At 8:18 AM +0200 4/7/02, Martin W. Smith wrote:

> > But the ICC nations are being pig-headed and insisting that
>> international law can't exempt the US from international law.
>> One European ICC proponent put it this way: "If the US wants
>> to be the world's policeman, it will have to play by the world's
>> rules".
>
>But that's ethically correct, if the world can agree on a set of rules.
>What is pig-headed about that?  I agree that the ICC should go ahead
>with or without the US, but there should be no exemption.

The "pig-headed" remark was merely facetious. I suppose it is recognised that the US is, for the present, unofficially exempt by virtue of its raw power, but the US government feels the need to add insult to injury by demanding official exemption.

Of course that would destroy the credibility of the ICC. Which would be very much in the interests of those who commit war crimes.

The remark about the world's policeman playing by the world's rules is interesting though. The US rarely commits forces to UN peacekeeping anyhow. It only had a couple of observers in Timor apparently. Rather than being the world's policeman, it is generally on the other side of international law as the world's hoodlum and its demand to be exempted from international law should be seen in this light.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas