Threats and arrogance are signs of weakness

THERE has been much public discussion that the International Criminal Court might issue an arrest warrant for Mr. Netanyahu in view of the crimes that the Israeli military is committing in Gaza under political orders issued by his government. The Court has not yet issued a verdict. If it rules that Mr. Netanyahu should be arrested, there is no guarantee that countries that Mr. Netanyahu may visit will necessarily honor the decision. Many countries including the US, do not recognize the court. Furthermore, countries that have recognized the court may, nevertheless, not carry out its decisions, if they deem the decision politically unacceptable. Understandably, this would constitute an embarrassing situation but implementing the court’s decision may sometimes be even more problematical than honoring the court’s verdict.

In this context, it is not only puzzling but shocking that twelve prominent members of the U.S. Senate have signed a letter, threatening the head of the Court Karim Khan and other members, that if they decide to arrest Mr. Netanyahu, they will be made to pay for it. How? They, all of their kin and those who work at the institution will presumably not be allowed to enter the US. America will also withdraw any support it extends to the Court. There might also be other consequences. The signatories say that they consider any decision against Israel as an affront to the US.

Historically, the US has shied away from joining organizations or acceding to treaties that place it under obligation to implement the decisions of an international body. While this is not an admirable stance, it may be understood in terms of American history, where placing too much confidence in native institutions and suspecting international institutions constitutes a foreign policy tradition. The position the American senators have adopted, however, far exceeds that, aiming to influence the decisions of an international court before it has even rendered a decision. This is totally counter to the principles of rule of law, independence of courts and the virtues of democratic governance that the US says it represents and is trying to promote in the world. Such disrespect, untypical, has led to expressions of disapproval and protest from various countries and institutions. The disapproving remarks of Josef Borrell, the EU commissioner for external affairs is but one example.

Why did the Senators sign and make public a statement highly supportive of Israel, otherwise undermining America’s standing in the world? The easy answer is that this is an election year, these colorful personalities would like to win in the forthcoming elections (although not all are up for reelection) and to do that, it would be useful to get the backing of the Jewish vote. There may be some merit to this argument but after all, these politicians could have made their position known without blatant threats, they could have waited until a verdict was issued and then protest it. We must also note that not all senators come from districts where Jewish vote is critical. Furthermore, there are debates within the Jewish community about the nature of support their government extends to Israel. And finally, the senators must take into consideration how other voters would react to their “unorthodox” behavior.

It seems to me that the senators wanted to prevent a decision the court appeared likely to make. The basic reason why they may have entertained the idea of preventing the Court from issuing a verdict is that they fear that the court’s decision would be quite effective, that is, most countries would choose to honor it. The senators apparently want the US to have its way in the international system at whatever price it takes. They find it difficult to cope with the reality that too many countries these days do not readily accept American leadership in determining their policy positions in international affairs.

After the end of the Cold War, the ability of the US to persuade others to accept its preferences and policies have gradually declined. This was in part due to a decline on the dependence of its partners on the US for their security and in part a decline of the role of America in shaping the international economy as its share and therefore role in it has declined. In the days of unquestionable power, the American government was modest and patient in persuading its friends to join the US in implementing policies it preferred. Everyone knew that parting ways with the Americans would likely lead to unacceptable deprivations. There was no need to issue loud threats. The fact that these have now been replaced by arrogance and threats of using American might is not testimony to American power but its decline.

Throughout history, declining powers have experienced difficulty in accepting that reality. Behavior that actually undermines a country ’s international standing complemented by displays of arrogance have been typical. It may be that the US has started to go through the same process.