Posted Wednesday, March 2nd, 2011 by Marshall Thompson
UN Resolution on Libya Awkward for U.S.
Last week the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously “in swift and decisive action” to refer Muammar Qadhafi’s violent suppression of Libyan protests to the International Criminal Court. As the French delegate put it, the Council’s action will ensure that crimes against humanity won’t go unpunished. It’s a hopeful day for the future of international human rights, and a hopeful day for the people of Libya. There’s just one problem: Libya has never signed on to the ICC.
This is where it gets awkward. The delegate from India had to point out that there are five members of the 15-member Security Council who, like Libya, are not parties to the Rome Statute that created the ICC. India, China and Lebanon are not parties. Russia has signed, but has not ratified. The United States initially signed the Rome Statute, but then Pres. George W. Bush officially revoked in May of 2002.
For nations that are not parties to the ICC, it was a delicate (and perhaps hypocritical) matter to assert international jurisdiction over a non-party country. That’s why the resolution included this caveat:
“[N]ationals, current or former officials or personnel from a State outside the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya which is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of that State …”
This of course makes sure that no one from the U.S. will have to answer questions from the ICC about waterboarding. It also means that Qadhafi-hired mercenaries from countries like Tunisa could potentially avoid all accountability for their participation in the suppression of peaceful protests.
Awkward.
3 Comments
Post a comment
What is Obama’s stance on the ICC? It seems that the US could sign and ratify it now, no?
The US could sign and ratify now if it wanted. In 2010, the Obama Administration said it would “pursue principled engagement with the ICC …” whatever that means. http://www.state.gov/s/l/releases/remarks/139119.htm
I imagine it would be politically difficult for Obama to do anything more than that, at least in the first term, because signing on means opening up the Bush administration for prosecution. Even though I think it’s the right thing to do, it would probably look politically motivated.
Since the beginning of the Cold War, there has been a pattern of 1st-term aggressive foreign policy from presidents followed by a less bellicose 2nd-term.
People traditionally vote on other issues, and the people who do vote on issues of foreign policy tend to want more hawkish outcomes. Presidents–wanting to be re-elected–see less benefit here.
There may be a whole host of issues where Obama would be better in a second term (Cuba, maybe). The ICC strikes me as less likely after Obama’s Justice Dept gave everyone a pass for those acts that were crimes under US law. Ugh.