What has the Iraq War wrought?

JM - Thank you for your wonderful contribution to this discussion!

0 Replies

I must thank you for your kind comments. I have been toying with the idea of riding into the U.S., UN, Iraq thread pasting this post of mine, stir up a little dust and see if I can draw some fire. Whata ya think? Should I put on my Kevlar vest and close with the noble foe?

JM

0 Replies

I recall a very high quality post - by Georgeob1 - I believe. The response was "Icky poo!". Still, it's already written, so what the heck.

0 Replies

JamesMorrison wrote:

I must thank you for your kind comments. I have been toying with the idea of riding into the U.S., UN, Iraq thread pasting this post of mine, stir up a little dust and see if I can draw some fire. Whata ya think? Should I put on my Kevlar vest and close with the noble foe?

JM

Strap on all the armor you like, but do not expect to be met with nobility, or you shall sorely disappointed be. Cool

0 Replies

I know, I know, the Roundtable doesnt do copy-n-paste jobs, and I promise this will be an exception.

Only reason I do it this time, is because of the particular intensity with which this particular bit of suggested evidence has been used to build the case that Saddam was not "proven correct about WMDs". I'm always for eliminating apparent myths from the debate, one by one. Of course, we first have to wait until this "official British [Government] investigation" is officially published.

Quote:

Iraqi mobile labs nothing to do with germ warfare, report finds

Peter Beaumont, Antony Barnett and Gaby Hinsliff
Sunday June 15, 2003
The Observer

An official British investigation into two trailers found in northern Iraq has concluded they are not mobile germ warfare labs, as was claimed by Tony Blair and President George Bush, but were for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, as the Iraqis have continued to insist.

The conclusion by biological weapons experts working for the British Government is an embarrassment for the Prime Minister, who has claimed that the discovery of the labs proved that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction and justified the case for going to war against Saddam Hussein.

Instead, a British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has examined the trailers in Iraq, told The Observer last week: 'They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons.'

The conclusion of the investigation ordered by the British Government - and revealed by The Observer last week - is hugely embarrassing for Blair, who had used the discovery of the alleged mobile labs as part of his efforts to silence criticism over the failure of Britain and the US to find any weapons of mass destruction since the invasion of Iraq. [..]

See http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,977853,00.html

0 Replies

A specific phrase in this New Statesman article catches exactly what I found so troubling about the case for the Iraq war. Lemme take the quote here, and add an emphasis:

Quote:

From what we know now, Saddam certainly did not pose an imminent threat to British and US interests, and probably not a long-term one. The British government stated that "Iraq has a useable chemical and biological weapons capability . . . which has included recent production of chemical and biological agents"; that Iraq could deliver such agents "using an extensive range of artillery shells, free-fall bombs, sprayers and ballistic missiles"; that they could be deployed "within 45 minutes of a decision"; and that "Iraq continues to work on developing nuclear weapons . . . uranium has been sought from Africa". The case for war, even on the evidence presented, was not a strong one; if these statements were wrong (and at least two clearly were), the case was non-existent.

It is not good enough to say that everything turned out for the best, that a brutal tyrant was overthrown, that his equally nasty sons are now dead and that the Iraqi people rejoice. The armed forces are not a branch of Amnesty International; there is no international legal framework for disposing of tyrants, and the British and US governments do nothing to encourage one.

Now I'm all for tackling despotic tyrants myself: I am of interventionist instinct. I wish there were an international legel framework that would enable to stop war crimes and crimes against humanity, if necessary with military means, more often. What bothered me foremost about the run-up to the Iraq war was the seemingly arbitrary way in which the US and UK chose this exact tyrant to depose (in marked contrast with other tyrants posing similar risks domestically and abroad), while - and this was the part that hurt - at the same time doing their utmost best to sabotage any of the ongoing attempts, wrought with such great effort, to establish a systematic international framework for such interventions.

Such a legal framework would involve defining criteria that have to be met to justify a 'humanitarian' intervention, would involve some kind of peer control, would - in short - make any such decision accountable, while at the same time providing a more continuous set of means to facilitate such interventions (to start with the ICC). By brandishing the banner of "liberation from tyranny" while doing their very best to undermine any such systematic approach to tyrans in international politics, the US brought the full weight of suspicion on themselves. Suspicion that they cared little for the fight against tyranny in general, and would only "borrow" its banner when they could use it to promote their own national interests - harming its cause in the end more than the fall of Saddam would benefit it.

(Apologies for the reprise. Lately I've become ever more ambivalent about my earlier, passionate stand against the war. But then sometimes I suddenly come across an article, or even just a sentence like here, and I know exactly what bothered me so much about it.)

