The World
Criminal Court--
American Isolationism is Self-defeating
By JONATHAN POWER
LONDON--Does the U.S. have permanent interests even if
perhaps it doesn't believe it has permanent friends? Its
performance the last two months over the negociations to
create an International Criminal Court suggests that it
doesn't care a toss whether Canada, Japan, Germany, Britain,
Denmark, Spain, or most of the world for that matter, think
it's important. Indeed, during the tense stand-off in Rome
earlier in the month it went so far as to threaten its NATO
allies with pulling its troops out of Europe if they didn't
kowtow to the American line and water down the court's
independence.
Quite rightly, the allies called Washington's bluff and
pushed the issue to a vote. When 120 nations voted for the
creation of the court and only 8 against, (the U.S., China,
Israel, Libya, Quatar, India and Iraq what interesting
bedfellows!) the chamber erupted into the kind of cheering
more heard on the bleachers than at a diplomatic gathering.
The American delegates looked demoralized, part of despised
minority, not the proud representatives of a world leader,
the country that President George Bush said "the world
trusts with power. They trust us to do what's right."
America should watch out. There comes a point when
isolationism becomes counterproductive. If American
political leaders, television chiefs and newspaper editors
abrogate all responsibility for an educated public and
refuse to give leadership, knowledge and inspiration to rank
and file Americans then to be consistent they should not
stop here, but wind the clock back to the 1920s when
isolationism was rather more viable. But then there was
little overseas investment, only a small fraction of the
economy engaged in foreign market places and the inward flow
of money into Wall Street countable on one hand, not to
mention an absence of long-range rocketry.
America's opinion leaders need to take a leaf out of
Madison Avenue: you CAN change people's opinions and there's
nothing wrong with trying to--it's certainly not elitist.
For starters, how about a government blitz of TV
commercials, replaying the wreckage on the ground of PanAm
103, the flight that was blown out of the sky by Libyan
terrorists, according to U.S. and British investigators. The
voice over would be minimal: "The world has no recognized
way of prosecuting those we suspect of perpetuating this
dastardly act. That's why we need an International Criminal
Court."
It is quite a revelation to watch how the Congress is
coming round to the replenishment of the International
Monetary Fund. For dangerously long, during the East Asian
and Russian financial crises, it has refused to budge and
offer a single extra dollar for a capital increase, either
saying the remedy should be left to market forces or that
America shouldn't be party to an international institution
becoming so powerful. But now the evidence suggests the
Asian crisis might spill over into Wall St. and undermine
every Congressman's private shareholdings and pension fund
and that the beleaguered Russian government may possibly
lose control of its nuclear arsenal opinion has suddenly
changed. Newt Gingrich, the House Speaker, recently made it
plain that Congress will not allow the IMF to run out of
money.
American isolationism comes perilously close to playing
with fire. It is the kind of walking away from problems
("that faraway country of which we know little") that has
made mud of the name Chamberlain for ever more.
Ironically, just as the White House gave orders to its
delegation in Rome to vote against an international criminal
court it has been trying to negociate a compromise with
Libya. The UN-imposed embargo is badly leaking. Ten years on
the relatives of those killed in PanAm 103 have lost all
patience with the American and British governments in their
insistence that the only trial they would respect is one on
their own soil. Now it appears Washington is prepared to
consider a trial in a neutral country--Holland.
But ad hocing it round political and legal impasses of
this nature, with ten-year delays, is no long term solution.
That has been done ever since the Nuremberg trials convicted
the Nazi war criminals. It was resolved at the time that a
permanent institution was needed for future war crimes and
genocide. The Cold War put the issue on ice.
What has America to fear today? This is a question that
produces a strange answer. America has no recent skeleton in
the closet. There have been no American atrocities in
Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Haiti or Bosnia.
Yet the Pentagon has succeeded in undermining support for
the court, voiced at one time quite regularly by both
President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright. And the Pentagon's interest? Apparently to protect
its highly dubious Joint Combined Exchange Training Program
which operates in secret defiance of successive
Congressional limitations on foreign military activities in
countries with poor human rights records. Recently revealed
was the training by the American military of Indonesian
special forces which, if Suharto had not decided to step
aside, would have been used to put down pro-democracy
demonstrators.
Why is the military tail wagging the civilian dog in
Washington? The same happened last year with the treaty to
outlaw land mines, which again left the U.S. isolated from
its allies. The U.S. has a greater and more permanent
interest in promoting a world ruled by law not by military
might--"In the midst of arms, law stands mute", as Cicero
declared in Rome 2,000 years ago. America should moreover be
careful of riding so rough shod over its friends. In this
day and age interests and friends often go together.
July 29, 1998,
LONDON
Copyright © 1998 By JONATHAN POWER
Note: I can be reached by phone +44 385 351172
and e-mail: JonatPower@aol.com
|