The "Court of the Future"
The International Criminal Court, called the "Court of the Future", has indicted suspects it thinks most likely to be sacrificed as culprits in the ongoing Darfur genocide without really expecting them to be brought to trial in the hopes that it will "limit their movement" and send a message.
- "The ICC did the right job at getting individuals who can be sacrificed by the Sudanese government, but who at the same time have a significant degree of culpability," says Alex de Waal, a Darfur expert and program director at the Social Science Research Council in New York.
- The ICC has often been termed a "court of the future" for its prospective role as an arbiter of international justice. ... Washington's tacit approval is significant, experts say, since the US has not participated in the ICC since it was established in 1998. "The US position [to allow Darfur investigations to go forward] is a turning point institutionally," says Diane Orentlicher of American University's Washington College of Law, "since it reflects a willingness of the US to accept the jurisdiction of the court."
- Sudan says it will not extradite those indicted at The Hague. Still war crimes experts argue that international courts such as the Rwanda and Yugoslavia tribunals eventually proved to build moral and strategic arguments against those charged, which eventually limited their ill-doings and provided a basis for rebuilding the society. International tribunals, which rarely have much clout, have faced a steady uphill climb over the years, with skepticism if not cynicism about their effectiveness a widely shared feeling among politicians and powerbrokers. Yet they have continued to develop.
- The inability of the court to travel in Darfur worries some international human rights legal scholars, who say the evidence should be gathered from the site of the war crimes themselves.
The willingness of the "Court of the Future" to try such persons as they think will be sacrificed in absentia, without any realistic prospect of actually seizing them simply to make a political point illustrates more than anything else the perverted nature of NGO "justice". These dramatics may be all about seizing authority and power by establishing jurisdiction, but they have nothing to do with alleviating the ongoing genocide in Darfur nor even bringing its perpetrators to justice. They may be about creating hundreds of highly paid jobs, junkets, media opportunities and book deals for the human rights aristocracy, but they have nothing to do with morality. Let them keep their money and power, but don't ever let them lay claim to virtue.
posted by wretchardthecat at 2/27/2007 04:59:00 PM
23 Comments:
Washington's tacit approval is significant, experts say, since the US has not participated in the ICC since it was established in 1998. "The US position [to allow Darfur investigations to go forward] is a turning point institutionally," says Diane Orentlicher of American University's Washington College of Law, "since it reflects a willingness of the US to accept the jurisdiction of the court."
What exactly is the US supposed to do to stamp this obscenity into oblivion. If we ignore it, it's supposed to be approval, and a "willingness to accept jurisdiction". If we rear back and say, "hell, no, we won't go", then it's not multilateral, and we're told that we're against "international law" ... whatever that's supposed to be.
The international court ranks right up there with NATO and the UN as being spurious, expensive, and profligate abuses by some individuals hiding behind the word "international".
Nahncee, we'll do it the way that we've always done it. The minute that someone in the US is indicted, we'll tell them to stuff it in a polite manner and proceed to ignore them. The news will raise holy hell for a week or so and then all will be forgotten. Unless the Pres. is somebody named Bush, in which case it's a crapshoot. We, BTW, are in total agreement on the worth of the esteemed body.
A thought, the ICC is in Europe, how can it be called the Court of the Future? The moment that Sharia becomes the law of the land there will be no future for the court. The way the Wahabbis keep physical records there will be no history either.
Daniel Drezner has an article in Foreign Affairs describing how, unnoticed, the Bush administration has been midwifing the shift of power away from the declining great powers to the emerging ones in multilateral institutions.
Today, the distribution of power in the world is very different. According to Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank, by 2010, the annual growth in combined national income from Brazil, Russia, India, and China -- the so-called BRIC countries -- will be greater than that from the United States, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Italy combined; by 2025, it will be twice that of the G-7 (the group of highly industrialized countries).
These trends were already evident in the 1990s -- and the end of the Cold War presented an opportunity to adapt international institutions to rising powers. At the time, however, Washington chose to reinforce preexisting arrangements. ... The Clinton administration had good reasons for not doing more. Remaking international institutions is a thankless task that requires holders of power to voluntarily cede some of their influence. There was no urgent need to undertake it in the 1990s ...
