28 Apr Bellinger Says U.S. Accepts the “Reality” of the International Criminal Court. So What?
Has the U.S. government shifted its position on the ICC? I can’t really tell if the following report of a speech by U.S. State Department Legal Adviser (and sometime-Opinio Juris guest blogger) John Bellinger represents a real shift in policy.
“The U.S. must acknowledge that the ICC enjoys a large body of international support, and that many countries will look to the ICC as the preferred mechanism” for punishing war crimes that individual countries can’t or won’t address…
According to the report, Bellinger said the U.S. would consider aiding the Hague tribunal in its investigation of atrocities in Sudan’s Darfur region.
The WSJ calls this a “rhetorical turnabout” and it does provide some disgusted quotes from former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton. But as far as I can tell, this is an old shift. After all, back in 2007, Bellinger noted in a speech in the Hague that “we have expressed our willingness to consider assisting the ICC Prosecutor’s Darfur work should we receive an appropriate request.”
It seems that there is the vague possibility of a mushy consensus developing in the U.S. on how to deal with the ICC, driven by principle but also simple politics. The chances of an ICC ratification in this or any future Senate is hard to imagine in the next few years. The chance of the ICC withering away is also zero. So there must be an accommodation of the ICC by the U.S. and an accommodation of the U.S. by the ICC. When they can work together, as in Darfur, they should do so. Grumbling by Bolton or by Human Rights Watch is to be expected, but will also be ignored since neither side will be happy.
All three of the major U.S. presidential candidates seem to agree with this. None have expressed disdain nor enthusiasm for the ICC. Even Senator (“Yes We Can!”) Obama has stayed mum on whether he would support joining the ICC, saying only he would first consult military commanders. Perhaps he is worried about facing prosecution for his preemptive attacks on Pakistan!
Bellinger apparently said that the ICC’s performance in Darfur will be an important gauge for future U.S. support. This seems like a fair test, and a likely model of how future U.S.-ICC cooperation will proceed.
I just heard Bellinger at a conference on Friday. I don’t know if the speech I heard is the basis for the WSJ report, but I certainly did not discern a “rhetorical turnabout.” The flip side of the quoted language and the main thrust of Bellinger’s talk was that the U.S. is not likely to become a party to the ICC any time soon and so supporters of the Court ought to reach out to the U.S. to find ways to work with it given that the U.S. is unlikely to become a party.
This part of Julian’s post accurately reflects Bellinger’s message:
It seems that there is the vague possibility of a mushy consensus developing in the U.S. on how to deal with the ICC, driven by principle but also simple politics. The chances of an ICC ratification in this or any future Senate is hard to imagine in the next few years. The chance of the ICC withering away is also zero. So there must be an accommodation of the ICC by the U.S. and an accommodation of the U.S. by the ICC. When they can work together, as in Darfur, they should do so.