[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10462-10463]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, over the past few months the International 
Criminal Court, ICC, has taken important steps towards becoming an 
effective forum to hold accountable those accused of war crimes, 
genocide, and crimes against humanity. By all accounts, the countries 
participating in these negotiations did an excellent job of selecting 
qualified jurists and, perhaps most importantly, a responsible and 
experienced prosecutor.
  But an important voice is missing from these negotiations. That voice 
is the United States, a country which was founded on the principles of 
the rule of

[[Page 10463]]

law, human rights, and democratic freedoms.
  Perhaps more than at any other time, the past few months have 
highlighted the folly of the Bush administration's policy towards the 
ICC.
  The whole world wants the United States to be involved with the 
development of this institution. Yet, instead of seizing this 
opportunity to shape the Court in our interests, we are one of the only 
democracies sitting on the sidelines--joined by some of the world's 
worst human rights offenders. It is an embarrassment, and contrary to 
the arguments of those who oppose the Court, it is self-defeating.
  Instead of making sure that the ICC will function the way we want it 
to, this Administration withdrew our signature from the Rome Treaty and 
supported legislation, the American Service Members Protection Act, 
openly hostile to the ICC.
  Instead of working to influence the selection of judges, prosecutors, 
and other ICC officials, our negotiators are not even sitting at the 
table.
  Has the administration taken this position because they believe 
engagement is not a viable strategy to promote U.S. interests in 
international negotiations?
  Clearly not. One need only look at their position on military 
training assistance to the Indonesian Armed Forces. Despite the fact 
the Indonesian military is a corrupt, brutal institution that has been 
implicated in the deaths of American citizens, the State Department 
says that U.S. aid to this institution ``provides a vehicle for the 
United States to impart our ideas about civil-military relations to 
foreign military audiences, and to promote military reform.''
  I don't favor training the Indonesian military unless they show they 
want to reform. Then we can and should help them.
  But the ICC is an institution designed to punish the world's worst 
criminals. The Administration refuses to engage with the ICC, but it 
will engage with the Indonesian military. If anything, it should be the 
other way around. We should be working to shape the ICC, an imperfect 
but potentially valuable institution, to promote U.S. interests, while 
distancing ourselves from institutions that are corrupt, abusive and 
incapable of reform.
  The administration points to efforts to combat international 
terrorism as the reason that it wants to restore military training for 
Indonesia. The same can be said for the ICC. The Court could become an 
important forum to try dictators or others involved in atrocities--
providing an important tool to deter acts of international terrorism.
  Another explanation for the administration's policy might be that the 
United States simply got nowhere during previous negotiating sessions 
and further engagement simply will not yield results.
  In fact, during the negotiations on the Rome Treaty, the U.S. 
delegation worked to ensure that the Court will serve our national 
interests by being a strong, effective institution. They succeeded in 
inserting a number of important safeguards, including provisions to 
deter frivolous prosecutions.
  Like any international agreement, the U.S. did not get 100 percent of 
what we wanted in the negotiations. However, that is why the U.S. 
should remain involved with the Court. As the distinguished senior 
Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, has said, U.S. policy toward 
the International Criminal Court should be one of ``aggressive 
engagement.''
  Instead, the Bush administration has taken its bat and ball and 
walked off the field. While this might make those opposed to the Court 
feel better, the fact of the matter is that the ICC is a reality--even 
the Bush administration acknowledges this. It is rapidly becoming 
operational and will have jurisdiction over offenses committed on the 
territory of state parties, even if those offenses are committed by the 
citizens of nonparty states.
  Bush administration officials have said over and over that the power 
of the prosecutor is one of the main reasons that they oppose the ICC. 
In March, the New York Times reported that, because of the historic 
role that the United States has played in international justice, many 
nations sought to appoint an American as Chief Prosecutor to the Court.
  I can think of few measures that would have been more effective in 
accomplishing the Administration's stated goal of guarding against 
political prosecutions of American soldiers than having an American 
citizen serve as Chief Prosecutor. However, the New York Times article 
went on to point out that the Administration's policy of being openly 
hostile towards the ICC was precluding an American from being appointed 
to this critical position.
  Ultimately, an Argentine was selected as the prosecutor. While this 
prosecutor appears to be a very capable, distinguished individual, one 
gets the sense that if U.S. policy towards the ICC had been less 
hostile, an American would now occupy that position.
  The U.S. need not be estranged from the ICC. Our closest allies, 
almost all of whom are strong supporters of the Court, have made it 
clear that with or without U.S. ratification of the Rome Treaty they 
would welcome our involvement in guiding its development.
  As a signatory to the final document of the Rome Conference we had 
the right to participate in all of the various preparatory meetings 
leading up to the creation of the Court. Despite its concerns about the 
Court--or rather, because of them--it is bewildering that the Bush 
administration chose to not even send U.S. representatives to 
participate in the final negotiations.
  Instead of supporting frivolous legislation that declares war on The 
Hague and would cut off military assistance to a number of key friends 
and allies, this administration should reconsider its position on the 
ICC.
  By sitting on the sidelines, the United States is losing out on its 
ability to influence the structure and culture of this important new 
institution. Each time we refuse to join another treaty or 
international organization, which has become a pattern of this 
administration, we erode our international leadership.
  I urge the administration to re-engage in a discussion with the 
Congress, and with our allies, of how the United States can once again 
play a constructive, leadership role in ensuring that the International 
Criminal Court effectively carries out its historic mandate.

                          ____________________