The Treaty of Rome (The ICC, Part I)

JINSA has long been on record as opposing the Treaty of Rome that established the International Criminal Court. The ICC is an infringement on the sovereignty of individual countries and, as a permanent body looking for work, a potential political and legal nightmare. The ICC will indict, prosecute and imprison people accused of “war crimes,” “crimes against humanity,” and “genocide” (and “aggression,” if a definition is agreed to). All of these have been expansively defined by the Treaty and would be interpreted by the court’s unaccountable judges.

JINSA has long been on record as opposing the Treaty of Rome that established the International Criminal Court. The ICC is an infringement on the sovereignty of individual countries and, as a permanent body looking for work, a potential political and legal nightmare. The ICC will indict, prosecute and imprison people accused of “war crimes,” “crimes against humanity,” and “genocide” (and “aggression,” if a definition is agreed to). All of these have been expansively defined by the Treaty and would be interpreted by the court’s unaccountable judges. People and organizations with a political agenda have used all of these words widely and inappropriately against Israel and the US.

Furthermore, the ICC is not required to provide Americans the basic legal protections guaranteed by our Constitution, including trial by jury, protection against compelled self-incrimination, and the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. And having the prosecutor and the judge on the same team is antithetical to American jurisprudence.

Nevertheless, with the 60th vote for ratification, the ICC became a reality. It is instructive to note that countries ratifying the Treaty of Rome tend to fall into three categories:

Perfectly nice but irrelevant countries, including Andorra, Nauru, Antigua and Barbuda, Fiji, San Marino, and Belize;

Countries that have suffered from warfare and may want a venue for expiation or revenge, including Cambodia, Uganda, Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ecuador and all the countries of the former Yugoslavia; and

Countries that want to use the levers of international organizations to foist their collective will on the US because their political, economic and military influence is declining even as their desire to rule the world increases – i.e., the EU.

Instructive, too, is a partial list of those that didn’t ratify – the US, Russia, India, China, Turkey and Israel – most of the world’s population and most of its political clout (and at least two countries who know they can’t get a fair shake in international organizations). So, if the weight of the world is against the ICC, won’t it die?

It should, but it won’t. In multilateral-speak, Andorra equals Russia, Nauru equals India, Fiji equals the United States, and so the ICC can claim to be the will of the majority of the countries of the world, though not the countries that matter.

Therein lies the only good news in the Treaty of Rome. When the practical issues arise, it isn’t to San Marino that the world turns. It is to us.

And never mind that the EU calls President Bush a cowboy – in America, the cowboys are the good guys.