The current US administration has a near-religious aversion to the new, permanent International Criminal Court (ICC). The court, now with 90 member countries, was established to ensure that the rule of law prevails in places where the only alternative is impunity for the most gut-wrenchingly vicious crimes against humanity. Its opponents in the administration, however, claim that the court will become a forum for politicized prosecutions. In fact, they are so sure that the court is out to persecute US citizens that they are willing to undermine some of the most basic foundations of international security to protect against this perceived, but nonexistent, threat.
For example, the United States insisted on UN Security Council renewal June 12 of a resolution exempting non-ICC countries' officials and personnel participating in UN-authorized missions from accountability before the ICC. The renewal for another year of the accountability exemption is not popular with council members. France, Germany, and Syria abstained from the vote, and in an open meeting, more than 40 US allies spoke out against the resolution.
These allies repeated the laundry list of reasons why the ICC does not pose a credible threat to the United States, making this resolution unnecessary. Countries that contribute personnel to UN missions already retain full jurisdiction over their citizens through Status of Mission Agreements (SOMAs). Even without these SOMAs, the ICC could only act if no relevant national court were able and willing to investigate the matter; unless the US was clearly shielding someone suspected of committing mass atrocity, there is no doubt that the ICC would defer to the US judicial system. In addition, the ICC's Rome Statute is full of safeguards to prevent frivolous prosecutions, many of which originally were put in place by the United States. The ICC is not a rogue court. Its highly qualified judges, prosecutor, and administrator (all of whom are citizens of major US allies) are concerned with issues such as the use of child soldiers in the Congo and systematic rape in Burma, not with political cases against US citizens.
More disturbing than the US administration's continuing insistence on painting the ICC as a boogeyman is its seeming disregard for the illegality and dangerous precedence of its actions. At the Security Council, our allies voiced the same concerns again and again: This sort of blanket immunity is not allowed under the Rome Statute; in granting it regardless, the Security Council is overstepping its authority by amending the treaty of an independent multilateral institution without the consent of its members. By placing peacekeepers above accountability for the most horrific crimes, the Security Council is discrediting the entire enterprise of the ICC.
As UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan concluded, such immunity undermines "not only the authority of the ICC but also the authority of [the Security] Council, and the legitimacy of United Nations peacekeeping". This is no small loss, for the UN peacekeeping structure greatly benefits the United States, enabling us to help build security around the world while bearing only part of the cost and risk. Read more…
Source: Foreign in Policy in Focus