0 Replies

I think I'm going to agree. What your are calling "humanitarian intervention" should require an adherence to some specific definition or set of standards. Maybe this has already been acknowledged in the downplaying of humanitarianism as a stated reason for the invasion. Downplayed before the invasion, I mean.

I realize, by the way, that on the main boards there were several attempts to 'trap' the unwary into conceding that this may have been an invasion. generally, I avoid euphimisms unless they happen to be funny.

Quite separately, I just lost the ability to capitalize the letter 'g'. Compaq keyboard is a piece of junk.

0 Replies

nimh,

As Our past president Ronald Reagan would have said: "Well... there you go again!" Well... here I go again, please forgive me.

I guess I am just a pessimist, but I still can't see a viable, potent, and real-life functioning international legal system backed by an overarching governing body with the power to enforce its decisions with justice for all. The nearest example I can think of that might serve would be that of the embryonic U.S. - Shortly after independence the states still thought of themselves as little countries and we had a hell of a time working out the type of government we now possess. Indeed, we still have court battles to this day about the legal rights of individual states vs. the federal government.

I see some similarities with The U.S.'s history in the form of the EU but this is essentially a union of European states. However, even this collection of powerful industrial states can still only be considered as monocivilizational. How would their legitimacy be viewed by East Asians and Africans (Not to mention Muslim Middle Easterners whose religion/politics refers to non-muslims as infidels who must be eliminated) when it is decided a particular area needs fixing? How would we construct such a governing constitution or parliament on which the international legal system would be so based? Does every state get to vote on an equal basis? If so, would this not work towards stalemate rather than settlement of an issue? Perhaps a select few nations would be entrusted with this decision process on a rotating basis, but would this be any better than what we observe in the present day U.N. scenario?

A larger hurdle looms when we take notice of the EU's effort of constabulary construction in the form of its EIMF (Interim Emergency Multinational Force). As of now its proposed 60,000-man force is essentially non-existent and even if did exist it wouldn't have a ride. Given present conditions it would depend upon U.S. airlift capabilities for it to fulfill the emergency part of its mandate.

If this hurdle is cleared we find ourselves confronted with the wall of "national interest". All nations are "guilty" of this vice, but only those with the power to seek and obtain their goals stand out as selfish or imperialistic. It then remains for other nations to choose to "Bandwagon" or "Balance" with those in power. In the latest Iraqi conflict the U.K. chose the former the French the latter. Some even suspect the whole purpose of the EU is precisely this... a balancing effort. Surely Europeans don't expect Americans to contribute to a police force that might be used against them. By the same token why would any nation join an organization that conceptually may act against its own interests/security no matter how "Fair" it seemed to the rest of the world?

The U.S.'s rejection of the ICC seems to rankle many and this is understandable from their standpoint. However, those same people must understand the U.S. is not going to readily support an organization that might condemn it and its military personnel for U.S. pursuit of security/national interests.

So is the U.S. hypocritical? Maybe. Is the U.S. the 500lb gorilla that sits anywhere it wants? Not Quite. We really do care about the rest of the world. Are we selfish? Yes, but that just makes us like all the other humans. Our freedom is sacrosanct. When a situation arises the first thing we examine is how its outcome affects "our" freedom. Some examples:

Pornography is considered protected under the "Freedom of Speech".

Our neighbors are shooting each other on a daily basis with handguns but to ban them would be to lose our "Right to bare arms". The last is especially apt to my argument. We except the responsibility and the danger of handguns and, yes, even the loss of some lives so that we may be able to protect the freedom of all. So, if we Americans feel thusly about handguns is it so hard to understand why we will not give our fate over to others who in the past have tried to subject others or us to their rule their way? This love of freedom is often alien to those who have not experienced it and we often are criticized for wanting others to have the same experience in their respective nations, but if we are so wrong why must America set limits regarding immigration? The best way for us to rid ourselves of enemies is to help these peoples obtain freedom through libertarian democracy. It is only then they will "understand" America.

As to your statement on the tyrant selection process:

Quote:

"What bothered me foremost about the run-up to the Iraq war was the seemingly arbitrary way in which the US and UK chose this exact tyrant to depose (in marked contrast with other tyrants posing similar risks domestically and abroad),..."

If one views this conflict from the stand point that I mentioned in my above post of Sat May 31, 2003 10:37 pm as a "concept of paradigm shift as regards American/Middle Eastern interaction" the targeting of Saddam as "THE" tyrant becomes clear. He was easily painted the bad guy because of WMD possession/use, his documented support of terrorism, and the murdering of Iraqi citizens. Also, ease of invasion (Iraq's Size, location, and topography) and, in addition, of all ME states his regime was the most despised and feared by all these states. If one wanted to prove a point to the Middle East he was the one most cost effective tyrant to eliminate.

