quote:
Originally posted by Skunk:
In the case of the US it would be politically disasterous to flout an international court. How on earth could the US claim to be the beacon of democracy and justice if it refused to send accused people to trial?
And the UN does have teeth to bite with. No, we don't have Saddam Hussein - but he and Iraq are literarlly paying the price with both international assets being seized and a commercial blockade in place.
Hell, he can't buy anything from anyone without the UN approving.
If the US or anyone else were to risk this, the cost would be equally enormous and the longterm damage (as companies lose out to their foreign rivals) would be equally unpleasant.
How bad would this be? Take for example the impact on trade with just the European Union. So far to date (within this financial year), the US has imported some $44 billion dollars worth of goods from the EU. But! it has exported $121 billion dollars worth of goods to the EU.
](source: US Census Bureau, Dept. of Commerce)
Clearly, the loser would be the US and if the delay was longterm (more than two weeks) there is a real risk that Asian companies would fill the gap... That is real biting power.
In the end however, cases like the example you cited are unlikely to occur. I can't see the US not handing over this fictional business man (unless it was to a corrupt regime). No, where the US might be less enthusiastic is probably in the realm of something to do with covert ops...
And I really think that the existence of this body would be good for the US. You see, when it comes to domestic civil rights the US, with a few exceptions, is really quite exemplary. But, on the foreign scene the US is not above being extremely underhand. And, contrary to popular US belief, it is not jealousy of 'fat rich America' that drives the hatred of the US - its these dual standards applied between US citizens and foreigners and the near constant covert interference within external sovereign states. The ICC would probably make those responsible think twice before 'dealing dirty'.
Don't get me wrong. My last few posts may appear to be 'US Bashing'. That is NOT the intention - I still count the US as my natural ally. I just think that there is a gulf between what foreigners think about the US and why, and what US citizens themselves think the reasons for this 'anti-US' feeling is all about.
If it was all about 'rich and poor', why are all those fanatics not shouting "EU out!", "Kill the EU", "We hate the Swiss!", "French go home"...?
I don't think you're US bashing, and I do understand the reasons a world civilian court would be good. But I also understand our reasons for not submitting to a court without being satisfied with the parameters.
The UN really doesn't have teeth unless someone, not always the US, is willing to step up, take the lead, and put troops in theater. We don't have Saddam because the UN was afraid of the reaction in the Middle East if we chased the Iraqis back to Baghdad. UN inspectors haven't been allowed in Iraq for 3 years since they were refused access to selected sites even though they are still under sanctions and agreed to submit. What is the UN doing about that? Since it's been 3 years, and they still refuse I'd say not enough. Iraq continually flaunts UN sanctions, but what do people say? That the US is starving Iraqi children. When improved anti-aircraft sites in Iraq were recently taken out because they were against the sanctions, and as a safety measure for allied aircraft, the US takes the heat not the UN.
The UN is just being used by the US against Iraq.
A couple of days ago, the US caught a dilapidated Iraqi ship trying to illegally transport oil out of the controlled zone. They frequently do this and later combine their cargo with a legitimate ship's which makes it virtually untraceable. This gives them disposable income the UN can't touch. With US soldiers onboard, the ship began to sink because it was overloaded and was unseaworthy to begin with. Two US soldiers and six crewmen from the ship are still missing and presumed dead, but what did I hear on the news from Iraq and the Middle East? It wasn't their fault, the US did it.
If the UN and the world expects more from the US, they'll have to start providing more. We also believe there is a double standard. We have to look after our interests. I'm not down-playing the help we're receiving in Afghanistan or inappreciative, but speaking in general. The world thinks the US operates on a double standard, and the US thinks the world wants to hold us to a different standard. The world may have become tired of the US's views, but the US is rapidly becoming tired of the world's view of US.
I still don't understand why covert operation teams would be tried in a civilian court? Why would they be held responsible, and not the US if the act was illegal? Because picking up a stray US soldier would be a deterant to future US actions? A way to make an example of the US. The international civilian court would make sense for use against international industrial spying or sabatoge, but against soldiers, acting on the orders of their government, it does not make sense. Even at Nuremburg, the government was held responsible first.
Don't think money will make US turn over citizians. While you didn't mean it this way, it *smacks* of blackmail. If you want to talk about the civilian court, talk about using it to try civilians. If you want to talk about soldiers, talk about the military court, but if you really want to talk about blame for a US soldier's actions, look to the US government and impose sanctions or whatever else you think is necessary. Trying to making an example out of a US citizian because it is thought it's the only way to make the US government "take notice" isn't really justice is it? It certainly won't lead to a productive world atmosphere.
Bush's proposed military tribunals are not finalized, and are still under Congressional review. What about the rights of those killed on September 11th? 5,000 died without their rights, and those who did it, and those who aided them in their efforts, should be given theirs
if taken to trial. Most of the German's who closed the doors on the gas chambers day in and day out didn't get that lucky, they got "field" justice. Wrong? Maybe, maybe not. War is Hell!
Ultimately, when it comes to our security at home, we have to take care of ourselves. We want cooperation from our allies, and we want them to understand our reasoning and approve of it, but we can't wait for the world to decide if
how we protect ourselves is ok. When attacked, we do have the right to retaliate and take defensive measures. If all lives are of equal value, then the value of the many is larger than the value of the few.
I do believe many of those against our actions in Afghanistan would feel differently if their country was the one attacked by terrorists. No doubt some would blame it on US anyway. The attitude I hate is that it's always our fault (not that you've given that impression because you haven't). God forbid, but if terrorists attack anyother city on the level of September 11th, there are those who would place more blame on the US because of our actions in Afghanistan than against the terrorists.
I've never been involved in the rich vs poor debate here in the War Forum because I don't agree with it. It's over power and influence. It's good to know there are others being protested against, but I have to admit, most of what I've seen in the news (including international programs and online sites) focuses on the US.
Skunk, this rant [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img] is not aimed at you. You and I see "eye to eye" more often than not, and I respect your opinions but, in this particular case, have to strongly disagree.
[ 11-21-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]