[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 127 (Wednesday, September 26, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9859-S9862]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AN INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, I want to share with my
colleagues my expressions of gratitude to our President, President
Bush, and his team as they have conducted the affairs of our state over
these last number of days since the tragedy of September 11. As has
been said over and over again, both in this Chamber and elsewhere, they
have done, I think, a superlative job. They have done so with the
complete, total cooperation of the distinguished majority leader,
Senator Daschle, the Democratic leader in the House, Richard Gephardt,
along with Speaker Hastert and, of course, the minority leader, Senator
Lott, and others.
The past days have been a wonderful expression of the kind of unity
and support that the country expected, and, I think, deserved. We are
on the right track, in my view. None of us knows, as the President said
so eloquently just a few feet from here in the other Chamber almost a
week ago, if we can say with any certainty what course this response of
ours will take or how long it will take--but we know the outcome. And
the outcome for certain is that democracy will trump terrorists. It may
take us weeks or months--even years--but I stand with those who say
that in the final analysis, maybe long after those of us who are
Members of this Chamber today are gone from our service here, we will
prevail. And to those who share our values and commitment to the
eradication of international terrorism, we stand with them.
So it is with that as a backdrop, in a way, that I rise to speak this
afternoon, because I was so disheartened to be in my office a little
while ago to hear the proposal of an amendment or two that would be
offered next week to the Department of Defense authorization bill.
I listened just about 2 hours ago to my President speak to the
employees of the Central Intelligence Agency, along with George Tenet,
the Director. The President's words were once again eloquent, and
certainly captured my feelings, my sense of gratitude to the men and
women who work in our intelligence-gathering agencies for the
tremendous job they do, under tremendous pressures, with tremendously
high expectations.
The President, once again, reminded his audience there, as he has the
American audience, and the audience of this world, that the ultimate
outcome of this effort we are now undertaking will absolutely, without
any equivocation, depend upon international cooperation.
The idea, somehow, that the United States, with all of our strength--
economically, militarily--will be able unilaterally to seek out, find,
and destroy international terrorism is a myth.
I know there are those who suggest we may be left with no one else
but ourselves to deal with this. That may be the case. I doubt it, but
it may be the case. But the idea that somehow we
[[Page S9860]]
are going to be able to, on our own, go after terrorism, in what the
President has described as at least 60 other nations that harbor these
groups, is totally a myth. What is going to be absolutely essential, if
we are going to succeed--and I have no doubt we will--in dealing with
this problem, for however long it takes, will be cooperation by our
allies, by friends, by even some who may not be our friends today but
who share the common goal of eradicating the scourge of terrorism.
That is going to require a herculean effort, on behalf of our people,
by very bright, sophisticated leaders. I happen to think we have those
leaders. I have great confidence in General Colin Powell, the Secretary
of State. We have not always agreed over the years on various matters,
but he is a patriot, a person who understands the kind of world in
which we live.
I think Don Rumsfeld demonstrated, beyond any question of a doubt,
his courage and patriotism on September 11, as he stayed in the bunker
of the Pentagon during the assault on that institution.
I have no doubt that Condoleezza Rice too will serve our country
well--I continue down the list. I think these are not just good people,
they are bright people. They are competent people who can do a good job
to go out and develop and build those relationships.
Whether this problem is solved diplomatically, militarily, or by a
combination of the two, it is going to require international
cooperation.
Mr. President, why do I focus on this? Because I hear that we are
about to vote and consider an amendment to the Department of Defense
authorization bill that would absolutely prohibit the United States
from being involved in developing a court of international justice, an
international criminal court.
I cannot believe that at this hour this great body of the U.S. Senate
is about to go on record, at the very moment we are asking the world to
join us in apprehending the thugs and criminals who took 6,000 lives in
New York and several hundred here in Washington, that this Chamber,
this body, this Government, at this hour, would say we will have
nothing to do with the establishment of an international criminal
court. So I come to the Chamber to express my outrage that we might
consider such a proposal. I do not object to the notion that, as
presently crafted, the treaty of the Rome statute, which would
establish the court, is flawed. In fact, if, for some reason,
miraculously the proposal were brought to this Senate Chamber this
afternoon, and I were asked to vote on it as is, I would vote against
it because it is a flawed agreement. But that is not to say we should
not stay at the table to try to work it out so that it becomes a viable
product which we can support and gather behind.
