USA Isolationism?
wtf is the USA doing? In the past few years the US has pulled out of many international treaties that are supposed to bring STABILITY to the world and other functions.
Kyoto went out the door, ICBM treaty out the window... Im starting to get worried the US just wants to take on the world by itself or something. "We dont like the current treaty, they arent advantageous enough for us.. heck, lets skip talking about it, lets just back out right away". This just makes people that despise the US even more suspicious and angry.
The latest US action:
[quote]
U.S. to back out of international court treaty
May 5, 2002 Posted: 7:31 PM EDT (2331 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States will notify the United Nations that it has "no intention" of ratifying a treaty establishing the International Criminal Court and no longer considers itself to be bound by provisions of the pact, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday.
President Clinton signed the treaty in December 2000, but amid concerns it might infringe on the rights of U.S. citizens and federal employees abroad, including members of the armed forces, it was never sent to the Senate for ratification.
"Since we have no intention of ratifying it, it is appropriate for us, because we have such serious problems with the ICC, to notify the ... secretary-general that we do not intend to ratify it and therefore we are no longer bound in any way to its purpose and objective," Powell told ABC's "This Week."
A letter outlining the U.S. decision will be delivered Monday to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, administration officials said.
"This is to inform you, in connection with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court ... the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty," the letter says. "Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligation arising from its signature."
The letter requests that the United States be removed from any list of countries that have signed, or are party to, the treaty.
The State Department will send cables Monday to its embassies informing them of the decision and instructing the ambassadors to go to their host governments to explain the U.S. position, officials said.
Marc Grossman, undersecretary of state for political affairs, will deliver a speech Monday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington to explain why the United States sees the treaty as flawed and why it poses a risk to Americans, officials said.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Pierre-Richard Prosper, ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues, also are expected to lay out the U.S. position in briefings Monday to the news media.
One senior administration official said the removal of the signature "removes any argument that if you sign a treaty, you are obligated to it."
"Some people think it is not possible to unsign a treaty under international law," he said. "We think it is wrong, and we just did it."
Powell told ABC that "President Clinton, when he signed [the treaty], notified the world that the United States had no intention of sending it up for ratification, nor would he recommend to the ... Bush administration that we would send it up for ratification."
Powell insisted the United States has "the highest standards of accountability of any nation on the face of the Earth."
"We are the leader in the world with respect to bringing people to justice. We supported the tribunal for Yugoslavia, the tribunal for Rwanda, trying to get the tribunal for Sierra Leone set up," he said.
"We found that this was not a situation that we believed was appropriate for our men and women in the armed forces or our diplomats and political leaders."
The International Criminal Court would create a permanent forum to try cases involving charges of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression.
Current war crime tribunals have been set up from scratch to handle individual situations such as Bosnia and Rwanda.
The Bush administration objects to the court on the grounds it does not give American citizens and U.S. military personnel the same protection afforded to them under the U.S. Constitution.
Officials said it also does not entitle Americans to the same defense allowed to them under the U.S. legal system.
It also contends the treaty bypasses the U.N. charter and the role of the U.N. Security Council relating to international law.
Another U.S. objection is that it "goes beyond the operation of legal institutions and can determine what is a crime of aggression," another senior administration official said.
"Can you imagine the danger of this for U.S. military personnel abroad?" this official asked.
The official said the next step for the United States is to obtain bilateral agreements from countries that are party to the treaty that U.S. personnel and nationals abroad are not subject to the rules of the court.
"These agreements will be essential if we are going to perform the international role we are expected to perform," the official said.
<hr></blockquote>
Kyoto went out the door, ICBM treaty out the window... Im starting to get worried the US just wants to take on the world by itself or something. "We dont like the current treaty, they arent advantageous enough for us.. heck, lets skip talking about it, lets just back out right away". This just makes people that despise the US even more suspicious and angry.
The latest US action:
[quote]
U.S. to back out of international court treaty
May 5, 2002 Posted: 7:31 PM EDT (2331 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United States will notify the United Nations that it has "no intention" of ratifying a treaty establishing the International Criminal Court and no longer considers itself to be bound by provisions of the pact, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday.
President Clinton signed the treaty in December 2000, but amid concerns it might infringe on the rights of U.S. citizens and federal employees abroad, including members of the armed forces, it was never sent to the Senate for ratification.
"Since we have no intention of ratifying it, it is appropriate for us, because we have such serious problems with the ICC, to notify the ... secretary-general that we do not intend to ratify it and therefore we are no longer bound in any way to its purpose and objective," Powell told ABC's "This Week."
A letter outlining the U.S. decision will be delivered Monday to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, administration officials said.
"This is to inform you, in connection with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court ... the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty," the letter says. "Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligation arising from its signature."
The letter requests that the United States be removed from any list of countries that have signed, or are party to, the treaty.
The State Department will send cables Monday to its embassies informing them of the decision and instructing the ambassadors to go to their host governments to explain the U.S. position, officials said.
