Quick Thoughts: Lisa Hajjar on US National Security Advisor John Bolton and the International Criminal Court

John Bolton John Bolton

Quick Thoughts: Lisa Hajjar on US National Security Advisor John Bolton and the International Criminal Court

By : Lisa Hajjar

[On 10 September 2018 US National Security Advisor John Bolton gave an address at the conservative Federalist Society in Washington, DC, in which he denounced the International Criminal Court as “illegitimate” and announced measures the Trump administration will pursue to ensure it is unable to operate, particularly with respect to eventual prosecutions of US, Israeli, or other allied officials. Jadaliyya Co-Editor and Quick Thoughts series editor Mouin Rabbani interviewed Co-Editor Lisa Hajjarto get a better understanding of Bolton’s agenda and objectives. The Quick Thoughts series provides background, context, and detail to issues that are, or should be, currently in the news.]

Jadaliyya (J): What was the motivation behind US National Security Adviser John Bolton's latest speech regarding the International Criminal Court (ICC), and what specific measures did he announce?

Lisa Hajjar (LH): Bolton’s hyperbolic, hyper-sovereigntist speech was the perfect articulation of his hostile position on international law and multilateralism. He has been banging this drum since the 1990s when, following the end of the Cold War, international law enforcement for gross crimes—genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and torture—became a possibility with the establishment of, first, UN ad hoc tribunals to prosecute individuals from the former Yugoslavia (1993) and Rwanda (1994), and then in 1998 the negotiations that led to the Rome Treaty establishing the ICC. That same year, former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was arrested in London on a Spanish warrant that revitalized and revamped the moribund international criminal law doctrine of universal jurisdiction. The British House of Lords ruled, in 1999, that Pinochet was prosecutable and thus extraditable to Spain for the crime of torture (a fate he was able to avoid for political reasons). Bolton’s most recent address has a significantly greater resonance because he is ensconced in a top cabinet position within a US administration even more hostile to international law than any that has come before it.

Although Bolton’s speech, which he described as “a major announcement on US policy toward the . . . ICC,” was rife with inaccuracies about the court’s powers, operations, and jurisdiction, it was nevertheless highly polished and sophisticated; indeed it was a brilliant reflection of the “realist” ideological position on international law that prevails among right-wing thinkers in the United States like his host, the Federalist Society.

This hostility to international law and the post-Cold War development of enforcement mechanisms is rationalized by Bolton and like-minded realists such as Henry Kissinger as inimical to state sovereignty in general and 'constituted an assault on the constitutional rights of the American people and the sovereignty of the United States' in particular.

The ostensible and immediate motivation for Bolton’s speech originates in a 3 November 2017 request by ICC Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda for authorization to commence an investigation into war crimes and crimes against humanity in Afghanistan that would focus on US military personnel and CIA operatives, as well as Taliban and Afghan officials. This investigation would include torture, ill-treatment, and CIA black sites. Bensouda’s preliminary investigation had been completed in November 2016 and found that the alleged crimes “were not the abuses of a few isolated individuals,” but rather were “part of approved interrogation techniques in an attempt to extract ‘actionable intelligence’ from detainees,” adding that there was “reason to believe” that crimes were “committed in the furtherance of a policy or policies . . . which would support US objectives in the conflict of Afghanistan.” Bensouda’s request may be authorized by the ICC’s pre-trial chamber in the coming days. Bolton acknowledges this: “Any day now, the ICC may announce the start of a formal investigation against these American patriots, who voluntarily went into harm's way to protect our nation, our homes, and our families in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.”

Had Bolton been in a policy leadership position to make this speech years ago, he would have. The essence of the speech, like his long-held views, is that international law is—or would be, if it were more effective—a stalking horse to constrain US behavior abroad, and any such legal constraint is anathema to realists. This hostility to international law and the post-Cold War development of enforcement mechanisms is rationalized by Bolton and like-minded realists such as Henry Kissinger as inimical to state sovereignty in general and “constituted an assault on the constitutional rights of the American people and the sovereignty of the United States” in particular. In this vein, Bolton describes the Rome Treaty as “fundamentally illegitimate”—despite the fact that the US government (during the Clinton administration) was an active participant in its negotiation.

