Monday, July 01, 2002

At least some people outside of America understand whet is wrong with the ICC.

The choice for the United Nations now is between one abstract notion of international law and the very real needs of international order. The United States (and others) will not participate in peacekeeping missions if the price of being the Good Samaritan is the retention of a legal adviser never more than a few yards away. When Europeans are not attacking US “unilateralism” they are protesting about American “isolationism”. Yet if they insist on the current model of the ICC, with no exemptions awarded to nations which have not opted to endorse this agreement, then isolationism is a danger. The result will be a world of fewer policemen, but more lawyers. It is hard to see how the many victims of political evil will benefit from that at all.

I don't want Americans immune from the true crimes they commit. Nor do I want to see us, as the biggest target in the world, subject to the interventionist whim of repressive dictators who would have a greater say (having a larger bloc of votes than freedom loving governments) than would we. Unlike thes places our citizens and soldiers face courts for the wrongs they have done. When a US soldier raped a Japanese girl a few years ago, the US allowed him to be tried in Japan. The US people and government would not have it otherwise. We, however, fully understand, when something is created specifically to target and harm us. The ICC and Kyoto. Of course small third world dictatorships have no problem signing on to these, it costs them nothing.

The money and regulations would affect the US and her allies. The nations of southern Africa can't rouse themselves to denounce the murderous rampage of Robert Mugabe the Balkan nations surrounding Kosovo and Serbia couldn't be roused to stop genocide right in their back yards. China and India, who would be free to continue polluting free of any new regulations despite having their signatures on Kyoto. Because we will not roll over and destroy our country because the rest of the world feels bad because they cannot achieve what we have does not make us 'unilateralist'.

< email | 7/01/2002 11:47:00 PM | link