IJCentral: International Justice Central

U.S. Support for budding democracies in the Middle East

As the Arab Spring movement has unfolded in the MENA region, U.S. president Barack Obama has slowly but steadily supported the democratic uprisings and denounced military action taken against them. Obama delivered a determined albeit late announcement of his support for the revolutions in Egypt and in Libya, and we have seen the U.S. go so far as to provide military forces to NATO to help topple Qaddafi’s regime. The U.S. has also tried to, in facing opposition from other U.N. Security Council member states, push for sanctions against Syria’s authoritarian leader, Bashar Al-Assad.

While the U.S. has been on the supporting side for international democracy and social justice movements, it has not perfectly stood in line with international standards in regards to human rights law. We have unfortunately seen the U.S. apply double standards when it comes to signing onto the Rome Statute, the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC) and in maintaining funds to U.N. organizations that welcome Palestine as a member state. Examining how the U.S. picks and chooses where it offers supports and where it rescinds it is interesting in trying to determine whether it is overall a truly positive force in international human rights promotion.

Double standards

Following UNESCO’s vote to approve Palestine as a full member of the organization almost one month ago, Washington withdrew funds from the U.N.’s Education, Scientific, and Cultural organization. This action agreed with U.S. legislation mandating the immediate cutoff of any U.N. organization authorizing Palestinian membership. While the U.S. has been quick to criticize other states, it simultaneously refused to take considerable action as Israel announced its plans to create thousands of new settlements in East Jerusalem, the proposed future capital of a Palestinian state. This act is a clear violation of U.N. resolution 446. How the U.S. decision in failing to support the Palestinians and to neglect condemning illegal action by the Israeli government can possibly further human rights promotion or the prospects of a two-state solution in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is difficult to grasp. A recent NYTimes article suggests that by taking such action, the U.S. would also be putting certain of its reform programs in Iraq and Afghanistan at risk.

The U.S. has a considerable role in the U.N., sitting as one of five permanent members on the Security Council, which also consists of China, France, Russia, and the U.K. Annual estimates of U.S. funds to UNESCO is $60-80 million, which constitutes almost a forth of the organization’s annual budget. Clearly, through its administrative standing and financial support, the U.S. helps the U.N. provide humanitarian aid and intervene in international crises where deemed necessary. But this most recent case of U.S. withdrawal of funds for the interest of its own geopolitical agenda and at the sake of the interest of other U.N. member states puts into the question the genuineness of American support in international organizations. Are international organizations becoming a convenient means for the U.S. to promote its national agenda? How do U.S. leaders decide which organization to join and which to ignore, or even, condemn?

The U.S. and the ICC

Let’s examine the U.S.’s present standing with another international organization, the International Criminal Court (ICC). The U.S. was an initial signatory state to the Rome Statute in 2000 until John R. Bolton unsigned it in 2003 as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, citing its lack of popular consensus and sovereignty. The main concern with the ICC is that it would allow foreign citizens to hold U.S. former and current government officials, employees, or military personnel responsible for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed abroad. The American judicial system is still internally regarded as supreme to any foreign or international one. The U.S. has also gone so far as to make efforts to discourage ICC members and non-members from extraditing U.S. soldiers or government officials responsible for war crimes during the Iraq invasion and other occasions to the ICC. Such a right is granted in accordance with Article 98, the provision of the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court that prohibits the Court from prosecuting someone located within an ICC member state if doing so would cause the member state to violate the terms of other bilateral or multilateral treaties to which it may be a party.

The U.S.’s not being a signatory state to the ICC does not always necessitate its extrication from international norms. In 1984, President Reagan complied with international law and withdrew troops from Nicaragua upon receiving condemnation by the International Court of Justice. Furthermore, American interests have not always been in opposition to those of the ICC; the U.S. recently supported the ICC’s prosecution of Sudan’s Omar Al-Bashir for mass killings in Darfur and its arrest warrants for Libya’s Muammar al-Qaddafi. These two situations exemplify a union between the promotion of human rights and justice in the Middle East and North Africa, which the U.S. makes a public effort to stand for, and ICC jurisdiction. If the interests of the U.S. and the ICC slowly begin to converge, this begs the question, what possibilities and effects on the dynamic of the ICC would arise if the U.S. were to become a state party? Perhaps the unfolding of other events in the Arab democratic uprisings will trigger further opportunities for U.S. support of the ICC, only time will tell…

Please send any observations or interesting articles to my attention at Nadine@skylightpictures.com or to our Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/#!/TheReckoningArabic.