Political Rant.

[thorfinn]

So.
The US is mucking about trying to exempt its peacekeepers from prosecution by the International Criminal Court.
Of course, to be prosecuted, you need to be accused, and then the country where the crime is alleged to be committed and the country of origin of the accusee need to ignore the accusation, before the ICC gets to step in. So. In order for US peacekeepers to be prosecuted by the ICC, they need to commit a war crime, be accused of it, the US needs to ignore the accusation, and then the ICC prosecutes. Hrm. Once upon a time, I would have viewed that as... an unlikely chain of events. Currently? No. I think it's entirely likely, and entirely possible, which is why the US is trying to protect itself against it. The US fundamentally does not give a shit about the rest of the world, and this demonstrates it, yet again. The US wants to send its troops anywhere, let them do anything (including commit warcrimes), and be immune to prosecution. Fuckheads.

Comments

Treaty coverage

[erudito.livejournal.com]

Yes, but as the US has not, and will not, ratify the treaty setting up the ICC, so why should they be covered anyway? A treaty, BTW that declares Israeli settlements in the occupied territories 'war crimes' (and, thus by implication, the settlers war criminals -- just one of the reasons I am confident that you wouldn't get 1/3 of the US Senate voting to ratify, let alone the 2/3rd constitutionally required).
Fashionable opinion tends to be inconsistent on this sort of thing. On one had, it is wicked and evil for the US to impose things on other people. On the other hand, it is fine and dandy for others to impose things on the US. Can't have it both ways.
Actually, there are lots of dubious things about the ICC. Who is it responsible to? Who legislates for it? What restraints will be on it from engaging in frolics? Will it deter anyone except democracies anyway? There is more going on here than, gee, wouldn't it be nice if bad guys got prosecuted.
L

Re: Treaty coverage

[thorfinn]

Indeed so - the ICC may be "Bad And Wrong"(TM) - I have no real opinion on that score. But for the US to simply stand there and say, "we don't care what you fellows do, so long as our boys are exempt", is ridiculous. If they want to actually send people overseas to do things in other people's countries, then they bloody well ought to be involved in attempts to be consistent about such things in an international fashion. Simply crying "Qui custodet ipsos custodies?" is ignoring the point of the attempt to create the ICC in the first place.

Re: Treaty coverage

[erudito.livejournal.com]

Actually, they are being quite consistent. You do your thing, we'll do ours. It's an interesting interaction. The US wants the UN to provide a vehicle for peacekeeping. The other players know this sort of thing is much more effective, often, if the US is involved. Hence talk of a compromise.
Besides, it matters, who is responsible for what. The Americans have more experience at running a constitutional democracy than anyone else, and one of basic principles of that democracy is establiishing clear lines of responsibility. Good intentions and trust us are not enough. But one can understand the wish to put the anarchy of international affairs on some more regular pattern. And that the Americans may be more confident about being able to look after themselves than others are, for obvious reasons.
L

Say what?

[azahru.livejournal.com]

"Americans have more experience at running a constitutional democracy than anyone else"

Firstly, America having the first consitutional democracy? - love that line of bollocks, it's said with such belief. Iceland has had it for a lot longer (and women could vote in the allting from the beginning) and some would argue America still isn't a democracy.

"one can understand the wish to put the anarchy of international affairs on some more regular pattern."

We have the USA, an isolationist country wanting to 'get rid of anarchy' when often it makes a policy of willfull ignorance when it comes to foreign policy. It shows great leadership not to think about the complexity of global situations. And frankly if the USA is going to make some claims to moral leadership, as it does, it should clean up it's environmental policies, it should take care of the health of it's citizens (ie a public health system) and get rid off the wild inequalities contained within it. Land of the free? for some, if they have the money.

And of course Bush is scared of the international courts, Bush Snr has war crimes charges up against him, do you really think Jnr is going to let them lock up his daddy.

USA talks about international leadership, international morality and international security, but it hates the idea of truely international responsibility. Why? Because the USA has all the bright shiny toys, but none of the maturity to wield them responsibly. And the USA is going to get sadder and sicker and more hysterical and more patriotic as wall street will crumble further and we see more companies go down the drain. Wall street has been maintained by mass belief and pensioner's funds for the past decade, how much longer will the belief hold out?

a sampling of my thoughts

Liz

Re: Say what?

