from the bigdumbHoosier Archive - 07.03.2002
US against Them?
Be careful what you wish for; we all wanted to win the cold war. Now we have, and it's not been the picnic we were hoping it would be. The US is clearly the dominant military power in the world. That makes us a lot like ancient Rome. Everybody else tends to band together to try to limit your power.
In the case of Rome, this endless war against the world had something to do with the loss of their republic, and its conversion into an imperial dictatorship. It's not that bad yet, but there are some disturbing trends. The conflict over the international criminal court is one of them.
The vast majority of the world's nations support an international criminal court (ICC). The US sees it as a dangerous attack on our national sovereignty. Some right-wingers declare it the dawning of the 'world government'. Perhaps, but probably not as significant in that regard as NAFTA and GAT.
However, it's not just the paranoid far-right that opposes the ICC. It's broadly opposed in the US Senate. That's because there's little doubt that anti-American interests would attempt to use it to prosecute US officials, especially some from prior administrations. Some of these prosecutions would be terribly embarrassing to the US. Henry Kissinger might be a target, based on events in Indochina in the 60s and 70s. Remember that mess? The first president Bush would be a likely target relating to what's loosely tagged 'Iran-Contra'. An investigation into the death of Salvadore Allende would be another likely project for the ICC. The current administration would like to do something similar in Iraq; only those privy to the best intelligence (and able to critically evaluate the intelligence reports) could know whether such actions are really justified. This bigdumbHoosier does not.
To put it bluntly, the US government has done some things over the past few decades that might have been a little more than the law allows. Some of these things were just plain wrong. Some were based on a Machiavellian analysis of geopolitical matters that may have produced benefits on balance, despite the occasional excesses.
This puts the US in an awkward position - we're always touting the virtues of the rule of law and now it appears that we don't want to be subject to any laws. The US has some good reasons to oppose the ICC, but the current administration needs to work very hard to avoid the appearance of arrogance.
The fact is that some kind of world tribunal is a natural step in the evolution of humanity. At some point we've simply got to begin to move away from resolving our disputes by bombing and shooting. Consider the advantages the US would gain if we could move against bin Laden or Sadam in a courtroom instead of on the battlefield. People say lawyers are expensive; perhaps but much less so than cruise missiles. There'd be tremendous savings of money, destruction, and human life and misery.
Most of all, we need to guard our position as a nation that believes in rule of law, even if we sometimes don't adhere to our own beliefs. A good start would be a simple condition that past events be excluded from jurisdiction of the ICC.
If the US went along with the court, it would certainly create some problems for us, but we need to remain a member of the world community. A law abiding member, at that. If at some point we needed to use our tremendous power to protect an American from a capricious act of the court, then so be it. We ought to be able to behave well enough that such an event would be a rarity.
If, on the other hand, the world becomes U.S. vs. Everyone, we'll head into some truly dark days.
