Which nations have stated that they would sign on the ICC only if the United States did? Certianly not Russia and China.
How does US non-participation in the ICC harm its jurisdiction or authority?
The US has some good reasons and many not so good reasons for not ratifying the ICC – and you discussed some of the bad ones – but it still doesn’t follow how that harms the world in any way other than court not being able to arrest US citizens and soldiers.
How does US non-participation keep the court from trying war criminals in the nations you mentioned?
And if the ICC tried Saddam in absentia and convicted him then what? The US would have still had to have invaded and occupied Iraq and so forth. Only now the people of Iraq get to try the criminal who abused them instead of having to watch it from afar.
The ICC is a great idea but in the end it is just a useless organization. In order for war criminals to be tried a war must first be fought to depose the criminal from power. The UN has proven unwilling to do that and the Iraq issue is one of the best examples of that.
If the US is going to have to fight the wars that take down these criminals then the US can decide how the criminals will be tried. If that means handing them over to the ICC then that is ok too, but it will always be up to the victor in battle.
I suppose we are using the word “hate” in the familiar meaning of “dislike” rather than the real feeling of hatred. I certainly feel no hatred for GWB. I dislike his policies because I think they are awful for the USA and the world. And as for him personally I dislike him. These three things do not go together. I can imagine intelligent people who I find interesting and charming and intelligent whose politics i disagree with and boring and unintelligent people whose ideas I may agree with. Not only do I disagree with what GWB is doing but I find him one of the least attractive persons I can imagine to talk to. Much in contrast with his father who I considered extremely intelligent.
In any case I do not feel hate towards him and I do not think he is evil, just ignorant and stupid. But I have a very high tolerance for this and I do not think evil is the word for politicians even if they have done things I consider evil I think they mey be more mistaken than evil.
I do not think Bush or Stalin, or Hitler or Mao or slaveowners were evil in the sense that they were deliberately trying to do evil. I think they sincerely believed what they were doing would make things better in the end. it just shows you that the best intentions can lead directly to the door of hell. GWB is probably just mistaken but that does not diminish the harm his policies are doing. He would probably make an OK supervisor at Walmart and would not be disliked but he is just not suited for a position which requires any more responsibility than that. It has to be painful for his father to see that his son is such an incompetent dweeb.
What I mean to say is that “why do you dislike Bush?” might be a better phrasing of the OP in the sense that I don’t think anyone here really hates GWB. (Probably another story in Iraq though)
Except that many of us have an answer. What has Bin Laden done to me personally? One of my oldest childhood friends saw people leaping off the WTC, and it damaged his mind. That’s what OBL did to me personally.
That’s a valid answer, and I think it’s the kind of answer that the original poster is looking for.
Just a quick note on International Law. It is a great idea and something to strive for but in the end it doesn’t really mean anything other than symbolically. If a nation decides not to follow international law then there is nothing the UN or the ICC can do about it. Issuing edicts and warnings is completely ineffective. In the end laws must be enforced or the laws are meaningless. And in the end it seems only certain members of the UN are willing to enforce those laws and they do so for different reasons. So France didn’t want to enforce the UN resolutions against Iraq for its own reasons – and the US has avoided enforcing other UN resolutions for its own reasons and so on.
So international law is all just talk since in the end each nation has to make its own decision on, A) whether or not to abide by it and, B) whether or not to hold other nations responsible for not abiding by it. Those decisions are made for political reasons in each nation. How is that different from a world without inernational law? Law without consistent enforcement is just philosophy. How well would the justice system in the UK work if every local prosecutor, judge, and policeman could decide for themselves whether or not to enforce certian laws or just to ignore them?
The UN is its member states, Humpty - there is no “them” and “US”. If international law is routinely being broken by even its most powerful members, then it is at those members that fingers ought to be pointed.
“Hate” is an inaccurate word to use here. “Mistrust” is perhaps better, and this current thread examines European mistrust of the current administration.
I live in Japan, and when I meet Japanese people socially one of the first questions I am asked is “How do you feel about President Bush?” As soon as I indicate that I am no fan, my new acquaintance is invariably relieved that they can now share their opinions on Bush with me without fear of causing offense. And as best as I can determine from these aquaintances, as well as friends, coworkers, and students, no one in Japan has opinions on Bush that wouldn’t cause offense to his fans.
Now, I am not Japanese myself so I cannot truly offer a Japanese perspective. But as best as I can tell from what people have said to me, here are the main reasons why the Japanese dislike Bush:
They think he’s stupid. I pick this up even from Japanese people who can’t speak English. My Japanese is minimal at best, but I can understand “Bush-san” and “baka”.
They think his environmental policies are a threat to the entire planet. Remember the Kyoto Protocol? Well, the Japanese sure do. A few have asked me if Americans know about global warming, because they can hardly believe that we would allow Bush to carry on as he has if we did.
They think he’s dangerously aggressive without regard for the consequences. Unlike Iraq, the US actually has weapons of mass destruction…and the Japanese know better than anyone that we’re willing to use them. Some are still kind of upset about the whole A-bomb thing, although I have yet to meet one who doesn’t freely admit that Japan was in the wrong during WWII and needed to be stopped. If anything, the Japanese think that Japanese policy before/during WWII was so wrong that they are now very sensitive to and mistrustful of expansionism, nationalism, and militarism.
Exactly my point - thank you. International law is useless in that every member of the UN has its own agenda and will follow its own plan regardless of what the UN wants them to do. Unless the UN can enforce its laws it is useless - and it can not enforce its laws unless the individual countries agree to do so. And the individual countires only agree to enforce the laws they see fit to enforce. So again how is that any different then a world without a UN. And there is a difference between the UN and its member states – the UN is debating society that the member states use for world politics – the member states always act independently of the UN in whatever decisions the UN makes. The UN can not enforce any of its laws - they are all voluntary.
Also - Who will do the finger pointing? And what good does finger pointing do?
Basically, Americans who believe that the US has done more good for the world in the past 100 years than it has done harm. This dosen’t seem to be the consensus in Europe although I dare say that a comparison of US history and European history in the 20th century would show otherwise.
Well many people covered most of Bush’s BS and mistakes. I might point out that the lousy US economy basically slowed the whole world economy and just about every country was hit by bad economic growth. So all the world can blame Bush directly for his lousy management of the US economy.
As for Brazil and other countries: Steel Tariffs (down now), UN was hit pretty badly, other minor trade protections. In terms of diplomacy... South American problems have barely been given notice.
One thing though I thought was most sad. I have a touch of idealist... and even though I know the US takes care of its interest primarily, the US had been doing a great job at leadership. I thought from now on it was just managing globalization distortions and we were bound to a more balanced future in international relations. Bush and his texan style just blew it all away. Idealism I know... but still makes me sad.
Bush himself is naturally seen as arrogant, ignorant and reckless... but I guess everyone already said that.
