Other
Viewpoints
Clinton Signs International Criminal Court Treaty
BELGRADE Vreme (independent weekly), Jan. 11: A turning point was made at the Nuremberg trials, in which the U.S. actively participated. It has led, at the end of the 20th century, to an evolution of consciousness about international criminal accountability: namely, that it is not possible nowadays to walk past it with closed eyes. By signing the statute of the international war crimes tribunal, the U.S. has symbolically confirmed this, regardless of the current motives of the American government.
—Milan Sahovic
HONG KONG South China Morning Post (centrist), Jan. 2: Mr. Clinton has done the right thing. The administration that comes after him will decide whether the [International Criminal] Court really does threaten American sovereignty, or whether it is so constituted that it would entertain frivolous prosecutions against the U.S. In the wider context, the court should bring justice to those who previously had little or no voice.....The Nuremberg and Tokyo trials after World War II showed a clear need for a permanent court in which the perpetrators of international war crimes could be made to answer for their actions. Recently, the terrible events in the Balkans and Rwanda confirmed the need for such a permanent mechanism to prosecute war criminals.
SYDNEY Sydney Morning Herald (centrist), Jan. 2: President Clinton’s decision is right and the arguments against it feeble. The United States, with more troops engaged overseas in various operations than any other country, is said to run the greatest risk of seeing its citizens brought before the proposed tribunal on frivolous or politically motivated charges. The answer to that, surely, is that because of the size, experience, and professionalism of the U.S. armed forces, its personnel are least likely to engage in genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity.…The most compelling argument for signing the treaty is one of principle. If it is good enough for other countries to submit to an agreed system of international accountability, it should be good enough for the U.S.
NEW DELHI The Statesman (independent), Jan. 5: The U.S.A. managed to insert into the treaty wording that requires a state’s consent before one of its nationals could be prosecuted….Ironically, this is more likely to favor Russia and China than the U.S.A. It is they who have much more to hide. The hope is that a future, more cooperative relationship between the U.S.A., Russia, and China will avoid such stalemates. In fact, that is not such a bad outcome and is perhaps the unavoidable way such an important international institution has to work. What still hangs in the air, however, is whether President-elect George Bush will decide to live with Mr. Clinton’s decision to sign, or whether he will work to override it.
—Jonathan Power
LONDON The Independent (centrist), Jan. 2: American participation in sending international criminals for trial is essential. At the same time, however, the country’s political autism—its failure to see that its view of the world is not the only view—is dismaying and ludicrous. Mr. Helms [Senator Jesse Helms, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee] is worried that the establishment of the court, which 139 countries have now signed up for, would make U.S. citizens liable for prosecution. Well, yes. Why should Americans think they are different? Mr. Helms seems to believe it is acceptable for Americans to make decisions about citizens of other countries, while U.S. citizens should remain untouchable. It is a bizarre concept.
LONDON The Guardian (liberal), Jan. 3: Clinton has not even left office, and the nostalgic profiles are already being written, a process that can only be accelerated by the conduct of his Republican opponents. That the creation of an international system of justice is too important to be a pawn in this unsavory game hardly matters. Clinton has had eight years to do great things and failed in almost every respect, from reforming health care to the redistribution of wealth. In the dying days of his administration, what else should we expect from this most unscrupulous of politicians but showy and essentially empty gestures?
—Joan Smith
CHENNAI The Hindu (conservative), Jan. 14: Mr. Helms is known to go over the top almost every time. Less than a fortnight ago, when Mr. Bill Clinton signed the U.S. into a contingent treaty obligation on the International Criminal Court, Mr. Helms was threatening to introduce a bill in Congress seeking punitive measures against non-NATO countries that ratify the new criminal court. He is also well known as the champion of the cause to cut off aid to countries that permit abortion.