But your observation:

Quote:

"By brandishing the banner of "liberation from tyranny" while doing their very best to undermine any such systematic approach to tyrans in international politics, the US brought the full weight of suspicion on themselves. Suspicion that they cared little for the fight against tyranny in general, and would only "borrow" its banner when they could use it to promote their own national interests - harming its cause in the end more than the fall of Saddam would benefit it. "

is more painful to explain. In my cited above post I opined that perhaps the Neo-Conservatives and the President thought it easier to use WMD et al as a reason for War rather than try to explain to the American public the "concept of paradigm shift as regards American/Middle Eastern interaction". Upon further thought it seems that perhaps the simplification of the war reason was more for our President's benefit than that of the American people.

JM

0 Replies

James,

Thanks for the long reply, an interesting read. Excuse me if I pick up, for the moment, on just the one thing, namely, the ICC, to relate some details to it.

JamesMorrison wrote:

The U.S.'s rejection of the ICC seems to rankle many and this is understandable from their standpoint. However, those same people must understand the U.S. is not going to readily support an organization that might condemn it and its military personnel for U.S. pursuit of security/national interests.

Those arguing against the ICC seem to often bandy the idea around that such an international court would be out to persecute random, ordinary US servicemen, in revanche against US foreign policies that may have disgruntled such countries as are able to get the chairmanship of a UN commission, like Lybia.

But thats not wholly fair, to say the least. First off, the ICC has been established for only the very worst crimes imaginable. Not for the US serviceman who raped a Filipino (or was it Korean) girl. Not for the US soldier who caused the death of a number of people with his flying antics in Italy.

"The Court's jurisdiction will be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. It will therefore have jurisdiction with respect to the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes".

(All quotes above are from www.icc.int, btw).

Also, the ICC has extremely limited resources compared to the tasks they could theoretically face. Prioritisation means that thus far, its expressed capability for taking only one or two cases at a time (counting "Yugoslavia" as one case, I mean). It will not take on cases lightly. The Prosecutor is independent, and can not be directly steered in his actions by any country. He is appointed by an Assembly of all the states that have ratified the Statute of the ICC, in a process in which it is stipulated that "every effort has to be made to reach decisions by consensus both in the Assembly and the Bureau".

Furthermore, the ICC "will not replace national courts, but will be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions. The Court will only investigate and prosecute if a State is unwilling or unable to genuinely prosecute." Thus, in the hypothetical case that a case of war crimes would ever be accepted against an American, the case would still not be accepted if the US itself were prepared to prosecute it 'at home'. Finally, the ICC can not be used to prosecute past crimes - Kissinger can sleep peacefully <wink>.

I'm sure such descriptions still leave plenty of questions open, and allow for plenty of your criticism or your outright rejection, still. But I do have the distinct impression that even these facts are hardly known among the Americans who most fiercely oppose the ICC, and they should at least moderate part of the deepseated suspicion that the ICC is intended to be used to "condemn [US] military personnel for U.S. pursuit of security/national interests".

I'm not even mentioning here the concession that the US eventually acquired, that there will be a preliminary exception status for Americans only, who are guaranteed not to be prosecuted, period, for a number of years.

JamesMorrison wrote:

Our freedom is sacrosanct. When a situation arises the first thing we examine is how its outcome affects "our" freedom. [..] We except the responsibility and the danger of handguns and, yes, even the loss of some lives so that we may be able to protect the freedom of all. So, if we Americans feel thusly about handguns is it so hard to understand why we will not give our fate over to others [..]?

To proceed one more paragraph on the above tack, the ICC may also "exercise its jurisdiction only if either the State on the territory of which the suspected crime occurred (State of territoriality), or the State of which the person suspected of having committed the crime is a national (State of nationality of the suspected person), is a State Party to the Statute".

I.e. - the mere existence of the ICC doesnt mean that the UN police can come pick up Americans in their own country and try them in The Hague. If the US doesn't ratify the Rome Statute, no act committed by its own citizens on its own territory can be taken into consideration by the ICC, no matter how pernicious.

The bottom line here is that the ICC is not about usurping power from national states; it is about national states delegating authority to it over the most heinous of mass-scale crimes. Which brings us to another point, because the US is not just refusing to delegate such authority itself. It is also bullying other governments around the world into withdrawing or freezing their ratification, or adopting a caveat that explicitly safeguards American nationals.

Now your argument about the Americans' attachment to their own country's sacrosanct freedoms can still be used to defend the American choice not to take part in the delegating thing (i.e., to not ratify the Statute) itself. But the only of the US's sacrosanct freedoms that is at stake here is the freedom to, abroad, do whatever it wants without fearing prosecution.

