Later this year, state parties will get together to revisit the Statute for the International Criminal Court. Definitely on the agenda is clarifying the crime of aggression, which was left hanging in 1998 in order to bring discussions to a close. But governments also have the opportunity to add new crimes to the list of those under the court’s jurisdiction (as well as suggest procedural changes). So far proposals relating to jurisdiction include:
1) A proposal by Trinidad and Tobago to try drug traffickers at the ICC. (If in 1989 you suggest a court for this specific purpose, and if nine years later states construct that very court while tabling the issue for which you originally suggested it, instead making it a court to try genocidaires and war criminals, try try again.)
2) A proposal by Belgium to extend the list of prohibited conventional weapons. (Roger Clark has an interesting essay on Article 8 in a Special Double Issue of the New Criminal Law Review organized by Opinio Juris’ Kevin Jon Heller.)
3) A proposal by the Netherlands to include terrorism in the court’s jurisdiction alongside aggression, war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. (Unlike the drug trafficking proposal, which actually aims to define the crime, Netherlands only proposes to include the crime of terrorism hypothetically, pending an agreed definition. Smart. Also somewhat meaningless.)
4) A proposal by Mexico to include the use of nuclear weapons under the definition of war crimes. (Good luck with that.)
Apparently no “States Parties” have taken up suggestions that piracy be added to the list of crimes under ICC jurisdiction.
[cross-posted at Current Intelligence]
For obvious reasons, including the one Rob and Dave mention below, pretty much uniformly negative. If health care reform tanks, the possibility that Obama “could be seen as a failed pre-emptive president in an overwhelmingly Republican era” is now a depressingly likely outcome.
It could, I suppose be argue that the cuts involved will be (in the context of federal outlays) trivial enough to make the Hoover reference unfair. But if the best case is that it’s an irrelevant political gimmick, you have to consider the politics, which are pretty much a disaster. Hayes:
That’s why this is so inexcusably insidious: because it uses the full power of the bully pulpit to reaffirm and endorse a kind of ignorance that the right-wing has spent years stoking, and in so doing further erodes what little conceptual and rhetorical foundation we have domestically for social democracy. It may be a head fake, the fine print may basically have a lot of loopholes, in which case the policy itself won’t be terrible, but again it reinforces the enemy’s narrative: that government spends too much on “programs,” that defense and “security” spending doesn’t count for the deficit and that times of economic misery and widespread unemployment the solution is fiscal austerity.
In addition to this, you have the fact that Democrats continue to play the sucker, believing that they have to “fiscally responsible” so that Republicans can take a better fiscal picture and piss it all away on upper-class cuts. The most charitable construction, reflected in a couple of Matt’s scenarios, is that he’s trying to expose “deficit hawks” on both sides of the aisle as frauds. The obvious problem is that the actions of Bayh and Conrad, and 6 years of united Republican rule, have already demonstrated that they’re complete frauds. It doesn’t matter. To the Fried Hiatts who care about this stuff being a “deficit hawk” is about inflicting pain on Democratic constituencies, not reducing the deficit. One more demonstration that many “deficit hawks” don’t want to reduce agricultural subsidies won’t solve anything.
There’s a passage from Henry Morgenthau’s diaries that has been a staple of right-wing New Deal denialism over the years. In it, FDR’s Treasury secretary describes a meeting with the House Democrats on Ways and Means Committee in which he bemoans the supposed failures of the New Deal to lift unemployment and restrain the balloon of national debt.
We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work…. We have never made good on our promises….I say after six years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot!
As I noted, this is a popular quotation among people who believe that all taxation is theft and all spending draws the nation closer to full collectivization. But Morgenthau was, quite simply, wrong. The New Deal did work, albeit erratically and despite the fact that Roosevelt could never quite jettison the fiscally conservative instincts on which he based his 1932 campaign. But sure enough, between 1933-39, real GDP rose by nearly 50 percent, while private, non-farm unemployment dropped from just above 30 percent to a shade above 15 percent. Morgenthau can be forgiven for not realizing how dramatically unemployment had been whittled away, since he was relying on BLS statistics that have been dramatically revised over the past 70 years. The debt he alludes to was — as a percentage of GDP — roughly equivalent to the levels the US would later reach during the 1980s, and they were nowhere near the levels (e.g., ~120 percent of GDP) that the US raised during WWII. The US could have avoided those debts by not fighting, but regardless, the debts were paid off, in true Keynesian fashion, by the 1970s.
But we shouldn’t be surprised that Morgenthau — whose anti-Keynesian views put him at odds with most economists in the Roosevelt administration — would have overlooked the data. His obsession with spending cuts and balanced budgets (and FDR’s willingness to listen to him in ’37) helped produce the disastrous recession that marred Roosevelt’s second term and inspired Morgenthau’s wailing about how the New Deal “does not work.” As well, Morgenthau was one of the key figures who successfully persuaded FDR to modify his own advisers’ proposal that Social Security be funded from general revenues rather than (regressively) from the paychecks of workers themselves. The result was a social insurance plan modeled differently from those of every other industrial democracy — a plan that was less generous and more exclusionary, and one that (at least initially) bore no sense that economic security for the aged was at all a “right.”
It’s no surprise, therefore, that conservatives would celebrate a quotation from someone whose analysis of the economic situation in 1939 was — as we now know — wrong on the facts as well as the theory. And we shouldn’t be shocked that these same folks would continue to propose ideas that will, if implemented, assure that the US economy fails to recover before my kids are teenagers.
Why the Obama administration would provide any solace to those who echo Morgenthau’s 70-year-old error is, however, an enormous mystery.
Everyone in Washington who studies the Pentagon budget quickly finds gobs and gobs of wasteful spending. Not some people. Not dirty hippies. Every. Single. Defense. Analyst. If I was so inclined, I could spend my days doing nothing but attending conferences on the latest defense jeremiad or policy paper about how to cut it. I already spend too much of my time reading this stuff on defense-community email listservs.
For the Obama administration to excerpt defense spending from its kinda-sorta-spending-freeze is a position that makes no sense from a policy perspective. None at all. From a political perspective, it only begins to make sense because a brain-dead media would amplify the braying ignorance blasted from a GOP congressional megaphone about Defense Spending Cuts OMG. And even then it doesn’t make sense. A holdover Republican Defense Secretary is now the biggest advocate of an even slightly sensible defense budget in the Obama administration.
Rightwing bloggers slamming spending (non)freeze, left hates it– that convergence bodes poorly for ultimate public perception
As a policy/PR stunt, the spending freeze seems geared entirely around satisfaction of the Washington Post editorial page. In terms of political strategy, this seems odd.
At least until Jack Z arrived in Seattle, I always figured that God was on Billy Beane’s side.
Yes, Imogen is “reading” The Economist.
I think she just likes it for the pictures. But it’s a start.
Remember Laurie Mylroie? The sometime collaborator of Respected Journamalist Judy Miller whose meticulous scholarship has demonstrated that Saddam Hussein was responsible for such events as 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombings, and Aaron Small going 11-0 with the 2005 Yankees? Now guess who the Bush administration turned to when they needed an, ahem, expert analysis of Al Qaeda.
I’m very happy these people are no longer in power…
…has hit hard times and could use your assistance. The man has been an online institution since before they multiplied the “w” by three and the Internet has been an appreciably better place for it. Help him continue to keep us honest if you can.
The Wildcats have reclaimed the #1 Men’s NCAA Basketball ranking after an absence of six years. The Bluegrass rejoices.
Apparently Al-Majid’s execution by gallows was more “civilized” than that of Saddam Hussein three years ago. No one called him any names.