One of the ironies for Clinton is that his administration, a strong advocate of globalism, was one of the early champions of the International Criminal Court Treaty.
Now he is in the awkward position of going along with a provision of the treaty that clearly threatens members of United States armed forces stationed in foreign lands or not signing a treaty he once hoped would be part of his legacy.
The Washington Times is reporting that:
If the president signs the proposed treaty creating the ICC by Dec. 31, he will be within a deadline that allows the United States to influence to some extent the appointment of its judges and prosecutors, even if the Senate never ratifies the pact.
If Clinton doesn't sign by then, the United States loses that leverage, for whatever that's worth.
Once 60 nations ratify the ICC Treaty, it will take effect. So far, it's been ratified by 25, with another 95 having signed.
There's a likelihood the new world court to prosecute and try war criminals could be up and running in late 2002, now that the 15 member nations of the European Union are nearing ratification, with other states certain to follow suit.
The major concern to the United States is that this global tribunal, advanced as a means of discouraging future war criminals such as Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic, would expose to prosecution members of the U.S. armed forces stationed abroad for criminal acts traditionally handled by U.S. courts under standards of American military justice.
Under terms of the treaty, all nations of the world, regardless of whether they had signed or ratified it, would be subject to its jurisdiction.
That raises the larger issue of whether any American president would sit by and watch American service personnel arrested, prosecuted, tried, convicted and punished, even put to death, by an international body beyond the sovereignty of the United States.
Against that background, the Clinton-Gore administration has been trying to negotiate an exemption for U.S. military personnel overseas, but with no success.
Clinton is now under heavy political pressure, from human rights and other groups that have always supported him, to sign the treaty before the Dec. 31 deadline – which would deprive the next president, George W. Bush, of more room to fight ratification if he chooses.
Marc Thiessen, a spokesman for Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms, R-N.C., who has sworn to block the treaty's ratification, said:
"There is no practical consequence to not signing the treaty. It's purely a political decision.
"The only reason this administration would sign it is a conscious and deliberate effort to tie the hands of the Bush administration.
"One could argue that the most dangerous two months in American foreign policy are November through January" – before Bush succeeds Clinton as president on Jan. 20, 2001.
The White House is refusing to take any questions about whether Clinton intends to sign the treaty.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.