That freedom, first of all, of course isnt guaranteed in any case, ever - engaging in war, for example, there's always the risk that you lose (some), and that the victors will be sitting in trial over (some of) you. Compared to that risk, any improbable case before the ICC would be much preferable, I'm sure.

But 'defending the American sacrosanct freedom' also becomes a bit twisted as an argument, I'd say, when used to defend bullying another country into adopting a caveat that safeguards American nationals, specifically, from a process of law that the country in question is itself, otherwise, freely opting for, regarding anything they might ever do there. (The parallel would be if the Dutch government forced the US to guarantee, say, that no Dutchman will ever be brought before the Supreme Court.)

The logic of the 'sacrosanct freedom' the US government is aiming to enforce there, then, fundamentally, is the guaranteed freedom for Americans, where-ever they go, to be above any law except for the one back home.

In my conviction, the ICC constitutes one of those rare achievements in which countries from around the world, right across those divergent cultures you mention, and without the bullying of a superpower to make them do so, did agree on establishing a first building stone for the kind of "viable, potent, and real-life functioning international legal system backed by an overarching governing body with the power to enforce its decisions with justice for all". And the US did its very best to nuke it, not because it shared your pessimism and considered the goal impossible - but because it patently opposes the goal itself. The US government has made it most clear that it doesnt want such an international legal system, because it would interfere with freely being able to "pursuit [its own] security/national interests" regardless of any international law.

0 Replies

nimh,

Thanks for your patient reply. Also thanks for the link. I need to gather more info on the ICC.

The U.S. seems reluctant to become a "State Party to the Statute" relative to the ICC, IMO (really, for I have not researched this subject much), for two reasons:

If it's in for a penny it's in for a pound. Conceptually, if the U.S. and its citizens are subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC, even the President could be prosecuted. If Milosevic why not Bush? Who makes the decision to prosecute? An extreme case, surely, but possible, is it not (would that be: n'est pas in French?)?

Given the above American fear, perhaps American efforts to subvert ICC establishment is akin to Israel working against a Middle East Security Condominium. If Israel joined it would feel severely hampered in relation to its use of the IDF and, more specifically, a nuclear non-proliferation agreement. Such an agreement would rob it of its perceived advantages in the region. Thus Israel could possibly work against any such agreement since; if the nations in the region actually worked this type of agreement out, Israel would be loath to participate and would then become the pariah state in the ME.

I must agree it does sound kind of weaseling (having attributes of a weasel) but not an unusual course of action in international politics.

JM

0 Replies

JamesMorrison wrote:

(would that be: n'est pas in French?)

"n'est-ce pas?". <grins>

JamesMorrison wrote:

Given the above American fear, perhaps American efforts to subvert ICC establishment is akin to Israel working against a Middle East Security Condominium. If Israel joined it would feel severely hampered in relation to its use of the IDF and, more specifically, a nuclear non-proliferation agreement. Such an agreement would rob it of its perceived advantages in the region. Thus Israel could possibly work against any such agreement since; if the nations in the region actually worked this type of agreement out, Israel would be loath to participate and would then become the pariah state in the ME.

Yep, sounds like a fair comparison. Same short-term advantage, same long-term disadvantages. In the very end, some kind of regional defence settlement/co-operation is going to be the only real guarantee of Israel's security. The 'arming oneself to the teeth and subverting any possible settlement' thing may be an understandable enough reaction to the immediate dangers the country faces, but in the end will simply engender and perpetuate the country's own insecurity. In that sense the comparison holds up, too. Others might call the multilateral / internationalist course naive, but I'd call its subversion for the immediate national interest short-sighted.

JamesMorrison wrote:

I must agree it does sound kind of weaseling

Well, yes, it does offer simply too easy an opportunity for the hypocrisy reproach. Remember all the pressure, heavy-handed pressure, the US exerted on the new, democratically-elected Serbian government to extradite Milosevic? That government used pretty much the same arguments as the US now does re: the ICC, but the American government (luckily) would have nothing of it. Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Its the same issue as with using the "upholding UN Resolutions" argument re: Iraq. Either you acknowledge the validity of such resolutions - and thus commit yourself to upholding them, period (whomever they concern), or you deny their authority. Cant act in their name one moment, and reject their jurisdiction the next.

By its dilettantist pick-and-choose course, the US is undermining the very notion of international justice and thus the possibilities for using it in the future, which will have negative consequences for the States' own future security as well. Going around enforcing laws that you then claim a safeguard against for your own people inspires a hell of a lot of distrust, resentment and determination amongst other countries, as well, to forget about international obligations and just do what it takes on a go-it-alone course. Its making the world a more dangerous place, (is my conviction).