Marc Grossman, undersecretary of state for political affairs, will deliver a speech Monday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington to explain why the United States sees the treaty as flawed and why it poses a risk to Americans, officials said.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Pierre-Richard Prosper, ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues, also are expected to lay out the U.S. position in briefings Monday to the news media.
One senior administration official said the removal of the signature "removes any argument that if you sign a treaty, you are obligated to it."
"Some people think it is not possible to unsign a treaty under international law," he said. "We think it is wrong, and we just did it."
Powell told ABC that "President Clinton, when he signed [the treaty], notified the world that the United States had no intention of sending it up for ratification, nor would he recommend to the ... Bush administration that we would send it up for ratification."
Powell insisted the United States has "the highest standards of accountability of any nation on the face of the Earth."
"We are the leader in the world with respect to bringing people to justice. We supported the tribunal for Yugoslavia, the tribunal for Rwanda, trying to get the tribunal for Sierra Leone set up," he said.
"We found that this was not a situation that we believed was appropriate for our men and women in the armed forces or our diplomats and political leaders."
The International Criminal Court would create a permanent forum to try cases involving charges of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression.
Current war crime tribunals have been set up from scratch to handle individual situations such as Bosnia and Rwanda.
The Bush administration objects to the court on the grounds it does not give American citizens and U.S. military personnel the same protection afforded to them under the U.S. Constitution.
Officials said it also does not entitle Americans to the same defense allowed to them under the U.S. legal system.
It also contends the treaty bypasses the U.N. charter and the role of the U.N. Security Council relating to international law.
Another U.S. objection is that it "goes beyond the operation of legal institutions and can determine what is a crime of aggression," another senior administration official said.
"Can you imagine the danger of this for U.S. military personnel abroad?" this official asked.
The official said the next step for the United States is to obtain bilateral agreements from countries that are party to the treaty that U.S. personnel and nationals abroad are not subject to the rules of the court.
"These agreements will be essential if we are going to perform the international role we are expected to perform," the official said.
<hr></blockquote>
Comments
<strong>I think the US is just now realizing that the UN is a farce and oppossed many of its interests. As an American, I wouldn't mind seeing less aide to other countries (including Israel) and more aide internally to fight unemployment, poverty, crime, homelessness, etc.</strong>[/QUOTE
This posting proves that American ingenuity are indeed still alive and well. I commend you for such a great post.
<strong>Uhh... thanks. I think. I don't know if that was thinnly veiled sarcasm or a compliment.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I did mean that sincerely...sorry for this misunderstanding. I too have felt for a long time that the US has been the police, banker, military provider etc. while passing over the homeless, hungry here at home. We need to take care of home first and "neighbors" second. No sarcasm intended here!
<strong>
No, I did mean that sincerely...sorry for this misunderstanding. I too have felt for a long time that the US has been the police, banker, military provider etc. while passing over the homeless, hungry here at home. We need to take care of home first and "neighbors" second. No sarcasm intended here!
Generally agreed....but in some way we kind of have to be. We are really the only ones with the resources to do so. But, the foreign aid thing is out of hand.....
[quote]...it was never sent to the Senate for ratification.<hr></blockquote>
The U.S. Senate must approve all treaties, without going through the Senate it wouldn't be constitutional for our leaders to just say it is in effect.
I'll be damned if I support an international court that applies to my citizens. What freaks would support such an idea?
War Crimes Tribunals, sure, but this is ridiculous.
Anyway ... the next article talks about the same thing, but it feels very disturbing at the end if it actually means what I understand, so please correct me if I am wrong. (US MIGHT pull out of all international treaties, not just this one)
<a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow.asp?art_id=8947213"; target="_blank">US to shun deal on international criminal court.</a>
What I grasp from the above linked article, is that the treaty deals with war related crimes.
[ 05-07-2002: Message edited by: jakkorz ]</p>
I *totally* agree that charity starts at home, because it does, but reveling in shunning everyone else wont make things better. At all.
If the US (or any other 'rich' country) contributes to the bettering of another poor country, the wealth will go around in the end.
Why do you think poorer nations are a breeding ground for terrorists and the such? They are desperate and have nothing to lose. 'lets go and destroy the evil rich countries because they just exploit us...'. That is what happens.
Bottom line, spreading the wealth and trying to get some common rules we can ALL live by just makes things beter for everyone.
I'm afraid of reactions like yours groverat. US citizens feeling so superior that the thought of having or sharing power with others is unacceptable. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> Its not good.
<strong>Zo, this is just a power struggle and you're trying to make it sound like you are on the side of the angels.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well put Spaceman_spiff. I agree that there is a power struggle between the USA and the EU. Europeans such as EU President Romano Prodi are blatantly anti-American, whose hatred is fueled by jealousy of American economic, military, and cultural power as well as the failure of the EU to establish itself as the supreme government of Europe. These treaties are an attempt to weaken the power and sovereignty of the USA and lessen its influence abroad. These treaties are constructed such that they would remove power from the US Congress and President and would therefore be unconstitutional. When the inevitable objection are raised the EU can then put on their holier than thou attitude and ridicule and insult us on the world stage.
