The US government’s moves to sanction the International Criminal Court represent an unwelcome distraction that sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of the world.
The ICC is certainly an elitist organisation, and it is intrusive in certain areas to the point of justifying reforms and new safeguards. But that should not disguise the wider harms that come from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s latest pushback against the court.
Mr Rubio has warned that Washington will demolish the ICC “brick by brick” unless it ends the overreach of prosecuting US citizens for alleged battlefield crimes. “Republicans and Democrats alike rejected the idea that the International Criminal Court had the power to prosecute American citizens, military service members or political leaders,” he said earlier this month. “America never joined the court. We don’t need it. And we don’t want it.”
Washington is undoubtedly entitled to resist the wildest demands of the court, but it is in principle setting a precedent that the US and the rest of the world could come to regret.
Overarching global bodies perform a necessary function in a world where scores of nations are growing and interacting in pursuit of common development. There is a well-established set of benefits that stems from having a common point at which countries establish rules and guidelines on how to co-operate better together.
The people who work in these international systems are more often motivated to carry forward the principles and ideals of global co-operation than the pursuit of a narrow agenda or ideology. In any event, the need for this architecture is the most important element to remained focused on.
It is not just courts and the highest echelons of international law that come under a shadow when the US takes this sort of action. There is also the UN, which has a number of agencies under its umbrella, such as the World Bank Group. There are also a number of private and public institutions that are dedicated to a “force for good” impact. There are even areas of scientific and research co-operation to tackle issues such as health, metrological developments and geographic changes.
To some critics, this is an archipelago of the legal industry that has become a historical aberration. Calling out poor performances or abuses of powers is, therefore, a natural effort that restores balance in the international system.
As an unchallenged superpower, the US had an outsized role in judging how the far the balance had tilted one way or another – even in situations where it had not subscribed to the international body, such as the ICC. But President Donald Trump has gone even further across his two terms.
For a sample of his view on global institutions, his reaction to the Nobel Peace Prize given last week to Navi Pillay – the jurist who has carried out inquiries for the UN – was tellingly dismissive. “In all of the wars that I have settled, I never spoke to the United Nations. They were of no help to me,” he said. Leaving aside the record of settling or initiating wars, you have in Mr Trump’s statement the fundamental starting point of the US administration.
The problem is, when the fabric of global co-operation starts to get worn down by sanctions, it has to rely on the willingness of people to volunteer to undertake any given mission. That is a wider point than suggesting that people will no longer work for free or give their backing to appeals that are led by international institutions.
The campaign amounts to an attack on those who offer their professional skills, talent and dedication to the inner workings of the world. For many, the difference between signing up for good works and suffering the penalties of a powerful system that turns against international work is a dividing line they would not cross.
Just for personal reasons, including to insulate themselves and their families, they will find that the appeal of making a contribution has diminished or been extinguished. The ethos that dies, then, becomes impossible to replace. What come next are the cynical and the exploitative instincts of those with an agenda.
That sets the international system on a collision course within itself and among the nation-states that have a clear need for good rules of the road.
Also, as frustrating as it might be for the US to suffer constant challenges, there is a reflection of its own strength across the international system. Undermining that extension of its own powerful role in the world is, ultimately, not in its interest.
It is the quiet death of the best people not turning up that will be the consequence of applying system-wide sanctions. Mission creep will follow, too, as sanctions tend to be addictive for policymakers with few tools as easy to embrace in a world of grey choices and negative developments.
Other countries might even emulate the US government’s actions, which would lead to the worst sort of competitive dynamic. Within the global system, the leadership is bound to go into defensive mode. Co-operation could succumb to confrontation. Reform could become an illusory platitude.
There is little positive to say about what might follow. A bad idea begets worse ones, so don’t be surprised if the world ends up in the worst possible situation.