[erudito.livejournal.com]

Since Iceland spent a long time being an appendage of the Danish crown, it’s somewhat ambiguous as an example. But even granting Iceland as a special case, the Americans still have a lot more experience at running a constitutional democracy than any other country (other than Iceland), including the continental Europeans who are so prone to look down their noses at the ‘brash’ Americans. Australia comes right up there as one of the oldest modern democracies. Representative democracy, in its modern form, is a very new form of government.
The ‘America is not really a democracy line’ is nonsense, it is in fact a more representative democracy than most European states (and far more than the EU, which is not a very democratic structure at all). One reason the US still has capital punishment is that the US political system is so competitive, it is very hard for the political class to cohere to block public opinion, something it is relatively easy to do in Europe
On the bright shiny toys thing, a very good piece by Robert Kagan explores the difference in perspective between the US and Europe based on relative power and position (see http://www.policyreview.org/JUN02/kagan.html). Yes, of course, the US is more confident in military power, it has a lot of it. But this still looks like realism. It is only because of American military power that, for example, Milosevic has ended up on trial.
On the war crimes point, it is precisely one of the problems with the ICC that it is hard to see it deterring anyone other than (1) democracies and (2) people the democracies (meaning, it always seem to come down to, the Americans plus friends) bestir themselves against. The ICC is already looking like just another stick to beat the Americans with.
Despite much propaganda, the US is doing quite well on environmental policies (comparing the various public health disasters in Europe with the American record is instructive, for example), is only marginally more unequal in incomes a society than, for example, the EU countries (it is one of the most income-unequal Western societies, but that is not saying a lot since, by world standards, the range among Western countries is not all that great: the US is no where near as income-unequal a society as, for example, Brazil), it’s health outcomes are within Western norms, despite continually importing lots of Third World peasants (a major reason why it is one of the most income-unequal Western societies). Actually, even taking out defence spending, the American state spends as much or more per capita on its citizens than European states do, it is just America is a richer society per capita so that the government share of GNP is lower.
The US makes somewhat different public policy choices than other countries. As it is perfectly entitled to do. And it has become much better at providing jobs for its citizens than most continental European societies. There is a lot of caricaturing of American society around which is simply not accurate.
L

[mmmetta.livejournal.com]

heh. of course they want to do what they want, when they want. and have us do what they want. when they want.

unfortunately it appears that they're going to keep getting their own way, because the bully always does.

you know, until someone runs in and kicks him in the nads. or flies planes into his buildings. same thing, really.

[anthologie.livejournal.com]

There is such an enormous divide between the political wishes of the American government and the political wishes of the American people -- well, at least out here in the liberal San Francisco area. I live and work in two places I think GWB wishes would just fall off the map, since Berkeley congresswoman Barabara Lee cast the single dissenting vote against the "War on Terrorism" and the American who joined the Taliban was from Marin.

As much as I'd hate to see another terrorist attack on America, I do wonder sometimes why more people haven't made serious attempts to assassinate GWB and select members of his cabinet.

Well, actually

[erudito.livejournal.com]

If you the US is an international bully, you have pretty limited experience of real bullies. By historical standards, the US is a remarkably passive dominant power. And a remarkably positive one. People forget that in the first half of the C20th, the US let the Europeans and others run around unchaperoned. The result? WWI followed by WWII. The period since, when the US has been active in the world, has been much better. When the US took a bit of a break over the Balkans, on the grounds it was the Europeans' area, what did we get? Ethnic cleansing. So, back things went to the US leading the response because, if it didn't, there wasn't going to be one of any effectiveness.
Besides, a lot of Western complaints about the US is, in fact, that it doesn't interfere enough. The EU in particular want the Bush administration to be much keener than it is to impose values on the rest of the world -- over environmental issues, labour issues, etc. When they decline, they get attacked as 'unilateralists'. This interaction has a lot more to do with European protectionism and bureaucratic empire-building in the EU (any issue which is 'international' thereby becomes an EU matter, with the Brussels bureaucracy having responsibility)than many commentators will admit.
Even with military interventions, the US tends to be reactive. Someone else usually starts the violence.
Which is not to say all the US does is sweetness and light. It is a Great Power and is prone to act like one. But, by historical standards, it remains a remarkably benign one. Besides, coonsider the US's enemies over the last 100 years: Imperial Germany, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the Soviet empire, the radical Islamists. These are a fairly unlovely lot, including two of the three most murderous regimes in human history (China's relationship with the US is complex and ambiguous, otherwise it's enemies list would score all three most murderous). There is no way the US is not preferable to all of them.
Like I said, there are things to complain about (don't get me started on the IMF, for example) but it is sensible to get the broader perspective in mind.
L

Re: Well, actually

[baralier.livejournal.com]

If President Wilson had not been so hell bent on making Germany and Austria pay reparations for WWI then the bankruptcy of those countries would probably have been avoided, which may have stopped a young Adolph Hitler from wanting to get into politics so he could built up Germany so it could 'pay back' the other countries. So as I see it WWII is America's fault.

