American Foreign Policy and the International Criminal Court

1) Marc Grossman, Under Secretary for Political Affairs
Remarks to the Center for Strategic and International Studies
Washington, DC
May 6, 2002


As Prepared

Good morning. Thank you for that kind introduction.

It�s an honor to be here today. I would like to thank CSIS for hosting this discussion of American foreign policy and the International Criminal Court.

Let me get right to the point. And then I�ll try to make my case in detail:

Here�s what America believes in:

We believe in justice and the promotion of the rule of law.
We believe those who commit the most serious crimes of concern to the international community should be punished.
We believe that states, not international institutions are primarily responsible for ensuring justice in the international system.
We believe that the best way to combat these serious offenses is to build domestic judicial systems, strengthen political will and promote human freedom.
We have concluded that the International Criminal Court does not advance these principles. Here is why:

We believe the ICC undermines the role of the United Nations Security Council in maintaining international peace and security.
We believe in checks and balances. The Rome Statute creates a prosecutorial system that is an unchecked power.
We believe that in order to be bound by a treaty, a state must be party to that treaty. The ICC asserts jurisdiction over citizens of states that have not ratified the treaty. This threatens US sovereignty.
We believe that the ICC is built on a flawed foundation. These flaws leave it open for exploitation and politically motivated prosecutions.

1) www.state.gov...

2) www.newsmax.com...

3) SECRETARY RUMSFELD STATEMENT ON THE ICC TREATY

4) The International Criminal Court Questions and Answers



[Edited on 30-11-2002 by ultra_phoenix]

First, we believe the ICC is an institution of unchecked power. In the United States, our system of government is founded on the principle that, in the words of John Adams, "power must never be trusted without a check." Unchecked power, our founders understood, is open to abuse, even with the good intentions of those who establish it.

Coming from the adminstration who created the homeland security thought police.

Fourth, the current structure of the International Criminal Court undermines the democratic rights of our people and could erode the fundamental elements of the United Nations Charter, specifically the right to self defense. With the ICC prosecutor and judges presuming to sit in judgment of the security decisions of States without their assent, the ICC could have a chilling effect on the willingness of States to project power in defense of their moral and security interests.

Sorry... I didn't realise that the US was the world's moral compass.

This is just full of references to the war on terror blah blah blah...

In case the US didn't realise, Europe has no qualms about the ICC, and it is fighting the war on terror too.
What makes America so different????

well, it's been a few months since we've debated ICC treaty...here we go again.

Only because people try to justify the USA's refusal to sign up.Otherwise we wouldn't be debating it again.

I am sure I am going to regret this: It'll be debated over and over again. The biggest issue was simply that it's unconstitutional. I think the US overall isn't a big fan of the UN. The biggest 'plus' I heard in favor of the ICC treaty was 'it's meant to bring justice to Saddams' -well, what are they waiting for? Bring him to justice then � DO SOMETHING. But they won't � it's much easier for them to promote prositution and damn countries that have a Mothers Day.

Originally posted by Fantastic_Damage

1) In case the US didn't realise, Europe has no qualms about the ICC, and it is fighting the war on terror too.

2) What makes America so different????

Originally posted by John bull 1


3) Only because people try to justify the USA's refusal to sign up

1) The EU is fighting against terrorism ! That's right. They signed a new manifest called : " Don't hurt us please "

2) Their Constitution may be ?

3) I didn't try to justify anything, even if I'm agree with the USA. What the USA sayed anout the ICC is correct. And BoB88 gave us a good example !

There has been no good reason presented by the US for refusal to submit, other than the ideology of our current administration. The 'fear' of 'ganging up' against us is unfounded.
But hey, we're a country 100's of $billions in the hole running around dropping a $billion a day on fake wars, so we're wacky anyway!

Originally posted by Bout Time
There has been no good reason presented by the US for refusal to submit

I don't agree. When you see how are anti-USA the whole world, I bet that almost of the others country would be happy to use this ICC like another new anti-US tool.

And I think that the USA arguments are pretty goods. Why don't you agree with these arguments ?

Originally posted by Bout Time
There has been no good reason presented by the US for refusal to submit, other than the ideology of our current administration. The 'fear' of 'ganging up' against us is unfounded.
But hey, we're a country 100's of $billions in the hole running around dropping a $billion a day on fake wars, so we're wacky anyway!

Bout Time - as you've probably forgotten, the Senate unanimously rejected the ICC Treaty in a test vote prior to the current administration.

[Edited on 1-12-2002 by Bob88]

FD, you ask since when have we been the world's moral compass? How long have we been the world's gunslinger, everytime the world has needed our bombers and fighters to make some little country tow the European line? Everyone loves to look at us and say "Why don't they do something about _______ (fill in the blank), after all, they have the power!" yet wants to tell us thatwe havn't the morality to rely on our own court system when a soldier goes rogue, or to determine if a pilot accidently dropped a load on a group of civilians or if he is just an evil man with explosives at hand?

No, you're right, we aren't the world's moral compass, but the world is surely not ours. And that court is easily a political weapon to use against the nation more and more of the world is turning against.

The concerns we have of the ICC is not associated with the war on terror, as you insinuate, but any mission America finds itself conducting on directive of the U.N. Even without the war on terror, there are still good reasons for us not to trust the ICC, or anything else that deals with groups of nations that have little cultural or moral commonalities. The U.N. is a great example, considering who was kicked off of committees and who was appointed to them lately.

This was rather well aired when it first became topical, and Bob's point with regard to the "constitutionality" of the body remains the legal focus.
Indeed, the great surprise was Clinton's indicating a willingness to sign - not any future refusal to sign.
On balance, the issue has worked out, I think, to America's benefit: it bought time and no doubt scared a few and the USA has since been punctilious over UN resolutions concerning inspection.
I fancy there never really was an issue and the "debate" was largely a domestic-propaganda issue.
Just what made buffoons at the UN imagine - if they can "imagine"- America would sign remains a matter of endless speculation.