The United States and the ICC
November 19, 2009
Should the United States Join the ICC?
From the perspective of a young college student who regards humanitarian efforts as something necessary and important, the United States should join the ICC. From the perspective of the United States government who has waged two major wars within the past decade, and is a powerful player in the global community, I would say the United States should not join the ICC. In 1998 the ICC took form, and became the “first permanent, treaty based, international criminal court”. In 2001, 60 countries ratified the Rome Statute which established the court further internationally. It was created to enforce international law, and to prosecute the executors of genocide and crimes against humanity. The United States as well as the Sudan and Israel have each refused to become a part of the ICC. The ICC has been established presumably with good intention. It serves as a force that is expected to prosecute the horrific crimes against humanity they have occurred in time.
The past 19th century has proven to be extraordinarily horrific. In 1994 in Rwanda after a specific series of events thousands were killed brutality due to their ethnicity within 100 days. No intervention from countries such as the United States or Great Britain can be noted within Rwanda. The ICC’s purpose is to prosecute these crimes of genocide, and monitor potential criminal acts against humanity. The ICC stands to prosecute individuals within communities for committing crimes of such nature as genocide. The ICC in general terms sounds like the “right thing” to do. The ICC establishes that international law that stipulates against war crimes, including crimes against humanity is enforceable. The ICC’s purpose is not to only prosecute but to hopefully prevent crimes by influencing governments to intervene within their own country’s conflicts.
The United States does not want to become a member of the ICC. Denying membership or legitimacy to the ICC is not to avoid cost, or avoid interfering with conflicts outside of the United States it prevents the United States from becoming the prosecuted rather then the prosecutor. In 2001 the Rome Statue came into circulation suggesting involvement from nations such as the United States. In 2001 the United States waged the war in Afghanistan, only two years later in 2003 the United States waged the war in Iraq. The legitimacy of these wars is questionable. The tactics, which the United States claims to enlist when fighting these wars, is often cited as fabricated. The war in Afghanistan can be noted as a brutal war taking the lives of the innocent. In Iraq, the Abu Gharib prison scandal can be cited as a crime against humanity. If the ICC could involve itself in the affairs of the United States, could there be dire consequences for the nation?
If the United States agreed to become a member of ICC it would then become easier for the authority and war power of the nation to come into question. The United States could place itself at risk for being prosecuted for war crimes. The United States is not a nation which is willing to award any of its powers to the international community. The United States to some extent, within the sphere of the Western world, is the international community. The United States since its establishment has fought wars supposedly based on principal. Their intentions have been to liberate the people of Iraq and liberate the people of Afghanistan, but does liberation have to come at the price of human life? The United States is a powerful country even on the decline. It produces less then it consumes, wages expensive wars, and has a powerful industry that sells to its citizens, which are consumers. These consumers not only consume food but they consume war. The United States will not risk being prosecuted by a court that they do not dominate.
Should the United States join the ICC? To avoid scrutiny, the United States should not join the ICC. To become a part of the international community and not a dominator of the community, the United States should join the ICC. Will the United States ever join the ICC without any stipulations and guidelines instilled by the United States? I can confidently say without a chance.
Recently the ICC issued a warrant for the arrest of sitting president of the Sudan, Omar al-Bashir. The warrant to the Sudanese government has not validity. Following the issuance of the warrant the United States became much more critical of Omar al-Bashir’s role in the genocide taking place within his own country under his direction. These following two videos highlight the position of the Sudanese government on the United States’ views on the situation on the Sudan. The first video I found of most value; it quickly analyzes the way the news about the arrest warrant for al-Bashir has been depicted including news broadcast from the west. Ironically the United States according to the Sudanese government should be indicted as war criminals. The United Nations representative diplomat for the Sudan, Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem Mohamad, states in the second video that the ICC’s arrest warrant holds not value because the Sudan is not a member of the ICC and does not view its rulings as valid. If this is the Sudanese rationalization of why the ICC’s indictment is not valid then the validity of a warrant presented to the United States would be disbuted most likely in the same manner; The United States is not a member of the ICC therefore it does not recognize the validity of the ICC’s judgments or warrant issued.
