I am writing on this subject because I find it both imperative to our understanding of US policy and its own contradictions. I personally find the double-standards evidenced despicable and unacceptable; thus I am compelled to spread this information as far as is possible, to every demographic and corner of the world that is not aware of it already. Indeed I would be very surprised if they weren’t, as it is the biggest miscarraige of justice imaginable.

• HUMAN RIGHTS

     - the International Criminal Court

     A superpower that claims to stand for peace and democracy worldwide, that vows to “bring evildoers to justice” and that launched two large-scale wars in the name of defending the principles of freedom and liberty, openly discarding the legally-binding UN resolutions that protect these very values around the world.

     Take for instance the International Criminal Court. This body is to thank for the prosecution of Slobodan Milosevic for crimes against humanity, as well as several of his cronies. It is responsible for bringing many Nazi war criminals before the court to face sentencing for their horrendous crimes during World War Two - and the court has also been commended with providing a legitimate tribunal for the international community to trust.     

     The U.S flatly refuses to recognize this court. Why, you ask? Well the following may help us understand what they are afraid of.

     As quoted in the ICC’s website which can be viewed by any concerned reader at http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ICC.asp, it states that “the purpose is to have a body that can prosecute serious crimes against humanity no matter who committed them and to try people for gross violations of human rights, such as those committed during military conflicts.” 

     And there we have it.

     The U.S is no stranger to overseas military adventures. They seek immunity from the very rules they expect other nations to follow whilst breaking them in the name of expanding their own hegemony. They are well aware of the past, and indeed present, war crimes committed by their servicemen and women (for countless examples, see the Abu Ghraib atrocities, Guantanamo Bay, the Japan/Okinawa rape cases, etc), and as such are equally aware that those crimes make them no different, in the eyes of international law, than the Nazis, Milosevic or Al-Qaeda.

     It would be beyond embarrassing for the U.S government to have its servicemen, or politicians for that matter, stand before the ICC to face their charges - but the fact that it would be embarrassing should not exclude them from the arm of the law. The ethic is the same. If Hitler or Stalin were alive, should the world excuse them from standing trial simply because it would be embarrassing for (speaking retrospectively) Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia?

     I should think not.

     Irrespective of which nation kills innocent civilians, preemptively invades another country, commits torture and rape, and defies unanimous UN resolutions, those criminals are bound to stand trial for those atrocities. Frighteningly, the case we are specifically discussing is that of the United States in Iraq, but sadly the record of human rights abuses extends well beyond this case.

•  INTERNATIONAL ETHICAL LAW

      -   The international Conference on Racism

     Ironically, in September 2001, the same year and month the U.S vowed not to let ‘evildoers’ stray America from civilized society, freedom and democracy, they withdrew from the International Conference on Racism which brought together 163 countries in Durban, South Africa.

     - The International Landmine Treaty

     Signed in Ottawa in December 1997 by 122 nations. The United States refused to sign claiming that mines were needed to protect South Korea against North Korea’s “overwhelming military advantage.” He stated that the US would “eventually” comply, in 2006; this was disavowed by President Bush in August 2001.

     - The Antiballistic Missile Treaty

     In December 2001, the United States officially withdrew from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, gutting the landmark agreement-the first time in the nuclear era that the US renounced a major arms control accord. The US continues to lecture other nations with regard to nuclear proliferation whilst at the same time discarding such laws itself.

     -  UN Agreement to Curb the Flow of Illicit Small Arms

     July 2001: the US was the only nation to oppose it. Strange, since the US claims to be an international watchtower in preventing such trafficking.

     -  The Kyoto Protocol

      Declared “dead” by President Bush in March 2001. In November 2001, the Bush administration shunned negotiations in Marrakech (Morocco) to revise the accord, mainly by watering it down in a vain attempt to gain US approval. Luckily, Russia has signed the protocol, technically ratifying it.

     Citizens must be aware of the gross double-standards that not only the U.S, but other world powers continue to flaunt. It must be remembered when referring to the US as a ‘democracy’ or a ‘guardian of democracy’, and more importantly, when referring to the US as a reliable and trusted world power.

     If Senator McCain or Obama wish to breathe new life into America and restore its image abroad, they must first reverse track and become part of the solution rather part of the problem. Then the world may be able to take the United States seriously again.

     Yours in faith,  -BJH