Next
week the International
Criminal Court
will be inaugurated,
but without America.
By
Jonathan
Power
March 5, 2003
LONDON - For the first time in the history of
treaty-making a signatory unsigned a treaty. That was the
United States in March 2002 when President George Bush
gave the order for the U.S. to pull out of the
International Criminal Court, an institution that would
probably have never got off the ground if his
predecessor, Bill Clinton, together with American legal
experts and non-governmental human rights activists
hadn't been so behind it. It seemed to many that the U.S.
was shooting itself in the foot. Not only does the U.S.
have a vested interest in making sure that the reach of a
world institution with the legal right to detain and try
war criminals is as robust as possible, but it alienated
important political forces, particularly in Europe but
also elsewhere, that has left a bad mark at the back of
their minds. It makes for one more good reason why they
don't rally to America's side in its plans for war with
Iraq.
The UN and the institutions and conventions it
maintains or midwifes, as diverse as the Kyoto Protocol
on global warming, the peacekeeping secretariat, the
human rights commission, the Conventions on the Rights of
the Child and on Women, don't just spring back like a
rubber band after they have been stretched out of shape
by Washington. They hang rather limp and are a poor
replica of the bodies with high tensile strength that
they could be if the U.S. were four square behind
them.
Next week the International Criminal Court will be
formally inaugurated and will open its doors for
business. The first candidate for indictment could have
been Saddam Hussein if the U.S. had played its cards
right. Although the Court has no retrospective power- so
the U.S. doesn't need to worry about skeletons in Henry
Kissinger's cupboard (although individual countries can
and have passed retrospective legislation) - Saddam is
clearly a present day human rights abuser.
There are now 139 signatories of the court and when on
the 10th February Afghanistan became a state party member
there were 89 ratifications, well over the 60 necessary
for formal approval of the Court and far ahead of what
the most optimistic observers had hoped for. Philippe
Kirsch, the Canadian chairman of the committee that
negotiated the Statute establishing the Court, tells me
that he hadn't expected the Court to have enough
ratifications for another two or three years. This
suggests that the Court has caught the mood of the
moment. War crimes are no longer tolerated in most
places. No longer can a tyrant trade his immunity for
peace. One powerful indicator of the sea change in
sentiment is that twelve Arab countries who actually
voted against the statute creating the Court back in 1998
have now stepped forward to sign up. In fact it is the
first time in the history of treaty making that there are
more signatories than original votes in favour.
Yet, as Mr Kirsch explains, it was a lonely battle to
get the statute approved in 1998. The mood then wasn't so
propitious. Not just the "rogues" were against it but so
were important heavyweights like India, China and Russia.
The U.S. itself was prevaricating. On the one hand
Clinton had given the cause an important early shove, but
now he was being bested by the Pentagon as his political
stock sharply fell because of the Monica Lewinsky
scandal. For the Pentagon the Statute was a Pandora's Box
that could end up with senior American officers in the
dock. Perhaps, it has been surmised, they could see ahead
to the present day torture of Al Qaeda suspects, which
the Washington Post has reported is being done in a
number of countries with American connivance. In fact
this issue is something of a red herring as torture is
already prohibited under American law. One could expect
the U.S. legal authorities to take seriously any bone
fide accusation of torture by American intelligence or
military personnel.
In fact in Rome the U.S. successfully negotiated many
of the safeguards it sought. And a tidal wave of
pro-Court sentiment from Third World nations, most
strongly from Africa, made sure that a reasonably robust
Statue was finally approved. Since Africa is now the
continent where the most war crimes are committed the
African enthusiasm for the Court was a profound statement
of the African desire to be given a helping hand out of
the abyss into which many of their countries have
descended.
While the U.S. continues its campaign to distance
itself from the Court- its latest manoeuvre being to
persuade countries to pledge not to extradite Americans
for trial before it- the acceptance of the Court
elsewhere is growing. Russia has already signed and will
probably ratify once it has got the Chechnyan conflict
behind it. It is quite conceivable that both India and
China will come round in the very near future to seeing
the virtues of membership. Already China is showing much
more flexibility on the issue and there are powerful
voices in India in favour of signing up.
Perhaps this peer pressure will gradually have its
effect on America. And perhaps too as the Court shows its
mettle, trying some important war criminals and over time
has a clear visible effect on deterring such behaviour,
American public opinion might be well won round. The
Court is up and running next week. But it would run
faster and better if America, India and China joined.
I can be reached by phone +44
7785 351172 and e-mail: JonatPower@aol.com
Copyright © 2003 By
JONATHAN POWER
Follow this
link to read about - and order - Jonathan Power's book
written for the
40th Anniversary of
Amnesty International
"Like
Water on Stone - The Story of Amnesty
International"
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
 
|