0 Replies

My instincts toward the ICC: The minute the US defers to any international court, that court will be working around the clock to find some reason to challenge, and attempt to assume a position of dominance over, the US. Succinctly, the US doesn't trust the rest of the world to act as fair judge over her. The world is too politicised, and the US is the object of more negative bias than any other country on the face of the earth.

And, I'm not up on my historical documents, as I should be, but everything in my being scoffs at this country submitting to the judgment from an outside entity. Its just....unAmerican. :wink: It may be unSwitzerlandish, as well. I've never lived there.

nimh, in my opinion, you have a very strong argument, which I cannot try to win with you--because I can't win it with myself. We do not apply the same measuring stick to ourselves, that we use for others. I was unhappy to go into Iraq without an international consensus. But, ultimately I think we were right. I believe Afghanistan was right. But, at this point, I don't want to go into another country without a consensus. I can't imagine how frightening it must be to live in some smaller country, watching us drop bombs and roll through foreign streets.

I think this administration, and most of our citizens--are under the impression that we should be accepted as the benevolent, if sometimes clumsy heavy-lifter for the rest of the world. We believe we are more experienced and skilled at military matters--and are a better judge of when a problem demands action, and when it doesn't. To be honest--I believe that. But, on the other hand, I can ably see why others would be horrified, aghast and furious at that statement. But--if one has advanced military technology, experience in war, so much so that strategies have been developed, honed, perfected---and this combination of skill, experience and technology surpasses any other--why would you ask someone who has limited knowledge/success what you should do? And, what if they had they had heavy financial or emotional stakes in your failure? Will you trust their counsel?

Unilateralism is extremely dangerous, and the enticement of corruption and selfish motives are so great that the pre-emptive strike was frightening to me. I saw what this country could do-- alone, and hell--who's kidding who--in defiance of the rest of the world. In the absence of a competing superpower, changes are taking place. We're too far ahead--but we can't back up.

0 Replies

Sophia is correct in pointing out nimh's valid arguments in favor of the ICC but, not surprisingly, I too share her concerns.

Perhaps, though, there is a solution of sorts. However, this solution, although more nebulous than a specific institution like the ICC, is more realistic. The solution may be embodied in what is currently termed Atlanticism. This merely means a restoration, firming-up, and updating of the old alliances of the traditional West (U.S./Western Europe/Eastern Europe). Some might argue on the inclusion of some eastern European states in this alliance and indeed may have a point well take especially given my basis on civilization partners in alliances (The Balkan states are questionable because of their location along the "Fault Line" of the Muslim/Western Christian/Eastern Orthodox civilizations.)

My thoughts are based on two concepts. First, to tackle a problem it is best to divide it into smaller components and deal with them separately. Second, using the concept of Core states of civilizations (see Samuel P Huntington's "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order").

Combining the above two concepts we might concentrate our efforts by rebuilding the aforesaid alliance comprising the majority of Western civilization. The "Core State" of western civilization is the U.S. but it is no secret that its values are European. We should continue to be civil to those that share our values.

Once suitably allied, the U.S. and Europe can apply Diplomatic efforts or "Soft Power" backed up by Military efforts or "Hard Power" to solve international strife within the community of the alliance. There is every reason to believe this community can be of immense help to organizations as the U.N. One might even realistically envision a UN-like organization with actual teeth.

It is important to keep in mind, however, that this model most likely cannot be extended to the rest of the international community. Conceptually the other civilizations such as Confucian or Muslim may form their own alliances but as yet they historically have never achieved such results that could approach the power or influence that a modern Western alliance might achieve. Perhaps the Western alliance would provide a strong model for the others to emulate and therefore would not be considered a competing power.

JM

0 Replies

Both of you make good points. Sofia's concerns about unilateralism touch on very real fears, indeed, and you both talked about the need for more multilateralism. Both of you also talked about the ICC, relating one to the other. Now I'm all for JM's argument for a new multilateral spirit to reinvogarete European-American affinities and alliances. But the part that I dont get is how any of that could be a "more realistic alternative" for the ICC. I dont see the connection you're making.

Obviously, the ICC is a multilateral iniatiatve. But its not (just) about 'working together a little more again'. Its about a very real step to invest a delegated authority in the UN, namely that to pursue the most basic of this century's international legal challenges - to (finally) stop letting the dictatorial mass murderers of this world get away with their crimes.

The ICC would install - is installing - a very first institution that offers the world's citizens a taste of the most basic principle of the rule of law, such as we have been able to rely on for all our lives: the reliability of an overarching justrice system, however basic of mandate. So that people around the world can start investing a very first bit of trust that this world no longer needs to be the jungle where only the right of the strongest ever rules, and any brute is safe as long as he's been politically successful. Illusionary? Not really - a major conceptual step forward, perhaps, but not an unprecedented one. It merely means that states are (finally, gradually and sometimes reluctantly - but spontaneously) taking their responsibility on the lessons of the state-perpetrated mass murders of the 20th century ... in a way not all that different from how they took the responsibility, after WW1 and WW2, of mitigating the previous jungle of ever-fluctuating, warring national ententes, founding the overarching arenas of diplomacy and fine-tuning of League of Nations, UN, EU, NATO.

