U.S. vs. U.N. Court: Two Worldviews

New York Times ^ | 7/01/02 | SERGE SCHMEMANN

[kattracks]

he showdown between the United States and other members of the United Nations Security Council was the latest and strongest confirmation that the international solidarity forged after the terror attacks on Sept. 11 was probably superficial and temporary.

The immediate issue at the United Nations was Washington's demand that American troops and all other United Nations peacekeeping forces be exempted from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, which came into existence today under the shadow of intense hostility from the Bush administration.

Unless either the United States or other Council members back down before midnight Wednesday, the United Nations police-training mission in Bosnia will be abruptly terminated. If the standoff continues, all other United Nations peacekeeping operations will be jeopardized as they come up for renewal, starting with the mission in Lebanon later this month.

The immediate impact in Bosnia was likely to be largely organizational. Only 46 Americans serve in the police-training mission, and the entire operation was to be turned over to the European Union in six months.

But the very notion of Americans threatening to pull forces out of Europe in a dispute, even if symbolic, carried troubling connotations on a Continent where the American presence had represented a shared commitment for decades.

Even if all parties involved heed a call from Secretary General Kofi Annan and find a solution for the peacekeeping missions, the very fact that the United States cast a defiant veto in the teeth of its closest allies — and that Britain and France were prepared to do likewise against Washington — spoke of sharp differences and a growing mutual irritation.

At the heart of the divergence was a fundamentally different vision of global organizations. The Europeans, accustomed by their history and geography to think in terms of multilateral arrangements, have always placed a greater premium on international organizations. To them, the end of the cold war brought an era for building international institutions and a global justice system, of which the European Union was the shining example.

In the United States, international organizations like the United Nations have always been viewed with suspicion, much of it affirmed by the anti-American and anti-Israeli votes of the cold war. The emergence of the United States as the sole military, economic and cultural superpower has only deepened the resistance, especially among American conservatives, to any potential international restraints on American powers.

"An 800-pound gorilla just doesn't like anything to restrict its freedom of action, unless it thinks it can control it completely," said Stephen M. Walt, professor of international affairs at the Kennedy School at Harvard.

Beyond that, Professor Walt said, there was a sincere fear among many American officials that Americans engaged in military or other operations overseas could become subject to politicized prosecution. "The fairly extensive role the U.S. military has taken around the world makes it leery of being tried by a tribunal whose standards we can't control," he said.

For the Europeans, however, the American stand amounts to a double standard: one set of rules for the United States, another for the rest of the world. Several stands taken by the United States since the end of the cold war — against the Kyoto Protocols on greenhouse gases, against biological weapons testing, against a ban on land mines — have especially irritated the Europeans.

"There you see the beginning of a real problem," said a senior European diplomat at the United Nations. "If the U.S. says we are from a different nature, we cannot be compared with others, discipline is good for others, but not for the United States, then the future of humanity is at stake. If the United States believes it doesn't need to respect multilateralism and international rules, how do you get China to respect them?"

The tensions were already there long before Sept. 11. But in the immediate aftermath of the terror attacks, most of the world lined up in solidarity behind the United States, and the Security Council passed resolutions requiring all United Nations members to act against terrorism.

Many members hoped that the United States would become more active in multilateral organizations out of a recognition that terrorism was a universal problem requiring international effort. That sense began to erode when the United States made clear that it intended to prosecute the war on its own terms.

In the vote on the Bosnia mission, the conflicting perceptions came to a head. The Europeans saw the Americans as trying to undermine a prime example of the new world order, the International Criminal Court, which was created to take action if local authorities failed to prosecute especially heinous war crimes, human rights violations or genocide.

The United States saw a confirmation of a world deaf to America's genuine needs and concerns.

The contest began in May, when the Bush administration formally gave notice that it would not abide by President Clinton's signature on the Rome treaty creating the court. That month, The United States demanded that a resolution extending the United Nations force in East Timor include immunity from international prosecution. The Security Council refused, and Washington gave way.

This time, when the Bosnia resolution came up, no one blinked.

For the Europeans, the issue is the sense that the Bush administration was actively trying to curtail a court that they regarded as a major achievement in the struggle for global justice and human rights, issues on which the United States regarded itself as the global standard.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

fyi

[TheUglyAmerican]

But the very notion of Americans threatening to pull forces out of Europe in a dispute, even if symbolic, carried troubling connotations on a Continent where the American presence had represented a shared commitment for decades.
to be blunt... screw them! this kicking us around while dancing under our umbrella bit has gotten real old... what the hell have we got to show for out "shared commitment"???? A bunch of soft-cheese eaters trying to chop us off at the knees at every turn - I say, "Let them eat brie". Funny I seem to remember somebody warning us against getting involved in foreign entanglements... now who was that?

