Global Policy Forum

By Jim Lobe and Tom Barry

One cannot fault the Bush administration for a lack of a foreign policy vision. That was the main critique leveled at the Clinton administration by foreign policy pundits. Those directing the administration's foreign policy have a clear goal: to "shape" the world "to preclude the rise of another global power for the indefinite future," as National Security Council member Zalmay Khalilzad expressed it.

Unsigning treaties, purging multilateral commissions, pumping up the military budget, and deploying U.S. military Special Forces around the globe are all part of the administration's unabashed mission to construct a Pax Americana. It's a go-it-alone strategy based on power politics. As the dominant global military and economic power, the U.S. should acknowledge and embrace its imperial status--and not let entangling alliances and treaties impede the exercise of its supremacy.

The recent administration decision to renounce the government's obligations as a signatory to the 1998 Rome Statute to establish an International Criminal Court (ICC) shocked and dismayed U.S. allies. But it was not surprising. It follows on the heels of Washington's withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse emissions, its abandonment of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and other attacks on the international arms control system. The ICC has long been a target of right-wing critics, who have contended that the court could pursue politically motivated prosecutions against U.S. military personnel.

The ICC treaty, which was signed by President Clinton, has been signed by 139 countries, ratified by 66, and takes effect July 1. The letter renouncing the earlier U.S. signature that was sent May 6 to UN Secretary Kofi Annan means that the U.S. will no longer be able to participate in the negotiations to set up and staff the ICC. "We've washed our hands [of the ICC process]; it's over," said Pierre-Richard Prosper, Washington's ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues, after the announcement.

The decision to "unsign" the ICC treaty followed a high-level debate within the administration between the unilateralists--including Vice President Cheney and Bush appointees at the Pentagon--and senior State Department officials who argued that the move would needlessly alienate European allies without gaining anything in return. As in other recent debates, the hardliners won the day, thereby further diminishing the influence and credibility of moderate conservatives like Secretary of State Powell.

The hawks, who have strong support among Republican right-wingers in Congress, wanted to go much further by launching a campaign to undermine the treaty and the Court by, for example, banning U.S. military aid and other assistance to countries that ratify the treaty or actively cooperate with the Court.

Aside from its implications for the future of international law and the prosecution of international criminals, the recent U.S. decision was yet another signal that the hardliners and neoconservatives in the administration are driving U.S. foreign policy. Significantly, the letter to Secretary General Annan was signed by Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, one of the administration's leading right-wing ideologues.

Bolton, who has worked as a UN basher at three right-wing think tanks--Heritage Foundation, Manhattan Institute, and American Enterprise Institute--and was imposed on Secretary of State Colin Powell by right-wing forces in the White House and the Pentagon, was perhaps the most outspoken foe of the Rome Statute. Voicing his support of Bolton's nomination to serve as the U.S. point person on arms control issues, Sen. Jesse Helms said, "John Bolton is the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon, if it should be my lot to be on hand for what is forecast to be the final battle between good and evil in this world."

Bolton, whose office has no authority over human rights or international justice issues, has long been hostile to the UN and other manifestations of multilateralism, including arms control agreements and the campaign to establish the ICC. As vice president of the American Enterprise Institute and a trusted adviser of Sen. Jesse Helms, Bolton argued that the ICC would be a threat to U.S. sovereignty and had a hand in drafting the American Servicemen's Protection Act (ASPA), a still-pending bill that not only bars U.S. cooperation with the court and sanctions countries which ratify it, but even authorizes the use of force to free any U.S. soldiers who might be hauled before the ICC, which will be based in The Hague in the Netherlands. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, among other unilateralist members of the administration, also signed a letter endorsing ASPA before Bush's inauguration.

In addition to the ideological opposition to multilateralism within the administration, the U.S. campaign to undermine the ICC is also driven by concerns that as the U.S. military extends its global reach it will likely be increasingly subject to governmental and nongovernmental criticism. In opposing the ICC, the U.S. government is acting to ensure that this discretion to use U.S. troops as the U.S. sees fit is not endangered. Explaining the U.S. position renouncing the ICC, Undersecretary for State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman told reporters: "The United States has a unique role and responsibility to help preserve international peace and security. At any given time, U.S. forces are located in close to 100 nations around the world conducting peacekeeping and humanitarian operations and fighting inhumanity."

"Our President is committed to a robust American engagement in the world to defend freedom and defeat terror: we cannot permit the ICC to disrupt that vital mission," said Grossman.

Grossman warned of a "chilling effect on the willingness of States to project power in defense of their moral and security interests" as the United States did in ousting the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. But critics and Washington's own allies dismissed these concerns as largely unfounded due to safeguards against political or arbitrary prosecutions built into the treaty. For example, under the treaty, the ICC can only take cases that national courts are clearly unable or unwilling to prosecute.

"'Unsigning' the treaty will not stop the Court," said Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth, who called the move "an empty gesture" and "a triumph of ideology over any rational assessment of how to combat the worst human rights crimes."

All but one of Washington's EU allies have ratified the Statute (Greece is expected to complete ratification in the coming months), and several European leaders, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair, have personally lobbied top administration officials, including Bush, against renouncing the treaty.

"The European Union is an organization that tends to respect multilateral agreements and we would very much like to see the United States joining this effort, and we regret that it is not so," said EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana Monday after the announcement.

But damage to Washington's ties with its European allies or to its image abroad are not the necessarily the worst consequence of Monday's action, according to analysts. Ambassador William Luers, president of the UN Association USA, said, "This disavowal of our commitment weakens our ability to pursue perpetrators of the most egregious international crimes, and our ability to negotiate critical initiatives with our allies--the strongest backers of the ICC. Nothing is gained, and much is lost."

The Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights joined the rising criticism of the Bush decision. Michael Posner, the director of this New York-based organization, said, "Never has a country denounced its own signature of a treaty. Other countries might well use the U.S. precedent to justify backing out of international commitments that are important to the U.S." Sharing the same concern, Timothy Wirth, the former U.S. senator who now directs the United Nations Foundation, observed: "This has very dangerous implications for the whole fabric of international law. If they do this, what does this mean for all the other commitments we have made?"

This echoes the view of David Sheffer, Prosper's predecessor under Clinton. Calling the renunciation a "bizarre and dangerous idea," he warned recently in the New York Times that, "Other governments might take American nullification of its signature on this treaty as an opportunity to unsign other treaties."

Echoing the sentiments of many Democrats, Sen. Christopher Dodd said, "This decision is irresponsible, isolationist, and contrary to our vital national interests. Many of our closest allies have put their faith in the vision of this new legal instrument."

Such criticism is the usual liberal claptrap, according to the right-wing foreign policy establishment. It's time to toss out the old notions of liberal internationalism and pursue an America First agenda in which there are no restraints--either from allies, Rogues, or competitors--on the exercise of U.S. power.

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.