So its not about giving the UN the right vibes again - its about giving it some of the right substance. So its a step further already, a milk-tooth for the UN, so to say. And no amount of restored diplomatic bonhomie can replace such an ackowledgement that the rule of law could or should pass beyond the borders of our own little country - at least to the extent of having an international, overriding, final legal address for the crimes that, in scope and significance, go beyond the borders and self-defence capabilities of national states: genocide, crimes against humanity.

Now, JM's emphasis on the irreconcilability of the world's basic cultural zones stresses the opposite - that we shouldnt make too many illusions about such things, in general. But the ICC exists - and its been ratified by a whole number of non-Western governments - without any of the bullying by a US-type superpower that would have been necessary for so many other ratifications and resolutions. Apparently, the desire or demand for it - or if not the demand, at least the recognition of the need or unavoidaility of it - stretches well beyond the borders of Huntington's supposed cultural zones. Thats an astounding development, a step that should give cause for (inter)cultural optimism, at least.

Now this is (long past the point) where you say - well, its just a step too far. Unrealistic, utopian. But I already started on this in the previous paragraph. Theres nothing abstract about the ICC - it exists, its already at work - and, its acknowledged and accepted by an overwhelming number of UN member states around the world, including many otherwise none too utopian regimes. It is not a Denmark-and-Holland kind of idealistic air-castle.

When the US says the ICC is "unrealistic", its really putting up a smokescreen - because the history of the ICC (talked about for so long but never realised, until now, apparently, the time was finally right and ready for so many countries), shows that its existence is all too realistic. Only one country in the world actively opposes the ICC, and tries to sabotage its authority. The United States. There are other countries that didnt ratify it, but they kept otherwise quiet. The US is the only state pro-actively pressuring other states, as well, to reject the ICC, using all kinds of sticks and carrots to move even countries that already ratified it to retreat and at least grant American nationals a unique exception-status. The Bush administration tries to portray the ICC as something "the world" is not ready for - but thus far, only the US has been manifestly "not ready" for the ICC, with other countries that didnt ratify it seemingly accepting at least the ICC's authority abroad, even if they dont recognize it 'at home'.

The only argument to say that the ICC is "unrealistic" would thus be that, for better or for worse, any initiative in the world that is not approved of by the US is unrealistic, no matter how wide-spread the support in the rest of the world might be. That sickens me, though. Which does bring us back to the logic of unilateralism, after all ...

0 Replies

[finished editing above ... ;-)]

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

Its just....unAmerican. :wink: It may be unSwitzerlandish, as well.

Switzerland ratified the ICC :winks:. In fact, concerning where I wrote,

nimh wrote:

But the ICC exists - and its been ratified by a whole number of non-Western governments [..]. Apparently, the desire or demand for it - or if not the demand, at least the recognition of the need or unavoidaility of it - stretches well beyond the borders of Huntington's supposed cultural zones.

[..] its already at work - and, its acknowledged and accepted by an overwhelming number of UN member states around the world, including many otherwise none too utopian regimes. It is not a Denmark-and-Holland kind of idealistic air-castle.

... to be slightly less vague, and just name man and horse: these are the 91 countries that have ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Out of them 22 are African Countries, 22 are from Europe (non EU countries), 18 are from Latin America and the Caribbean, 15 are EU member States, 12 are from Asia and the Pacific, 1 is from North America, 1 is from the Middle East. More impressive than the war "coalition" against Iraq, in any case :wink:.

Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Central African Republic, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Democratic Republic of Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, East Timor, Ecuador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mongolia, Namibia, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saint Vincent and The Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zambia.

0 Replies

While you push a convincing argument nimh it still skirts the basic concerns the US has with the ICC.

Yes, the ICC exists and a bunch of countries have signed onto it. What do those countries have to lose?

You said earlier:

Quote:

The bottom line here is that the ICC is not about usurping power from national states; it is about national states delegating authority to it over the most heinous of mass-scale crimes.

True enough. The "problem" with this, from our cultural perspective, is that we (collectively) don't really trust courts (or any other governmantal body) to remain within their bounds. Once the ICC is in place and everyone is under it's jurisdiction what stops it's realm from being expanded? We have a long history of delegating power to institutions only to later have that power/authority increased by a small minority and then it turns into something never envisioned by it's founders despite promises made to the contrary.

