J. van Baardwijk wrote:
>If an American would be put on trial at the ICC on charges of war
>crimes, would you also find it acceptable if Europe would attack the
>US to prevent the US from invading The Netherlands?
I know that America's refusal to participate in the ICC bothers you, Jeroen. You've brought it up a number of times since the issues over it first started some time ago.
It's simpler. The world relies on the US to step in and handle emergencies. We hate the term "world policeman" yet where else do you turn?
When handled well, as in the slow, patient but effective process in the horrid Yugoslavia mess, this gains legitimacy. In any event, the way to end Pax Americana is to grit your teeth and make world law.
The World Court is a step. But law is a set of compromises. In your own cities, the police have to be shielded from normal rules of liability. Every day they must behave in ways that would get a regular citizen thrown in jail. Defining what standards WILL apply to them, and enforcing those standards, has been a struggle in every modern country.
The US government has a reasonable argument that we cannot fulfill the role assigned to us under constant threat of capricious and politically driven prosecution by people who want to have their cake (US protection) and eat it too (by constantly bitching and criticizing). Adnit it, Jeroen, that is a European tradition.
On the other hand, the WAY our govt is making this argument is stupid. Any mention of international law is anathema to these guys. They don't see us as the de facto police force, but as cowboys in white hats, always right and the proof is might. And damn if we'll let any court hold the handsome stranger to account.
Let's admit we have a marshall's badge, negotiate reasonably loose rules... and accept that someday the world's people will start voting for their own sheriff.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