These gains, however, came with hidden costs. Many of the rising powers believed that the existing global governance structures stacked the deck against them. The IMF's perceived highhandedness during the Asian financial crisis of the 1990s bred resentment across the Pacific Rim. New Delhi was frustrated by Washington's objections to its 1998 nuclear tests and grew tired of being viewed by Washington strictly through the prism of South Asian security. China resented the drawn-out negotiations to enter the WTO. And NATO's bombing of Kosovo was triply problematic for Beijing: the accidental hit on the Chinese embassy in Belgrade aroused nationalist passions, Washington's willingness to cross international borders to protect human rights clashed with Beijing's notion of state sovereignty, and the United States' decision to bypass the United Nations and act through NATO highlighted the limits of China's effective influence over world politics. Heading into the new millennium, the fastest-growing economies in the world were nursing grudges toward the United States."
On the whole, Drezner's article is both reasonable and thorough. One thing is missing from his model though. Nonstate actors. Not cheapjack nonstate actors like Greenpeace, but the more important ones like al-Qaeda are unaccounted for. While nations will still remain the principal component of international relations, hugely mobile populations, international workforces and powerful quasi-military organizations will player a larger and larger role. Institutions like the ICC are really modernized attempts to hang on to the overrespresentation of European countries in multilateral power politics. It's really European-style statism with a so-called international face. The ICC is probably not the "Court of the Future" but of the past, as in the Court of Marie Antoinette.
This court might as well indict Saddam. O, that's right, there was no genocide in Iraq, right?
Regarding the Bush administration has been midwifing the shift of power away from the declining great powers to the emerging ones in multilateral institutions. ... I never heard about this before I stumbled upon it today:
"The Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate is an innovative new effort to accelerate the development and deployment of clean energy technologies.
Partner Countries
Founding partners Australia, China, India, Japan, Republic of Korea, and the United States have agreed to work together and with private sector partners to meet goals for energy security, national air pollution reduction, and climate change in ways that promote sustainable economic growth and poverty reduction. The Partnership will focus on expanding investment and trade in cleaner energy technologies, goods and services in key market sectors."
Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate
And ... "the new deal was negotiated and settled without the involvement of the United Nations or the European Union - a clear message from the United States that multilateralism does not have a single definition. In fact, according to The Guardian newspaper, the agreement - called the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate -- was kept secret by President Bush from British Prime Minister Tony Blair, an uncompromising champion of Kyoto, during last month's G8 meeting" in Scotland.
Third, the agreement comprises countries that account for 45% of the world's population and about half the world's economic output and greenhouse gas emissions, mainly carbon dioxide, implicated in raising surface temperatures. More Asian countries may soon join the pact.
Fourth and most important, it takes a pro-growth approach to combating the possibility of global warming in the century ahead. The new Beyond Kyoto agreement focuses on innovative technology as the antidote, not only to carbon-dioxide emissions but also to dirty air and economic deprivation. The very first statement in the pact is: "Development and poverty eradication are urgent and overriding goals internationally."
Way, Way Beyond Kyoto
I have to give Al Gore credit, without those enormously entertaining stories about his hypocritical profligate "carbon footprint" I would never have stumbled on these Bush initiatives.
Never would have learned that Bushitler is Greenie either! His house in Crawford is like a dream out of the Whole Earth Catalog, as described in the TCS article.
tony,
re: the agreement comprises countries that account for 45% of the world's population and about half the world's economic output
Ceteris paribus, the percentages will continue to increase, while others, such as old Europe, remain staggant or fall. It looks as though this century will be the Pacific Rim century. For doomsayers, the bad news lies in the membership of the US in the new Pacific Rim powers.
The Good News is that we have begun to learn the size and shape and nature of the enemy, and its two powerful arms, the fearsome Islamofascists and their well-meaning enablers, the Liberals. That's good. We didn't know the shape and size of the enemy 5 years ago. We do now. That's a much better position.