This has been the countinual, repeated history of social programs and institutions in the US and I suspect most US citzens envision that any International body would operate in the same manner.

I think most of us understand the provisons that exist for the court as it stands right now but what happens when a minor "harmless" amendment is made here and there and then suddenly the court does have the authority to try cases that are being handled by the individual nation? What happens when the wording is changed to where the ICC can step in when someone isn't happy with the way another nation handles a particular case?

You said:

Quote:

Also, the ICC has extremely limited resources compared to the tasks they could theoretically face. Prioritisation means that thus far, its expressed capability for taking only one or two cases at a time (counting "Yugoslavia" as one case, I mean). It will not take on cases lightly. The Prosecutor is independent, and can not be directly steered in his actions by any country.

Wasn't this the case in Belgium as well? It seems that they just amended their laws because the courts were suddenly over-run with lawsuits that had absolutley no connection to Belgium at all. People were abusing the Belgian courts to persue their own political agendas.

That is the sort of thing that most concerns people that oppose the ICC. It's easier to fight the initial ratification of the ICC than it is to ward off any/all attempts to increase the ICC's authority later on.

As I said in opening this post. What do the countries in the list you provided have to lose by signing onto the ICC? What guarantee is there that the ICC will NEVER be used/abused to achieve political goals? I don't think they'll accept "but nimh said you'd never take cases lightly!" as an refuting of increases in the ICC's activities! Wink

What guarantee is there that Gabon for example, wouldn't attempt to get a case against a sitting US President brought to the ICC because they can't get what they want through diplomatic means?

When you have little or no real diplomatic clout there is little to be lost by signing on to something like the ICC. If anything, those with little clout have everything to gain by doing so. The US sees itself with plenty of diplomatic clout and thus, much to lose and little or nothing to gain.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

what happens when a minor "harmless" amendment is made here and there and then suddenly the court does have the authority to try cases that are being handled by the individual nation? What happens when the wording is changed to where the ICC can step in when someone isn't happy with the way another nation handles a particular case?

Wouldnt the collective of (90-odd) ratifying countries have to approve any change in the authority of the ICC like that? I think the Statute is up for revision by the colllective of all signing parties every seven years. Thats how its different from the individual war crimes tribunals (Yugoslavia, Rwanda) that were established earlier and were supported by the US - who act on the basis of mere Security Council decisions. So it's not like the ICC itself could decide to suddenly start doing more than what it was founded and authorized for ...

fishin' wrote:

Wasn't this the case in Belgium as well? It seems that they just amended their laws because the courts were suddenly over-run with lawsuits that had absolutley no connection to Belgium at all. People were abusing the Belgian courts to persue their own political agendas..

And their cases were overwhelmingly rejected ... as far as I remember, the US didnt get angry at Belgium for their court actually starting a case against Bush or whomever, but at the mere possibility for someone to ask of the court to do so, even if he would be refused. The complaint was mostly about bad publicity. Many applications to the Belgian court to start procedures against X or Y were wholly prospectless, and the applicants were well aware of that - like you said, they had their own agendas, and it was usually to bring publicity to their allegation that X or Y was a war criminal. It was that bad publicity - having the allegation of Bush (etc) being a war criminal aired in an official-sounding political context rather than merely in the realm of protest activism - rather than an actual judicial threat, that irked the US government into bringing pressure on the Belgian government to abolish the whole procedure, period. Thats how I understood it, in any case.

fishin' wrote:

What do the countries in the list you provided have to lose by signing onto the ICC? [..] When you have little or no real diplomatic clout there is little to be lost by signing on to something like the ICC. [..] The US sees itself with plenty of diplomatic clout and thus, much to lose and little or nothing to gain.

The suggestion that only minor countries with little diplomatic clout, like Gabon, ratified the ICC is I think misguided. The UK signed. So did France, and Germany. Nigeria and South-Africa are the most powerful countries of Africa, and signed. Brazil and Argentine are the most powerful countries of Latin-America, and signed. Australia and Canada signed. They have the same to lose as the US would have - theoretically, their nationals could be indicted for crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide, if they were accused of such and the UK (Germany/France/etc) refused to investigate the case, period, itself.

Also, the opposite argument could be made just as easily. For countries with little or no real diplomatic clout there is all the more to be lost - Yugoslavia has little chance of standing up against the War Crimes Tribunal for long, for example, when it demands it to surrender Milosevic - while the US would (for better or for worse) be less vulnerable to the "long arm" of the UN. The other way round, of course, it does work - Gabonese would have significantly fewer opportunities to have a British national brought to court than vice versa, and thus have more to gain. In theory, the US could now easily capture Saddam and try him for war crimes itself - noone would be able to do much about it, so unlike Gabon they wouldnt need the ICC for that. But, err, would that really serve American security and national interests (let alone international justice), in the long run?

fishin' wrote:

What guarantee is there that the ICC will NEVER be used/abused to achieve political goals?

