|
NGOs,
U.N. MISSIONS: "Get Your Message Out" |
||||||||||
|
To Today's News from the U.N. and the World, visit: MaximsNews.com Established 1999.
Skeptic Ian Williams questions an earlier president.
Deserter: George Bush's War on Military Families, Veterans, and His Past by Ian Williams My Life by Bill Clinton
MaximsNews.com Weekly Column The U.N., the U.S. & the I.C.C. by Ian Williams Ian Williams is a journalist and U.N. Correspondent for The Nation and a weekly columnist for www.MaximsNews.com [See his Bio. See his columns listed below. Ian Williams' email: uswarreport@igc.org ]
UNITED NATIONS -- 30 June 2004 / www.MaximsNews.com / Was it Doctor Henry Kissinger – that ringmaster of real-politik, who led the way to the U.S.’s latest diplomatic defeat at the U.N.? A
U.S. diplomat recently revealed that the good
Doctor, who had attended at the deathbed of so
many democracies, was detained “on
suspicion” at the airport in Paris, and
only released after direct intervention from The
White House. Among American diplomats, this is the latest excuse for American obduracy about the International Criminal Court (ICC). Frankly, it is a lousy excuse. Firstly, a lot of us think it is a better world if Pinochet, Kissinger & Co. have to consult an attorney when they buy an airplane ticket, and secondly, the ICC does not cover crimes committed at the peak of the Doctor’s career. Even so, last week’s peasants’ revolt at the U.N. was a demonstration of why, despite some understandable skepticism, the organization is so essential – and so hated by Washington unilateralists. The bare announcement that the U.S. was dropping its attempt to rollover special status yet again to protect Americans from the ICC was the shiny tip of an iceberg of politics and attitudes. It was a stinging diplomatic defeat, on a par with Washington’s failure to get a majority for invading Iraq. And short of invading The Hague – unilaterally- there is not a lot they can do about it. Any hopes for that John Bolton would fall on his sword as a result of this setback seem sadly premature, however. The U.N.-phobic assistant secretary of state with special responsibility for making the world safe for genocidaires and torturers by sabotaging the ICC was almost certainly ordered not to rock the Bush boat in the run-up to the election with a resignation or denunciation. On the other hand, he clearly likes the appurtenances of office. A lifetime denouncing the U.N. did not inhibit him in the slightest from accepting the organization’s money by “helping” Jim Baker over the Western Sahara before he joined the State Department as Cheney’s stalking horse for Colin Powell. We can presume that the peculiar American failed compromise offer of a once and for all one-year rollover of the exemption was an attempt to pander to irrational conservative fears during the election campaign. We can be equally horrified that the administration was prepared to cheat its die-hard supporters this way, or at the strong supposition that they were lying to other Council members about their intentions. In any case, what were they implying? That for one year they wanted a get out of jail free card for American senior officials and prison warders responsible for torture and war crimes but afterwards they would see the light and stop? Incidentally,
while we are picking on the Americans because
they are so obvious, we should not perhaps
forget the Williams’ Law of the
Near-Universal Hypocrisy of Politicians. You would never appreciate from their fierce denunciations of American perfidy that the French were only brought on board for the ICC by a seven-year exemption from its jurisdiction. And then of course, there is the Blair syndrome. The British Prime Minister emulated his former close chum Bill Clinton’s Janus-like postures by declaring his support for the court and denouncing the resolution, while promising to vote for it to save the bacon of his new friend GeorgeW! In this sordid mix, Kofi Annan’s denunciation of the resolution came as a beacon of sincerity. Before the Secretary General denounced the ICC exemptions for the U.S., the resolution renewing them had little or no chance of passing. After he had spoken, it was certain to fail, since governments would have to explain to their electorates why they had supported a measure that they had opposed in principle. Taken together, the whole incident was a refreshing example of what former British Foreign Minister Robin Cook described as putting “an ethical dimension” into foreign policy, and the moral power of a Secretary General when used properly. While the Chinese may well have been upset at American arms sales to Taiwan as much as any general principle, since after all they have not signed the ICC conventions at all, most of the governments who were refusing to vote for the American resolution have electorates who had been watching pictures of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, and who did not see the Bush administration as an exemplary global