Bolton offers a smooth blend of fear-mongering and “alternative facts” about the ICC: 

In no uncertain terms, the ICC was created as a free-wheeling global organization claiming jurisdiction over individuals without their consent . . . It claims "automatic jurisdiction," meaning that it can prosecute individuals even if their own governments have not recognized, signed, or ratified the treaty. Thus, American soldiers, politicians, civil servants, private citizens, and even all of you sitting in the room today, are purportedly subject to the court's prosecution should a party to the Rome Statute or the chief prosecutor suspect you of committing a crime within a state or territory that has joined the treaty . . . I ask everyone in the room today: would you consign the fate of American citizens to a committee of other nations, including Venezuela and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and entities that are not even states, like the Palestinian Authority? You would not. I would not. And this Administration will not.

Bolton does not mention torture and forced disappearance, which are the crimes a prospective ICC investigation would pursue—crimes of which the US government is guilty and whose intellectual authors have remained entirely unaccountable. On this point, Bolton openly lies when he states that “the United States takes appropriate and swift action to hold perpetrators accountable.”

Rather, Bolton concentrates his harangue on “the crime of aggression.” This crime is, indeed, an element of the Rome Statute and is, as he notes, subject to wide ranging interpretation. However, he uses this straw man to make an ideological appeal by linking it to two issues that enjoy substantial consensus in the United States: the justness of the operation in which al-Qa’ida leader Osama bin Laden was killed, and the sovereign prerogative of Israel to use whatever force it deems necessary to protect its security and citizenry.

US governmental and bi-partisan political support for Israel provides the other main motivation for the Bolton speech and concurrent decision by the Trump administration to close the Palestine Liberation Office (PLO) in Washington. Bolton is exorcised that “the so-called ‘State of Palestine’” is a party to the ICC and may request an investigation into war crimes in Gaza and other Israeli violations of international humanitarian law. Bolton states: “If the court comes after us, Israel or other US allies, we will not sit quietly.”

Among the various policy positions Bolton lists as US responses to the “illegitimate” ICC, the most disquieting and absurd is this: 

We will ban its judges and prosecutors from entering the United States. We will sanction their funds in the US financial system, and, we will prosecute them in the US criminal system. We will do the same for any company or state that assists an ICC investigation of Americans.

As Alex Whiting, an editor at Just Securityremarks: “The reality is that there appears to be no domestic legal authority take up the core of these measures, but such language demonstrates a willingness by this administration—which has shown a remarkable disregard in the past for law, institutions, and norms—to go very far in its efforts to break the court.”

J: What is the significance of the current US position regarding the ICC and how does it differ from the position of previous administrations?

LH: Over the last twenty-five years, there have been some variations within a more general and consistent posture of animus toward international criminal law. The Clinton administration endorsed the establishment of the UN ad hoc tribunals because their jurisdiction was specific to crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and therefore would not pose any threat to Americans. US representatives involved in negotiating the Rome Treaty insisted on the inclusion of certain measures, notably granting substantial discretion to the UN Security Council—where the United States enjoys veto power—that would minimize if not altogether prevent any prospect that someday an American might find him or herself in the ICC dock. In his last hours in office, President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Treaty but urged that it not be ratified by the Senate.

In May 2002, two months before the ICC came into existence, George W. Bush un-signed the treaty, a move which Bolton praises and claims some responsibility for. Over the following years, the Bush administration pressured dozens of countries to sign bilateral treaties in which foreign states pledged not to cooperate with the court or turn over an American to its jurisdiction, another move in which Bolton played a leading role. He states: “It remains one of my proudest achievements” and in his latest address announced that the Trump administration plans to revive and expand the pursuit of bilateral treaties to escalate the project of destroying the court. However, in 2005, the US position softened a bit when the government assented to the UN Security Council’s referral of Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir to the court for alleged atrocities in Darfur.

