What The World Thinks of America (BBC program)

nimh wrote:

On second thought, better not get into Chile here. I seem to remember that you argued somewhere that Pinochet's putsch was a good and a necessary thing. (That would also mean, I'd guess, that "capably resolving the issue" to your mind would by definition not include any judicial verdict against the man.)

That is correct, but not relevant to the point under discussion. The real question here is the presumption that a Spanish court can summon to its jurisdiction the former President of a sovereign state for actions he took while in office in his own country. This is the door to chaos (and grotesquely hypocritical ). It solves nothing. It prevents nothing.

0 Replies

It all really does come down to the question of enforcement as Setanta has pointed out. The metaphorical similarity between the proponents of the ICC and Aesop's mice who voted to put a bell around the cat's neck is stunningly apt.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

What lunacy it is to continue to avoid the issue of enforcement. All of your platitudes don't amount to a hill of beans at the end of the day, because the monster you want killed won't be killed unless and until someone lays it on the line. Why am i not surprised that the world wants the United States to lay it on the line? The superpower they love to hate.

Your criticism comes through loud and clear, but its entirely unclear what alternative you favour. Also, most of it is based on straw man arguments.

To start with the latter. You say the problem of the ICC is it doesnt have the means of enforcement - to go get the monster; and insinuate that I want the US to go get the monster for it - to go kill him. But I never said that. First - I dont want him killed - I want him brought to trial, thats the whole bloody point. Second - I dont want gunboats to go get him - just said as much, explicitly: I'm already happy to arrive at a world where he will be arrested upon entering one of those many signatory countries - unlike in the pre-ICC world, where he'd be making 'elder statesman' business visits without fear.

Thats a level of "enforcement" re: bringing war crimes to court we could only dream of in pre-ICC, pre-ICTY days. And it seems to be working with the various South Slav suspects, who are coming out now one by one.

You, however, call that passive wait-em-out approach irrelevant, ineffectual. Yet you've just on the last page decried "gunboat diplomacy" and "the bad old days when European powers used their navies and armies to enforce their wills upon weaker nations". So while you ridicule the ICC for its limited means of enforcement, you reject the means you imagine it could want to have. So - out goes the ICC and ... what?

What's your alternative re: the Patagistanian "monster"? Let him be?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Nihm, i would like to know how you intend to apprehend the Pataganistanian monster? U.S. G.I.'s, i'm sure. Irony? Yes, the irony is that you are not circumventing might makes right, you are enlisting the United States to provide the might necessary to enforce your conception of right. Yeah, that's ironic as hell.

I think you miss the point entirely.

Might brings results. A fair and structured venue for the regulation of the use of said might makes the right.

Might employed at the sole discretion of the exercising party can be exercised justly. As nimh and myself noted the unilateral actions of the United states in the Balkans is something we consider just.

But without a regulating system in place this is contingient upon the goodwill of whomever holds the most power.

The US putting it's might behind the ICC would not be validation of the "might makes right" theory. It would be employing its might in the just (read right) setting of an international regulatory body.

To try to compare a nation waging war outside of the international community's sanction with a nation enforcing a court ruling is like comparing a vigilante with a law enforcement officer.

It's not an ironic validation of might makes right. It's a repudiation of it and an attempt to bring about adoption of societal premises that we already accept on a national level to the increasingly globalized world.

0 Replies

Set aside your ego for a moment Habibi, i've not said you said anything, i've not implied you've said anything. I'm talking about the reality of what Europe and European heads of state want when they whine about U.S. participation. They want the muscle, or the threat of the muscle, to prop up their institution. And Craven's being just as naively optimistic as you in your silly arguments about the institution and wonderful principles which it ostensibly embodies. At a national level, the courts only function because of the enforcement power. Were an accused criminal to flee the state in which he/she is accused, the state to which he/she fled would extradite the person. Were it not to do so, the Federal government could be called upon to intervene.

Extradition treaties are already in place world-wide. In an instance in which a nation will not honor the treaty, or has none, what you propose is an international tribunal with the power to . . . the power to what? What power? In the end, no court functions without the power of enforcement. That means the military or a police force. The idealism which you and CdK continue to express simply ignores this knotty little problem of enforcement. I'm speaking to the intentions of signatory states which carp about the refusal of the U.S. to participate. They know about the necessity of an enforcement threat, which is why they desparately want the United States on board. And the U.S. Senate knows what the lay of the land is as well, and that's why this claptrap doesn't have a snowball's hope in hell of passage. In the bad old days, Europe failed miserably to provide effective international leadership--the separate nations either enforced gunboat diplomacy, squabbled among themselves, or paid lip service to principles they were unwilling to enforce in practice. Now they are all puffed up with what they see as their success at unity (and without any vestige of an effective central government, it's nothing but a glorified customs and currency union at this point), and they want to spread their gospel to world.

But they want the biggest kid on the playground standing behind them when they do, because they know this organization as it is currently constituted has no teeth.

I'm not really interested in your opinion of the court, Habibi, or what you have or will say about it. I've made a point, and you've side-stepped it constantly. Without enforcement power, the court is a nugatory institution issuing fairytale writs. That is why the backers of the plan howl about the refusal of the United States to join their silly game.

0 Replies

You may think you make a point but rather you choose to miss it entirely. That a court needs enforcement is no indictment of the existence of teh court in the first place.

Your ad hominems about idealism are getting tired, toward this discussion you have posited little more than the fact that a court needs enforcement ability (no duh!) and silly quotes about dreaming sheep.

Of course a court needs the ability to enforce its decisions! We have never contested that.

Do you have anything else to say? Your "point" has not been "sidestepped". Perhaps we are simply not as enamoured by your "point" as you are?

Sure the court could use the US on it's side. Sure the court could use the US enforcement power. I assume you have a "point" beyond that?

And Setanta, it is hillariously ironic to see you talk about egos.

0 Replies

Craven,

I don't agree with your implication that law and enforcement are distinct and that one can accomplish good without the other. A basic principle in the governance of any organization of people is that the visible lack of enforcement of some of the rules undermines the effectiveness of others. This has been expressed in many cultures and in many forms, going back even to pre-classical times. I think that is Setanta's basic point. It is also an observable practical truth that I have learned many times in my own experience and which we can all observe in the ineffectiveness of UN resolutions on many issues.

