Trump and the ICC
It’s easy to lose sight of some of Trump’s actions in the three weeks – is it only three weeks? – since he was inaugurated. So much has happened.
But I don’t want to ignore this EO of Trump’s concerning the International Criminal Court:
I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that the International Criminal Court (ICC), as established by the Rome Statute, has engaged in illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America and our close ally Israel. The ICC has, without a legitimate basis, asserted jurisdiction over and opened preliminary investigations concerning personnel of the United States and certain of its allies, including Israel, and has further abused its power by issuing baseless arrest warrants targeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Former Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant. The ICC has no jurisdiction over the United States or Israel, as neither country is party to the Rome Statute or a member of the ICC. Neither country has ever recognized the ICC’s jurisdiction, and both nations are thriving democracies with militaries that strictly adhere to the laws of war. The ICC’s recent actions against Israel and the United States set a dangerous precedent, directly endangering current and former United States personnel, including active service members of the Armed Forces, by exposing them to harassment, abuse, and possible arrest. …
The United States will impose tangible and significant consequences on those responsible for the ICC’s transgressions, some of which may include the blocking of property and assets, as well as the suspension of entry into the United States of ICC officials, employees, and agents, as well as their immediate family members, as their entry into our Nation would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.
The ICC is one of those Orwellian institutions so prevalent these days. Under the guise of “international law,” it manages to allow corrupt dictatorships and countries that trash human rights to sanction countries such as the US and Israel, particularly the latter. The UN and the ICC and other international groups such as Amnesty are responsible for a great deal of the propaganda success of terrorists.
Trump sanctioned the ICC during his first term. The Biden administration lifted those sanctions as one of its early moves (the linked article is from April of 2021):
President Joe Biden on Friday lifted sanctions and visa restrictions on officials of the International Criminal Court, reversing another foreign policy move by former President Donald Trump.
The Biden administration move will please human rights activists as well as many of America’s allies in Europe, a group Biden is determined to reconnect with in the wake of souring relations under Trump.
Still, the Biden administration, like other Republican and Democratic administrations in the past, remains wary of the ICC, whose jurisdiction the United States does not recognize. Just weeks ago, the U.S. slammed the ICC for moving toward investigating Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, noting that Israel also does not submit to the court’s jurisdiction. The Trump administration had imposed the penalties in part because of ICC efforts to investigate actions of the U.S. and other parties in Afghanistan.
So, why did the Biden administration lift the sanctions, if it remained “wary” of the ICC and “slammed” it? The answer highlights one of the many many differences between the Biden administration and Trump:
“We continue to disagree strongly with the ICC’s actions relating to the Afghanistan and Palestinian situations,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a statement that announced an end to the sanctions. “We maintain our longstanding objection to the Court’s efforts to assert jurisdiction over personnel of non-States Parties such as the United States and Israel. We believe, however, that our concerns about these cases would be better addressed through engagement with all stakeholders in the ICC process rather than through the imposition of sanctions.”
Aha! You see, they “disagree strongly.” They “maintain” their “longstanding objection.” Disagreeing and objecting are mere words, quite meaningless in the real world – as events later proved. Do sanctions work? Probably not all that much. But they certainly have a better chance of doing something effective than mere words.
This is wonderful. More would be better. I hoped Trump could use his creative genius to go thoroughly medieval on their ass, but I suppose there are limits to what even he can do.
Superb work from Trump
Blinken on the ICC:
We believe, however, that our concerns about these cases would be better addressed through engagement with all stakeholders in the ICC process rather than through the imposition of sanctions.”
Whenever you hear people use the word “engagement,” run. They are up to no good.
A great “buckle up” Friday post from the Whale Psychiatrist on X:
https://x.com/k_ovfefe2/status/1888030764593193455
Gringo:
Stewart Brand, of Whole Earth fame, once said, parodying Goebbels or some such Nazi, “When I hear the word, ‘share,’ I would reach for my gun if I had one.”
That’s how I feel about “engagement” or “conversation.”
From Whale Psychiatrist:
On reflection, it’s a little surprising it’s taken this long; this guy was (at least publicly) one of the people behind the FBI’s Mar-a-Lago raid, IIRC.