Political Perspectives of the US Criminal Court - Essay Example

? POLITICAL PERSPECTIVES Insert Insert Insert Insert Political Perspectives Erna Paris, in the book The Sun Climbs Slow: Justice in the Age of Imperial America investigates the refusal by the United States of America to comply with the international law. More specifically, the book looks into the elaborate history of global justice and the politics played in order for America to oppose the establishment of as permanent international criminal court and the implications to the entire world1. The resistance by the United States to the establishment of the International Criminal Court came both as a surprise and a disappointment to many people and groups. Given the dominance the United States in world affairs, most justice groups and organizations championing for human rights from around the world, including the United States, became critical about the decision. Despite the United States having signed up to the Rome statute that established the International Criminal Court in 2000, the administration of the then president George Bush unsigned the statute in 2002. Since then, the United States has continued to pressure other countries into signing agreements forbidding them from surrendering citizens of the United States to the International Criminal Court. The United States even threatened to use force, including military force in the event that any of its citizens are held at the court1. Erna Paris attempts to explore why The United States, a country known to be vocal in matters relating to human rights would refuse to protect human rights by not signing up to the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court. From a political perspective, the United States had the fear that the International Criminal Court may be used politically by other nations against it. For a long time, the United States continually got involved in dubious schemes around the world. In most cases, it got involved in the propping up of dictators and unpopular regimes. The United States has also been known to train and offer arms to a number of known abusers of human rights. This was mostly done during the period of cold war. The United States justified its actions as being better than if it allowed such countries to adopt communism. The United States was very involved in most regions of the world, citing the domino theory that if a single nation outside its known sphere of influence would fall, others would follow1. Erna Paris grapples with the dilemma in the twenty first century where the rule of international law is challenged by the political power held by the United States. The treaty that set up the International Criminal Court categorized as war crimes acts of forced pregnancy, rape, torture and forceful recruitment of child soldiers. The United States objected this inclusion and suggested that the court should only concern itself with genocide cases. The United States, being a large military and economic power, is expected to intervene in catastrophes of humanitarian consequences. This particularly makes citizens and officials of the United States vulnerable to arrests and trials by the International criminal Court in cases of humanitarian crises. The United States, a country known to promote its interests only, knew that the International Criminal Court would expose its political vulnerability to its perceived enemies. Being a country that boasts the best political institutions, the country would become helpless in trying to protect its citizens against the International Criminal Court without appearing to violate the human rights it has always championed for. Marjorie Cohn in the book, Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang has defied the Law, examines six ways of greatest importance that the government of the United States under the presidency of George Bush defied and consequently led to the weakening of the rule of law. The first reason was the establishment of the prison in Guantanamo bay, where suspects of terrorism were held without trial. Despite the president knowing well that most of the detainees were innocent, they continued to be held in the prison for political reasons. The secretary of State and the defense secretary both attested to the injustice but they would not do anything about it. This was because all decisions about the prison were made by the president. The president feared that releasing them would have severe political consequences on his part. Knowing the court had detained innocent people, President Bush would not release them. This was because; it would be known that he made political mistakes that would weaken his political approval. The political rating had already deteriorated significantly at the time2. The second reason that depicted the defiance of the law by President Bush was the invasion of Iraq by the American forces. Despite having given the reasons for invasion as stopping Iraq from producing weapons of mass destruction, Marjorie Kohn explains political reasons that led to the war. The reason given was a disguise; generally, it was opposed by many. However, the president reportedly defied the law by going ahead with the war. Some of the political reasons given included the American military security. Security agencies particularly favored the war with the police favoring it to expand its power while the military industries expanded profits by providing the weaponry. The United States had the opportunity to test some of its military wares in the war. Another political reason by the Bush’s administration was the promotion of the neoconservative ideology. This is the belief in America’s superiority over other countries which reportedly give the American government the obligation and the right to impose its hegemony on the other countries throughout the world. This was more particular in the Middle East