Ral­ly­ing against Third World dead­beats John Bolton socks it to the In­ter­na­tional Crim­i­nal Court

The Washington Times Weekly - - Commentary - By Gary An­der­son

John Bolton has reprised his role as at­tack dog against out of con­trol anti-Amer­i­can in­ter­na­tional or­ga­ni­za­tions. This time, his tar­get is the In­ter­na­tional Crim­i­nal Court (ICC), a U.N. or­ga­ni­za­tion cre­ated by the Rome Treaty, which the United States has re­fused to rat­ify and that four Amer­i­can pres­i­dents have wisely de­clined to sup­port or ac­knowl­edge as le­git­i­mate.

The lat­est Bolton erup­tion oc­curred in a speech be­fore the Fed­er­al­ist So­ci­ety af­ter the ICC’s Chief Pros­e­cu­tor Fa­tou Ben­souda of Gam­bia an­nounced that she would in­ves­ti­gate al­leged Amer­i­can military and CIA per­son­nel for war crimes com­mit­ted in Afghanistan. Mrs. Ben­souda’s ac­tion is so wrong on so many lev­els that it would take more space than a 750- word op-ed to dis­cuss them all, so we’ll ex­am­ine the most egre­gious.

First, Mrs. Ben­souda is a Gam­bian. When she was ap­pointed to her cur­rent po­si­tion on the court in 2012, Gam­bia had one of the worst hu­man rights records in Africa and she was a high-rank­ing ju­rist in that sys­tem when ap­pointed to the ICC. The former Gam­bian pres­i­dent threat­ened in 2017 to slit the throats of LGBT Gam­bians. Mrs. Ben­souda’s ap­point­ment was slightly akin to giv­ing the French Army a par­tic­i­pa­tion tro­phy in 1940 for its ef­forts in World War II or the 2009 award of the No­bel Prize to Barack Obama for “po­ten­tial.” The cur­rent Gam­bian pres­i­dent is re­port­edly try­ing to clean things up. Per­haps one of his ac­tions should be to re­view Mrs. Ben­souda’s par­tic­i­pa­tion in the last regime.

Sec­ond is the amaz­ing list of ac­tual war crim­i­nals not on Mrs. Ben­souda’s hit list. These in­clude Ay­man al-Zawahiri of al Qaeda, Abu Bakr al-Bagh­dadi of ISIS and the se­nior mem­bers of the Tal­iban’s Haqqani net­work which, has proudly cel­e­brated its re­spon­si­bil­ity for some of the most hor­ren­dous war crimes com­mit­ted dur­ing the Afghan war.

Not only has the ICC failed in its pri­mary mis­sion of pros­e­cut­ing real war crim­i­nals from ar­eas where rule of law no longer ex­ists; it has ac­tu­ally al­lowed a non-state ac­tor — the Pales­tinian Author­ity — to bring charges against Is­rael, which has one of the most trans­par­ent and ef­fec­tive le­gal sys­tems in the world.

On pa­per, the ICC was a good idea. By the time it be­gan op­er­at­ing in 2002, there were war crimes be­ing com­mit­ted in a num­ber of fail­ing or failed states with­out work­ing ju­di­cia­ries with no mech­a­nism to try the per­pe­tra­tors when they were ap­pre­hended. It was not orig­i­nally de­signed to be used against func­tion­ing democ­ra­cies with work­ing and trans­par­ent ju­di­cia­ries. But al­most im­me­di­ately, the found­ing fa­thers — and moth­ers — of the court be­gan to claim pow­ers be­yond the orig­i­nal in­tent to a point where the U.S. Se­nate not only re­fused to rat­ify the Rome Treaty cre­at­ing the ICC, it au­tho­rized the pres­i­dent to take all means nec­es­sary to pro­tect Amer­i­can cit­i­zens from ICC ap­pre­hen­sion or pros­e­cu­tion — this in­cludes the use of military force.

Con­se­quently, Mr. Bolton was not bluff­ing when he bluntly threat­ened to take harsh ac­tion against the ICC. This in­cludes the pos­si­bil­ity of deny­ing ICC mem­bers en­try into the coun­try and pos­si­ble pros­e­cu­tion un­der U.S. laws if they at­tempt to ap­pre­hend U.S. cit­i­zens. This could also po­ten­tially mean the use of Spe­cial Forces to res­cue any Amer­i­cans il­le­gally ap­pre­hended by agents work­ing for the ICC.

For decades Mr. Bolton has railed against the ex­cesses of the Third World dead­beats who have in­fested the U.N. feed­ing from a trough reg­u­larly re­filled by cash do­na­tions from the United States and other First World na­tions. Many of these par­a­sites make a ca­reer of bash­ing Amer­ica and Is­rael while ap­plaud­ing the an­tics of repro­bates such as Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega.

The United States has held military mem­bers ac­count­able un­der the Uni­form Code of Military Jus­tice when they have been found by im­par­tial

It has ac­tu­ally al­lowed a non­state ac­tor — the Pales­tinian Author­ity — to bring charges against Is­rael, which has one of the most trans­par­ent and ef­fec­tive le­gal sys­tems in the world.

in­ves­ti­ga­tions to have vi­o­lated the Law of Land War­fare. Sim­i­larly, armed con­trac­tors have been suc­cess­fully pros­e­cuted for crim­i­nal ac­tiv­i­ties in over­seas com­bat zones.

John Bolton is to be con­grat­u­lated for up­hold­ing Amer­i­can sovereignty and putting out-of-con­trol in­ter­na­tional or­ga­ni­za­tions that over­reach when they go be­yond their in­tended char­ters or at­tempt to im­pose their will on na­tions that don’t rec­og­nize their author­ity. Pres­i­dent Trump has made it clear that the U.N., NATO, the EU and other glob­al­ist en­ti­ties are not go­ing to dic­tate to the United States. I am re­minded of the pledge mas­ter in the movie “An­i­mal House” when he de­clares; “they can’t do that to our pledges, only we can do that to our pledges.” Gary An­der­son lec­tures in Al­ter­na­tive Anal­y­sis at Ge­orge Wash­ing­ton Uni­ver­sity’s El­liott School of In­ter­na­tional Af­fairs.

ILLUSTRATION BY

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.