[ 05-07-2002: Message edited by: FotNS ]</p>
What's the down side? It's that if we say "screw you" to other countries, they're going to be more inclined to say "screw you" right back. Right now we need cooperation because of the war against terrorism. And there are plenty of other issues that need international cooperation, like global warming, nuclear non-proliferation, trade, and on and on. We withdrew from a biological weapons treaty at the same time we were being attacked with anthrax. WTF?
Of course we don't like global warming, biological weapons, nuclear proliferation, etc. So why don't we work within the frameworks and try to make these international agreements more like we want them?
Pulling out of all these international agreements may be red meat for the right-wingers in the short term, but long term, they weaken our credibility and our ability to achieve cooperation when we want it.
It's interesting you should say that... Bush has done more than any other president to cut down on the number of nuclear weapons.
Which do you prefer: A president that is up front and honest about which treaties will move forward and which will fail or a president that gives political handjobs to everyone and never acts on his words?
Clinton had 8 years to move forward with Kyoto, but it was doomed from the start and he knew it. So he sat on it and talked about its importance while doing nothing to help it along.
<strong>
... We withdrew from a biological weapons treaty at the same time we were being attacked with anthrax. WTF? </strong><hr></blockquote>
And a treaty would have stopped them in their tracks? You don't really believe that, do you?
<strong>
Europeans such as EU President Romano Prodi are blatantly anti-American, whose hatred is fueled by jealousy of American economic, military, and cultural power as well as the failure of the EU to establish itself as the supreme government of Europe.</strong><hr></blockquote>
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA ROFLMAO <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Oh god... that was hillarious... HAHAHA
The EU jealous of the US CULTURAL POWER?!?! OMG Thats just too damn funny.
If you mean the ability of the US to influence the lifestyles (mostly in negative from what I have seen) of most populations and cultures of the world, then sure.
Romano Prodi is not a strong character for sure, but he seems to be doing good things too. Just kinda of a flat personality. He is a Professor first, then a politician. Guess that could explain some things.
I feel the EU is more geared 'getting along' rather than 'domination'. The French may feel they have to dominate... but the rest of Europe is pretty much over that.
The HOPE is that the EU WILL become a sort of controlling power for all members of the Union where ALL MEMBERS have a say. Its not THAT much more different idea than what the USA is today. 50 states run by a 'super' entity (Federal Gov) based in a 'neutral zone' (DC). And yet each State has much freedom.
Sure, many people hate the Federal Gov, but you can't make everyone happy now can you?
Maaaan... so much hate for the EU and half of you probably barely know anything about it.. let alone lived here! Europe is great! Give it a spin then bitch! Yeeesh.
(and why does this ALWAYS end up being a USA vs EU battle of somekind??? I was just voicing my concern that the USA appears to be making decisions that are leading it to isolation rather than collaboration!)
Think about it.
I would say that America is perhaps the least isolationist nation left in the world today. We fight for free trade policies and in general offer low import tariffs, even to countries (hint: Japan, EU) that put high tariffs on our exports.
The UN is a joke. It's an international bureaucracy where credentials aren't based on worth, which in my books is the same as wealth. America has held up the UN since we essentially started it after WW2. Now it is becoming less useful, and it should be abandonned, at least by the United States. We'll end up dealing with the world's shit for at least another 50 years anyway.
Why? Because from press releases we (at least I) get this drift that the EU bureaucrats consider America to be a second class nation, for some screwy reason that can only be explained in the bastardized rhetoric of their liberal cannon.
No, in economic truth, which is far more objective than bastardized rhetoric, Europe's nations are indeed the second class. I think a lot of Americans are just plain sick of hearing the European view on the matter, since it is so illogical.
I would like to see collaboration myself, but right now I don't think the governing forces of the EU have enough collective brain power and resolution to get much of anything done that would improve their:
A) economic output
C) reputation as autonomous individuals
From my point of view, the creation of the EU was the creation of one big European clique: very isolationist, very deaf to outside voices of reason. And it makes a libertarian sick.
At the very least, American politicians have a resolve and a bottom line, which is a superbly rational constitution. We also have a more progressive view on trade, in my opinion, than does the EU, which is still very feudal about such things.
I'm probably THE GUY who everyone refers to when they mention USA vs EU. My bottom line is that I'm very aware of EU policies, and that based on economic models they are foolish -- far more foolish than their American counterparts. So when I hear people come up with these claims that "America is stupid" or "America need to be like this" or "America is isolationist" I just see it as whiny loser-talk. I don't really want to hear it. Face it, America supports the rest of the world. The numbers here don't lie. If you don't like it, then stop voting for the same old nonsensical liberal politicians that are the European norms! Clearly they're not making a difference!
[quote] feel the EU is more geared 'getting along' rather than 'domination'. The French may feel they have to dominate... but the rest of Europe is pretty much over that.<hr></blockquote>
ALL NATIONS act in selfishness.
Since Europe doesn't have the power it is in their best interest to team up and work together. I refuse to believe that Europe actually gets along together in happiness, what with politicians being assassinated, racism running rampant and a genocidal holocaust half-a-century ago.
The stated purpose of the EU is to make Europe a superpower once again.