Global Policy Forum

By Mark Thomas

Tony Blair has spoken so often of his "special relationship" with George Bush that I feel social workers should take him into a warm and safe environment with some anatomically correct dolls and as many psychologists as are needed. Unlike normal relationships, the ties that bind Britain and the United States are not mutually beneficial and, like many people caught in an abusive relationship, Blair refuses to admit the truth. For many, however, the time has come for Tony to sit in a circle, drink tea, and share his problem with the rest of the group. Please, Tony, do it now, before Bush bitchslaps you and you have to appear in public sporting sunglasses to hide the bruises. None of us wants to see you mumbling: "Yes, he did hit me, but he said he's sorry. He said he loves me and he's changed."

Bush asked the world to stand "shoulder to shoulder" in the common cause against terrorism. Yet the US does not regard itself as an equal partner to its allies, nor does it have any intention of having its actions judged by the same rules as everyone else. Nowhere is this quite so evident as in America's attempts to block the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The court will be the first on the international stage with the ability to bring criminal charges against individuals, rather than states, for war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. Unlike the ad hoc courts at The Hague, which were set up specifically to deal with the cases of Rwanda and Yugoslavia, the ICC will be permanent. Its creation depends on 60 countries ratifying the Rome Statute; Britain became the 42nd country to do so just the other week. Nearly every major ally of the US and every member of the European Union supports its creation. If it existed now, it would be the only internationally recognised, purpose-built court in which Osama Bin Laden could be prosecuted.

The US, however, hates the idea of an international criminal court, and would not dream of allowing its soldiers to be put on trial for war crimes. Other, lesser countries commit war crimes, but not America. This is the land of the free, the home of the brave; 5,000 civilians were not killed in Panama in the hunt for Noriega; Kissinger deserves the Nobel Peace Prize; Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman; and baseball is not rounders with protective clothing.

Not content with abstaining from the court, the US is trying to destroy it. Senator Jesse Helms, working with Senators Henry Hyde and Tom DeLay, has put forward the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA). This bill is a series of anti-ICC measures; if passed, it would prohibit US military aid to any country that ratifies the ICC (with the exception of Nato members and some non-Nato allies, such as Israel and Egypt). This economic blackmail will force smaller countries, the very places where war crimes are more likely to be committed, to abandon the ICC, making its ratification very difficult. It is the geopolitical equivalent of the boys in badly cut leather coats turning up to remind people: "You never saw nothing! Alright?"

The proposed act would give the president the power to use military force against any country in which US personnel are detained by or on behalf of the ICC. This includes the court's host country, the Netherlands. Yes, you read that correctly: the US may soon have the legal power to carpet-bomb Holland for arresting a US soldier. No wonder critics are calling the proposed act the "Invade The Hague Act". (Given the accuracy of US bombs, it might be time for Portugal to invest in some reinforced concrete bunkers.) Further, the act would prohibit US military involvement in UN peacekeeping missions, unless its soldiers are exempted from the ICC by all the other parties involved.

Helms has already attempted to put the bill before the Senate. So far, he has failed on procedural grounds, but he is about to try to attach the bill as an amendment to other legislation coming before the Senate. The bill has already been passed by the House of Representatives; although the Senate may try to vote it down, who wants to be seen, just now, to vote against an act "protecting" military personnel? In some states, a vote against Helms would be seen as sending Bin Laden a thank-you card and bouquet.

Most worrying is how President Bush actively supports all of this. Bush's enthusiasm for the bill emerged in a letter from the State Department to Helms, which was sent on 25 September (two weeks after the terrorist attacks): "The Administration supports the revised text of the American Servicemembers' Protection Act, ASPA, proposed by Senators Mr Hyde and Mr DeLay. We commit to support enactment of the revised bill without further amendment and to oppose alternative legislative proposals."

So, at the same time as urging the world to stand together against lawlessness, Bush actively tries to destroy attempts to establish a viable international rule of law. The US is acting in its own narrow interests, with its typical double standards.

Supporting terrorism is bad, except when we do it; the rule of law is good, except when it might be used against us; war crimes must be punished, unless we have committed them.

Standing shoulder to shoulder? No chance! America's natural position is standing behind another country and pointing a gun at its head.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C íŸ 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.