I don't think the US is bully. Bullies come out and beat you to a pulp and then leave you alone until they want to do it again. The US is more of the insideous blackmailer. The Iago of International Politics. The sort who would cut the brake lines on your car rather than punch you in the nose.

You listed some of the "Great" world powers as enemies of the US but what about Panama? Hardly a threat but Roosevelt effectively helped rebels oust the legitimet government so the new one would sell him land to build his canal. Or Mexico? Argentina? The list of countries the US has interfered with is a pretty damned long one.

And most of that is why some people have finally had a gutful and were willing to fly planes into buildings.

Re: Well, actually

[erudito.livejournal.com]

Now, there is a lot to criticise President Wilson for over Versailles, etc, but the reparations issue is not a strong one. The French and other allies were very keen on reparations -- the Germans had imposed reparations on France after the Franco-Prussian war.
If you want to criticise the US re the path to WWII, you are on much stronger grounds with the vacuum caused by the collapse of Austria-Hungary and the results of the Depression, since the incompetent monetary policy and criminally stupid trade policies of the US were key reasons why the Depression was as bad as it was.
Even so, the point was that the US was not involved in lead up to War, that was managed by the Europeans all on their own.
Yes, the US has acted as a hegemonic power in Latin America (there is a great anecdote about Teddy Roosevelt telling the US Senate that 'Panama rose as one man and demanded independence; with one Senator responding, in a piercing stage whisper 'yeah, and that man's name was Teddy Roosevelt'). I never pretended that the US was blameless, merely better than the alternatives are worse.
Besides, the atrocities with the planes had nothing to do with American policy in Latin America. In fact, it had little to do with American policy at all. The radical Islamists don't hate America for what it *does* but for what it *is*.
They hate America for -- religious freedom, secular government, women's lib, gay lib, being successful, etc, etc.
The Israeli connection does bedevil the US's relationship with the Arab world, but that has a lot more to do with scapegoat politics in the Arab world whereby corrupt tyrannies use 'hate-Israel' as an excuse to legitimate their rule. Of the recent American major military interventions, all of them have been in defence of Muslims -- Gulf War, Somalia, Bosnia. Even the 'infidel' troops that Osmana thinks are 'defiling' the sacred land of Arabia are there to defend Saudi Arabia against Saddam.
The WTO attacks expose the mentality of these people perfectly -- fly planes with hundreds of civilians into towers with thousands of civilians. It is not an appropriate action at *any* level, and for goals which are despicable, not defensible.

Re: Well, actually

[thorfinn]

My issue with the US as "great power" has always been that they take a very inconsistent stand. They consistently claim to be "making the world a better/safer place", whilst, under the cover of that rhetoric, they are simply doing what is best for the US. I'd have far less problems with them if they just admitted they were out for themselves (like every other bloody country), instead of pretending like they're all namby-pamby-goody-two-shoes when they're damned well not.
As for China... China is an odd case all on its own. Don't make the very common Western mistake of thinking that the Chinese people as a whole give a shit about this "human rights" business. China has no "human rights" problem. Hardly anybody there believes in this "fundamental human rights" concept. It's a "nice idea", but it's fundamental bullshit. Power is as power does, everyone wants some, and that's fully admitted and open. None of this "we're making the world a better place" thing. "We're saving China from starvation", sure, but China is probably the only civilisation that has managed to feed its people for several thousand years, without more than the odd famine here and there. That comes from a willingness to be brutal and not-very-nice when necessary.

Re: Well, actually

[erudito.livejournal.com]

That China is a very particular place is true, and I like your potted summary. China wants to modernise, but cannot do so without changing significantly. This is difficult, to say the least. Perhaps the biggest danger point in the world today is that the Chinese regime is on a path of modernisation which undermines its own legitimacy. This is the situation Imperial Germany was in before WWI and Imperial Japan before the Pacific War. Not encouraging precedents.
All Great Powers are inconsistent. The US is more inconsistent than most because it is such an open and disputatious polity. The executive-legislative split generates its own inconsistencies, as do the wavering back and forth between different outlooks on international affairs.
There is a lot of humbug in American foreign policy. They act self-interestedly (though not as often as they are frequently criticised for) but like to feel they are acting out of moral propriety (which they do more often than they are frequently given credit for). Hence the humbug. But it is hardly an American monopoly. The Europeans are at least as bad, beating their breast about labour codes and environmental issues whose appeal fairly obviously owes a lot to simple protectionism.
In many ways, the International Criminal Court is a perfect EU thing. Established by a grubby compromise with completely inadequate lines of responsibility but cocooned in a glow of self-righteousness which attempts to de-legitimise any asking of the hard questions.