|
After five decades of effort, last week the International Criminal Court came into being. Hailed as a milestone in international law, its establishment is widely seen as a signal achievement for humanity and a warning to all would-be despots that their crimes will not go unpunished.
In an unprecedented act of defiance, President Bush has threatened to "un-sign" the ICC covenant fearing "frivolous" indictments of U.S. soldiers serving abroad or top Washington officials. Congress has forbidden government personnel from cooperating with the court. Yet analysts say un-signing would undermine the international community's efforts to strengthen the rule of law and bring cross-border criminals to justice.
Observers at home and abroad see a pattern of aversion for the rule of law in recent U.S. actions:
- In June, the Bush administration plans to abrogate the landmark 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
- The U.S. may break a moratorium on nuclear testing after spurning the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
- Following dismissal of the Kyoto Protocol, the White House is now seeking to replace the head of the world's leading climate science organization with someone more favorable to oil interests.
Indiscriminate arms sales to dictatorial regimes abroad further undermine the rule of law:
- The U.S. is the world's #1 arms dealer, with more than four times the sales of the next largest supplier.
- Over 80% of U.S. arms exports to the developing world go to non-democratic regimes, analysts estimate.
- American-supplied weapons or technologies were involved in 92% of active global conflicts in 1999.
- The U.S. sent $6 billion in arms and training to Afghan rebel groups in the 1980s, including the Taliban.
Does it serve our long-term interests to defy the rule of international law when we need it to apprehend and try terrorists for their crimes against humanity? Do international agreements challenge U.S. sovereignty or strengthen our long-term security? Are we trading high moral ground for near-sighted superpower status?
|
