to properly investigate the allegations themselves and that only countries, not individuals would be able to bring alleged crimes. i think i also read that once an allegation is made, it was up to the country involved to investigate themselves.

could be wrong though.

Didn't the USA back out of the ICC because they didn't want a court higher than their own supreme court? Sovereignty and all that, which one can (grudgingly) understand I suppose. But it is very worrying to think that the USA feels like it can back out of any treaty that it wants to, signed or not.

Ste

Blues Shark - "the ICC will be politically motivated.
Given the number of enemies they have made for themselves over the last couple of years, I'm not surprised that they find it concerning."

Maybe the real fear is that american enemies may have some real claims and evedence of dodgy goings on? After all the court requires evidence and it was stated that the ICC would only act if that country accused did not run an investigation.

After the US the next in line of influence in the UN is surely the member states of the EC with perminant membership on various parts of the UN. So where really is the problem behind the "stated" problem with the ICC. I read the Britan supports it. I think there are countries with axes to gring against that country.

I hope my question/theory is not labelled yank bashing. I've seen that catch phrase used too conveniently.

What I don't like abou this whole thing is the idea the the US President is allowed to attack the Netherlands (Den Hague - The seat of the ICC) by virtue if that act:
" The President is authorized to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person described in subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court.". [URL given in next posting because the site is not entirely in Enlish]
I mean, hey, they're only a NATO partner...

Link for post #15:
http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/co/12716/1.html

From that link above

"United States, senior officials of the United States Government should be free from the risk of prosecution by the International Criminal Court, especially with respect to official actions taken by them to protect the national interests of the United States."

That sounds dangerously vague

In response to the original question, I don't think that the stated reason that they object to the ICC is the real reason. Their stated reason is the concern about politically motivated prosecutions. The real reason, to my mind, is what Xanatic said. The US gains nothing from having an ICC, it is the only nation that can act unfettered and unilaterally, but it could lose by it, i.e. Americans could be prosecuted. Seen purely rationally (i.e. not morally or emotionally) their choice is obvious, any country in their position would do the same. The only reason we (i.e. other countries apart from the US) don't do the same is that we cannot act unfettered and unilaterally. I think Xanatic hit the nail on the head, there cannot be an effective international system of justice without teeth bigger than any one nation, and that is not possible at the moment.

Their stated concern is silly, they only say it because they have to say something to justify their opposition, even if it is absurd. You don't abandon a whole system of justice because you think people might try and pursue illegitimate prosecutions or because the judges cannot be guaranteed to be entirely objective. That would be ridiculous. Does the US government demand that black people should be exempt from domestic legal proceedings in the US because there are some racist judges and some racist police? Of course not. Like any legal system, the ICC would have to be regulated so that abuses of this kind wouldn't happen, and no doubt the extremely intelligent legal people who devised the ICC thought about these matters years before any of us ever heard of it.

I also do not see why a nation would want it's own citizens and possibly goverment prosecuted by other nations. An international court can work if it is between some fairly equal nations, who each wants to make sure the others behave. But if they, as America, are too powerful there isn't much you can do. If they don't like the decision the judge made, you can't force them to anything.

Also the idea of anti-american nations seem strange. I'm sure there are countries who hate America for good reason. Wasn't it Laos that was bombed during the vietnam war, pretty much just for being there? I don't know what attitude they have towards America today, but would they be refused a trial because they were anti-american?

I don't see any need for us to submit to this court. We have a system of justice that we trust in this country. We have little reason to trust the United Nations. Of all the nations in the world, we have been found guilty of terrorism by the UN in the past. I hardly think our concerns are silly.

We're not backing out of treaties. We're electing not to join. I don't understand why the rest of the world comes up with loopy ideas then when we won't go along with it, we're accused of breaking our promise.

Who's to say if they think the home country did an adequate job. If US Attorney doesn't think a crime was committed, then can the ICC step in? If there's a federal trial, and the defendant is acquitted, will the ICC feel that justice was done?

I don't see any reason for us to join into this thing and subject American citizens to foreign justice.