The compromise offered by the United States in its dispute with the UN over the new International Criminal Court shows an astonishing disdain on the part of the White House toward other countries. The idea that the permanent five members of the Security Council, but no one else, should be able to veto any prosecution of their soldiers and policemen by the ICC is profoundly unjust. It would create one law for the US, Russia, UK, France and China and another for the rest of us.
The US has a valid point in wanting to prevent its soldiers and diplomats being dragged into the court on charges that are politically motivated. It could happen. But, equally, it could happen to others. Who is to say that the ICC might not decide, having been prompted to do so for political mileage, to prosecute members of the Palestinian resistance movements? It is a distinct possibility. What is needed is some mechanism that protects every country from politically motivated prosecutions — not just the five members of the Security Council.
The American proposal is ill-conceived in another way. If the five Security Council members could veto any prosecution of their citizens by the ICC, they would always use it, regardless of whether charges were politically motivated or not. The result would be that injustices would never be pursued where citizens of the big five were involved: Russian commanders would never be prosecuted for actions in Chechnya that everyone else recognized as war crimes; if Chinese soldiers committed a massacre in Tibet or in Xinjiang, they would have guaranteed immunity. And what if US troops did indeed commit a war crime? Americans do not want to think that their forces could ever do such a thing. But remember My Lai in Vietnam. In that case, the US brought the perpetrators of the massacre to justice, but not before an attempted coverup and a campaign in the US itself to see justice done. In fact, that history should assure Washington that it has no reason to worry. The ICC will prosecute only those war criminals whose governments refuse to act. Given the way the American media work to uncover injustice and coverups, any US citizens involved in genuine war crimes would soon enough find themselves on the end of a public campaign to bring them to justice. The US has thus nothing to fear from the ICC so long as the threat of politically motivated prosecution is removed. Perhaps, the way to meet Washington’s legitimate fears is put the decision to prosecute in the hands of a small, balanced committee of international judges. That should avoid politically motivated prosecutions.
There is one other burning question raised by America’s frankly elitist suggestion: is it envisaged that Security Council members could veto any prosecution? If so, and the proposal accepted, be ready for US vetoes if any Israelis were to be brought before the court.
Fortunately, it will be most surprising if the US proposal is accepted. That is, therefore not, the worry. What does concern, however, is the attitude behind the suggestion. The idea that there should be immunity from prosecution for its citizens and those of the four other permanent Security Council members, indicates an arrogance in the White House that will do nothing to win it new friends.