where Muslim countries are opposed to the unfair invasion of the Palestinian territory by Israel. The war was defiance to the rule of law, which ought to be just and fair. Another way that president bush defied the law was the extrajudicial spying of the American citizens inside the United States territory. The spying behavior was a violation of the constitution and the law enacted by congress to protect American citizens against abuse by super-secret spy agencies. In 2002, the president signed a presidential order that allowed the National Security Agency to monitor international and domestic telephone calls and emails without the necessary warrant. The kind of surveillance that was carried out as a result was illegal. Marjorie Kohn outlines the other reasons in which the bush administration defied the law as torture of prisoners suspected of committing terrorism acts, willful killing and summary execution of suspects without trial and the refusal by the president to ensure execution of the law. Marjorie Kohn also explains what would have been done to remedy the statutory breaches of the bush’s administration. The remedies include international law, constitutional, political and legal remedies.2 The book, The Politics of Genocide, explains that it is possible to determine the friends and enemies of the United States by examining how the word genocide is used by media. It further explains that massive atrocity crimes committed by the United States are considered constructive, unworthy of indignation and attention. It is also stated that such atrocities are never considered as genocide. There are many examples of genocide occurrences that have not been considered to be so just because they were committed by the United States, one of which is the invasion of Iraq. However, when the atrocities are committed by enemies of the United States, they risks being targeted for attack and destabilization by the United States. The atrocities are viewed as nefarious while the victims receive too much focus, displays of solidarity and sympathy. In such a situation, the United States has the tendency to call for immediate inquiry into the crimes and insists on punishment of the perceived enemy. The United States reportedly imposes its power on the United Nations and the European Union who follow suit in supporting the genocide claims against its enemies. The influence is noticeable among the intellectuals and the media who inflate the nefarious bloodbaths in the politics of genocide while at the same time selectively ignore or underplay anything benign or constructive in the situation3. For instance, when the chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Court issued a warrant of arrest for the Sudanese president, he explained the reasons for his actions as largely political where the crime committed was genocide in the Darfur region. The prosecutor later revised the case to base it on war crimes and crimes against humanity. The arrest was against a head of state whose country is not a signatory of the Rome Statute. The court expounded its mandate as putting to end impunity by perpetrators who commit the gravest crimes concerning the international community that must never go unpunished at all costs. Being a political issue, it is selective, mostly targeting the enemies of the United States. Ironically, the United States uses the International Criminal Court to advance its interests, yet it is not even a signatory of the statute that established the court. The book reports the politics of genocide played by the United States indifferent parts of the world and how it has selectively used the word to promote its interests and thwart the interests of its perceived enemies. For instance, in the year 1994 in Rwanda, the RPF led by Kagame were reportedly killing more than ten thousands Hutus each month. However, this was suppressed by the administration of Clinton, the media and the United Nations who on the other hand portrayed Kagame as the Lincoln of Africa.3 Despite RPF committing genocide crimes, they received support from the free world even as they extended their massacres to the Democratic republic of Congo. In fact, Kagame received military training from the United States and continued to receive support from the United States during the planning and execution of the violence that led to Regime change in Rwanda. Kagame reportedly killed more people than Idi Amin. However, he received support for being friendly to world powers3. The three books portray America as a politically dishonest power that strives to have its way and promote its interest at all costs. The refusal by the United States to sign up to the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court is portrayed as a scheme to avoid punishment for its citizens who are well known to have committed crimes against humanity and violated human rights. In the Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Administration has defied the Law; the president is portrayed as the one determined to have his way at all costs. He seemed to have used the fight against terrorism as a scapegoat to defy the law and violate the rights of individual American Citizens and other International concerns involving the invasion of Iraq. Finally, the Politics of Genocide cites the misuse that the word genocide has been put to and how it has been selectively applied against enemies of the United States. As United States mandates itself to fight impunity in the world, it is in itself the epitome of impunity as portrayed in the three books. Bibliography Cohn Maorie. Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law. San Diego: PoliPointPress, 2007 Herman Edward and Peterson, David. The Politics of Genocide. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2010 Paris Erna. The Sun Climbs Slow: Justice in the Age of Imperial America. New York: A.A. Knopf, 2008 Read More