Most of the world’s governments have condemned Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. The military invasion has cost tens of thousands of lives, destroyed entire cities, and according to United Nation’s estimates, has created 4.3 million external refugees and another 6.5 million people displaced internally. War crimes have also been widely reported with Ukrainian civilians being deliberately targeted or executed by Russian forces.
On March 15, the United States Senate unanimously passed Senate Bill 546, which encourages member states of the International Criminal Court to petition the ICC and other international forums to investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the Russian military in Ukraine. Yet, like Russia, the United States doesn’t recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC to investigate or prosecute war crimes.
Through successive U.S. wars abroad, the double standards Washington follows in adhering to international law and human rights is obvious for the rest of the world to see. Contemporary examples include the unprovoked 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and current U.S. military aid provided to Saudi Arabia and the UAE in their war in Yemen, where it’s estimated that more than 370,000 have been killed and 10,200 children died or been wounded as a direct result of the fighting. Between The Lines’ Scott Harris spoke with Stephen Zunes, professor of politics at the University of San Francisco and co-author of “Western Sahara: War, Nationalism and Conflict Irresolution in Northwest Africa.” Here, he examines the double standards observed by the U.S. when it comes to human rights and international law.
STEPHEN ZUNES: Biden is quite correct to say that no country can unilaterally change its international boundaries. No country can expand its territory by force. And yet the United States is the only country in the world that has formally recognized Israel’s illegal annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights, which it conquered in 1967, and Morocco’s illegal annexation of the entire nation of Western Sahara, a country that’s been recognized over 80 other governments.
We’re saying these countries can expand their territories by force. These countries can be allowed to change international boundaries. But it becomes an issue for us only when an adversary does that sort of thing.
SCOTT HARRIS: Well, Steven, one of the major issues wrapped up in this is the International Criminal Court. And maybe you can explain to our listeners a bit about the history of the International Criminal Court that neither the United States or Russia recognizes or participates in.
STEPHEN ZUNES: The International Criminal Court was established in 1999. It was following the international war crimes tribunals for those who had committed genocide and and other atrocities in the Balkans wars. And there’s another one that met in regard to the war crimes in the Rwandan genocide. But there’s a sense that having these ad hoc courts make it seem like victor’s justice in a sense. And so there should be an international criminal court that would try all such cases.
So they only were to apply to cases where the judicial system was not fairly prosecuting people who are obviously guilty. So a country that did prosecute their own war criminals or whatever. That would be fine. But they only take the cases where the domestic courts couldn’t handle the situation fairly.
President Clinton signed it. The Senate never ratified it, never placed it before the Senate for ratification in fact. In 1999 or since 2000 after the court was founded, the U.S. passed a law that there’d be no U.S. funding for any anything that the International Criminal Court did. And then in 2003, a law was passed that forbid the United States from cooperating in any way whatsoever with the world court that United States would suspend foreign aid to any country that joined the world court.
So there was a revised escape clause that’s been enacted in most cases since then. And it even authorized the president to do whatever means necessary — which was basically a code for military force — to free any Americans and Americans or other allied nations held by or on behalf of the International Criminal Court. That’s why it was nicknamed “The Hague Invasion Act.”
I should add though, the United States, when they start to investigate war crimes in the Afghan war, you know, looking at the Taliban, of course, but also looking at the United States and the U.S.-backed Afghan army, the Trump administration ended up putting sanctions on the top leaders of the world court and their families in the United States, seize their assets, etc., etc..
Biden lifted a few months after he came to office. But then the Biden administration turned around and attacked the ICC for launching an investigation into possible war crimes by Hamas and the Israeli government. Our view was that they shouldn’t even investigate Israel and it was biased for them to do so, even though it’s the first time in the dozens of cases that they’ve ever looked at Israel.
So just, you know, it’s crazy that it’s not the far right, but even within the Biden administration, you know, has this thing against the world court despite it actually functioning fairly well. So, you know, the U.S. has been very, very hostile to this idea of an International Criminal Court — until people start thinking maybe that would be a good place to put Putin and some of his henchmen.
SCOTT HARRIS: Professor Zunes, is there anything that we can do as a nation to move forward, to provide credibility and to force our government to participate in equal justice when it comes to human rights violations in international law?
STEPHEN ZUNES: In terms of Ukraine, we shouldn’t do what-aboutism, in a sense that Russia and Putin need to be held accountable for these crimes. And again, the invasion itself is a flagrant violation of international legal norms.
But we should say, “Yes, AND these other violations of international law should be held accountable. Not yes, but ‘Yes AND.'” And I think the tragedy unfolding in Ukraine has put international law on the table. International law can be a real tool for progressive forces who are trying to challenge America’s imperial world and militaristic worldview.
International law and international legal institutions are our allies and we need to promote them despite imperfections and use this tragedy around Ukraine as an opening to encourage a more consistent, ethical and law-based U.S. foreign policy.
Listen to Scott Harris’ in-depth interview with Stephen Zunes (28:50) and see more articles and opinion pieces in the Related Links section of this page.
For more information, visit Stephen Zunes’ Website at stephenzunes.org.