Seems to me that the Islamofascist enemy was too slow in following up on the first attack on 9/11 - which was, in all probability, intended to see either the President or Congress under Flight 93. Thanks to Tod Beamer and the other courageous patriots on that plane the evil BinLaden-Plan failed - and most importantly, the enemy, shocked by the raw visceral counter reaction aboard that jet (which functioned like a punch in the nose to the nascent movement), aborted what was in all likelihood intended to be a domino-cascade effect, culminating in the rise of a World Wide Islamic Revolution. Guided by the "hero" of 9/11, Bin Laden and the One Eyed Cyclops, Mulah Omar, intended to ride the Tiger of Destruction and consume the World. Now, however, because that plan died in the cradle the Enemy had to try other plans. But America moved. We did the unexpected, the unanticipated, the horrifying and colossal - against the entire Liberal World America and the Coalition of the Willing fought back and smashed two strongholds of evil in a row, and is now looking around for the next monster to slay. That is George Walker Bush for you. Even with all the Liberal nillyshrilling going on, he don't mind none. "Show me the enemy and lets go get 'em." WE know how to do that when we need to. The world knows that we know. The Enemy knows. And that's staved off all of the would-have-been attacks for the past five years, though our shield may not hold up forever.
Half the country comprehends much more about the enemy than we did before (we weren't supposed to get this far. It was not part of the Enemy's plan). The other half, well... they are, like children, living in their dreams, the past, holding on to old comforts, and old fears. Yet at this stage of the game, that half of the nation has a much better understanding of the enemy is good news.
The enemy itself, however, is bad news. Asymmetrical warfare in the age of high tech WMD is a frightening prospect, indeed. That's why, I think, people like Arthur C. Clark and Herman Kahn premised early on that the concept of advanced scientific civilization *Requires* Rational Man to overcome the Brutalitarians. Advanced Science without the moderating influence Rational Society would lead, they seemed to suggest, to a dead end for humanity.
In our time we've seen the rise of a creature whose law is diabolical, whose lust for death insatiable, and who holds himself most glorious when he slaughters women and children. The Enemy we face, in other words, is quite insane. I do not believe our Fathers of Science quite conceived that we would face such a foe, with the exception perhaps of EE Doc Smith, who framed the contest between Liberty and Tyranny in nearly as stark terms as what we see today in reality. His foes were as inimical as our own, yet not even he envisioned the hideous depths to which the real enemy would go. Or perhaps if he did, he dared not emit it through the Lensmen Series, least people find it too unbelievable.
After WWII there was a time in which our super-optimistic scientist-heroes brought the hope of a future Rational Society with its vision of a highly advanced scientific civilization the world over, expanding into space, the deep sea, the microbial realm, and the realm of the mind. Humanity's future is one of vast exploration and discovery.
And this is why reading about Bush's Pacific Asian Environmental approach being based on the concept of economic growth as the solution is of such interest - after all, this was Herman Kahn's position, and that of Friedman, Mises, Hayek, and the other philosophers of Liberty. That the Great Boob, George Bush, is anchored to this philosophy is again good news.
While we face many dangers in this old world of ours, and foes as diabolical cruel as they are numerous, we should not lose site of the fact that our civilization has advanced in ways that have benefited humanity materially and spiritually. Feeding, clothing, and helping the world are not an empty gesture. Exemplifying the cause of Liberty is not a fool's quest. From Liberty come all our blessings. Nor can our liberties be separated from our economic prosperity, for the one derives from the other, and both work in tandem to lift all boats on the rising tide.
So I reflect on this and remember these things with the satisfaction of realizing that though we will most certainly be wounded in the great conflict ahead, we shall not be overcome. The spirit of Liberty and the intelligence of Advanced Civilization will not be long thwarted by the barbaric and insane. We shall prevail over the Islamofascists in the end.
Whether it be by the dint of our own effort in this time, or by the hand of God Almighty Himself - our efforts are not in vain. We shall prevail.
Wretchard,
Multum in parvo. Bravo.
The badge of courage of the international left; to proclaim one's self-righteousness is virtue, to act is not necessary and sometimes contrary to the new morality.
Idealism as inertia is the hallmark of the movement. [...] "But what exactly are you doing to free Tibet?" she insisted. "You're not doing anything, are you?"
"Give the guy a break," I said when we got back home. "He's advertising his moral superiority, not calling for action. If Rumsfeld were to say, 'Free Tibet? Jiminy, what a swell idea! The Third Infantry Division goes in on Thursday,' the bumpersticker crowd would be aghast..." - America Alone. M. Steyn.