0 Replies

George,

I don't know how many ways I could agree to the need for enforcement capability. To my mind if the ICC is found lacking in that regard it is an argument in support of ameliorating the ICC's capability to enforce their rulings.

I do not take it as an indictment of the concept of the ICC. That would be like throwing away the baby because it's weak and defenseless at it's birth.

But there is something I think is contradictory in the arguments posited herein. How can the ICC be both deemed irrelevant (due to a perceived inability to enforce it's rulings) AND at the same time a grave danger (due to it's supposed ability to hurt the most powerful nation on earth).

In one, I see a weakness that I would like to see addressed by the US use of it's power to a global goal.

The other I see as recognition of an inherent power the court would have. If the US fears the rulings they acknowledge that the global society takes it seriously and considers it to carry weight.

0 Replies

Your snide remarks are not to the point, either.

Yes, you sidestep the issue of enforcement power. No court can function effectively without enforcement power. That power, on a global stage, would involve either military power or economic sanction. As things stand right now, the backers of the court lack sufficient influence either militarily or economically to enforce the court's writ. The United States Senate has no desire to commit American military resources to such an exercise, nor to accept dictation on economic policy from an extra-national body. That is not likely to change in our lifetimes, without a radical change in American politics leading to a drastic change in the make-up of the Senate--one which is both unforeseen and unlikely.

This is my point, all along--that on a purely pragmatic basis, it is unrealistic to expect the United States to participate. Such participation could only result from two thirds of the Senate approving a treaty, and that two thirds of supporters will not be forthcoming. The objection of members of the Senate to participation will be that they are unwilling to commit American military resources, and that they will not bind the nation to compliance with economic santions mandated by such a body. This isn't going to happen, and i agree with the sentiments of those in the Senate who would not agree to such a treaty.

My remark about ego was directed at Habibi, to point out to him that i was speaking to the issue of the proposed court, and not responding to his specific post. Perhaps i should have quoted to him your earlier nastiness:

Cdk wrote:

You should not assume everything is about you.

I have not indicted the existence of the court. I have pointed out that it is no court without enforcement authority, that signatory nations want to pressure the United States to participate in order to have such power, or the appearance thereof, and that the Senate won't go along with such a program. The court is no court at all, lacking any real enforcement power, and it is superfluous in consideration of extradition agreements.

I do question the idealism expressed by supporters of the court. Courts in the United States are underpinned by the national constitution, and the constitutions of the several states, and statute produced in line with those documents--as well as the body of precedential citation. Courts in England are underpinned by precedential citation, as well as statute arising from Parliamentary legislation. Courts in other parts of Europe are underpinned by a reliance on ancient legal code, a body of precedential citation, and the statutes of representative bodies. The proposed I.C.C. has no such backing, other than a vague appeal to a body of precedential citation of international law, the most murky, most easily and most frequently abused body of juridical material in human knowledge. Quite apart from arguments against participation which arise from an unwillingness to commit the United States military and/or economically, there is a justified suspicion of the provenance of rulings which such a body might issue, and an unwillingness to bind the nation to rulings which arise outside of the legal structure of the nation. I concur in these objections. That is my point.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Your snide remarks are not to the point, either.

Nope, they most certainly are not. That's why I include topical ones.

Setanta wrote:

Yes, you sidestep the issue of enforcement power. No court can function effectively without enforcement power. That power, on a global stage, would involve either military power or economic sanction.

I see you are using "sidestep" as a rhetorical tool. I have, several times, addressed that topic and have ceded the need. I shall do it again (hopefully worded in a way that you can acknowledge):

No court can function effectively without enforcement power.

Now that we got that "sidestepping" issue resolved let's see if you are over it.

Setanta wrote:

As things stand right now, the backers of the court lack sufficient influence either militarily or economically to enforce the court's writ.

So this should be changed.

Setanta wrote:

The United States Senate has no desire to commit American military resources to such an exercise, nor to accept dictation on economic policy from an extra-national body. That is not likely to change in our lifetimes, without a radical change in American politics leading to a drastic change in the make-up of the Senate--one which is both unforeseen and unlikely.

I agree, on all counts. I do think the change will eventually come about (actually I think it will come about in my lifetime so I don't agree on all counts. But to put a better timeframe on it I believe it will come about in my lifetime but not yours).

Thing is, I do not see that as an indictment of the ICC. I see that as the understandable (if lamentable) desire of those with power to do what they can to not cede an iota of it.

I do not see that as a fault of the ICC, I see that as a fault of the US.

Setanta wrote:

This is my point, all along--that on a purely pragmatic basis, it is unrealistic to expect the United States to participate.

I agree 100%. I rarely even clamour for US participation. Thing is, the US WILL eventually participate in some of their rulings. Just as the UN is sometimes "relevant" to us.

Now where I see US malice is in the effort to undermine the very concept of the court. It's understandable that the US does not want to lend it our sanction but the incredible effort the US is making to undermine the ICC is indicative of a desire for it not to exist at all. Not a qualm about teh scope or composition of the court.

Setanta wrote:

Such participation could only result from two thirds of the Senate approving a treaty, and that two thirds of supporters will not be forthcoming. The objection of members of the Senate to participation will be that they are unwilling to commit American military resources, and that they will not bind the nation to compliance with economic santions mandated by such a body. This isn't going to happen, and i agree with the sentiments of those in the Senate who would not agree to such a treaty.

You have a great misperception about the court in that you seem to think being a signatory would automatically commit troops. That is simply not the case.

But I do agree that the Senate is unlikely (for many years) to acknowledge this court. Just as the US has shown itself to be reluctant to sign anything that constrains its military (things like Geneva etc).

Where we part company is that I do not think that the Senate is right to do this, simply because they do not want to.

I know you are not justifying their refusal to sign the US onto this court simply on the basis of the fact taht they are unlikely to do so. But to make that clearer can you explain what reasoning you see for the lack of US participation?

Setanta wrote:

My remark about ego was directed at Habibi, to point out to him that i was speaking to the issue of the proposed court, and not responding to his specific post. Perhaps i should have quoted to him your earlier nastiness:

Cdk wrote:
You should not assume everything is about you.

