1 Boring Old Man

ICC: U.S. ’GOING IT ALONE’ AND BOSNIA DISPUTE SPOIL COURT’S OPENING DAY

KEY FINDINGS

– U.S. objections to the ICC and its "threat" to veto the UNSC extension of the Bosnia peacekeeping mission were denounced worldwide as the ultimate in U.S. "arrogance."
– Despite efforts to forge a deal on Bosnia, European critics balked at the bid for immunity, convinced that concessions would undermine the ICC and jeopardize UNPK missions.
– Some, mainly in conservative European outlets, found the U.S. reservations ’Justified," but worried about this "row" widening the "gap" between both sides of the Atlantic.
– Arab writers interpreted the U.S. bid for immunity as Washington’s attempt to remain unfettered in an anti-terror war against Arabs.
– Observers in Asia, Latin America and Africa saw the world embarking on a new era in international law without the increasingly "isolated" U.S.

REGIONAL VIEWS:

EUROPE:
^{U.S. ’alone’ and putting itself above the law. The most strident critics in Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Russia, Belgium, G reece, Norway, Spain, Sweden and elsewhere judged the U.S. action as the most "severe attack on international law so far" and as an affront to its "international obligations." Many complained of "superpower hubris," troubled by what a Rome daily called a "new Bush doctrine of global impunity." Papers from London to Pristina portrayed the U.S. use of its UNSC power as tantamount to "blackmail" and echoed Moscow’s reformist Vremya Novostev’s conclusion that Washington was using its muscle "to dictate the rules of the game to the rest of the world." Accusing the administration of "strangling at birth" a UN institution "for the defense of human rights," London’s independent Financial Times led the common charge that the U.S. move was "politically short-sighted" since it would alienate its allies at a time when "unity is called for in the alliance against…terrorism."}

^{Most Say U.S. worries unfounded. A prevailing view was that there was nothing to "fear" about the ICC exerting "undue influence"on any country, suggesting that U.S. worries about subjecting its citizens to "random judgment" were "manufactured" and its sovereignty concerns "exaggerated." On behalf of ICC defenders who believed that the "rules for a fair tribunal" were in place, Berlin’s right-of-center Die Welt argued that the U.S. view was based on an understanding of sovereignty that "has probably been overtaken by historical events." Critics on the left charged that the president’s objections to the ICC-were not "motivated by concerns of U.S. soldiers," but by his goal of "solidifying his power" ahead of the November elections.}

^{But some understand American opposition. Countering the charges piling up against the U.S., some conservative and center-right dailies in Germany and Belgium aimed their criticism at European "self-righteousness." These analysts contended that the U.S. was carrying the greater peacekeeping "burden" to keep the world "more or less stable," suggesting that Europe was "incapable" of putting out fires in its own backyard – was in no position to complain. They also worried about the danger of a U.S.-EU divide. As Brussels’ Christian-Democrat De Standaard put it: "Americans can be blamed, for many things," but argued that Europe’s unbelievable self-complacency" was also at fault.}

MIDEAST:
^{U.S. defender Israel squares off with Arabs. Both Israelis and Arabs viewed theICC issue as an extension of the U.S.-Israeli symbiosis in fighting terrorism. From the Arab standpoint, the U.S. is directing its anti-terrorism war at Arabs and is backing regional proxy Israel in a race war against the Palestinians. Consequently, the U.S. refusal to recognize the ICC’s authority was seen as an attempt to help Israel escape prosecution for its "war crimes" in Palestine and for the U.S. to avoid its own "war crimes" in Afghanistan and those it "plans to commit in Iraq." For its part, an Israeli daily ardently defended the U.S. concern about the court being a political entity as opposed to a judicial body. Political prosecutions are entirely possible, the paper argued, "in the hands of bureaucrats that only the good lord knows who they actually represent."}

EAST/SOUTH ASIA:
^{All critical, see U.S. ’losing moral authority.’ Observers in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Australia, Japan, Hong Kong (SAR) and Singapore saw a "doctrinaire" Bush administration" again in "unilateralist overdrive" following its standoff with U.S. allies over the ABM treaty and the environment. The universal bone of contention was that Washington is "undermining" international principles pertaining to human rights, peacekeeping and the rule of law that the U.S. itself was instrumental in establishing. Meanwhile, Karachi-based pro-Islamic unity Jasarat insisted that the U.S. "be tried for war crimes for killing scores of innocent citizens ¯ participating in a wedding ceremony in Afghanistan."}

AFRICA/LATIN AMERICA:
^{Disappointment in champion of human rights, rule of law. Observers in Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Argentina and Brazil. similarly saw "President George W. Bush’s. unilateralism" choosing a "new target" in the ICC. All were dismayed by Washington’s "obstructionism" of the global judiciary and the U.S. "alignment" with the likes of Russia and China in opposing the world court. A Nigerian daily joined those in other regions¯ who accused the U.S. of pursuing a judicial "double standard" by supporting war crimes tribunals and extraditions and then demanding immunity for its nationals in the new ICC.}