Then again, sporting these badges doesn't preclude the international left from leveraging their moral superiority via the American left into actual power in the US. I just hope the average American doesn't give into natural egalitarian tendencies at the wrong moment, say for national health care, and vote in a socialist regime into power. If so, the Birchers and other isolationists may not sound as wacko as they once did.
I was not happy with the Drezner article. Every third sentence was about the the Bush administration's reputation for unilateralism, with no recognition of the role played by the MSM in hanging that tag on the administration, or Clinton's stunts, such as the last minute signing of the ICC treaty, which DoD had objected to vociferously.
Sardonic, in your SciFi journey you might also consider Fred Saberhagen's Berserker, the metallic form of today's Islamic Berserker.
"A thought, the ICC is in Europe, how can it be called the Court of the Future?"
Good point, Mike H. Also, it is the product of European postcolonialist postMonarchism, which today is EuroSocialism and fronts as the EU.
"But America moved. We did the unexpected, the unanticipated, the horrifying and colossal - against the entire Liberal World America and the Coalition of the Willing fought back and smashed two strongholds of evil in a row, and is now looking around for the next monster to slay."
Which is the reason for all the nattering, clucking, scolding and perverication by Dems, Libs, MSM and the EUro-twits.
Nice post, Sardonic.
Speaking of sci-fi vision, I stumbled across Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" recently. (I never realized what a fantastic writer and American-style storyteller Heinlein was!) within a month or so of finishing James Bradley's "Flags of Our Fathers." I can only believe that Heinlein's Bug Wars were modeled on the Japanese tactics on Iwo Jima. In both cases, the Bugs and the Japs would never stop, cared nothing about death and seemed designed to die in battle, and both fought nightmarishly from underground.
The Islamofascists are the new Bugs.
Nahncee, we'll do it the way that we've always done it. The minute that someone in the US is indicted, we'll tell them to stuff it in a polite manner and proceed to ignore them.
If you were a government or military official, would you gamble your life and freedom on the assumption that a future Dem administration would not delight in throwing you to the wolves?
But America moved. We did the unexpected,..
Right. So what's the head count? How many Jihadis did America kill? How many Saudi and Pakistani cities did America flatten?
Service Members Sign Appeal Calling for Troop Withdrawal NYT
Weenie Boys
"In a small but growing sign of dissent, a group of active-duty military personnel and reservists, including many who have served in Iraq, is denouncing the war and asking Congress for the prompt withdrawal of troops."
The article goes on to quote one soldier saying that they were headed back to Iraq for the fifth reason he could remember.
Well soldier you've apparently forgotten, or never learned a few basics of warfare, or for that matter life. Situations change.
You've also forgotten that while in the armed forces you are not in a democracy. You are subject to an entirely different set of laws.
Thirdly, you volunteered, carte blanche. You don't get to pick and choose the orders you will follow as long as they are lawful ones.
Say you're assaulting a village. Known bad guys are there. Are you gonna tell the officer or senior NCO, "NO,I think I'll wait for the next assault, this one looks a bit dodgy"
This kind of Pvt. Benjamin I-joined-the-condo-air-conditioned-Army is contrary to good order and discipline and the men who have affix their names to this should be court martialed and cashier from the service.
If they tried this shit while in a combat situation they would be shot.
We have a crea puff society, we don't need VOLUNTEERS who then bitch and moan about doing their duty.
The vets of WWII didn't get warm showers,recreation,good chow,rotations home. They just stayed and got the job done.
Forgot How To Fight
Whether it be by the dint of our own effort in this time, or by the hand of God Almighty Himself - our efforts are not in vain. We shall prevail.
Personally, I have always considered Tod Beamer, et al, on Flight 93 *were* the Hand of God.
Think about it: of the four flights in the air that day, which one hitting would have been mortally devastating to the country? The one aimed at the White House ... the one that didn't hit because average Americans stood up very very quickly, dug deep into themselves and found their bravery, and prevented it from happening.
That, to me, is a miracle. And it tells me which side God is on, and if there is an Allah, how impotent that sadistic satanic entity is.
Habu, Uuh Rah!
C4, I was quoting Sardonic.
That's why there were quote marks (") around the paragraph.
...to show quotation.
...from someone else.
...Sardonic.
Post a Comment
<< Home