By Steven van Hoogstraten
NATO held a Summit of Heads of State and Government in Ankara on the 8th of July, the meeting which already became famous for the gift of president Recep T. Erdogan to his guests, a classic revolver with munition produced in Turkey. A meeting that demonstrated the resolve of the Alliance to stay on the path of investing in and strengthening of its defensive capabilities according to the schedule agreed in the Hague last year.
A short but rather undiluted Declaration came out of this summit. NATO reaffirmed their “ironclad commitment” to its collective defence under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. There had been much debate about the durability of this original obligation, given all the noises about an American repositioning and its potential withdrawal moves to make Europe more responsible for its own defence . The Declaration echoed that “we are building the future: a stronger Europe in a stronger NATO – a modernized alliance “. It noted that European allies and Canada are assuming greater responsibility for the Alliance’s defence. Clearly a result of this American rethinking of its role within NATO.
On Ukraine the summit concluded that the Allies “stand united in our unwavering support for Ukraine in defending its freedom, sovereignty, and territorial integrity ”. This last part about territorial integrity is most interesting, as NATO shows to be steadfast in its rejection of any territorial concessions by Ukraine. But there was not a word in the outcome of the summit about Ukraine’s membership of NATO. The winds have changed in that respect compared to previous NATO meetings at the highest level. In all honesty, I think that for the moment it is wise not to stir that option of NATO membership – in the interest of a future peace deal with Russia – but to seek other security arrangements for Ukraine. Fortunately, membership of the EU has been given a high priority , and this is only a logical step. But this process will take time as the implications are enormous. Just think about the agricultural potential of Ukraine, and what this might mean for the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU, notably its finances.
At the same time that the West has agreed to avoid a fall out over the equal distribution of the Alliance’s defence efforts, the International Criminal Court is once again at the centre of a political turmoil in the transatlantic camp . The American secretary of state Marco Rubio reiterated the opposition of the US to the International Criminal Court, which he described as a form of undermining of American national sovereignty . The US aims to “systematically dismantle” the ICC, putting pressure on other nations to abandon the Court . This it does under threat of sanctions, travel bans, visa revocations etc. Marco Rubio openly states that the ICC is interfering with US military and law enforcement operations at the risk of American sovereignty. He fears that its elected leaders “will be dragged before this international court” and tried by judges from around the world.
All this is not very new. We remember that In previous periods the US has said more or less the same, in its rejection of membership of this International Criminal Court.
In a way, one can understand the logic of the American thinking as the US performs most of the international police work, and then risks to see its military and civilian leaders behind bars in Scheveningen. But the ICC only comes into action if the country itself does not initiate any legal proceedings against alleged serious war crimes by its nationals. And there can be some sympathy for the constitutional yet rather traditional point that Americans can only be judged by American judges. Therefore, an acceptance of the jurisdiction of the ICC is a very important step, a step which has so far been taken by 125 states around the world in the fight to end impunity for grave crimes.
But to work actively against the International Criminal Court is a totally different matter, and to sanction individual judges of the ICC for having been involved in the arrest warrant for pm Netanyahu is totally unheard of in international relations. Suspicion has it that President Trump equally opposes the arrest warrant to his colleague President Putin. The American policy simply works against international law as a guiding framework. It is the opposite of the “good faith “requirement, which underpins all international collaboration.
The EU has been quick in its push back against the assertion of the Trump administration that the ICC poses a threat to US sovereignty. The ICC does not target countries, but individuals. Voices were heard that said that the real reason for this renewed attack on the ICC is the fear over Venezuela, or other activities by the US military in countries which are members of the ICC and accepted its jurisdiction. This is indeed an area where the ICC might have a role (example Afghanistan) even if the US is a non-member of the ICC. Furthermore, one should realize that the ICC can only prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, serious war crimes and – albeit only in future – acts of aggression.
Even if sound from the point of view of the Rome Statute, prosecuting Americans is a snake’s nest, where the ICC might be well advised not to enter too easily.
So, where in the important field of defence against Russia all western noses still point in the same direction – at least for now – in this other important field of the fight against global impunity the opposite is the case. A conclusion which is more than difficult to digest. We can only hope for more positive developments in the future and sweat it out for now. The case for the ICC is a strong one and one of the major achievements in the quest for international justice in response to the horrifying atrocities during the 20th century and beyond. This mission has to be supported where ever possible.
