Shirin Vossoughi Vossoughi is a
fourth-year history and international development studies student
who encourages you to speak your mind at svossoughi@media.ucla.edu.
Click Here for more articles by Shirin Vossoughi
The United States government could learn a thing or two from the
9-year-old boy I tutor. While helping the fourth-grader finish his
presentation on the Holocaust, I asked him why we still study such
atrocities. Without pause, the boy answered: “So it never
happens again.”
Last week, 66 countries ratified the new International Criminal
Court, actualizing the post-World War II proposal to permanently
try war criminals and dictators for genocide, crimes against
humanity and war crimes. Bringing the most serious international
criminals to justice, the court will finally challenge the impunity
that such culprits as Pol Pot and Pinochet have historically
enjoyed.
With an eye toward the future and a respect for current laws,
the treaty becomes active on July 1, and will only take cases that
occur following this date. But as this crucial step toward the
prevention of future atrocities takes place, the U.S. wants out
““ terrified of what such justice would mean for a government
accustomed to functioning without restraint.
While those that understand the need for such restraint are busy
erecting a system to protect all people against genocide and war
crimes, the U.S. is busy finding ways to remain above the law and
undermine such a hopeful international institution. Officially,
there is concern that the court will conduct “unjustified,
frivolous or politically motivated suits” against the U.S.
military, political officials and personnel. In step with such a
“concern,” Congress passed a law forbidding Americans
at all levels of government from cooperating with the court.
Insisting on exemption for Americans from its jurisdiction, members
of congress are urging the U.N. Security Council to write into
every future peacekeeping resolution a grant of absolute impunity
from the court for Americans.
The U.S. paints the picture of an international court run amuck,
prosecuting every American official it can get its hands on for
petty crimes. This simply isn’t true. The court only
exercises its jurisdiction when a national court is unable or
unwilling to do so itself. Thus, the nation’s childish
behavior reflects both a lack of faith in its own justice system
and a persistence to disassociate from anything remotely
multilateral.
Rather than subject itself to ICC jurisdiction, the U.S.
suggests setting up ad-hoc tribunals the likes of those currently
underway for crimes in Rwanda and Yugoslavia. However, the creation
of temporary tribunals is not only expensive and lengthy, but also
occurs some time after the crime has been committed. Eight years
after the Rwandan Genocide, the tribunal has secured only eight
convictions and the professionalism of the court has been
questioned.
A permanent court will be more effective because it can limit
the duration of the violence and by the nature of its existence,
provide a stronger deterrent to individuals who will no longer be
immune to justice ““ no matter what their title or
position.
Moreover, the threat to “un-sign” the treaty would
be an unprecedented move that could trigger a dangerous pattern.
Why should other countries maintain treaties they have signed if
the U.S. doesn’t have to? In addition to the
administration’s rejection of the Kyoto Agreement to limit
global warming and the treaty on biological weapons, such a move
would further undermine the power of international agreements to
safeguard the earth and its inhabitants from reckless
destruction.
Expressing his disdain for the ICC, Republican Sen. Jesse Helms
stated last week that “the United States should keep this new
international travesty as far away from the American people as
possible.” What kind of human being calls a court designed to
prevent genocide, ethnic cleansing and sexual slavery a
“travesty”? Sen. Helms and the rest of the
administration are highly distressed that anyone other than the
United States would have the ability to define words like
“terrorism” and “crime against humanity.”
Yet if we ever hope to see a world where massive violence is
curbed, then all individuals ““ including Americans ““
must be equally subject to an internationally defined law with
humanity, rather than selective impunity, as its foundation.
Ultimately, one must ask the sobering question of why the United
States would not join its closest allies to ratify the most
important human rights institution created in the last 50 years.
Perhaps countries like Great Britain, France and Canada do not
envision their service men and women committing unspeakable crimes
in the near future. The only possible explanation for U.S.
rejection of the ICC is that it does anticipate future atrocities
and aims to protect the culprits from facing justice.