So when I hear, on the one hand, how we need to develop international
cooperation to go after these people, and we turn around and walk away
from an institution which could make a significant contribution to
dealing with this problem, I find it stunning. My fervent hope would be
if, for whatever reason, this matter, as it is presently structured,
comes up for a vote, that we would vote against it.
I do not know what vehicles may be available to me, but I am going to
strenuously object to the idea we would consider such a proposal. God
knows that the horrific acts we witnessed 2 weeks ago suggest that an
international forum for bringing to justice those who commit terrorist
acts or acts against humanity is now more needed than ever.
Let me step back a little bit in history, if I can. It was the United
States, at the end of World War II, under our leadership, that created
the U.N. system. With all of its warts, with all of its shortcomings,
with its mounds of bureaucracy that infuriate from time to time, I do
not know of any sensible person who believes that the world would be a
safer or better place in the absence of that building on the East River
in New York, where the world can gather to resolve, or attempt to
resolve, some of the most difficult disputes and problems we face. It
has not solved all of them by any stretch--and I can't prove a
negative; I don't know how many were avoided because of its existence--
but I happen to believe that most people--reasonable people--believe
that the establishment of a U.N. system has been a worthwhile endeavor.
It has made the last 50 years, with all of its various problems around
the globe, a safer 50 years than it would have been had that
institution not existed.
What a great irony it is that the very people who understood the
value of having a U.N. system--people such as General George Marshall,
people such as Harry Truman, people who came after in terms of the
wisdom of our foreign policy, the John Foster Dulles giants, who said
we really do need to establish these forums to try to act as a buffer,
as a place where some of these efforts can be resolved without using
the historic means of resolution; and that is armed confrontation--how
ironic, indeed, that this great Nation, which fought tooth and nail to
establish the U.N. system, the genocide convention is now shirking its
international duty.
In fact, you will forgive me if I indulge in a little personal
observation. As some of my colleagues here are aware, I was a 1-year-
old child in 1945 when my father left my mother and five of us to go to
a place called Nuremberg where for the next year and a half he was an
executive trial counsel at the first Nuremberg trials.
I grew up as a child, after my father returned, hearing about what
that tribunal had tried to accomplish, what it had been able to do, and
how my father in many ways regretted there had not been in the 1930s
such a forum in existence where we might have been able to bring a thug
like Adolf Hitler to justice. He would often say the existence of a
criminal tribunal that could take the Hitlers and Milosevics to task
might just have avoided the problems that later emerged.
It is stunning to me, as I have said already, that at this very
moment where we have watched the most significant and historic attack
on innocent civilians in our Nation's history, and where we are calling
with one voice for international cooperation to help find not only
those responsible but to develop a system that would minimize these
events from occurring again, that we might take a step away from the
establishment of a forum that would be a place where those who are
responsible could be brought to a bar of justice.
We saw the difficulty that occurred when we finally were able to
determine who was responsible for the terrorist attack on Pan Am Flight
103, and we know how hard it was to find a forum where those people
could be tried. It ultimately took a Scottish court and significant
negotiations to bring those criminals to justice. Had we had an
International Criminal Court as we do today in the Hague for other such
matters, we might have had a forum where that matter could have been
resolved without going through the difficulties we saw.
One of the arguments that has been raised is that we don't want young
men and women in uniform, who are going out today to the far corners of
the world to deal with this issue, to be apprehended and tried before
some kangaroo court. I do not want that either. But whether we are a
part of drafting this agreement or not, it may get established--in
fact, it is likely to--without our participation. And our young men and
women in uniform are going to be subjected to that jurisdiction whether
we like it or not.
