[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 56 (Tuesday, May 7, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Page S3946]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION DECISION TO ``UNSIGN'' THE ROME STATUTE

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I come to the floor to express my 
disappointment with the Bush Administration's decision to unsign the 
Rome Statute, and withdraw the United States from the process of 
creating an international criminal court.
  We are told this decision was made in order to protect American 
troops and American sovereignty from a faceless international 
bureaucracy. Unfortunately, it does the opposite. In fact, this 
decision vastly decreases our ability to shape the ICC, ignores the 
fact that the ICC will come into existence regardless of whether we are 
involved or not, and raises the specter of unilateralism just as we 
will be turning to our allies for help in a series of crucial policy, 
diplomatic--and perhaps military--undertakings.
  Administrations since President Truman have supported the 
establishment of a criminal court to try the worst crimes against 
humanity. Reasonable people can disagree about the merits of the Rome 
Statute. Like many of my colleagues, I have some concerns about its 
jurisdiction and potential impact on U.S. forces deployed overseas.
  I do not, however, think the consequences of simply walking away from 
the Statute should be ignored. Instead of asserting our leadership, we 
are abdicating it. Instead of shaping the court to serve our interests, 
we have relinquished our seat at the table and removed ourselves from a 
position to shape it at all.
  This is especially disappointing, Madam President, when you consider 
the simple fact that the ICC will still come into existence in July. 
That was made clear in New York on April 11, when the 60th nation 
ratified the Rome Statute, putting it into effect. To date, 64 nations 
have ratified the statute. Only one--the United States--has withdrawn.
  When it comes time to pick prosecutors and judges, which it will do, 
we will not be at the table. And when it comes time to consider rules 
of evidence, which it will do, our voices will be absent.
  But let's consider also exactly who some of those 60 are--Britain, 
Canada, France, Italy and Spain, all NATO allies, all currently 
fighting side-by-side with our troops in Afghanistan and the Balkans. 
And all whom we hope to count on in future conflicts in our war on 
terrorism.
  Yesterday afternoon, our Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues 
said that America had ``washed our hands [of the ICC]. It's over.'' If 
it were only so, Madam President. We did not put the ICC out of 
business. But we did take ourselves out of the action--and out of a 
position to influence the ICC. The decision to unsign was the wrong 
decision at the wrong time and, most troubling of all, not in keeping 
with the American national interest.




                          ____________________