citizen whose behavior was beyond scrutiny. The incident also revealed the strength and weaknesses of the veto. The Bush administration’s threat of a veto on all peacekeeping operations was what whipped most of the Security Council into supporting the previous two annual exemption resolutions. It was what gave Blair the diplomatic cover to pander to American prejudices: he was saving peacekeeping. This year the calculus of real-politik overtook him. Internationally and domestically, the U.S. is unlikely to get away with vetoing peacekeeping operations this year. The events in Iraq, and in particular in prisons there, have focused the American public’s attentions on its government’s behavior, and there is enough shame around to inhibit a Bush attempt to embarrass the country further. The veto has healthily pragmatic origin, built on the lessons of the League of Nations, that it was best to keep great powers inside the tent urinating outwards than vice versa. The veto was a less than perfect solution, but certainly more so than having major nations walking out. However, the veto should be like a nuclear deterrent. Best not to have one at all, but if we are going to have one, it should not be used. But its overuse, first of all by the Soviet Union, and then by the U.S.A., has devalued it and leads to a breakdown of international order. The U.S.A. is supposed to set an example to the rest of the world of the rule of law, but when you look over the years, it has abused its veto power on behalf of Apartheid South Africa, on behalf of Israel’s violations of international law, and then recently for its demented hold on peacekeeping operations unless the ICC exemptions were granted. None of these cases were essential, let alone existential, issues for the United States. The U.S. has behaved like a physically outsized but mentally retarded toddler, running away with ball whenever it looks like losing the game. It provides diplomatic cover for China to veto anything that is remotely related to Taiwan, France to imply vetoes on behalf of its client Morocco’s occupation of Western Sahara, and Russia’s occasional me-too vetoes just to prove it has one. Britain actually has a stated policy of not using its veto – although of course, principles can be flexible when The White House calls. Despite the vociferous power of the Israel lobby, perhaps the American defeat over the ICC, impelled as it was by American shame over Abu Ghraib and maybe even Guantanamo, may be a good time to engage the American public in this crucial aspect of their relationship with the rest of the world. Many Americans are genuinely puzzled why the rest of the world does not hold their country in high esteem. Perhaps
they should be reminded of the Prussian monarch
who in his dotage went round belaboring his
servants with a stick, shouting, “Why does
nobody love me.” A good start is, of course, to put down the stick – in this case, Washington’s promiscuous abuse of the veto, unmatched since Stalin’s emissaries made “Nyet” a part of the English lexicon.
Deserter: George Bush's War on Military Families, Veterans, and His Past by Ian Williams Order Now from Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1560256273/wwwmaximsnewc-20/103-2632401-6943852?creative=125577&camp=2321&link_code=as1
Ian Williams' Weekly Columns in MaximsNews.com The U.N., the U.S. & the I.C.C. 30 June 2004 The New York Times, William Safire and the United Nations 23 June 2004 Hastily Contrived, Verbose, and Fudged: Security Council Resolution 1546 16 June 2004 Is the U.S. Clever Enough to Rule the World? 9 June 2004 Humor the Beast: the U.S. and the ICC 2 June 2004 Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf? 20 May 2004 The Solution to the Iraqi Knot 12 May 2004 For more information about MaximsNews.com/Books, please see, www.maximsnews.com/bookpromotions.htm or contact, DrMaxStamper@MaximsNews.com.
|
||||||||||
|
Home About Max Stamper Key Clients International Affairs Media Tools www.MaximsNews.com, News Network for the International Community: Diplomats, donors, key United Nations Officials, U.N. activists, all Missions to the U.N., all NGOs, journalists, activists in human rights, women's rights, African-American rights, peace, the environment, development and poverty, public policy experts, political figures, and academics. Syndicated globally by RSS and XML feeds, GOOGLE NEWS, broadcast email, Blogs, streaming video, Internet and news wire services. For Free Subscription, RSS, or XML feeds to your website, contact: MaximsNews@MaximsNews.com Max Stamper, Ph.D., London School of Economics, and Publisher & Editor-in-Chief, MaximsNews.com, is eager to explore your international public affairs and communication needs, and to discuss our services. DrMaxStamper@MaximsNews.com phone: (+) 1 (201) 848-6162. Suite 112, 76 North Maple Ave. , Ridgewood, NJ 07450 U.S.A. © Copyright 2003 -- 2004, Dr. Max Stamper & Associates. All Rights Reserved. MaximsNews™, MaximsNews.com™ , Max's Maxims™ , DrMaxStamper.com™ |
