- Unbeliebable: White House turns Bieber petition response into immigration screed
- Obama signs law denying Iran ambassador’s visa, but says law is ‘advisory’
- Mich. judge to laughing convicted killer: ‘I hope you die in prison’
- Man charged in Kansas City-area highway shootings
- Keystone XL pipeline still on hold after State Dept. decision
- Fla. man charged with killing 16-month-old son to play Xbox undisturbed
- Drones from the deep: Pentagon develops ocean-floor attack robots
- Michigan mayor slaps back atheists’ try to erect ‘reason station’ at city hall
- PHILLIPS: Where is the conservative establishment?
- 7.5-magnitude earthquake shakes southern Mexico
U.S. warms to global court
THE HAGUE | The Obama administration is likely to announce a change in policy toward the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the next few months, but it may be years before the United States joins an institution that the Bush administration at first disdained but later came to appreciate.
That change likely will be in the form of an affirmation of the U.S. signature, first offered by President Clinton in 2000, diplomats and experts say.
The signature was “withdrawn” by his successor, President George W. Bush, less than a year later because of concerns that U.S. soldiers and officials might be subject to ICC prosecution for political reasons.
“If they don’t announce a change of policy, there will be real questions about the administration’s support for the ICC” and its prosecution of war crimes in Sudan’s Darfur region and elsewhere, said Richard Dicker, director of Human Rights Watch’s International Justice Program.
The State Department has said that policy toward the court is, like many other issues, “under review.” When asked to elaborate, the department’s Office of the Legal Adviser, which is responsible for ICC-related matters, declined comment.
In private, officials say any announcement would only come after a serious consideration of the consequences of ICC membership.
“We want to be very careful and cautious and make sure that we’ve looked at all potential ways that joining the ICC could affect our troops around the world,” said a senior U.S. official, who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak publicly.
Even if Mr. Obama restores the U.S. signature, membership in the court has to be approved by Congress, which could take years. Mr. Dicker noted that it took the Senate four decades to ratify the U.N. Convention on Genocide.
Kim R. Holmes, vice president for foreign- and defense-policy studies at the Heritage Foundation - and assistant secretary of state for international-organization affairs during Mr. Bush’s first term - said that reaffirming the U.S. signature “would be a mere gesture.”
“Despite the Democratic majority in the Senate, it would still not get two-thirds for ratification if submitted for advice and consent,” he said. “The Obama administration knows this. Reaffirming would be a typical half-step gesture to mollify his base without actually having to follow through with the full measure.”
Mr. Holmes said the American Service-Members’ Protection Act “prevents direct cooperation with the ICC,” and if reaffirming the signature “implied some more direct cooperation with the court, then this could be a problem with Republicans in Congress.”
Human Rights Watch’s Mr. Dicker said: “It’s important for the president to talk about ratification as a goal. One would expect that, before year’s end, the administration would have completed its review and articulated much closer cooperation with the ICC.”
Washington “needs to join this court” because “accountability for serious crimes, coupled with a fair trial, are values that have deep resonance” in the U.S., he said.
Although many human rights and international justice experts say the ICC can only benefit from U.S. membership, court officials are careful not to comment on any particular country joining or staying away.
“It’s not our job” to recruit new members, said Sonia Robla, head of the ICC’s public information and documentation section. “Of course, we would like to be a universal court. We hope that by doing our work well, by conducting fair trials, we’ll get the support of more and more countries.”
About the Author
Nicholas Kralev is The Washington Times’ diplomatic correspondent. His travels around the world with four secretaries of state — Hillary Rodham Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Madeleine Albright — as well as his other reporting overseas trips inspired his new weekly column, “On the Fly.” He is a former writer for the weekend edition of the Financial Times and ...
- State Department to increase 'nonimmigrant' visa fees
- State Department to increase 'nonimmigrant' visa fees
- International court's progress slow
- International court since '02 hasn't rushed to any judgments
- Chile holds Pakistani after U.S. pulls visa
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
Women losing coverage under Obamacare, too
- Scalia to students on high taxes: At a certain point, 'perhaps you should revolt'
- Former Ranger breaks silence on Pat Tillman death: I may have killed him
- Special Forces' suicide rates hit record levels casualties of 'hard combat'
- Feds approve powdered alcohol; 'Palcohol' available later this year
- EDITORIAL: Mark Warner running scared?
- Army goes to war with National Guard, seizes Apache attack helicopters
- U.S. Navy to turn seawater into jet fuel
- EDITORIAL: More Lerner smoking-gun emails at IRS
- Nancy Pelosi washes immigrants' feet in humble Holy Week act then promotes on Twitter
- Former Blue Angels commander relieved of duty for alleged misconduct
Top 10 handguns in the U.S.