Turning a Blind Eye
November 1, 2009
Rafael Lemkin wanted to ensure that an event like the Holocaust never happened again. Who defines Genocide? Who is held accountable when Genocide occurs?
Genos is a Greek word for family, tribe or race; cide is the Latin word for killing. Rafael Lemkin coined this term in 1943 and gave mass ethnic related killings a face. Lemkin worked towards preventing genocide and punishing those who committed acts of genocide. His life work attempted to secure that genocide when committed would be identified, stopped, and punished. Has Lemkin’s efforts paid off in today’s modern world, where genocide is familiarized?
Genocide has occurred within the past 30 years in Russia, China, Germany, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Armenia, Darfur, Japan, Yugoslavia and Uganda. The United Nations has only declared Genocide 9 times within this century; Darfur is a prime example of what the United Nations has refused to declare genocide for so long. Lemkin was the first individual to define genocide as a “crime against humanity” rather then a war crime. The United Nations accepts Lemkin’s definition which declares genocide as any of the following acts: a) killing members of the group; b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The acceptation of this definition still leaves the United Nations hesitant to declare genocide. Their declaration of genocide would imply stopping the genocide. Many presidents and politicians often insist that on their watch, a situation like the holocaust or any genocide will be prevented or stopped. If genocide is not recognized there is nothing to stop or fight against. Genocide is defined clearly and appropriately. The identification of the word has not encouraged the identification of the actual act until it is often too late. It is the responsibility of the international community to recognize genocide and put a stop to it, which on numerous occasions they have failed to do. In recent years the United Nations has put forth efforts in Darfur to stop genocide but they may have come too late. In 1994 the United Nations walked out of Rwanda when the mass genocide began only to return after thousands had been exterminated. The United Nations should be held responsible for the declaration of genocide, they should also not hesitate to deem these horrible acts as what they truly are, genocide.
When genocide occurs the individuals, which influence or direct these ethnic directed killings should be held accountable. Hitler was accountable for the genocide of the Holocaust. Currently in Darfur it is recognized that the government of the Sudan is responsible for the genocide occurring there now. It is not hard to distinguish the culprits of genocide. While genocide is the responsibility of the initiator, a heavy responsibility for the crime against humanity should be placed on those whose turn a blind eye to it. The United Nations and other nations which are capable of forming an alliance with one another in times of war are responsible for addressing genocide when it does occur. They are also most certainly responsible for keeping a close eye on countries that may slowly be approaching genocide.
In an article from 2006 from the UK Times stated that Darfur was the worse humanitarian crisis of recent times. The United Nations one year prior to this article adopted a policy called the Responsibility to Protect. This adopted piece of literature leaves the United Nations responsible for preventing genocide and ethnic cleansing. The United Nations and well developed nations are accountable for genocide as well as the countries where the genocide originated.
It may sound simplified, but it is necessary and possible. Genocide can be stopped. It is a crime against humanity and not necessarily a result of war. It is the responsibility of the global community to prevent this horrendous act. The United Nation has adopted policy and defines terms such as genocide and ethnic cleansing appropriately. Action and presence is something the United Nations must adopt and adhere to. Policy does not end genocide; policy in action can end genocide.
The genocide in Darfur has become a popular cause amongst the elite members of the acting and music community. While ending the genocide in Darfur is an admirable plight it often is overrepresented by celebrities. While their efforts are admirable and often leave an impact, people like George Clooney can often influence the American public to sigh and turn away. Often average American’s may feel as though they can not do much of anything to help prevent the occurrences in Darfur, while this is untrue, hearing about a celebrities on a new mission does not motivate an interest. It seems as though a celebrity is just searching for a new way to get their face on magazines.
Here is an interview with George Clooney about Darfur and what he feels is necessary, he even briefly addresses the fact that people do feel a certain way about celebrties and their causes.