I don't really want to counsel you in your nastiness Setanta. I don't think you need my help in this regard.

Setanta wrote:

I have not indicted the existence of the court. I have pointed out that it is no court without enforcement authority, that signatory nations want to pressure the United States to participate in order to have such power, or the appearance thereof, and that the Senate won't go along with such a program. The court is no court at all, lacking any real enforcement power, and it is superfluous in consideration of extradition agreements.

Fair enough, quick question: if the very concept of said court (which to me is the concept of an enhanced global social contract) is not something you disagree with out of hand my question to you is what you see as room for improvement.

The ICC is a fledgeling court that is breaking ground, it is far from perfect. If you have no qualm with the concept what improvements would you suggest?

nimh asked several times about alternatives and IMO alternatives and improvements are a more relevant line of discussion that the validity of having a system designed to bring war criminals to justice.

If we all agree that bringing war criminals to justice is a good idea then I think the question is then a "how".

Setanta wrote:

I do question the idealism expressed by supporters of the court.

It's easy to label things as idealism. I have avoided such labels when I notice my inclination to use them. Much of the world does the ole line about US hegemony when talking about this court. I'd rather discuss it's merits than the people behind the ideas.

When you say it's "idealism" I think there is a validity in that I think there is a greater ideal in the worl'd treatment of war crimes. I ahve also stated that I believe much of the opinions about this court are ideologically based (as opposed to being founded in the details of the implementation).

I do, indeed, believe that the ideal venue for bringing monsters to justice is a global forum such as the ICC. It may be flawed but I'd rather address the flaws than dispose of teh whole concept (which I note you have said you do not do).

Setanta wrote:

Courts in the United States are underpinned by the national constitution, and the constitutions of the several states, and statute produced in line with those documents--as well as the body of precedential citation. Courts in England are underpinned by precedential citation, as well as statute arising from Parliamentary legislation. Courts in other parts of Europe are underpinned by a reliance on ancient legal code, a body of precedential citation, and the statutes of representative bodies. The proposed I.C.C. has no such backing, other than a vague appeal to a body of precedential citation of international law, the most murky, most easily and most frequently abused body of juridical material in human knowledge. Quite apart from arguments against participation which arise from an unwillingness to commit the United States military and/or economically, there is a justified suspicion of the provenance of rulings which such a body might issue, and an unwillingness to bind the nation to rulings which arise outside of the legal structure of the nation. I concur in these objections. That is my point.

I agree that much of the ICC's scope and implementation needs better codification. I also agree that the US fears of politically based prosecution are not unfounded in nature (by that I mean there has been an evident desire to pursue conflict with teh US through all avenues, including law. But that is the same with most nations involved in disputes. We use the UN for reasons that can be described as "political" all the tiem).

Now ceding that those fears are substantiated I do think the fears of the ICC are not. And this will be bourne out over the next few years.

Now my question to you is what suggestions you ahve to address the perceived inadequacy of the ICC. You ahve pointed out your qualms with it, do you see any room for improvement or are you indicting the existence of the court?

0 Replies

More later . . .

0 Replies

First things first-I've not indicted the I.C.C. I've made no accusations against the body itself, nor anyone supporting it. I have tried to point out the pragmatic objections to support of the body by the United States. I'll ignore comments about indicting the court, as i see such comments as transparent attempts to take an advantage in debate by setting the terms-I'm not gonna play. You can consider my use of the term sidestep in the same light-however, that usage is linked to my contention that the I.C.C. is no court at all, because it lacks any enforcement authority. When i note that this attempt at a court is a failure because of a lack of enforcement, you respond that this should be changed. I could not agree less. I further doubt your contention that you'll see acceptance of the court within your lifetime. Perhaps the United States will someday participate in such a body, but i consider in to be an eventuality not in the foreseeable future, and i definitely believe that the I.C.C. specifically will never be accepted by the United States, for reasons which i will shortly outline.

CdK wrote:

Thing is, I do not see that as an indictment of the ICC. I see that as the understandable (if lamentable) desire of those with power to do what they can to not cede an iota of it.

I do not see that as a fault of the ICC, I see that as a fault of the US.

Once again, remove the word indictment. It is not my object to indict, and the use of the term colors the argument unfairly. In your statement here, i object to the use of the term power-i would substitute sovereignty. Members of the Senate consider judicial matters regarding American citizens to be the sovereign province of this nation, and that courts outside this nation only have acquiescence in jurisdiction under the terms of duly executed extradition treaties. I will state again that i consider this body superfluous in light of our extradition treaties. The subsequent use of "fault" is equally an attempt to color the argument. There is no reason to assume fault. Members of the Senate see participation in this body as a an unwarranted surrender of sovereignty, and object thereto. I agree with them. If one disagrees with them, this does not make it logically follow that the Senate is guilty of any fault.

Which brings me to your contention of an: ". . . incredible effort the US is making to undermine the ICC [which] is indicative of a desire for it not to exist at all." This charge cannot be laid at the door of the nation in general. That there is a considerable body of persons who might wish to compass the destruction of the I.C.C. i would not necessarily dispute. That this is the policy of our current rogue administration i would not dispute. That this charge can be applied in blanket manner to the United States is something which i find ridiculous.

CdK wrote:

You have a great misperception about the court in that you seem to think being a signatory would automatically commit troops. That is simply not the case.

Nonsense-I've mad no such charge. I have consistently pointed out that the court will lack any authority without a credible enforcement option, and this would, sooner or later, and likely sooner rather than later, require the application of force. I don't contend that being a signatory would automatically commit troops, rather that it would eventually require such a commitment. In Habibi's example, the monster dictator is not going to travel to a signatory nation if it were assured that said dictator would be taken up and extradited. Augusto Pinochet would surely never have traveled to England if he'd thought he would be subjected to extradition. In this scenario, the I.C.C. would be a paper tiger, with worthless writs. I believe George has already pointed to the whining and hand-wringing which constituted Europe's collective response to Servia's attack on Slovenia, then Croatia, then Bosnia-Herzegovina--and finally, in attacking the Kosovar muslims, Milosevic brought down the wrath of America on his addled pate, at which point the Europeans grew suddenly heroic. The same scenario would play out in any attempt by a body such as the I.C.C. to prevent or end atrocities. Arresting someone after the fact is a gratifying exercise in revenge for those who feel the need of it, I'm sure, but does nada for the victims of the putative monster.

