« George Bush, the Europeans and the Middle-East | Main | British Defense Company Sides with America »

April 05, 2005

A Much Needed Diplomatic Success for Europe

"America always preaches the rule of law, but in the end it always places itself above the law", as a British ambassador expresses himself in Clyde Prestowitz’s Rogue Nation. This widespread feeling of American double standards now might be changing.

Thursday March 31st the United Nations Security Council voted to send any war crimes suspects from the Darfur region of Sudan to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague, after the US obtained amendments to exempt Americans from the tribunal’s jurisdiction. The long-waged battle between the US and EU over the ICC thus led to a minor victory for the Europeans. Might this event signal a change of US foreign policy in a more multilateral direction?

American objections to the court are based on the view that it is unaccountable and could become a forum for politically motivated prosecutions against Americans abroad. The Clinton administration signed the 1998 Rome treaty setting up the court in December 2000 but the Bush administration revoked the signature in May 2002. It was President Bush’s recent nominee as ambassador to the UN, John R. Bolton, who originally signed the letter abrogating the American signature and afterwards saying that this experience had afforded him “the happiest moment in my government service”, according to the New York Times. Ironically then, Thursday night Bolton had to accept this first ever referral of a case to the ICC.

For quite some time the ICC has been a highly profiled common policy issue for the EU-countries, which was reflected in the fact that negotiations Thursday took place at the highest level between the American, French, and British foreign ministers. In Europe the ICC has become one of the main symbols of multilateralism, and the American struggle against this rule of law institution has lead to great European frustration. The New York Times describes Thursday’s US move as representing a “significant diplomatic change of course for the Bush administration, which vehemently opposes the court and has been insisting for two months that it would block any Security Council move legitimizing it”. So why this sudden change?

The American UN diplomats in New York attempted to play down the significance of this vote, stating “we got the full protections for Americans that we sought”. The European media, however, seemed thrilled but also somewhat hesitant depicting this as an actual change in US policy, since “the Americans could hardly act differently. The US government has been a leading force in holding those responsible for war crimes in Darfur accountable, and the US has described the atrocities in Darfur as ‘genocide’ – whereas the EU has used less strong language”, says Danish Berlingske Tidende.

Nevertheless, this event will be considered a small victory to most multilateral minded policy-makers and diplomats throughout the world, and most likely will have a small but positive impact on sentiments toward the Bush government. Of course, this depends on whether the US decision proves an actual change in policy toward listening more closely to other countries and restricting its own behavior, or if it is just a one-time decision taken out of other concerns. According to the reactions of the American UN diplomats, unfortunately, it seems to be the latter.

Posted April 5, 2005 11:06 PM

Comments

Post a comment