The Obama administration did not seek to undermine the ICC, like its predecessor, but did nothing to undo the un-signing. Therefore, Obama, like Bush and Clinton, helped pave the path for the Trump administration to assail the court and seek its destruction. As Bolton remarks: “We will not cooperate with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC. We will not join the ICC.” 

J: Should we see this as bluster and rhetoric, or do you expect it to have meaningful consequences for the functioning of the ICC?

LH: We should see this as both. Blustering rhetoric is the Trump administration’s modus operandi and an accurate reflection of its policy agenda. This will include exercising Security Council power to undermine the ICC, and pressuring or punishing foreign governments that cooperate with the court. In Bolton’s words, “we will remember that cooperation when setting US foreign assistance, military assistance, and intelligence sharing levels.” 

J: How do you expect the ICC and other states that continue to support the ICC to respond?

LH: Bolton’s speech was laced with snarky comments deriding the “self-styled ‘global governance’ advocates” and “ICC proponents” who support international law enforcement and accountability for gross crimes. These would include all governments within the European Union and all NATO members except Turkey, which are signatories to the ICC. However, given the multiple ways in which the Trump administration is laying waste to relations with allied governments and undermining international treaties of various sorts, countering US assaults on the ICC may be a low priority for its signatories.

  • ALSO BY THIS AUTHOR

    • Can We Talk about Palestine? Laws and Crimes

      Can We Talk about Palestine? Laws and Crimes

      For better or worse, my expertise is what is legal in war. It may seem, for those of you who are unfamiliar with the laws of war, that it’s almost oxymoronic. Legal in war? But there is a thing called international humanitarian law. And “humanitarian” signals the centrality of protecting civilians in the context of any war. The things that constitute gross violations of IHL—or war crimes—include deliberately targeting civilians, deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure, excessive use of force, siege warfare, collective punishment, and forced displacement. All of these are war crimes, and we have seen all of these things happening. That is the reality of Gaza now. For 16 years, Gaza has been described as the world’s largest open-air prison, and now it can be described as the world’s largest crime scene. It is a crime scene.

    • Henry and Me: A Fauxbituary for Kissinger

      Henry and Me: A Fauxbituary for Kissinger

      Now that Henry Kissinger is dead, the time is ripe to reveal my personal relationship with him. In 1969 when I was eight years old and for several years thereafter, Kissinger was my role model. Why, you might wonder, would a child want to emulate Kissinger? My answer is a coming of age tale of political consciousness. 

    • Lisa Hajjar, The War in Court: Inside the Long Fight against Torture (New Texts Out Now)

      Lisa Hajjar, The War in Court: Inside the Long Fight against Torture (New Texts Out Now)

      The War in Court traces the fight against US torture in the context of the “war on terror” and the complicated legacy it has left. My long-running interest in torture grew out of my curiosity about the relationship between law and political conflict.

Quick Thoughts on the US Zeroing Out Its UNRWA Funding

On 31 August 2018, the Trump Administration announced it was terminating its funding commitment to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). As part of the initial media frenzy, I was invited to discuss the decision on a mainstream US media network, scheduled for the morning of Monday 4 September. As media cycles go, the network deemed the defunding decision to not be newsworthy, found something “more sexy,” and canceled the segment. Below are some talking points that I would have introduced into the segment.

The UN General Assembly created the UNRWA in 1949, and the General Assembly has re-approved its mission every three years. The original mandate sought to provide education, healthcare, and other services to complement the political mandate of its sister agency, the UN Conciliation Commission for Palestine (UNCCP), which was established to find a durable solution for Palestinian refugees. Though it was not dissolved, the UNCCP reached a political deadlock in 1951 and fell into abeyance. The General Assembly has since incrementally expanded UNRWA’s mandate in order to fill this protection gap. UNRWA’s mandate exists in five areas (West Bank, Gaza Strip, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon) where it serves approximately 5.4 million registered refugees, operates seven hundred schools, and employs thirty thousand employees. 

