THE ADMINISTRATION'S JIHAD AGAINST INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE
The Bush administration's jihad against the International Criminal Court [ICC] reached a new low a few weeks ago when it opposed a measure that would've treated attacks on humanitarian aid workers as a war crime. This measure was introduced after the car bomb that murdered over a dozen UN workers in Bagdhad. The US objection was that if targeting aid workers was a war crime, then those who commit such crimes would be subject to the ICC, whose jurisdiction the US rejects. What is unclear is why this matters in this particular case? American troops don't murder humanitarian aid workers. They wouldn't be affected by this measure. The president's opposition is an insult to our disciplined, well-trained soldiers.

The real source of the opposition, of course, is the ICC. If the US accepted this measure, it would be implicitly accepting the jurisdiction of the ICC. With this, the administration has made it clearer than ever before that it doesn't feel international law should apply to the United States. It has taken this policy since long before 9/11 became a pretext for unilateralism in the name of "western civilization." Waging a bizarre jihad against an organ of international justice is more important to the Bush administration than helping protect those who risk their safety to work with refugees or feed starving people.


A poll suggests that 69% of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. This despite there being no proof of any connection between the two. (And if there were, you can be sure the president and his team would be repeating that proof about every 10 minutes)


So why do so many Americans believe what is so clearly not the case? I suspect it's because most Americans ASSUME Saddam was involved. They do so not because most Americans are stupid, but precisely because they are logical. Or at least more so than the administration.

If the war on international terrorism began as a result of the 9/11 attacks and if conquering Iraq and toppling Saddam were an integral part of that war on international terrorism as the president insist, then one would logically assume that Saddam must've been involved in 9/11. Otherwise, why else would toppling Saddam have anything to do with the war on international terrorism?


Based on what they were told, Americans logically ASSUMED Saddam was dangerous. Based on what they've been told, Americans logically ASSUME that the International Criminal Court [ICC] is somehow an imposition of one world government. If I didn't know better, I might believe it too. The ICC is set up to try war criminals and other criminals against humanity who can't or won't be tried in their home countries or in the countries where they committed their atrocities. It's for countries where there are no functioning courts or where the courts are subject to political manipulation. The ICC wouldn't apply to Americans because our courts function. If you say that ICC would take jurisdiction away from American courts, you're saying that our courts are dysfunctional and subject to political manipulation. The ICC won't affect us because we have the rule of law.


Those who really have to fear the ICC aren't American GIs but rather people like Kim Jong Il and Charles Taylor. The ICC would be a natural place to try people like Robert Mugabe, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, since courts in those countries don't function.


Our active undermining of the ICC hurts our international credibility. When the administration speaks of the rule of law and respect for international norms in North Korea or Zimbabwe, those dictators can rightly point out that the US government rejects the rule of international law itself.


The US has been an integral part in setting up ad hoc criminal tribunals after specific terrible wars. Nuremberg for the Nazis. The Hague for the Serbs. Freetown for Sierra Leone. But those tribunals are perceived as "victors' justice" precisely because they are one-off and usually only target the losing party. They are also necessarily inefficient because they have to start from scratch every time. It also fails to act as a deterrent to the war criminals because they are always set up after the fact and only after certain conflicts. A permanent court would be there to try anyone who commits atrocities (and are from countries with dysfunctional courts), they would be more efficient since they would be on-going and they could serve, at least to some degree, as a deterrent.


The Bush administration doesn't realize how much its opposition to the ICC hurts its credibility in calling for the rule of law, justice and respect for international norms elsewhere. In light of the administration's great moralizing and crusading, that credibility is even more critical.


To learn more about the ICC, facts and myths, check out: www.iccnow.org