[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 104 (Tuesday, July 24, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1416-E1417]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          EUROPEAN INTERESTS ARE NOT ALWAYS THOSE OF THE U.S.

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 24, 2001

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to commend to his 
colleagues the July 22, 2001, editorial from the Omaha World-Herald 
entitled ``Why America Says No.''
  Currently, the U.S. is under intense pressure from members of the 
European Union (EU) to conform to what they deem best for their 
combined interests. While U.S. economic and security interests of often 
intersect with those of its European allies, such convergence is not 
always the case. Environmental standards (particularly those outlined 
in the Kyoto Protocol), agriculture subsidy levels, and the use of 
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are among the issues on which the 
U.S. and the EU disagree. Participation in the proposed permanent 
International Criminal Court (ICC) is yet another issue on which the 
U.S. national interests and many other countries' national interests 
diverge.
  Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that choosing not to participate in 
institutions such as the ICC is not, as some continue to argue, equal 
to isolationism. Choosing not to engage in conversations with other 
leaders on difficult issues is isolationism. President Bush, while 
rightly standing strong against pressure to pursue international 
agreements and institutions which would be contrary to American 
interests, has engaged his European counterparts in dialogues on the 
tough issues and should be commended for doing so.

              [From the Omaha World-Herald, July 22, 2001]

                          Why America Says No

       One of the irritants in President Bush's current dealings 
     with European nations is his administration's opposition to a 
     permanent International Criminal Court. The 15-member 
     European Union is one of the leading proponents of a United 
     Nations plan to form such a tribunal.
       Bush should stand firm. Not because a world court would be 
     a bad thing as a general principle--indeed, in the abstract 
     the idea has appeal. And not even because the trend of recent 
     years toward some kind of world government is a direct 
     affront to American sovereignty, as it surely is.
       The U.S. government should continue to be against this 
     proposal because America's potential exposure to the 
     potential misuse of such an entity is greater than that of 
     most other nations.
       That's because America is a superpower that is often called 
     upon to be the world's policeman. By tradition and instinct, 
     it has chosen to pursue an active, interventionist foreign 
     policy during many stretches of its history, acting as a 
     force for good in the world. No nation has single-handedly 
     done more to defend down-trodden people against tyranny or to 
     combat the problems of disease, poverty and deprivation.
       Accordingly, America has had far-flung military and 
     civilian operations sometimes in circumstances or with 
     outcomes sufficiently ambiguous as to make it a target for 
     prosecution in an international court if the people who ran 
     that court happened not to like Americans.
       The purpose of the proposed entity would be to try and 
     sentence war criminals, violators of human rights and 
     perpetrators of genocide. Administration officials fear that 
     the machinery of an international court could, if it fell 
     into the wrong hands, mean trouble for American troops or 
     their leaders--trouble caused by someone who tried to paint 
     an American military intervention (Haiti? Panama?) as a 
     violation of human rights or a foreign policy decision (Henry 
     Kissinger on the bombing of Cambodia in 1970) as a war crime. 
     Not everyone sees things through the sees things through the 
     same eyes. George Bush, the former president, is either a 
     national liberator or a war criminal, depending on whether 
     you are Kuwaiti or Iraqi.
       The spectacle of Americans, based on foreign policy 
     differences, being hauled before a foreign tribunal without 
     the protections of the U.S. Constitution would be an affront 
     to U.S. sovereignty.
       Moreover, standards evolve unpredictably. Just a few years 
     ago, the death penalty was widely used around the world. 
     Recently, moralists all across Europe applauded when Amnesty 
     International labeled the United States a human rights 
     violator for not outlawing capital punishment. does that make 
     George Bush and Bill Clinton, under whom executions were 
     conducted when they were governors, violators of human 
     rights? Not now, perhaps. But later? The evolution continues.
       Thirty-seven nations have ratified the treaty that would 
     form the court. They range from E.U. nations to Senegal, 
     Croatia and Tajikistan. Increasingly, collective operations 
     seem to appeal to the E.U. and parts of the Third World. 
     Americans may just have

[[Page E1417]]

     to recognize--and hope they recognize it, too--that our 
     interests are sometimes different from theirs, and govern 
     ourselves accordingly.

     

                          ____________________