Well, it does fundamentally have a political goal. Bringing Milosevic to trial as the ICTY now does, represents the political goal of henceforth bringing perpetrators of war crimes to justice even if they were statesmen. It is a political goal that the ratifying countries agreed on, and that could never have been credibly achieved with the existing instruments of national justice systems alone, since any one country trying the ruler of any one other country is doomed to be understood as constituting victor's justice. The US now shows itself to be the foremost country opposing that political goal ...

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Wouldnt the collective of (90-odd) ratifying countries have to approve any change in the authority of the ICC like that? I think the Statute is up for revision by the colllective of all signing parties every seven years.

I'm not famaliar with the procedures but I guess I was trying to get across that minor changes could be made more easily once the ICC is fully in place. They could be slipped in here and there over a period of years each seemingly harmless but collectively they could spell trouble. I don't question whether or not there is a process in place, just stating that changes would be easier than an initial ratification of the whole package.

Quote:

And their cases were overwhelmingly rejected ... as far as I remember, the US didnt get angry at Belgium for their court actually starting a case against Bush or whomever, but at the mere possibility for someone to ask of the court to do so, even if he would be refused. The complaint was mostly about bad publicity.

There was at least one that was actually brough to the court against Bush 41 and Powell for the Gulf War in 1991. There were other complaints pending against Sharon, etc.. when they changed the law.

Quote:

Many applications to the Belgian court to start procedures against X or Y were wholly prospectless, and the applicants were well aware of that - like you said, they had their own agendas, and it was usually to bring publicity to their allegation that X or Y was a war criminal. It was that bad publicity - having the allegation of Bush (etc) being a war criminal aired in an official-sounding political context rather than merely in the realm of protest activism - rather than an actual judicial threat, that irked the US government into bringing pressure on the Belgian government to abolish the whole procedure, period. Thats how I understood it, in any case.

I think it was more than just bad publicity. I'm sure the publicity was a factcor but there were real attempts and all it would have taken is for one judge to decide to let a case stand. I think at that point it becomes a very real threat.

Quote:

The suggestion that only minor countries with little diplomatic clout, like Gabon, ratified the ICC is I think misguided. The UK signed. So did France, and Germany. Nigeria and South-Africa are the most powerful countries of Africa, and signed. Brazil and Argentine are the most powerful countries of Latin-America, and signed. Australia and Canada signed. They have the same to lose as the US would have - theoretically, their nationals could be indicted for crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide, if they were accused of such and the UK (Germany/France/etc) refused to investigate the case, period, itself.

No no!

I wasn't saying they were the only countries that had ratified it. I was simply saying that they had more to gain from the ICC than the major powers of the world do. The smaller countries are in a weak diplomatic position with pretty much any/all first world countries and the ICC could be abused as a diplomatic tool. All in all I think most countries of the world are much more trusting of courts in general than we are in the US - that's a result of the misuse of our court system internally by groups attempting to achieve politicla goals when they've failed through legislative means.

Quote:

Well, it does fundamentally have a political goal. Bringing Milosevic to trial as the ICTY now does, represents the political goal of henceforth bringing perpetrators of war crimes to justice even if they were statesmen. It is a political goal that the ratifying countries agreed on, and that could never have been credibly achieved with the existing instruments of national justice systems alone, since any one country trying the ruler of any one other country is doomed to be understood as constituting victor's justice. The US now shows itself to be the foremost country opposing that political goal ...

I think the accepted political goal of the ICC was understood to be bringing criminals to justice. I don't know of anyone that has any objections to that and I'd guess that was the idea the ratifying countries had in mind when the ratified it.

What I was referring to is the use of trumped up allegations in order to acheive some ulterior political goal like unseating a sitting Prime Minister/President that people may disagree with politically but that has committed no crime. I can easily forsee someone claiming Bush 43 is criminally liable for thousands of deaths worldwide because he didn't push for ratification of the Koyoto treaty here in the US.

What safeguards are in place to ensure that type of scenario never happens? I don't see where any country failing to ratify a treaty could ever be considered a criminal act.

0 Replies

Quote:

What I was referring to is the use of trumped up allegations in order to acheive some ulterior political goal like unseating a sitting Prime Minister/President that people may disagree with politically but that has committed no crime. I can easily forsee someone claiming Bush 43 is criminally liable for thousands of deaths worldwide because he didn't push for ratification of the Koyoto treaty here in the US.

Some such politically wielded club as fishin' described above--this is what most American ICC opponents suspect the court will signify.

0 Replies

What has the Iraq War wrought?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know