The fact that we are not a signatory to the court doesn't mean that
somehow our servicemen and women are exempt from its jurisdiction. All
it means is that when we retreat from helping craft this court our
ability to structure it in a way that would minimize the threat of
innocent men and women in uniform being brought before it is gone. The
message we are sending right now is that we are going to walk away from
this process and leave our young men and women subjected to the
potential vagaries of such a court because we do not want to be
involved in the discussions surrounding its creation.
This amendment is called, ironically, the American Servicemen's
Protection Act. It is anything but. The establishment of this amendment
places our men and women in uniform in greater jeopardy than they would
be if we were to participate in trying to develop the structures of
this court to minimize problems.
We are simply sticking a finger, at the very hour we ought to be
doing otherwise, in the eyes of our friends.
[[Page S9861]]
Clearly, war criminals and terrorists must be thrilled at the notion
that an international bar of justice continues to be blocked by their
arch enemy, the United States of America.
I am prepared to take whatever steps I can in the next few days to
see to it that this amendment is defeated. It was in this very Chamber
on the night of September 10 that I stood and objected to the Craig
amendment, which eliminated all funding for us to get involved in
establishment of this court. I was urged not to ask my colleagues for a
recorded vote. I didn't. I regret so now.
Within less than 24 hours of that night, we saw an international act
of terrorism take the lives of many of our fellow citizens. I am not
suggesting the adoption or the defeat of that amendment would have
changed the course of history, but how ironic that on the eve of the
September 11th attack, this body went on record as saying we are not
even going to finance a commission of the United States to go in and
try and improve the Rome treaty, to try to make it more workable and
more acceptable to the United States.
That amendment was adopted as part of the State-Justice-Commerce
appropriations bill. The question now is whether or not we are going to
take the language under this so-called American Servicemen's Protection
Act and incorporate it as part of the Department of Defense
authorization bill.
I am disheartened because I understand that the administration,
despite the fact they had expressed some opposition to such an approach
only a few days ago, has now decided to give their endorsement to this
proposal in exchange for which apparently the Republican leadership in
the House are going to release the U.N. arrearages. That is the
tradeoff apparently.
To their credit, the administration has negotiated some waiver
authority in these proposals. But the overall message we are sending to
the international community is a terrible one, in my view. On the one
hand, the Secretary has called on everyone to stand with us, while on
the other hand, we are once again suggesting that we can go it alone.
It is contradictory, to say the very least.
It is just like the approach we have taken on too many other issues.
I won't go into all of them here. But if we are going to be asking the
world to cooperate, we have to send a better message on some of these
other issues. I favor increased security measures here at home as well
as additional authorities for law enforcement. I will take a back seat
to no one in our common determination to improve the quality of safety
in this country. But as all of my colleagues, I believe it ought to be
done thoughtfully so that we don't wake up one day and find that our
Nation as we know it exists no longer.
I don't want my country to become a gated community internationally.
I don't want to have to go through all sorts of walls and metal
detectors to get in to visit some friends. I want my country to still
be a free and open place. I want us to be engaged in the world. You
can't be a gated community in the international sense and also be a
major player globally and economically. You certainly are not going to
be successful in going after terrorists if you decide we are going to
become a gated community and retreat from international agreements.
Then the terrorists victory is vastly in excess of what it was on
September 11.
That day they destroyed buildings and took lives and we will never
forget their actions. But if beyond that they are also able to do
things to cause us to walk away from international agreements and
create that gated community here at home, then their victory is far
beyond the terrible success they had only a few short days ago.
I hope my colleagues over the weekend will give some thought to this
amendment. Don't be deceived by the title. It is anything but
protecting our service men and women.
Finally, it seems to me that it is time to be honest with ourselves
about why international terrorism has become such a growing threat. We
need only look into the oppressed faces of citizens of some of the
governments we, frankly, have supported despite their less than
acceptable treatment of their own citizenry over the years. The
children, teenagers, of many of these countries grow up hating their
leaders and, frankly, our own country for keeping them in power,
supporting them as they stay in power. These young people become foot
soldiers who are all too readily persuaded by the likes of the Osama
bin Ladens of this world that violence is the answer to their
grievances. And I would hope, as we analyze what we need to do at home
to protect our security and how we can play a more constructive role
internationally and build those coalitions that are essential for our
long-term success in overcoming this threat, that we also take time to
stand up to some of these regimes and be on the side of humanity
everywhere.