As I've already noted, i believe that this is largely a sovereignty issue in the Senate. That body was created especially to deal with the crippling sovereignty issue which threatened to sink the constitutional convention before it had produced a single draft. Sovereignty is the special province of the Senate, and this is definitely a sovereignty issue. Which will tie into my reaction to the concept, which i will state before i conclude.

CdK wrote:

The ICC is a fledgeling court that is breaking ground, it is far from perfect. If you have no qualm with the concept what improvements would you suggest?

Scrap it altogether. It puts the juridical cart before the horse-and jurisprudence is an arena in which that is simply unthinkable. Without having first established a legal framework and code, such a body is nothing more than a glorified lynch mob. I don't see this body breaking any ground. The Nuremburg tribunal, and the International Court at the Hague have already broken this particular ground. The War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague has, is and will continue to operate to deal with war crimes. Absent the formation of a codified structure, and a codified reference to precedence, or enumeration of powers and competencies, negotiated in advance of the foundation of such a body, this is a pig in a poke. It is completely unreasonable to offer such a panel to the world fully-formed. It would be completely reasonable to convene a body, the purpose of which would be to establish the basis for the proceedings of such a body, before creating the body itself. The Rome treaty hardly qualifies-it's participation was sufficiently narrow to obviate the validity of any claims to global authority. This is a good idea, which has been rushed into existence in a very clumsy and arbitrary manner-which accounts for why nations such as Russia and China are also unwilling to participate.

Spare me any snide remarks or personal observations. This post contains none.

0 Replies

I missed that last post of yours Setanta, sorry to reply so late:

Setanta wrote:

First things first-I've not indicted the I.C.C. I've made no accusations against the body itself, nor anyone supporting it. I have tried to point out the pragmatic objections to support of the body by the United States. I'll ignore comments about indicting the court, as I see such comments as transparent attempts to take an advantage in debate by setting the terms-I'm not gonna play.

I used it in the sense that you were accusing it of a deficiency or fault. I have no idea why you think it a "transparent attempts to take an advantage in debate by setting the terms". I chose the word for two reasons. I simply use the word a lot, and most importantly you had used it, you said "I have not indicted the existence of the court" but went on to indict the implementation of it. I was using the language you had used to avoid confusion.

But the word is not central to the debate and it's certainly not needed to "set the terms" or anything. Replace the word indict with criticize or allege fault and I'm happy.

Setanta wrote:

You can consider my use of the term sidestep in the same light-however, that usage is linked to my contention that the I.C.C. is no court at all, because it lacks any enforcement authority.

If that is what you said I "sidestepped" you are correct. I had no idea you were making such a claim. By the same measure a soldier is not a soldier without a weapon... I had not noticed that you were arguing that the International Criminal Court was not a court.

Setanta wrote:

When I note that this attempt at a court is a failure because of a lack of enforcement, you respond that this should be changed. I could not agree less. I further doubt your contention that you'll see acceptance of the court within your lifetime. Perhaps the United States will someday participate in such a body, but I consider in to be an eventuality not in the foreseeable future, and I definitely believe that the I.C.C. specifically will never be accepted by the United States, for reasons which I will shortly outline.

I'm willing to let this pass, it's not central to the question of whether the notion of a global war crimes court is valid, it's also not relevant to the question of whether the US should pressure others into undermining it.

In any case we agree in that the US is unlikely to ratify this court and the disagreement seems only to be about the degree to which the US opposes it. IMO, it makes little difference to the discussion (at least the one I pursue in which the very notion of such a global court is debated).

Setanta wrote:

CdK wrote:
Thing is, I do not see that as an indictment of the ICC. I see that as the understandable (if lamentable) desire of those with power to do what they can to not cede an iota of it.

I do not see that as a fault of the ICC, I see that as a fault of the US.

Once again, remove the word indictment. It is not my object to indict, and the use of the term colors the argument unfairly.

I REALLY don't see the problem with the word. But that means it's easy to comply with your demand. Replace indictment with flaw in this example.

Setanta wrote:

In your statement here, I object to the use of the term power-I would substitute sovereignty.

Your comments about "setting the tone" are becoming ironic. Not only would you choose your words but apparently you desire to choose mine as well.

In any case sovereignty is a red-herring. It's easy to talk about the difficulty of getting a despot to comply with the courts rulings but that conveniently neglects the fact that those problems are not inherent to the ICC. Those problems exist outside the ICC. To topple Saddam the US had to breach sovereignty.

As it stands what you are calling sovereignty is already violated. If an American travels abroad there is no sovereignty issue that will protect them from trial and/or imprisonment. Removing an individual from the US to be prosecuted would breach sovereignty but that is not the scope of the ICC. It does not imply a mandate to wage war on nations or otherwise breach their sovereignty. It is a way to avoid the loophole of being able to cross a border and have your crimes erased. When the crimes in question are war crimes I think it is a very good idea.

Setanta wrote:

Members of the Senate consider judicial matters regarding American citizens to be the sovereign province of this nation, and that courts outside this nation only have acquiescence in jurisdiction under the terms of duly executed extradition treaties. I will state again that I consider this body superfluous in light of our extradition treaties. The subsequent use of "fault" is equally an attempt to color the argument. There is no reason to assume fault.

Is anything not an attempt to "set the tone" or "color the argument"? Rolling Eyes

Setanta wrote:

Members of the Senate see participation in this body as a an unwarranted surrender of sovereignty, and object thereto. I agree with them. If one disagrees with them, this does not make it logically follow that the Senate is guilty of any fault.

That is an altogether too convenient statement. The central issue to the whole argument is that the ICC is not a breach of sovereignty. You are trying to state it as a given when it's the very point of contention. And then you go on to say that those who do not agree had better not think the Senate guilty of fault. It's a bit of a show stopper and probably where the discussion hangs.

Setanta wrote:

Which brings me to your contention of an: ". . . incredible effort the US is making to undermine the ICC [which] is indicative of a desire for it not to exist at all." This charge cannot be laid at the door of the nation in general. That there is a considerable body of persons who might wish to compass the destruction of the I.C.C. I would not necessarily dispute. That this is the policy of our current rogue administration I would not dispute. That this charge can be applied in blanket manner to the United States is something which I find ridiculous.

I don't find it ridiculous at all. As I stated the US is making an effort to undermine the ICC. This is fact. Whether you choose to characterize it as something particular to the Bush administration is irrelevant. The Bush administration represents the United States and as a democracy their actions are actions taken in the name of the people and the country.

Again, the US is undermining the ICC, yes, it happens to be the Bush administration doing it. I find it quite ridiculous that a mere mention of what a nation is doing is called a "blanket" statement. Do you dispute that the US is undermining the ICC or not?

Setanta wrote:

I have consistently pointed out that the court will lack any authority without a credible enforcement option.

What basis do you have for claiming it lacks 'enforcement option'? Each nation that is signatory to the treaty can commit use of their law enforcement resources to the rulings of the ICC. The nations such as the US that are not cooperating are the enclaves of unenforceability.

This is a circular argument. Denying the court the enforcement option in the US is justified by the courts alleged lack in enforcement options.

Setanta wrote:

...
and this would, sooner or later, and likely sooner rather than later, require the application of force. I don't contend that being a signatory would automatically commit troops, rather that it would eventually require such a commitment. In Habibi's example, the monster dictator is not going to travel to a signatory nation if it were assured that said dictator would be taken up and extradited.

But the court is not the arm through which the culprits will be secured. We face the very same challenges you outlined but this is simply a streamlined system to deal with them.

The ICC is not a court that is going to sanction the mandate to invade nations. That is far outside of the scope it has. Those decisions will continue to be in the murky legal waters of the UN and those powerful enough to circumvent it.

Sure the monster dictator won't walk into a trap but if he is to seek political asylum he will have fewer places to go if the ICC is broadly implemented. This is another argument against the opening of enclaves that give them sanctuary.

Setanta wrote:

Augusto Pinochet would surely never have traveled to England if he'd thought he would be subjected to extradition. In this scenario, the I.C.C. would be a paper tiger, with worthless writs.

Hardly. The issue is not so simple as who will travel where. It addresses the legal loopholes in the previous system. This is the type of place where a despot like Saddam would be tried if Iraq's legal system were unprepared to do so.

The US obviously doesn't have jurisdiction. The Hague's vague. The ICC is the safety net. It's not the judge jury and executioner. It is simply a court designed to prevent the altogether too frequent impunity of war crimes.

Setanta wrote:

I believe George has already pointed to the whining and hand-wringing which constituted Europe's collective response to Servia's attack on Slovenia, then Croatia, then Bosnia-Herzegovina--and finally, in attacking the Kosovar muslims, Milosevic brought down the wrath of America on his addled pate, at which point the Europeans grew suddenly heroic. The same scenario would play out in any attempt by a body such as the I.C.C. to prevent or end atrocities. Arresting someone after the fact is a gratifying exercise in revenge for those who feel the need of it, I'm sure, but does nada for the victims of the putative monster.

Despite the rant I am sure you agree that all punishment for crime, by its nature has to be "after the fact". Yes, it is a pity that punishment is not repatriation to the deceased victim but this is a facet of crime and punishment wholly unrelated to the ICC. You fail to make a point in relation to the ICC.

Yes, punishment for crimes does not help deceased victims. But that is not a valid argument against a system through which punishment for crimes would be meted.

Setanta wrote:

As I've already noted, I believe that this is largely a sovereignty issue in the Senate. That body was created especially to deal with the crippling sovereignty issue which threatened to sink the constitutional convention before it had produced a single draft. Sovereignty is the special province of the Senate, and this is definitely a sovereignty issue. Which will tie into my reaction to the concept, which I will state before I conclude.

It's blatantly obvious that the Senate considers this an issue of sovereignty. Others disagree. This is not a given and you are arguing as if it were. As I have said, it is the US's prerogative to not sign. As it is our prerogative to try to undermine it (given that the method is legal). It is also the prerogative of those who think the US should not take these decisions to say so.

But what it boils down to is that the US sovereignty is *feared* to be at stake. That remains to be seen. I personally do not think it will be at all.

Setanta wrote:

CdK wrote:
The ICC is a fledgling court that is breaking ground, it is far from perfect. If you have no qualm with the concept what improvements would you suggest?

Scrap it altogether. It puts the juridical cart before the horse-and jurisprudence is an arena in which that is simply unthinkable.

The horse being? The enforcement option? Because the enforcement option lies within the cooperation of the nations signatory to the ICC. If you want the enforcement rogue enclaves where it is not enforced is not the solution.

Setanta wrote:

I don't see this body breaking any ground. The Nuremburg tribunal, and the International Court at the Hague have already broken this particular ground.

You think the Nuremberg and Hague courts have seen the level of global cooperation that the ICC has? The ground being broken is the level of cooperation. The degree to which the ICC can be empowered is the degree by which the options for impunity to war crimes will be measured.

Despite the confidence you seem to place in the referenced tribunals the vast and overwhelming majority of war crimes have gone unpunished. There is clearly room for improvement and the solidarity of the ICC is what many view as the key.

Setanta wrote:

The War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague has, is and will continue to operate to deal with war crimes.

As I note above they frequently fail to do so.

Setanta wrote:

Absent the formation of a codified structure, and a codified reference to precedence, or enumeration of powers and competencies, negotiated in advance of the foundation of such a body, this is a pig in a poke. It is completely unreasonable to offer such a panel to the world fully-formed. It would be completely reasonable to convene a body, the purpose of which would be to establish the basis for the proceedings of such a body, before creating the body itself. The Rome treaty hardly qualifies-it's participation was sufficiently narrow to obviate the validity of any claims to global authority. This is a good idea, which has been rushed into existence in a very clumsy and arbitrary manner-which accounts for why nations such as Russia and China are also unwilling to participate.

I think you have a very valid point, a more specific codification in advance of the treaty would be an improvement. but it may have also killed the very prospect of such a united front against war crimes.

I do think this is an area for improvement. And I do not see why this can't be improved. I think you are being unrealistic in the desire for the perfect sequence for such a difficult undertaking. If nobody was allowed to sign up before all the details were ironed out the level of solidarity would be lessened.

