Print ArticleBy Josh Rovenger
While most people focus on President Bush´s foreign policy after September 11, 2001, doing so doesn´t illustrate the entire picture. Before 9/11, President Bush focused on modernizing the military, opposed any policy that could be perceived as nation building and attempted to check the rising military threat of China. Additionally, he foreshadowed his unilateral tendencies by refusing to sign the Kyoto Protocol and in unsigning the Rome Treaty. It has been this decision, and his continued unwillingness to join the International Criminal Court (ICC), that has negatively impacted American foreign policy and the global community over the past seven years.
Even though 106 nations have joined the ICC, the U.S. has not. America´s continued resistance to the Court is failure of cooperation. Unfortunately, the president has not only refused to join, but has attempted to undermine the Court´s legitimacy. During his tenure, President Bush has coerced more than 100 countries into signing Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIAs). These agreements withhold important financial aid unless the country agrees never to bring a U.S. service member to the ICC. However, such agreements are unnecessary as the ICC only prosecutes cases in which the national court is unwilling or unable to adjudicate these cases. The BIAs also alienate our allies and undermine the rule of law. A change of policy on this issue is necessary. As we inch closer to the November elections, America´s future involvement in the ICC hangs in the balance. It appears that Senators Barack Obama and John McCain would engage and work with the ICC, although the likelihood of the U.S. becoming a full member of the court is unclear.
Obama´s general view of the ICC suggests that he would work closely with the Court. He has stated , "Now that it´s operational, we are learning more and more about how the ICC functions. The court has pursued charges only in cases of the most serious and systematic crimes and it is in America´s interests that these most heinous of criminals, like the perpetrators of the genocide in Darfur, are held accountable. These actions are a credit to the cause of justice and deserve full American support and cooperation." This has led to his commitment that "the United States should cooperate with the ICC investigation in a way that reflects American sovereignty and promotes our national security interests."
Although Obama holds this outlook on the ICC, and would have a better relationship with the Court than the current president, the probability that the U.S. would sign the Rome Treaty shortly after he takes office is slim. As his former advisor, Samantha Power remarked, "Until we´ve closed Guantanamo, gotten out of Iraq, renounced torture and rendition, and shown a different face for America, American membership in the ICC is going to make countries around the world think the ICC is a tool of American hegemony." She concludes, "If Barack Obama ratified the ICC or announced support for it on day one, two things would happen. One, it would have the chance of discrediting the ICC in the short term, and two, he would so strain his relations with the U.S. military that it would actually be really hard to recover." However, Obama does promise to "consult thoroughly with our military commanders and also examine the track record of the court before reaching a decision on whether the U.S. should become a party to the ICC."
While it is unclear what he would do immediately upon taking office, McCain´s general view seems pretty favorable. This was shown in 2005 when he said, "I want us in the ICC, but I´m not satisfied that there are enough safeguards." It was at this time that he stood with Senator Joe Biden, who advocated U.S. membership, and said that the current safeguards "could change, should change and will change." It is unclear under what timeframe McCain would have the U.S. sign onto the Rome Treaty. However, his position is more favorable to the Court than the current president´s.
Each candidate´s position on specific cases, such as those arising from Sudan, signify that both would be more willing to work with the ICC. For instance, Obama promises that, "my administration would continue to cooperate with ongoing ICC investigations in Sudan." McCain gets even more specific, saying, "U.S. and allied intelligence assets, including satellite technology, should be dedicated to record any atrocities that occur in Darfur so that future prosecutions can take place. We should publicly remind Khartoum that the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction to prosecute war crimes in Darfur and that Sudanese leaders will be held personally accountable for attacks on civilians."
In addition to participating in the ICC, it´s also important that the next president revokes the use of BIAs. Thus far, there have been two key votes in Congress that have given the president virtually unlimited authority to make these agreements: The first was the American Service-Members' Protection Act (ASPA) in 2002 that prevented aid to signatories of the Rome Treaty that did not sign BIAs. Additionally, in December 2004, as part of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act , there was a vote on the Nethercutt Amendment that furthered this authority and authorized the withholding of economic support funds to these countries. McCain voted against ASPA, and voted against the foreign operations appropriations bill that included the Nethercutt Amendment. These votes were a clear rejection of the Bush administration´s policy. Obama had yet to be elected to the Senate when these votes took place.
Citizens for Global Solutions believes that the International Criminal Court is fundamentally vital to bringing justice to the world´s most heinous criminals and in upholding human rights throughout the world. The U.S. needs to support ICC investigations, reverse the policy of BIAs and become a signed and ratified member of the Court.
America´s image in the world has the potential to be restored after the November elections. Fortunately, both candidates take a more cooperative approach to the ICC than has been taken over the past seven years. As a result, the coming years should be more successful than the recent past. As for President Bush, although his legacy will likely stem from Iraq, his policy towards the ICC should be remembered as one that personified the problematic policies of his entire presidency.
