Other Columns by Mike Bayham
Mike Bayham Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

America versus the World
By Mike Bayham
July 18, 2002

Prior to the 4th of July, President George W. Bush emphatically declared that the United States would not enter any compact that would allow American peace-keeping forces to be put on trial before the International Criminal Court. Conservatives and others who hold most international governing treaties with deserved contempt heralded the announcement.

The "world," AKA the United Nations, then offered a compromise that would extend immunity to American soldiers for war crimes committed during peace-keeping missions, thus delaying any final resolution to the matter for a year. While some might consider this piecemeal offering by ICC proponents as a good beginning to resolving this sticky diplomatic situation, the truth of the matter is that it is in fact a step in the wrong direction for the Bush administration, who has since swept the issue under the rug.

Bush had objected to American military personnel being put on trial with "human rights activists" nations like North Korea, Iraq, and Cuba serving as the jury. Obviously the chances for a fair trial by an international community that largely makes no secret of their loathing for the United States are about the same as a political dissident receiving a fair trial in any of rogue states listed.

That the ICC "gave in" and put whole matter on the back burner is of no consolation. Since we are the ones with something to lose if we play by their rules, countries eager to cut the US down to their level made a tactical withdrawal waiting for a better time to lean on the Bush administration. Even considering this, there were some unhappy campers on the pro-ICC side of the fence and surprisingly, not all of this group were representatives of Third World nations that have heads of state with military prefixes before their names.

The UN Ambassador from Canada, Paul Heinbecker decried the resolution as the creation of two classes of people under international law and that the deal was a sad day for the United Nations. Maybe the right honorable representative of the Maple Leaf confederation is correct in stating that the resolution does create such a dichotomy. My question is this: so what?

The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal under God. However, the words of Thomas Jefferson do not ring true for nation states. The United States has been blessed by our the Creator in many ways which have directly contributed to the nation's rise as the world's only remaining superpower. Our economics, politics, and culture are different from most other countries.

As a powerful nation, we have great responsibilities to ourselves and, through voluntary acts of compassion, others. Hence when Europe was being overrun by tyranny on three occasions during the 20th century, we rescued western civilization from the brink of extinction on the Continent. As the leader of the world, we, not the members of the EU who for some masochistic reasons are playing along with the Third World, are the targets of terrorists who look to make war on the West.

When the terrorists set out to attack the West, they did not crash planes into the SkyDome in Toronto or the Canadian Parliament in Ottawa, but into the World Trade Center and Pentagon. It is easy for a pacifist country like Canada that has few threats and fewer people to make grandiose statements condemning the fact that we do not want to be judged on the same level as Ghana. Canada has little to fear aside from some surly and independence minded Quebecers. The last serious threat to Canada came from Benedict Arnold during the American Revolution.

Even though the International Criminal Court only seeks jurisdiction in the case of war crimes, do we want to open ourselves up to such scrutiny? We have a legal system established to cover such cases already set up in our own country without needing the input of the Isle of Tonga. I will admit that soldiers from our country have committed war crimes in Vietnam and Korea, but how many war crimes do you think those countries committed? Funny how we all heard the world screaming about the American holding facility in Cuba yet where were the condemnations of the Hanoi Hilton? Last I checked the late "great leader" Kim Il Sung died in his palace not in a jail cell.

Officials in Vietnam have already been publicly referring to former US Senator Bob Kerrey as a war criminal for his actions during America's involvement in southeast Asia. All participation in the ICC will do is give small countries that resent America a chance to pretend that we are a piata and allow them to take free whacks at us.

And what kind of justice should we expect from the ICC if we were to foolishly put handcuffs on ourselves and allow the world to judge us. Because we have a different system of values should we expect a judge from Indonesia or Kyrgzstan to treat us with their perspective of fairness? In some countries, it is illegal to chew gum in public. Freedom of religion, which we have in America, does not exist in Communist and many Islamic countries.

In my humble opinion, giving away our immunity from prosecution by a global tribunal would be a terrible mistake. The Bush administration should not shirk from rejecting the ICC agreement and instead become more assertive about the unique role America plays in foreign affairs. All we have to lose by rejecting the ICC is that we will no longer have to send our fighting men and women in troubled areas to be shot at by local hotheads looking to settle a score stemming from the Bible or the Roman Empire. All we have to lose by going forward with the ICC is our sovereignty.

The "compromise" worked out that delayed the ICC decision might have been a dark day for the UN, however, signing the treaty will be an even darker day for the US.