As it stands it can and will evolve and pre-negotiation of every and any detail is not, IMO, a valid excuse to throw the baby out.

0 Replies

I've little nterest in pursuing this further, because, as i said earlier, i've no dog in the fight, i don't care either way--but what the hell. I'd think it silly if we were to participate, and likely to open many cans of worms, but wouldn't think it significant enough to protest loudly. I am also tired of your hectoring tone in dictating what the terms of debate are. You used the word power, and i said i would prefer to substitute the word sorvereignty, and then explained why. That is differing with you, it is not trying to set the terms, i didn't suggest that you had to use the term, only that i saw it in that light. You have repeated your silly charge that i'm using a circular reasoning--before you contended that i'd used the Senate's refusal to ratify as a justification not to ratify, which is absurd. I'd only pointed out that this is a moot topic of debate, as the Senate is not going to ratify. Now you're trying to claim that i've said that the US should not participate (thereby denying the court the enforcement option--which is your statement--which contradicts your claim that the court has enforcement options through other nations) because there is no enforcement option. I very specifically outlined why this is putting the juridical cart before the horse, and it had nothing to do with enforcement, but rather with structure, compostion and codification of the statutory authority of any such body. Charges about the failure of the Tribunal at Hague, far from suggesting that the I.C.C. should be supported, strongly suggest that the I.C.C. will be equally ineffective. To suggest that all crimes are prosecuted after the fact ignores the great body of law and the large amount of law-enforcement resources decidated to criminal conspiracy and racketeering. The value which Habibi give the court in his hypothetical example suggests, in my view quixotically, that the court could end abuses by dictatorial monsters, and end the repression and slaughter. Were such a body empanelled with effective enforcement powers, it might just be able to stop slaughter and repression, but not without powerful military or economic means--and economic means can take generations to accomplish a purpose. That is why i continue to assert that this body would not be effective without U.S. military support, even if often only the threat of its use. And i am not now, nor have i in other posts, suggested that this is a justification for not ratifying such a treaty. That bit of circular reasoning is concocted in your argument, not in mine. My objection is on the issue of sovereignty, and my opinion is that the Senate will never ratify a treaty in which national sovereignty in international law is surrendered absent very detailed and concise legal code established for such a tribunal before any such court is empanelled. Either you failed to understand what i wrote, or you are attempting to twist it into a meaning which wasn't there, but is more easily refuted. In my opinion, without the parameters of such a body established in advance, you'll never see American ratification, and likely not from Russian or China, either. I've not argued that it is a given that sovereignty would be surrendered, but that it is seen that way by those who object, is the basis for objection, and one with which i agree. Were it possible to demonstrate that this would not be an issue, there would be a better chance for ratification (absent Bush's administration), and i would be convinced as well. So far, i've not seen anyone who is publicly pushing for this provide that very necessary reassurance. The timing was extremely unfortunate, as well, with the Belgian looniness raising the specter of Americans being haled before an unaccountable body for war crimes, a fear shared by Russians with regard to Chechnya and the Chinese for their general human rights climate since the events of 1989.

That it is a good idea is insufficient justification for rushing into the effort with vague hopes that it can all be worked out in practice, when such bodies can only be effective when properly established in advance of opening the doors for business. The War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague is an example of this, in that the terms of its application of international law, its composition and its procedural methods were all established in advance of its operation--and were very much a response to what was seen as inadequacies of the Nuremburg Tribunal. It should also be noted as very significant that the Tribunal in the Hague was largely impotent in the face of Servian atrocities until the U.S. dragged NATO into the Balkans. No matter the excellencies of the I.C.C. which you tout, the equation is the same as in all military operations intending to effectively neutralize or eliminate a hostile force. You have to send the infantry in to occupy the ground, becaues you bomb the bejeezus out of them, shell them from at sea, launch cruise missles, etc., but some dog face has got to go in and secure the territory, so there will always be a need for intantry. In this case, you can remonstrate, sanction and diplomatically ostracize to your heart's content, but until real, effective muscle is applied, such a court has no power. This is a scheme which was cooked up very much "behind the back" of the United States, likely because U.S. objections were foreseen, it has been foisted on the world as a fait accompli. The American, Russian and Chinese positions are understandable, this is a suspect situation, and runs counter to established diplomatic method. And, in fact, most of the "Pataganistanian" scenarios envisioned by Habibi could be dealt with effectively by the military and economic resources of Europe, which raises justifiable suspicions as to their motives in the Senate as well--it looks very much like other nations wanting to call the tune, while the U.S. does the prescribed dance.

I'm too tired to waste any more time on this--which should not be construed as a concession to any of your remarks which i haven't addressed.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I've little nterest in pursuing this further, because, as i said earlier, i've no dog in the fight, i don't care either way--but what the hell. I'd think it silly if we were to participate, and likely to open many cans of worms, but wouldn't think it significant enough to protest loudly.

Fair enough, do you think the administration is protesting too loudly?

Setanta wrote:

I am also tired of your hectoring tone in dictating what the terms of debate are. You used the word power, and i said i would prefer to substitute the word sorvereignty, and then explained why. That is differing with you, it is not trying to set the terms, i didn't suggest that you had to use the term, only that i saw it in that light.

Ya know Setanta, you suggested many of my words be replaced so as not to "set the tems" and all. Where I could I was flexible and frankly this whole "set the terms" things is ridiculous. You are not subject to any "terms" and can and have discussed it on your own terms.

Setanta wrote:

You have repeated your silly charge that i'm using a circular reasoning--before you contended that i'd used the Senate's refusal to ratify as a justification not to ratify, which is absurd.

I'll repeat the 'silly charge' again.

You use circular logic. I will explain more below.

Setanta wrote:

I'd only pointed out that this is a moot topic of debate, as the Senate is not going to ratify. Now you're trying to claim that i've said that the US should not participate (thereby denying the court the enforcement option--which is your statement--which contradicts your claim that the court has enforcement options through other nations) because there is no enforcement option.

You went further to say that the court should be scrapped due to the lack of enforcement option you perceive.

I said that the states that are signatory to the ICC have in their territories the enforcement option. This is not a contradiction of the assertion that the US, by declaring itself above the ICC is denying the enforcement option stateside.

Maybe if I explained it in simple terms it would help.