While most people focus on President Bush´s foreign policy after September 11, 2001, doing so doesn´t illustrate the entire picture. Before 9/11, President Bush focused on modernizing the military, opposed any policy that could be perceived as nation building and attempted to check the rising military threat of China. Additionally, he foreshadowed his unilateral tendencies by refusing to sign the Kyoto Protocol and in unsigning the Rome Treaty. It has been this decision, and his continued unwillingness to join the International Criminal Court (ICC), that has negatively impacted American foreign policy and the global community over the past seven years.
Even though 106 nations have joined the ICC, the U.S. has not. America´s continued resistance to the Court is failure of cooperation. Unfortunately, the president has not only refused to join, but has attempted to undermine the Court´s legitimacy. During his tenure, President Bush has coerced more than 100 countries into signing Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIAs). These agreements withhold important financial aid unless the country agrees never to bring a U.S. service member to the ICC. However, such agreements are unnecessary as the ICC only prosecutes cases in which the national court is unwilling or unable to adjudicate these cases. The BIAs also alienate our allies and undermine the rule of law. A change of policy on this issue is necessary. As we inch closer to the November elections, America´s future involvement in the ICC hangs in the balance. It appears that Senators Barack Obama and John McCain would engage and work with the ICC, although the likelihood of the U.S. becoming a full member of the court is unclear.
Obama´s general view of the ICC suggests that he would work closely with the Court. He has stated , "Now that it´s operational, we are learning more and more about how the ICC functions. The court has pursued charges only in cases of the most serious and systematic crimes and it is in America´s interests that these most heinous of criminals, like the perpetrators of the genocide in Darfur, are held accountable. These actions are a credit to the cause of justice and deserve full American support and cooperation." This has led to his commitment that "the United States should cooperate with the ICC investigation in a way that reflects American sovereignty and promotes our national security interests."
Although Obama holds this outlook on the ICC, and would have a better relationship with the Court than the current president, the probability that the U.S. would sign the Rome Treaty shortly after he takes office is slim. As his former advisor, Samantha Power remarked, "Until we´ve closed Guantanamo, gotten out of Iraq, renounced torture and rendition, and shown a different face for America, American membership in the ICC is going to make countries around the world think the ICC is a tool of American hegemony." She concludes, "If Barack Obama ratified the ICC or announced support for it on day one, two things would happen. One, it would have the chance of discrediting the ICC in the short term, and two, he would so strain his relations with the U.S. military that it would actually be really hard to recover." However, Obama does promise to "consult thoroughly with our military commanders and also examine the track record of the court before reaching a decision on whether the U.S. should become a party to the ICC."
While it is unclear what he would do immediately upon taking office, McCain´s general view seems pretty favorable. This was shown in 2005 when he said, "I want us in the ICC, but I´m not satisfied that there are enough safeguards." It was at this time that he stood with Senator Joe Biden, who advocated U.S. membership, and said that the current safeguards "could change, should change and will change." It is unclear under what timeframe McCain would have the U.S. sign onto the Rome Treaty. However, his position is more favorable to the Court than the current president´s.
Each candidate´s position on specific cases, such as those arising from Sudan, signify that both would be more willing to work with the ICC. For instance, Obama promises that, "my administration would continue to cooperate with ongoing ICC investigations in Sudan." McCain gets even more specific, saying, "U.S. and allied intelligence assets, including satellite technology, should be dedicated to record any atrocities that occur in Darfur so that future prosecutions can take place. We should publicly remind Khartoum that the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction to prosecute war crimes in Darfur and that Sudanese leaders will be held personally accountable for attacks on civilians."
In addition to participating in the ICC, it´s also important that the next president revokes the use of BIAs. Thus far, there have been two key votes in Congress that have given the president virtually unlimited authority to make these agreements: The first was the American Service-Members' Protection Act (ASPA) in 2002 that prevented aid to signatories of the Rome Treaty that did not sign BIAs. Additionally, in December 2004, as part of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act , there was a vote on the Nethercutt Amendment that furthered this authority and authorized the withholding of economic support funds to these countries. McCain voted against ASPA, and voted against the foreign operations appropriations bill that included the Nethercutt Amendment. These votes were a clear rejection of the Bush administration´s policy. Obama had yet to be elected to the Senate when these votes took place.
Citizens for Global Solutions believes that the International Criminal Court is fundamentally vital to bringing justice to the world´s most heinous criminals and in upholding human rights throughout the world. The U.S. needs to support ICC investigations, reverse the policy of BIAs and become a signed and ratified member of the Court.
America´s image in the world has the potential to be restored after the November elections. Fortunately, both candidates take a more cooperative approach to the ICC than has been taken over the past seven years. As a result, the coming years should be more successful than the recent past. As for President Bush, although his legacy will likely stem from Iraq, his policy towards the ICC should be remembered as one that personified the problematic policies of his entire presidency.
view author's RSS feed
