Exemption denied

Last week the Bush administration suffered a defeat in its battle against international law. James Cunningham, the deputy U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, recently announced that the White House would be withdrawing its resolution to extend American immunity from the International Criminal Court for a third year after failing to secure the minimum nine votes necessary to pass. \nThe International Criminal Court was created in part because of the Nuremberg trials after World War II. It established a world court to try cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The court was established by the Rome Treaty in 1998 and officially came into existence on July 1, 2002. The United States, under the Clinton administration, signed the treaty, but the Bush administration rescinded the American signature.\nThe Bush administration maintains that the ICC could be used to try Americans frivolously or for politically motivated reasons. \nWhen the administration originally asked for the exemption in 2002, they threatened not only to withdraw all Americans from U.N. peacekeeping missions if refused the exemption, but also to veto other U.N. peacekeeping missions. Just like a petulant child, the White House declared that if you don't play by their rules, you don't play at all.\nThe administration's reasons for opposing the ICC are quite flawed. The court will only intervene in cases where the government of a nation cannot or will not prosecute these crimes. Since the United States has an active judicial system, it is highly unlikely that an American would ever go before the ICC. For example, if Iraq had ratified the Rome treaty (which it has not), Americans would not be brought before the ICC for the prisoner abuse scandal because the perpetrators are being dealt with by court martial.\nFurthermore, safeguards have been built into the court to prevent cases from being brought before it for politically motivated reasons.\nThe American absence from the ICC reflects a disturbing trend on the part of the Bush administration to avoid international law.\nAfter World War II, the United States spent 50 years building a framework of functioning, multilateral institutions to ensure the stability of international affairs. In just four years, however, the Bush administration has been working to circumvent these international institutions.\nThe problem is not just with the ICC. It also applies to withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol, dropping out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, declaring prisoners of war to be exempt from the requirements of the Geneva Conventions and possibly violating treaties banning the use of torture. \nInternational institutions and law are necessary for peacefully conducting world affairs. American presidents for the past half-century have realized this fact and acted accordingly. However, the Bush administration seems to be so filled with the hubris of American power that it thinks it can act without regard to international laws and treaty obligations. \nIt is almost sickening that the Bush administration felt it could ask for this exemption after the prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq. Wherever the abuse originated from, whether it was orders from high-level commanders or the cruelty of particular soldiers, the United States does not have the moral high ground right now to ask for an exemption. This scandal was the reason most often cited by nations that planned to abstain from the resolution.\nOne can only hope that a future American president will recognize that America needs these international institutions and will sign the Rome Treaty. Then America can rejoin the rest of the world in seeking justice for all.