U.S. will withdraw from U.N. peacekeeping unless troops are exempted from world court

[Roland]

"They give the international community a rationale for neglecting the development of native justice systems in countries subject to them."

As their jurisdiction is of a subsidiary nature I don't see that. How yo they get neglected ? Should the US and EU say "we'll build you a nice local legal system"?

[Roland]

"We have NO such obligation, we always did it because we felt it right and moralistic."

No obligation, indeed. But a bit of well-understood self-interest too, occasionally.

"But it's clear Europe wants to have a number of pan-national organizations handle everything from trade to peacekeeping, so I say fine, let them."

Only where IOs are useful. As for trade, the WTO was the result of the US and the EC getting tired of the low scale trade wars - both were behind its creation.

"You go your way, we will go ours, let's put an end to Nato"

Exactly.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Chris, isolationism doesn't work. It hurts more than it helps. We don't exist in a void, and we aren't powerful enough to engage in autarky. We depend on other countries around the world, and should engage them. Isolationism is never the answer and furthermore is hurtful to our economic interests, which DOES impact domestically.

I didn't say isolationism Imran, I said act only in our interests.

Make our own treaties, and handle our own buisness.

Europe can handle all the peacekeeping, all the overseas bases, all the economic problems, do all the condeming in the UN, in other words, we can go back to being a nation, just like before, and they can handle it.
We suck at it anyway, they can have it.

We will honor our treaties, same as always, but forget US dollars and US lives serving someone else's interests.

They can do THAT for themselves.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And if there is NO native justice system, then why should international criminals go free?

Let's look at a real case and not your prefered hypothetical: Rawanda. Rawanda permits the use of the death penalty for defendants prosecuted in Rawandan courts (Glory be! Yes, they actually do have a justice system. ), but the 150-200 of the most serious offenders have escaped this threat by virtue of being indicted by the ICTR.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I didn't say isolationism Imran, I said act only in our interests.

NATO was in our interests, so is the WTO and World Bank. Most of the 'peacekeeping' is in our interests. We want stability in regions so, for example, our oil prices don't go through the roof.

Chris, it ALL ties in with our interests. Economically, we cannot continue to be successful if we pull away. Most of where we have gone in since the end of the Cold War has been to promote our interests across the world. We want a spread of democracy these days, because so we can gain more from trade.

We will honor our treaties, same as always, but forget US dollars and US lives serving someone else's interests.

They hardly ever do... and we have broken many a treaty.

I don't think the US, as the Hegemon should look inwards and selfishly only go for its own interests. I think it should look at the big picture, and see that its long term interest is with a stable, prosperous world that requires US dollars and US lives to be spent now.

[Jack the Bodiless]

I didn't say isolationism Imran, I said act only in our interests.

Make our own treaties, and handle our own buisness.

In other words: become a Rogue State(tm).

Why should others seek to do business with a nation that sees itself as exempt from international laws and obligations?

How would this not harm US economic interests?

Besides, if the US acts "only in its own interests" but is not isolationist: it can expect more terrorist attacks, and not just from Bin Laden. Power should either be used to benefit the world, or not used at all.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Let's look at a real case and not your prefered hypothetical: Rawanda. Rawanda permits the use of the death penalty for defendants prosecuted in Rawandan courts (Glory be! Yes, they actually do have a justice system. ), but the 150-200 of the most serious offenders have escaped this threat by virtue of being indicted by the ICTR.

And would these people actually be prosecuted in a Rawandan court? War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity aren't crimes that are national in scope. They are international crimes. It was seen by the international community that Rwanda was doing little to prosecute these people. Either they did not have the resources or the will, so the world decided to try these people for their crimes.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Either they did not have the resources or the will, so the world decided to try these people for their crimes.

[The existance International Tribunals] give the international community a rationale for neglecting the development of native justice systems in countries subject to them.

I think that you're making stuff up anyway.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think you're making stuff up anyway too .

International Crimes should be dealt in International Courts. I know that they had to make concessions this time for national courts, but in the future, I hope that every War Crime or Crime Against Humanity that has been done systematically should be handled by the ICC first and **** the national courts.

[Roland]

There has been support for the Ruandan judiciary, but it lacks capacity and may be a bit one-sided. Apart from that you'd have to check how the cases of the International court devide by origin - IIRC there were several where it did not replace the ruandan jurisdiction but the universal jurisdiction of other nations.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
NATO was in our interests, so is the WTO and World Bank. Most of the 'peacekeeping' is in our interests. We want stability in regions so, for example, our oil prices don't go through the roof.

Operative word is "was", and peacekeeping is NOT in our interest.
If an ally calls for help, fine.
Europe has a large population of adult males, they can stick their backsides out to dry as peacekeepers if it's so damned important.
As for fossil fuel prices, it's in our interests for the price to rise, because it would spur US industry to find alternative fuel sources to fossil fuel, thus making us less dependant on such a heavy polutant.

Chris, it ALL ties in with our interests. Economically, we cannot continue to be successful if we pull away. Most of where we have gone in since the end of the Cold War has been to promote our interests across the world. We want a spread of democracy these days, because so we can gain more from trade.

I disagree.
It isn't in the US interest to support half-a$$ed dictators like Saudi Arabia and other fools because we trade with them, we should trade with all, and THEY can decide how to run their nations.
THAT'S in our interests.

They hardly ever do... and we have broken many a treaty.

I don't think the US, as the Hegemon should look inwards and selfishly only go for its own interests. I think it should look at the big picture, and see that its long term interest is with a stable, prosperous world that requires US dollars and US lives to be spent now.

Again, I don't agree.
Our European friends have all the answers, it's time for them to step up and perform, we will just reap the benifit of thier efforts, and not pay the price in blood and money.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well then let's just agree to disagree, because I will never agree with you and you will never agree with me.

I think it is essential that we become even more internationalist than we are now.

[Ned]

Let the brave and powerful Dutch take over from America. There are a lot of Americans who simply do not like the idea of placing American troups under UN command regardless of the ICC.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And there are a lot of American who thought voting for Al Gore was a good idea, what does that prove .

[David Floyd]

International Crimes should be dealt in International Courts.

How is a "crime" committed in a single nation state against only citizens of the same nation state an international crime? That would be sorta like the FBI announcing that, for example, if someone robbed a liquor store in Texas and didn't move across state lines, the FBI would still move in and take jurisdiction. That's ludicrous.

Rwanda was simply a civil war where lots of people died, but it's a damn good thing we didn't put troops in there and get some of them possibly killed.