To them, the end of the cold war brought an era for building international institutions and a global justice system, of which the European Union was the shining example.
Wrong! It presented itself as an opportunity for the world-communist movement to corrode and destroy the US with other, softer means. Problem is, it ain't just external pressure and subversion.. if it were just just a bunch of guys named Sven, Obiki, Carlo and Klaus trying to rope-a-dope us... there'd be no prob. The crisis comes when AINO's (Americans in name only) work from within to sell us out into Lucifer's army.... and yes Virginia... there are Republicans that do it too!

"An 800-pound gorilla just doesn't like anything to restrict its freedom of action, unless it thinks it can control it completely," said Stephen M. Walt, professor of international affairs at the Kennedy School at Harvard.
hey! egghead! then count us out and have your little commie-kangaroo court without us. If any doubt that this is an attempt to shackle, cripple and subjugate the US, look at their message board - they are obsessed with tying the United States into this crap.

As an aside, while the military aspect of this whole thing is daunting... it is just the tip of the iceberg. Never underestimate the creativity of these bastards... "eco-crimes", "racism as a crime against humanity", "economic injustice" - rest assured, it will come. Though it's too late this year... let July 4th 2003 be a true Independence Day.. Get US Out!

[SAJ]

'There you see the beginning of a real problem,' said a senior European diplomat

No problem, diplo-fairy, how about you clean up your own messes for once? Been more than 100 years, hasn't it, since you've managed to do so. Need a little practice there, boyo.

BTW, since you're so bold, and want to tell others how to behave, why not have your name published...so we can ridicule your a** properly?

[madfly]

Hyde Opposes U.N. Criminal Jurisdiction over Peacekeepers in Bosnia

House Committee on International Relations | July1, 2002 | Henry J. Hyde

Posted on 7/2/02 6:07 AM Pacific by madfly

(WASHINGTON--JULY 1, 2002)

Today, U.S. Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-IL), chairman of the House Committee on International Relations, made the following statement regarding consideration by the United Nations Security Council of options for renewing the mandate for peacekeeping operations in Bosnia:

"I commend the Bush Administration for its dogged efforts in the United Nations Security Council to defend American sovereignty.

No one should expect the United States to deploy its Armed Forces around the world on humanitarian missions on behalf of the United Nations if those forces are to be exposed to prosecution by a United Nations court whose jurisdiction we reject. Other countries can ask us to send our Armed Forces on such missions, as we have done in Bosnia. Or they can insist on the purported right of the International Criminal Court to prosecute United Nations peacekeepers in places like Bosnia. But it is arrogant for anyone to suggest that we must simultaneously keep our Armed Forces in places like Bosnia and acquiesce in United Nations claims of criminal jurisdiction over them.

I find it bizarre that some countries appear to be more interested in exercising criminal jurisdiction over Americans than they are in enhancing the effectiveness of United Nations peacekeeping efforts around the world.

I am particularly puzzled by the claim that granting immunity from the International Criminal Court to United Nations peacekeepers will somehow provide comfort to rogue regimes. The solution to this problem, if it is a problem, is to prevent rogue regimes from participating in United Nations peacekeeping operations. It is not to treat all participants in United Nations operations as if they were rogue regimes."

[Brownie74]

I commend the Bush Administration for its dogged efforts in the United Nations Security Council to defend American sovereignty.

I wish the Bush Administration was as concerned about our southern border.

[madfly]

ping

[madfly]

That's the truth! He no wan to anger Fox, his amigo.

[Brownie74]

Burrito buddies to the core!!

[Dixie republican]

But the very notion of Americans threatening to pull forces out of Europe in a dispute, even if symbolic, carried troubling connotations on a Continent where the American presence had represented a shared commitment for decades.

I had no idea our the defense of the "Continent" represented a shared committment.

[Carry_Okie]

"If the U.S. says we are from a different nature, we cannot be compared with others, discipline is good for others, but not for the United States, then the future of humanity is at stake.

Correct. The future of humanity is at stake and it is up to us to make the distinction clear (and it sure as hell isn't about the role of US troops as UN peacekeepers):

What part of "endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIENABLE rights" doesn't he understand? If the United States believes it doesn't need to respect multilateralism and international rules, how do you get China to respect them?"

Those "multilaterist international rules" must be agreed to by our representatives, else our votes mean NOTHING. He presumes the right for he and his buddies to define the conduct of the international order, individuals be damned (and they will be if they fall for this charade).

[sargon]

Several stands taken by the United States since the end of the cold war ? against the Kyoto Protocols on greenhouse gases, against biological weapons testing, against a ban on land mines ? have especially irritated the Europeans

Generally, anything which irritates the socialist Europeans, who have no interest in Unalienable rights or the US judicial system, is fine by me.

They remain Marxist ingrates...

[Eustace]

The UN was concieved in America, wake up, it's just another "Good cop, Bad cop" routine.

You are going to lose as long as the UN is allowed to exist in America.

Get America out of the UN, and the UN out of America."

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[davidosborne]

Click here...to sign PETITION to OPPOSE the ICC !!

David