Our Founding Fathers did not only talk about those in the United
States when they talked about inalienable rights; they wisely wrote
about all people, not only those who lived within the borders of the
then-Thirteen Colonies of what would constitute the United States. They
spoke to the aspirations and hopes of other people as well.
We are that legacy, if you will. We are the generations that will
come after to perpetuate those very values. This is a vastly different
world than those who founded this country faced. Today, we are talking
about billions of people around the globe, and about a nation whose
power is vastly in excess of what is was 220 years ago. If we are going
to live up to the ideals incorporated in the Declaration of
Independence and the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, then we need
to understand and hear those voices out there who cry out for some
leadership, cry out for advocates. We ought to step back and look and
see whether or not our short-term policy needs are satisfying the long-
term security needs of the Nation.
We must also come to grips with the Muslim faith. That doesn't mean
trying to keep secular governments in place in countries where the will
of the people is otherwise. It means beginning to understand the
underlying premises of that faith, and by conveying our respect. It
means a commitment by our Government to spend resources so that we
understand them better.
That is what President Kennedy was trying to do when he created the
Peace Corps 40 years ago. The Peace Corps is a wonderful organization.
I was proud to have been a member of the Peace Corps some 35 years ago.
However, it has not been as active, in my view, as it could have been,
particularly in Muslim countries where we might have been better served
by having hundreds of thousands of young Americans working in those
poor communities.
It is not an easy task for the Peace Corps to go everywhere, but the
focus should be on those areas where the need is the greatest like
Afghanistan and Pakistan and Indonesia. Taking the time to recruit the
people with the language skills and ability and knowledge of these
cultures could do an awful lot to change some of the anti-American
attitudes we see, in my view. We should be getting started now so that
in the aftermath of the military actions we are going to take,
particularly in some of the Muslim countries, we will be ready to show
a different face of our country, one that isn't simply militarily
strong, but one that also incorporates justice and humanity and respect
for religious faiths, in accordance with the true principles deeply
imbedded in our own value systems that call for the exercise of freedom
in our own Nation.
It is time to take a hard look at our path. Yes, we need to act in
the coming days to address the immediate threats, as I mentioned
already--the challenges confronting our Nation in the international
community that stem from the tragedy at the World Trade Center and our
Pentagon. But we have to take a longer and harder look at those actions
at home and abroad that will make not only ourselves safer, but the
world safer for our citizens and the citizens of this globe.
History will judge how we act, not only in the short term, protecting
our shores, which is our primary responsibility, but also the kind of
framework we establish and the kind of reaching out that will be
necessary. So when the history of our generation is written on how we
responded to this great crisis at home, historians will write about a
great nation that did not close its doors and create a gated community,
[[Page S9862]]
but truly reached out to the international community and respected the
rights of all human beings and made an effort to understand the
grievances that built up in the ranks of these madmen terrorists that
allowed them to carry out their savage attacks as they did on the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon. That is a complicated task.
The world is looking to us. We are the greatest power on the face of
the Earth--economically, politically, and militarily. They are looking
to see how we respond to this. If next week we adopt amendments here
that walk away from international criminal courts, and we just go in
militarily and don't understand what is behind some of these reactions
we are seeing in these places, then I think history will judge us
harshly. So our first responsibility is to protect our citizens--not
just the generation we presently represent, but the generations we also
represent who are yet unborn whose very fate may be determined by the
actions we take in the coming days.
I have no doubt that President George Walker Bush and his team are
not only competent but are dedicated and have the ability to lead us.
They have a Congress and a nation that wants to follow them.
I only urge that they act wisely and not cut deals and make
arrangements for short-term success that could do our Nation some very
long-term harm.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________