Another unnecessary concession to US bullying
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Foreign Ministers of the European Union seem likely to decide today that, rather than give in individually to US arm-twisting, they will agree to common terms of surrender.
No, this is not about Iraq – not directly. Today's meeting is to decide what to do about US demands that its citizens be granted immunity from prosecution by the new International Criminal Court.
When the court is established it will be an important strengthening of the idea of universal human rights. With a remit to try crimes against humanity, it will hear the kind of cases that, from the Nazis at Nuremberg to Milosevic at The Hague, have until now been heard by one-off tribunals.
One of the obvious suspects who should end up in the dock of the new court is Saddam Hussein, on charges of using chemical and biological weapons and waging war on the Kurdish minority in Iraq. The US knows that the court's powers would not be used against its private citizens or soldiers. Its purpose is to prosecute the orchestrators of genocide or serious war crimes. (Whatever the mistakes of US foreign policy, in the past or the present, Henry Kissinger and Donald Rumsfeld do not remotely fall into that category.)
Not satisfied with refusing to sign the treaty setting up the court, the US is now trying to persuade countries that have signed to agree to exempt US citizens from its provisions. Most disgracefully, Romania was told it could not join Nato unless it agreed.
The response of Jack Straw, the British Foreign Secretary, to this bullying is appeasement. He proposed that the EU agree a joint position of giving the US what it wants. Never mind that today's deal is hedged with conditions that the US may still not find acceptable, the idea of making special concessions to one nation simply because it is so powerful is odious.
Earlier this summer, the US threatened to pull out of peace-keeping duties in Bosnia unless exemptions were agreed within days. They are still there. If the US eventually comes round to joining the International Criminal Court – just as it rejoined Unesco this month – it will not be because the EU made some craven concessions today.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments