Under Obama, US Drops Hostility to ICC: Experts
WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama's administration has dropped outright US hostility toward the world's first permanent war crimes court, but it is still a far cry from joining it, experts say.
US officials say the new team is reviewing its policy on the International Criminal Court (ICC) after former president George W. Bush's administration snubbed it and drew fire that it was showing contempt for international law.
But the Obama administration faces several obstacles if it wants to join.
Experts say it could meet resistance from the armed forces and Congress, and any support could vanish if the ICC warrant for the arrest of Sudanese President Omar al-Beshir leads to more, rather than less, bloodshed in Darfur.
John Washburn, who leads a coalition of groups promoting the court's cause in the United States, said the new team is still wary about joining the world's first permanent tribunal for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
But it is not for ideological reasons.
"It has a different view of international law (than the Bush administration). It has a commitment to mulitalateral approaches wherever those are going to be effective," Washburn told AFP.
A State Department official said the Obama administration wants to consult military officials and well as legal and other experts within the government.
"Our policy on the ICC is under review," the official told reporters earlier this month on the condition of anonymity.
"Any look at the ICC has to include the basic fact that the United States has more troops deployed overseas than any other country in the world and that spurious charges against our troops could keep the court and the US military tied up for decades," said the official.
The previous administration not only saw the court as a potential legal trap for its troops overseas but also "as a threat on American sovereignty" and even "as a first step toward global government," Washburn said.
"The Bush administration had a policy of hostility and disengagement," he added.
Patricia Wald, a former judge with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, said the court's actions until now "gives me no cause for concern that service persons would be politically targeted.
"The ICC can handle only a half dozen or so cases at a time and is committed to prosecuting the most serious violators of international humanitarian law," Wald, who is also a former federal judge, said in an e-mail exchange with AFP.
US troops are also protected by so-called status of forces agreements in Iraq and other countries where they are deployed or based, she added.
Wald co-chaired the American Society of International Law's task force on US policy toward the ICC, which recommended last month that the new president adopt a policy of "positive engagement with the court."
Washburn said such engagement could involve a level of cooperation with the court that stops short of joining it and becoming a voting member.
It could, for example, participate in meetings leading up to and including a review conference that would debate amendments to the 1998 Rome Statute, under which the court was launched in 2002.
More than 100 states are now party to it.
Eventually, Washburn said, "you could arrive at a situation some time after the review conference is concluded in 2010 in which the US feels comfortable enough with the court to go for ratification."
The administration, he said, must line up support not only among key members of the military but also those in Congress. Or as he put it, it must make sure "the stars and planets are in conjunction to make sure this happens."
Alex Meixner, an executive with The Save Darfur Coalition, said support for the court also hinges on the outcome of the ICC's March 4 warrant to arrest Beshir on charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes.
"If this (warrant) becomes purely a foil for President Beshir to commit yet more crimes, then it would not signal a healthy future for the court," Meixner told AFP.
After the warrant was issued, Sudan ordered the expulsion of 13 foreign aid agencies, sparking deep international concerns about the plight of the people in Darfur.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has welcomed the warrant.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
11 Comments so far
Show All"Any look at the ICC has to include the basic fact that the United States has more troops deployed overseas than any other country in the world and that spurious charges against our troops could keep the court and the US military tied up for decades," said the official
...And substantiated charges against the USA and its fascist troops could keep the courts tied up for centuries.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
"spurious charges against our troops could keep the court and the US military tied up for decades"
Yeah, cuz we have so few lawyers in this country we can't represent more than a handful of troops. Seriously, these guys are still peddling misinformation. The ICC can't do shit as long as the party country runs an official, serious investigation into any alleged war crime, which mostly happens anyway, even if it's kept quiet. It's just more American exceptionalism bullshit.
-“spurious charges against our troops could keep the court and the US military tied up for decades," …said the [US]official.”
Is the Obama regime staffed by morons?…Yeah right Mr. “official”, I’m sure you are right and Bush and Obama are courageously protecting the troops (troops like Private England from Abu Ghraib)…no wait, they are more than happy to prosecute the grunts themselves…So who are Bush and Obama really protecting…It can’t be the higher ups, can it? Surely the ICC is would be too busy with its “politically targeted” prosecutions of American privates to go after major war criminals.
Keep on not look’n back Obama nation!
We definitely need to join the ICC, but only as a full member. Obama should not listen to the objection of any (military) official if that man is only trying to protect his own hide from prosecution.
We must willing to accept extradition of US agents and officials for war crimes. Until we are willing to renounce breaching the sovereignty of disliked nations for terrorist activities (covert activities of the CIA and Army), the US will only create unnecessary friction with ICC, or the worst cast, emasculate the Court of its power.
We often accuse Mexico of using her laws as shields against the extradition of drug lords. How are we any better if we maintain that war criminals should be shielded by US sovereignty?
Most of the USA people and the people of the world want to see all War Criminals incarcerated. One hundred countries find no sovereignty difficulties in having a Court which may arrest war criminals. I suggest only a nation dominated by war criminals would resist an avenue to apprehend and incarcerate the War Criminals.
Exactly. The US needs to join, there is no fucking way we should reserve the option to commit war crimes.
No need to worry; just join the ICC, US of A. If push comes to shove, there's still the 'The Hague Invasion Act' that will justify America's bombing of the western part of Holland in case someone like Bush or Cheney ends up over here. And the beauty of it would be it's legality. You can find ICC at Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ Den Haag, but give us a call beforehand, so we can evacuate the area. Is that one of the reasons you are moving your embassy?
Under Obama . . . US drops.
But the fall started under Bush and the previous war criminal administrations.
Why would a criminal want to join a criminal court?
Join the court and render bush etc.