The ICC certainly needs time to establish itself, as it's a very young institution...
...Also, if the US were to join the Rome Statute, it would be able to continue shaping the court for its own purposes, which is pretty impossible to do as an outsider. That's why President Clinton signed the statute, even though he knew Congress would never ratify it.
That's precisely what I was thinking as I was reading. Especially since Clinton signed it with the provision that changes would be made. I'm personally not of the opinion that pulling out of it altogether was the best course of action. But it also doesn't surprise me, given the maverick nature of this current administration. I'll be curious to see what the next administration decides.
I wouldn't worry too much about politically-motivitated charges brought against the US, at least. It would be hard to imagine a prosecutor calling, say, Donald Rumsfeld to court and expecting the US to send him. The United States has enough influence to be able to threaten to pull out of the ICC, or if it were still not a member of the Rome Statute, to threaten to cut off parts of its UN funding and twist the arm of the court, and American lawyers would probably be able to make a case for political motives in the charge anyway.
You may very well be right. I think the current administration, though, much prefers not to have to answer to anyone on anything, since at the very least, it adds complication in doing whatever it is that they're trying to do. Given the fact that Bush has shown such a tendency to try to steer the American people's attention away from things that they might protest, having to answer to the ICC, even if the risk of repercussion is nil, would still bring more attention to that which they're trying to keep quiet.
"This is but one of many reasons why the Statute of Rome10 is harmful to the national interests of the United States, is unsound foreign policy, and is a threat to the independence and flexibility that America's military forces need to defend U.S. national interests around the world."
Do anyone else see the incoherency and underlying threat of the, by me, boldened sub sentence?
Absolutely I do. It clearly implies that the US government does not want its international freedoms reduced. The use of the term "defend U.S. national interests" is political double-talk, because politicians do of course stretch the definition of "defense" when it suits their political goals. Believe me when I say that I do not like that statement any more than you do.
As for the Patriot Act, I dislike that as well - it gives the government too much power and too little accountability, in my opinon.
I do not subscribe to the theory that "might makes right", and the current administration in the US seems to lean toward that too heavily for my tastes.
I apologize to Eientei - it seems I'm concentrating more heavily on the US government's decision toward the ICC rather than the original question, which was whether multilateralism intrudes too far upon sovereignty in general.
