The outlook for international justice

The United States effectively withdrew from the International Criminal Court in May 2002, when President George W. Bush’s administration formally renounced the signature President Clinton had placed on the Rome Statute in 2000.

He publicly stated that the U.S. had no intention to ratify the statute due to concerns about U.S. sovereignty and potential politically motivated prosecutions of American personnel. The true reason was that continued membership in the organization conflicted with plans to invade Iraq as retribution of 9/11, on the flimsy premise that it harbored weapons of mass destruction. The Court could brand the architects of the invasion as war criminals if the United Nations declared the aggression illegal.

Vladimir Putin has been declared an ICC war criminal — not for killing tens of thousands of Ukrainians, but kidnapping children. Donald Trump invaded Venezuela, not to curb drug imports, but to wrestle oil reserves shipped to other countries and direct them to the United States. The ICC has been silent on both the Ukrainian death toll and Trump’s escapade in South America.

Using economic threats and military chutzpah, he has bullied more than 50 countries to bow to his command, of course, with no interference, as yet, from the impotent UN.

After its closure, the relocation of the ICC is currently in progress, to move to Washington, D. C., where the Supreme Court that gave Donald Trump license to do whatever he pleases will now be the fulcrum of justice for international law, to legislate as the president of the United States sees fit.

James D. Cook

Schaumburg