Stardate 20020713.1253

(On Screen): So, in the aftermath of the UN deal granting 12 months of immunity to American peacekeeping forces from ICC prosecution, what is the reaction from Europe?

They love it. They're lukewarm. They're royally pissed off.

Just as in the aftermath of Bush's speech about Israel, there was a stunned pause followed by a clamor of voices all across the spectrum of reactions. What this means is that Europe is one step behind again, and the lack of clear reaction is due to the fact that it's dawning on them that they just lost. Again.

This deal is looking more and more like a European cave-in. It isn't just that it gave the US (and all other non-signatory nations) a 12-month immunity; it's basically assumed that it will be renewed for another 12 months, and another... it's a permanent immunity on the installment plan. I think that when the European powers (i.e. France) agreed to this deal what they hoped was that a year from now they'd be able to convince the US that the court was wonderfully benign and nothing to fear and let's just sort of let that immunity lapse now without renewing it, eh? Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be what the Bush administration has in mind considering what our UN ambassador said afterwards:

But the possibility that the exemption would not be renewed brought a stiff warning from US Ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte.

"We cannot accept a structure that may transform the political criticism of America's world role into the basis for criminal trials of Americans who have put their lives on the line for freedom," he said.

"Should the ICC eventually seek to detain any American, the United States would regard this as illegitimate.

"No nation should underestimate our commitment to protect our citizens."

President Bush's administration had been threatening to veto all future UN peacekeeping missions if the American military was not granted permanent immunity from the ICC.

Those in Europe who say they're happy are pointing out that the Bosnian peacekeeping mission wasn't shut down, and the damage to the ICC wasn't all that bad. Those who are angry are pointing out that the most fundamental and important part of the entire ICC concept, universal scope, has been damaged.

For all the rhetoric about the US not being in peril from the ICC, the deep agenda of its proponents is precisely that the ICC be able to target everyone, big and small, signatory or not. As soon as it becomes clear that it only applies to those who are parties to the treaty then this is gutted, and that's what has happened now.