The debate over a permanent international criminal court is coming to a head. The Clinton administration is threatening to walk out of U.N. deliberations in New York unless its proposal to exempt U.S. citizens is accepted by June 30. Meanwhile, Sen. Jesse Helms and his Republican allies have introduced a bill threatening sanctions against governments that support the court. No one expects the United States to embrace the court anytime soon.
Benign neglect is the most that can be hoped for.
But the vehemence of U.S. objections is founded in part on important misconceptions. By providing a forum to prosecute the authors of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, the court is designed to curtail the impunity that has fueled the worst atrocities of our time. Hiatt charges that the court will in fact have the opposite effect by discouraging military intervention to stop such crimes. Recent history refutes that claim. The Pentagon willingly participated in bombing campaigns over Serb depredations in Bosnia in 1995 and Kosovo in 1999.