The US is denying the enforcement option to teh ICC wherever the US can. This does not mean there are no other enforcement options and is not a contradiction.

There can be more than one option you know.

Setanta wrote:

I very specifically outlined why this is putting the juridical cart before the horse, and it had nothing to do with enforcement, but rather with structure, compostion and codification of the statutory authority of any such body.

You outlined your objection to the ICC. You continue to state your opinion as if it were a given.

It would be the same as if I'd said "I very clearly outlined why you are wrong".

As I said, the ICC is an endeavor that might not have come to pass with the sequence you tout. As such your declaration of misplaced priorities is something some agree with and that others don't. It's not a given.

Setanta wrote:

Charges about the failure of the Tribunal at Hague, far from suggesting that the I.C.C. should be supported, strongly suggest that the I.C.C. will be equally ineffective.

I already knew you thought it ineffective, the failures of the Hague are not related to the potential failures to the ICC except in the loosest connections.

Are you just stating a guestimate or is there a specific connection you have in mind?

Setanta wrote:

To suggest that all crimes are prosecuted after the fact ignores the great body of law and the large amount of law-enforcement resources decidated to criminal conspiracy and racketeering.

No it doesn't. Laughing

Many criminal conspiracies are illegal. Any prosecution of them is, indeed, after the fact (the crime).

Setanta wrote:

The value which Habibi give the court in his hypothetical example suggests, in my view quixotically, that the court could end abuses by dictatorial monsters, and end the repression and slaughter.

You keep trying to paint it as naive idealism. Nowhere did nimh suggest that this is the pill to solve teh world's dictatorial problems. This is a characterization you favor simply to paint it as idealistic.

It's as fair as myself claiming that you think teh lack of the ICC "could end abuses by dictatorial monsters, and end the repression and slaughter".

Nobody is making that claim, you are using it rhetorically.

Setanta wrote:

Were such a body empanelled with effective enforcement powers, it might just be able to stop slaughter and repression, but not without powerful military or economic means--and economic means can take generations to accomplish a purpose.

It's true that with the extended powers to arbitrate and declare war that the court would have more powers to fight tyrants.

Thing is, that is far outside the scope of the ICC and would bring the question of sovereignty into question.

As it stands that is the challenge the world already faces when dealing with tyrants. This is not a problem inherent to the ICC.

Setanta wrote:

That is why i continue to assert that this body would not be effective without U.S. military support, even if often only the threat of its use. And i am not now, nor have i in other posts, suggested that this is a justification for not ratifying such a treaty. That bit of circular reasoning is concocted in your argument, not in mine.

So you do not oppose the Us joining a world court dedicated to the prosecution of war criminals?

Setanta wrote:

My objection is on the issue of sovereignty, and my opinion is that the Senate will never ratify a treaty in which national sovereignty in international law is surrendered absent very detailed and concise legal code established for such a tribunal before any such court is empanelled. Either you failed to understand what i wrote, or you are attempting to twist it into a meaning which wasn't there, but is more easily refuted.

Nope, I understand your argument very well. But again, you act like it is a given that your opinion about sovereignty is correct. I believe the Senate wrong. You agree with them. Again not a given.

I'd like to hear why YOU think it's a breach of sovereignty. That argiment is made in passing as if it were a detail to be mentioned when it is in actuality the crux of the argument and the point of contention.

Setanta wrote:

In my opinion, without the parameters of such a body established in advance, you'll never see American ratification, and likely not from Russian or China, either.

I agree, but do not see the relevance to this discussion. That they don't join is only indicative of their opinions. Opinions that are disagreed with by many.

Setanta wrote:

I've not argued that it is a given that sovereignty would be surrendered, but that it is seen that way by those who object, is the basis for objection, and one with which i agree.

Fair enough, since it's not a given and since you have stated that you agree that sovereignty would be surrendered can you explain WHY you think so? I say that you state it as a given because you do not provide any substantiation.

Thus far it is apparent that you think it a surrender of sovereignty you have said it is a few times. What is the basis for that claim?

Setanta wrote:

Were it possible to demonstrate that this would not be an issue, there would be a better chance for ratification (absent Bush's administration), and i would be convinced as well. So far, i've not seen anyone who is publicly pushing for this provide that very necessary reassurance.

Agreed, the ICC could do more to assuage fears. Thing is, many object to the court in principle, not in implementation.

IMO superpowers and superpower wannabies will continue to object to the very principle of a world court. They'd, IMO, object even more if it had teeth and tha's why I think the perceived inadequacy in the enforcement option is a red herring. They do not want the eforcement option strengthened.

Setanta wrote:

The timing was extremely unfortunate, as well, with the Belgian looniness raising the specter of Americans being haled before an unaccountable body for war crimes, a fear shared by Russians with regard to Chechnya and the Chinese for their general human rights climate since the events of 1989.

Agreed, I am glad Belgium finally found some common sense.

Setanta wrote:

That it is a good idea is insufficient justification for rushing into the effort with vague hopes that it can all be worked out in practice, when such bodies can only be effective when properly established in advance of opening the doors for business.

Without meaning to sound troublesome I'd like clarification of you think such a court is a good idea at all.

This administration clearly thinks no such court should exist. Like I said, I think many object in principle. Sounds like you don't but I'd rather hear it from you.

Setanta wrote:

No matter the excellencies of the I.C.C. which you tout, the equation is the same as in all military operations intending to effectively neutralize or eliminate a hostile force. You have to send the infantry in to occupy the ground, becaues you bomb the bejeezus out of them, shell them from at sea, launch cruise missles, etc., but some dog face has got to go in and secure the territory, so there will always be a need for intantry.

Agreed, but again this is axiomatic to life, not axiomatic to the ICC.

Setanta wrote:

In this case, you can remonstrate, sanction and diplomatically ostracize to your heart's content, but until real, effective muscle is applied, such a court has no power.

Law and law enforcement are two separate things. In the case of the ICC the scope is not to anction and wage war. It is to provide the legal framework for prosecution of the individuals that the existing enforcement options net.

As it stands there is little legal framework to deal with war criminals and the majority enjoy impunity.

Setanta wrote:

This is a scheme which was cooked up very much "behind the back" of the United States, likely because U.S. objections were foreseen, it has been foisted on the world as a fait accompli.

