On Dec. 31, 2000, the United States took a small
step toward re- engagement with the international community by
signing the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It is
a significant development because it counters a growing trend of
isolationism in U.S. foreign policy.
Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has
struggled with its role in the international community. While calls
for a New World Order were made with much fanfare in 1990, the
United States has been unwilling to embrace its development. Indeed,
the past 10 years have seen an increasing international isolation.
U.S. foreign policy has become a policy of constructive
disengagement.
For example, the United States refused to sign the
Landmine Convention in 1997. U.S. intransigence continues even
though the agreement has been signed by over 135 countries,
including all major U.S. allies. In 1999, the U.S. Senate rejected
the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, a treaty
signed by over 187 countries. The United States and Somalia are the
only two countries in the world that have not ratified the
Convention on the Rights of the Child.
In July 1998, the United States voted against the
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Rome Statute
will establish a permanent international tribunal to prosecute
people accused of serious human rights violations, including
genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. To date, 139
states have signed the treaty; 27 states have subsequently ratified
it. The Rome Statute will enter into force when 60 states have
ratified it.
To its credit, the United States has played an
active role in the development of the international criminal
tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. It also has
participated in similar efforts to establish ad hoc tribunals for
Cambodia, Sierra Leone and East Timor. But unless the United States
is willing to make its own military operations subject to judicial
review, these international efforts appear hypocritical.
President Clinton acknowledged these considerations
when he signed the Rome Statute. "We do so to reaffirm our
strong support for international accountability . . . [and] we do so
as well because we wish to remain engaged in making the
[international criminal court] an instrument of impartial and
effective justice in the years to come."
Accordingly, President Clinton's decision to sign
the Rome Statute is an important development. He correctly points
out that the United States is now in a position to influence the
evolution of the court. Indeed, the U.S. action spurred the Israeli
government to announce its own signature of the Rome Statute. In the
international community, engagement is more useful than isolation.
The U.S. signature, however, has not resolved
several outstanding issues. The United States has expressed concern
that the Rome Statute will be used by politically motivated
prosecutors against U.S. military personnel and political leaders.
President Clinton raised this issue when he signed the treaty.
Several members of the Senate, as well as incoming officials in the
Bush administration, have voiced misgivings about the Rome Statute.
Their concerns are unfounded. U.S. military
personnel have always been subject to indictment by foreign
governments. This has never deterred the United States from
undertaking military operations abroad. Indeed, the United States
recently renegotiated its Status of Forces Agreement with South
Korea to allow for the detention and prosecution of U.S. military
personnel for such crimes as rape, murder, drug trafficking and
arson. More importantly, the Rome Statute has numerous procedural
safeguards, including an independent judiciary, to prevent
politically motivated prosecutions. Finally, it is simply
inconsistent for the United States to argue for international
accountability of all states, except itself.
It remains for the incoming Bush administration to
resolve these issues. One hopes it will work quickly with the Senate
to address its concerns and ratify the treaty. The United States
must not allow the Rome Statute to suffer the fate of the Genocide
Convention -- a treaty that took 40 years to ratify. Even worse,
however, would be for the Senate to reject the treaty -- a goal now
championed by Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C.
Only two treaties were rejected by the Senate in the
20th century, the Treaty of Versailles and the Non-Proliferation
Treaty. Nothing constructive emerged from the rejection of the
Treaty of Versailles. Disengagement failed in 1920; it has no place
in U.S. foreign policy today. It is certainly not the way to begin
the 21st century.
President Clinton's decision to sign the Rome
Statute is an important step in returning legitimacy to U.S. foreign
policy. It is now up to President-elect Bush and the Senate to
ensure that the United States fully abandons the policy of
constructive disengagement.
