The US is the most notorious country for adopting double standards regarding the rulings of this international court and vehemently opposes and supports its rulings at various contexts.
Following the Sunday arrest warrant isssued to the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and ex-Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and despite the fact that many countries promised compliance, the US officials in a contradictory approach condemned the decision against their allies.
As part of staunch support to the Israeli regime, the US President Joe Biden called the ruling "outrageous", adding: "whatever the ICC might imply, there is no equivalence - none - between Israel and Hamas. We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security."
Mike Waltz, the US national security advisor under Trump, said in an X post that "The ICC has no credibility and these allegations have been refuted by the U.S. government... Israel has lawfully defended its people & borders from genocidal terrorists. You can expect a strong response to the antisemitic bias of the ICC & UN come January."
"The Court is a dangerous joke. It is now time for the U.S. Senate to act and sanction this irresponsible body," Lindsey Graham, a hardinle Republican senator, said.
Different US stance in the face of Putin arrest warrant
While American leaders strongly support Netanyahu against the ICC, they take a different view when it comes to their enemies, a clear example of which was Washington's stance towards Russian President Vladimir Putin.
In March 2023, Biden said in a speech that he was pleased with the ICC's arrest warrant targeting Russian leader for alleged war crimes in Ukraine.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken also said that all member states of the ICC should abide by the decision and execute the arrest warrant for Putin.
A US State Department spokesman said that the US had independently concluded that Russian forces in Ukraine had committed war crimes and supported accountability for those responsible. Lindsey Graham also claimed at the time: “Putin is a war criminal and should be arrested and tried in the International Criminal Court."
While members of the US administration justified their defense of Netanyahu by saying that Israel is not a member of the ICC and that the court has no jurisdiction to issue indictments against Tel Aviv, they did not provide the same justification for Putin, whose country is not a member of the ICC.
The anti-Russian stances come while Russia refrains from targeting civilians as much as possible, but the Israelis have killed more than 44,000 innocent civilians, which has outraged world public opinion. Now, people around the world are chanting slogans in the streets not against Russian leaders, but against the leaders of the Israeli occupation, showing that Washington's double standards in dealing with international crises have no effect on positions of nations.
The US obove the ICC, ICJ
The main reason why the US ignores and does not recognize the rulings of the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is because of the laws that have been passed in this country that, in the eyes of the White House officials, are above the rulings issued by international courts.
In this regard, in 2002, then-US President George W. Bush signed the American Soldiers Protection Act, known as “The Hague Invasion Act" for its controversial content. The law takes its name from the Article 2008 of the United States Forces Protection Act, which authorizes the president to use all necessary and appropriate means to release US military personnel and those under the protection of its allies.
The law even allowed the president to order an invasion of the Netherlands, where the ICJ is located, to protect US officials and military personnel from prosecution. It also authorized the use of military force to free any American or citizen of a country allied to the US who is detained by the Hague-based court.
Some staunch backers of Israel in the US have also invoked this law in response to Netanyahu's arrest warrant. Republican Congressman Tom Cotton wrote on X: "The ICC is a kangaroo court and Karim Khan is a deranged fanatic. Woe to him and anyone who tries to enforce these outlaw warrants. Let me give them all a friendly reminder: the American law on the ICC is known as The Hague Invasion Act for a reason. Think about it."
“As the term ‘The Hague Invasion’ suggests, no one knows how far the ICC is willing to go, or how far Americans are prepared to go to defend themselves,” said veteran US diplomat Elliot Abrams.
Israel enthusiast Brian Mast, also a Republican, threatened in response to the ICC ruling that "the US does not recognize the ICC, but the court certainly knows what will happen when it targets our allies."
Why is the US not a member of the international courts?
The US argues that the ICC must turn a blind eye to the crimes of the US and its allies around the world, or it will be punished. As in June 2020, Trump sanctioned the judges of this institution in response to the ICC's decision to investigate US war crimes in Afghanistan.
Also, in April 2023, when under Iran's lawsuit against the US for illegal freezing of assets, the ICJ ruled in favor of Iran, the US called the ruling worthless and claimed that the court does not have the jurisdiction to hear the case.
Although the court's verdict is not legally binding to the US, it exposes the country's crimes to the world's public opinion, and therefore the White House officials do not allow the ICC to investigate the country's war crimes. This is why Washington does not recognize the ICC and is not a member of it, because it knows that if it becomes a member, it will have to answer for decades of crimes in different countries. Therefore, the rulings of international courts are valid for the US as long as they are in favor of Washington and against its enemies, otherwise these rulings are nothing more than pieces of paper.
On the other hand, the court's verdict against the criminal Israeli leaders also damages the image and reputation of the US, which is an accomplice to the occupiers' heinous crimes in Gaza. A recent study by Brown University showed that the Biden administration spent $17.9 billion on military assistance to the Israeli regime in the past year, funds that were vital to the devastating Israeli war on Gaza.
Therefore, as genocides committed on the US strength continue, there is a possibility that even Washington's leaders will be prosecuted by the ICC, which is worrisome for a country like the US that claims to be the world's leader.
The American support for the Israeli regime against international courts allows the leaders of this regime to continue their crimes in the occupied territories and Lebanon without any concern and this issue not only does not de-escalate tensions in the region, but also expands the scope of war.
In order to whitewash the bloody face of the Israeli regime, the American officials have resorted to falsifying news and Israeli crimes, claiming that the number of civilian casualties in Gaza is not high enough to issue an arrest warrant against Netanyahu and other leaders of Tel Aviv.
Washington has even ignored the death of a number of its citizens in the Gaza war in order to reduce the wave of international pressure against the Netanyahu government and avoid criminal cases against it in the US.
Another alarming point about the US's dual approach to the ICC's rulings is that it is likely that guarding against the international courts will become a routine, with none of Washington's allies taking the international consequences of their crimes seriously and as a result they resort to any measures to gain their aims thinking that there is no deterrence to their crimes.
The conflicting stances of the US on the ICC indicate an conflict of justice and political interests. While the US supports the court in such cases as Putin arrest warrant, it strongly opposes the same ruling against Israeli leaders. Actually, the American duality of perspectives on justice not only highlights a paradox in the US policy, but also presents major challenges to the ICC in maintaining its credibility and independence.
No comments:
Post a Comment