Substantiation please.

Setanta wrote:

The American, Russian and Chinese positions are understandable, this is a suspect situation, and runs counter to established diplomatic method. And, in fact, most of the "Pataganistanian" scenarios envisioned by Habibi could be dealt with effectively by the military and economic resources of Europe, which raises justifiable suspicions as to their motives in the Senate as well--it looks very much like other nations wanting to call the tune, while the U.S. does the prescribed dance.

I think you touch on a possible concern of the US. But I don;t see Europe being adamant about the US joining. I think they;d be satisfied if the US would simply stop trying to undermine the ICC for those who did join.

Setanta wrote:

I'm too tired to waste any more time on this--which should not be construed as a concession to any of your remarks which i haven't addressed.

Fair enough. You can address them at your leisure or fail to altogether, without fear of a percieved concession. ;-)

Maybe a more interesting line of discussion would be to propose the ideal. Set aside the flaws and percieved flaws of the ICC and what would the ideal be?

To some it's the status quo. I sense that you are not opposed to the ideal per se. Is that accurate?

0 Replies

Regarding the original topic ("What the world thinks of America") - a news item on one country in that world - Germany. (Translated from Dutch)

Quote:

Germans: 'Prefer France over the US'

(NOS Nieuws)

Berlin, 7 NOV. Germans see France as the most important partner for their country and in a crisis would rely on the French rather than the Americans. The emotional controversy between Germany and the US about the Iraq war has changed the attitude of the German population regarding the US for the long term, even if chancellor Schröder and president Bush have formally been reconciled.

The change in the German attitude is shown in a research, ordered by the German association of bankers. Early September some 1.500 Germans of voting age were questioned about the transatlantic relations. [..]

The German public recognizes that the relations with the US have ameliorated since this spring, but also thinks the ties with France, Russia, Poland, Italy and Great-Britain are better than those with the US. Over 70 percent calls relations with Russia and France 'good', 56% dubs relations with the US 'good'. In October 2001 58 percent of Germans still considered the US the country's most important partner. Now only 46% thinks so, while 49% opts for France.

[Asked] on which country Germany can rely most in case of a crisis, in 1996 64% called the US the most reliable, and 23% France. In 2003, 56% would rather trust the French, and 28% the Americans.

The French are not just more important and reliable, but also more loved. Eighty percent of those polled likes the French, 11% doesn't. Some 60% likes the Americans, the Brits and the Poles. Since the Americans are liked as much as the Brits and Poles the researchers conclude that the above-mentioned results do not indicate anti-Americanism per se.

0 Replies

Another survey, by the European Commission in September 2003, had shown that people in many EU states remain strongly critical of Washington's Iraq policy,

0 Replies

No surprise in any of this. As Secretary Rumsfeld would likely say, it is the French and the Germans who hope to lead both 'old Europe' and the new in a new EU that can rival the United States. I believe most Americans recognize the truth of this as well. The Atlantic alliance is essentially over. All that remains of it are our relations with Britain and they will depend much on the choices that country makes in the years ahead.

It is far from clear that the nations of central Europe, having recently emerged from Soviet domination, will gladly accept its replacement by a French German combination. The EU has yet to work out the extraordinary difficult political aspects of an otherwise remarkably successful economic union. That plus the strains of admitting numerous new countries, all with economies very much in a catch up mode, may change the shape and texture of the union. Moreover most of Europe is facing a demographic time bomb: female fertility is generally 20- 25% below the level required for stable populations, and the social programs so carefully cultivated by most of old Europe cannot be sustained in these circumstances. Much will depend on how Europe accommodates the demands for immigration that are the inevitable result.

If, through union, Europe can overcome its ghastly history, we and the world can and should rejoice. The worldwide suffering in the 20th century that resulted from essentially European wars was the defining event of that unhappy century. The Islamist, Palestinian, and post colonial conflicts that beset the world today are themselves legacies of that same European history.

All things considered I am happy to have our future prospects instead of theirs. Americans can contemplate how the 20th century might have turned out had we not intervened twice to get the Western European chestnuts out of the fires that they themselves started.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Regarding the original topic ("What the world thinks of America") - a news item on one country in that world - Germany. (Translated from Dutch)

Quote:
Germans: 'Prefer France over the US'

[Interesting article snipped]

As a matter of principle, I don't like to rely on surveys for determining which countries people prefer over others. Talk is cheap, especially talk to pollsters. Therefore I prefer data where people who have carefully evaluated the alternatives make a choice they have a personal stake in. Of course, I'm talking about immigrants and emigrants. So I consulted Germany's "Statistical Yearbook" for 2001 about data on migration between the countries in question. As it turns out, there is considerable net migration from Germany to the United States: Germans migrating to America outnumber Americans migrating to Germany by several thousands a year. Migration between France and Germany, on the other hand, is almost perfectly balanced. Basically this has been so for as long as Germany's statisticians have data.

In other words, while Germans may be mad at the US at this moment, they persistently tend to prefer it over France when forced to put their home address where their mouth is. This strikes me as evidence for George's position and against the polls cited by nimh and Walter.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Therefore I prefer data where people who have carefully evaluated the alternatives make a choice they have a personal stake in. Of course, I'm talking about immigrants and emigrants. So I consulted Germany's "Statistical Yearbook" for 2001 about data on migration between the countries in question. As it turns out, there is considerable net migration from Germany to the United States: Germans migrating to America outnumber Americans migrating to Germany by several thousands a year. Migration between France and Germany, on the other hand, is almost perfectly balanced.

This strikes me as evidence that while Germans may be mad at the US at this point, they tend to prefer it over France when forced to put their home address where their mouth is.

Mmh, Thomas.
Migration between two neighbouring countries is mostly more balanced than any other, I suppose.
And US-Americans aren't famous for migrating to other countries (besides Canada, might be, but that's in the neighbourhood :wink: ).

I agree that such polls may and will change when some (personally) interesting point of current affairs is tangenting someone.

Considering, how many Germans stay how long per year on vacancies in France ("data where people who have carefully evaluated the alternatives make a choice they have a personal stake in") and the everywhere throughout Germany to be seen efforts and results of the "French-German-friendship-organisations", this may have been of some influence as well.

0 Replies

What The World Thinks of America (BBC program)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know