American opposition to International Criminal Court disgusting

The European Union, bowing to U.S. pressure, voted to exempt American military personnel and… The European Union, bowing to U.S. pressure, voted to exempt American military personnel and diplomats from prosecution in the International Criminal Court on Sept. 30. The ICC, established as a permanent body for the trial of war criminals and those accused of genocide, is not recognized by the Bush administration. The European Union’s declaration of limited immunity for Americans was a compromise hoped to appease the United States while preserving European unity and the integrity of the court.

Washington’s answer? Not good enough.

On Tuesday, U.S. Ambassador Marissa Lino began a tour of Europe, ready to persuade E.U. leaders that all Americans – not just military personnel and diplomats – should be immune to international prosecution.

Why are our political leaders – alone among industrialized nations – so adamantly opposed to accountability under international law?

On Oct. 10, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer answered the question by saying, “There should be no American who would be subject to an arbitrary court that could act for capricious reasons.”

It’s a statement like this that makes us wonder about the policy behind Fleischer’s words: Does the Bush administration consciously set out to insult our intelligence, or do they just not know what words mean?

A court cannot be “arbitrary” if its jurisdiction is agreed upon by all those it oversees. In fact, the ICC would be able to pursue prosecution only if a member nation refuses or is unable to investigate charges against its citizens. Not prosecute such charges, mind you, only investigate them.

Ironically, the U.N. statute that created the ICC addresses the problem of an “arbitrary court.” Prior to the establishment of a permanent, consistent method for prosecuting those accused of crimes against humanity, ad hoc tribunals served that purpose. The Nuremburg Tribunal, which tried and convicted high-ranking Nazi officers, was one such court.

These ad hoc courts raise questions, though, such as who can be held accountable and when – were Cambodia’s “killing fields” not tragic enough to warrant international attention, for instance? The ICC was established to hold all nations accountable and to ensure equal justice for all. The U.S. position specifically seeks to undermine this ideal of international justice.

As to “capricious,” does anyone really think any international body would seek to charge an American citizen on a whim? Or that a majority of the 190 member countries would back such a charge merely because it seemed like a good idea at that time?

Behind Fleischer’s wordplay, looms the substantial shadow of former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. As Christopher Hitchens and other have documented, Kissinger has some important moral, if not legal, questions to answer about U.S. involvement in the brutal overthrow of Chilean President Salvador Allende.

In 1970, the Chilean people democratically elected Allende, who ran on a Marxist platform known as Unidad Popular. Washington, waist-deep in the Cold War and led by notoriously paranoid Richard Nixon, was outraged. As Kissinger himself put it, “I don’t see why we should have to stand by and let a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people.” By “irresponsibility,” he meant “elections.”

For the next three years, Allende led Chile through nothing less than a miraculous economic turnaround. Worse, he proved socialism could work, further enraging American politicians. Washington resolved to terminate his presidency.

So, in 1973, the CIA, under Kissinger’s directives, sponsored a military coup by General Augusto Pinochet. Under Pinochet’s ensuing 17-year dictatorship, as many as 4,000 Chileans were killed or “disappeared,” along with many U.S., British, and French citizens living in Chile.

Kissinger is the kind of citizen those opposed to the ICC truly want to protect – a career politician now being asked tough questions about atrocities set in motion by his political maneuvering.

It’s not soldiers who commit horrors in the heat of battle that this administration is worried about. Those soldiers have already been granted immunity. The hawks in the Bush cabinet are looking out only for themselves.

They want to wage war with impunity, while sitting behind a desk. They want the ultimate superpower: to strike without question, bomb without taking responsibility and to bring death without accountability. It’s sad to see the world’s sole superpower, rather than exemplifying the ideal of a just nation, exploiting its power to leverage itself further beyond those less powerful – and beyond moral culpability.

Jesse Hicks finds it strange that democratic leaders would be so wary of having their power questioned, given that it stems from the people. But that is because he hates America, and rather than debate the subject, you should berate him at jhicks@pittnews.com.