The US financial contribution to UNRWA has historically been one-fourth of the agency's annual budget (364 million dollars of a one billion dollars). In 2017, the Trump Administration reduced that contribution down to sixty million dollars (i.e., to approximately sixteen percent of its previous commitment). This most recent decision has now indefinitely reduced the US contribution to zero. Whether sixty million dollars or 360 million dollars, the US contribution to UNRWA has always been peanuts in light of US military aid to Israel, which is nearly four billion dollars annually. This is to say nothing of its economic aid to Israel, or of the US military spending elsewhere—most notably Iraq, where spending since 2003 is approaching two trillion dollars with no sight of a full withdrawal. 

The US State Department explained the recent decision by claiming that UNRWA’s business operation is “irredeemably flawed.” Yet such justification makes little sense in light of fact that the United States renewed its annual support for UNRWA in December 2017 and praised the agency for its management. Furthermore, the World Bank—for whatever its worth—described UNRWA as “a global public good” for running one of the most effective school systems in the region. 

One should read the Trump Administration’s decision to terminate funding for UNRWA on two levels. First, UNRWA and everything it does reflects a global mandate. The US withdrawal of its commitment to UNRWA is thus another instance of the Trump Administration’s broader disinvestment from multilateral institutional arrangements, including those at the global level.

Second, the decision to terminate financial support to UNRWA is yet another attempt to resolve by political fiat the final status issue of Palestinian refugees. One of the next steps in this process is probably an attempt to change the definition of a Palestinian refugee to exclude descendants, therefore reducing the registered refugee population from nearly six million to about fifty thousand. The United States and Israel cannot do this unilaterally. More significantly, the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), the other UN refugee agency, applies the same definition for refugee status (i.e., descendants of refugees born in exile have refugee status). This is reflected in Afghanistan, Congo, Sudan, and Somalia. Reducing the financial capacities of UNRWA services is one way the Trump Administration is hoping to force a redefinition of what constitutes Palestinian refugees and thus determine the issue.

It is this latter dynamic that must be central to our understanding. The United States and Israel want to resolve the Palestinian refugee issue, not by allowing refugees to return, but by changing the legal definition so that they cease to exist. This strategy is racist and in keeping with longstanding US support for Israel’s settler colonial project and its inherent feature of Palestinian displacement. Yet it is also non-sensical vis-a-vis the UNHCR definition: imagine a policy that wanted to target immigrants from Mexico by changing Medicare standards to only be available to citizens of Mexican descent above the age of eighty, rather than sixty-five which applies to all other seniors, and then blaming them for being too old to justify the change. 

The Trump Administration has actually tried to blame UNRWA for the long-standing nature of the Palestinian refugee crisis, despite their being a humanitarian agency. The inability to resolve this crisis is a political failure that primarily reflects Israel’s intransigent refusal to allow refugees to return in order to maintain a demographic majority. Israel has long publicly predicated the return of refugees on establishing permanent peace with Arab states. Prime Minister David Ben Gurion, however, literally rejected peace overtures from Egypt, Syria, and Jordan in 1949 stating that cost of return by Palestinian refugee is not worth the peace offered. 

________________

- For more on the creation of Palestinian refugees and UNRWA, read this special issue of Refugee Studies Quarterly edited by Lex Takkenberg, https://academic.oup.com/rsq/article/28/2-3/253/1584817 

- For more on international law and Palestinian refugees, here is one useful article on sources of the Palestinian Right of Return beyond Resolution 194: http://cilj.co.uk/…/bases-for-the-palestinian-refugees-rig…/

- For more on what the Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization should be doing to cut its debilitating dependency on US aid, here are four things Alaa Adel Tartir recommends: https://www.middleeasteye.net/…/how-palestinians-should-res…