President
Bush did the right thing when he announced
that the United States would not be a
party to the United Nations' International
Criminal Court (ICC). He officially
"unsigned" the ICC treaty that
Bill Clinton had bound us to during the
waning hours of his presidency. Bush's
action was a bold move and marked the
first time in recent memory that an
American president had taken such a strong
stand against the United Nations in favor
of American interests.
The truth is, without U.S.
participation the ICC is little more than
an empty shell, just like the rest of the
UN operation. The internationalists can
huff and puff all day about enforcing
their will on the world, but they simply
are not powerful enough to make the United
States do anything against our will. Many
anti-UN activists, myself included, were
excited at the prospects of declaring the
International Criminal Court "dead on
arrival."
However, no sooner had the Bush
Administration announced its intention to
ignore the ICC than the waffling began.
Once again, the Bush Administration took
the stance of the American paper tiger as
it opened negotiations with ICC officials
to exempt U.S. soldiers and officials from
potential criminal prosecution. The UN
simply refused to budge. Then the U.S.
threatened to remove American soldiers
from UN peacekeeping missions unless they
were given the exemption. Again, the UN
refused and the U.S. announced an
extension of our peacekeeping mission in
Bosnia.
Why would the Bush Administration allow
itself to be put in this weakened
position? The simple refusal to
participate was enough to protect American
soldiers. We don't need assurances from
the UN for that protection. If the U.S.
says no, there's not an entity on earth
that would or could try to enforce trials
of U.S. Soldiers
More importantly, the United States is
not the only nation to refuse to join the
ICC. Communist China, Japan and India have
refused to join. Moreover, Russia and
Israel regret joining and would very
likely reverse that decision if the United
States would stick to its guns and refuse
to participate in the ICC. Without those
major nations involved there would simply
be no International Criminal Court. Who
would enforce it? Who would we fear coming
to arrest American soldiers?
The United States has an opportunity to
start a trend away from the growing UN
drive for global governance, if we stand
strongly for our convictions. Apparently,
however, the Bush Administration lacks the
ability to stick with its original, proper
instincts. Thankfully, there is another
way to achieve the same goal.
Once again, Congressman Ron Paul of
Texas has provided the answer. He has
introduced the "American Service
Member and Citizen Protection Act"
which he says, "repudiates ICC
jurisdiction over American Citizens."
The bill essentially provides that
"the International Criminal Court is
not valid with respect to the United
States." The bill would ban the use
of taxpayer funds for the court and deems
ICC actions against American servicemen as
acts of aggression against America.
"The ICC is completely
illegitimate, even under the UN's own
charter," says Rep. Paul. The bill
notes that under the terms of the 1969
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,
"no nation can be bound by a treaty
to which that nation has not
consented."
Americans need to rally behind the Paul
bill and send
a strong message to the Bush
Administration that it needs to stand
behind the just interests of the United
States.
Tom DeWeese is the publisher/editor of The
DeWeese Report, a monthly newsletter, and
president of the American Policy Center, a
grassroots, activist think tank
headquartered in Warrenton, Virginia. The
Center maintains an Internet
site.