America Should Sanction the ICC
The ICC Is an Existential Threat to Sovereignty, Justice, and the Rule of Law
The International Criminal Court's (ICC) Prosecutor, Karim Khan, has requested arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister, Yoav Gallant, alongside three Hamas leaders. This absurd equivalency between the Israeli government and a genocidal terrorist group is an affront to justice. To their credit, President Biden and Secretary Blinken condemned the move as “outrageous” and “wrong-headed.” Mr. Blinken, in particular, announced an intention to work with Republicans in Congress to sanction the ICC. This bipartisan consensus is commendable; this decision is absolutely unacceptable, and the United States should take all possible actions to constrict, constrain, and eventually eliminate this ridiculous organization.
The ICC was founded by European countries that did not possess significant military, economic, and geopolitical influence yet sought to introduce another bureaucracy to prosecute international crimes, war crimes, genocides, etc. The organization, bluntly speaking, is useless, considering how the big three powers, the United States, China, and Russia, remain outside the court. It was created with a clear inherent bias against the U.S., a blatant attempt to curb U.S. influence on the global stage. It is a rogue institution devoid of proper accountability, checks, or oversight and is, at its core, illegitimate. It remains thoroughly at odds with the basis of the rule of law that guides the United States and our allies.
First, the prosecutors at The Hague wield unfettered dictatorial power to charge whoever they wish, irrespective of whether their countries have signed onto the Rome Statute. How can the United States tolerate this? A supranational body that derives its power not from the consent of the governed but from the whims of a sole arbiter, Mr. Khan, is more akin to tyranny than democracy. Unchecked political power being weaponized in such a manner is an anathema to the United States. As a shining beacon of the rule of law and representation, we cannot morally and politically tolerate this entity. The ICC operates without checks and balances or separation of powers. Our founding fathers were wise to reject the concentration of authority in a single person or body, particularly after seeing the tyrannical whims of an ill-intentioned king.
Our governance model excels and remains exceptional due to the separation of powers into the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, allowing for oversight, accountability, and power limitation. Cooperation is encouraged, and abuse is prevented, yet the ICC operates with no such guidelines. The Office of the Prosecutor is one man operating without any accountability. Subjecting our citizens, or our ally Israel, to the whims of a solitary figure is unacceptable.
My fervent hope is that the sanctimony of Mr. Khan will seal the fate of this ridiculous organization, end what limited cooperation from the United States it has received, and mark a shift in American foreign policy, which should be to starve out and rid the world of this preposterous organization. Because the ICC, fundamentally, is nothing but a gateway for politically motivated prosecutions, the focus is on ideological battles, not the administration of justice.
The issuance of warrants against Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Gallant is unacceptable, as is the nature of these indictments for “war crimes and crimes against humanity.” The ICC’s definition of crimes, particularly the so-called “crime of aggression,” is nebulous and subject to broad interpretation. Was our action in bombing Yugoslavia to stop genocide a crime of aggression? Was the invasion of Afghanistan, in response to the Taliban’s refusal to turn over Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda leadership, a crime of aggression? Is Israel’s present military foray into Gaza, designed to eradicate a genocidal terrorist organization that massacred and raped thousands of innocents, a crime of aggression? The enemies of America and Israel, who are often one and the same, would love to see us and our allies held culpable for fictitious war crimes.
There are no legitimate charges against Israel. The prevailing insinuation that Israel is guilty of war crimes and genocide is preposterous. The United Nations recently halved the number of women and children it reports killed in the Gaza conflict. The total number of casualties, especially women and children, has been grossly inflated. The U.N.'s revision acknowledges that previously reported figures were double what even another part of Hamas claimed, not to mention that Hamas counts its fighters among the civilian dead.
Israel has emerged as an exemplar in conducting modern urban warfare. The United States and the rest of the world should learn from Israel rather than rush to condemn it. Innocents always die in war, and such losses are particularly inevitable in urban conflicts. Yet Israel has performed remarkably well at minimizing such casualties. In the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. military operations had civilian-to-military casualty ratios of 5 to 1. In Gaza, even according to Hamas’s untrustworthy statistics, the ratio is 2 to 1.
Civilian deaths are an indisputable tragedy, but when Hamas uses its population as human shields, the morally culpable party is Hamas. Israel has shown remarkable discretion, delaying military offensives and eventual victory for the sake of minimizing Palestinian casualties. The city of Rafah, where 1.4 million Palestinian refugees have taken shelter, was the subject of collective panic and dismay for months on end, with the Biden administration and others cautioning Israel against a ground invasion. Media coverage fixated on the impending Israeli barbarity, alleging that they had no plan to deal with all the civilians in the city. And yet, sure enough, the Israelis recently announced that they have evacuated 950,000 civilians from the city, with more to be evacuated before their military action. Of course, the media and the Western world declined to comment or even address this remarkable feat.
What actions should be followed depends on the judges of this kangaroo court. If the requested warrants are granted, 124 countries, including every European Union member and 20 of the 32 NATO partners, must arrest Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Gallant on sight, per the Rome Statute. And if the warrants are granted, the actions of the United States should be as follows:
Stringent sanctions should be placed against individuals involved with the ICC; sanctions, in particular, should be levied against Karim Khan. Many Americans share my sentiment that they are disgusted by individuals doing nothing but badmouthing, targeting, and acting against the United States and our allies while continuing to enjoy our cities, use our money, and use the U.S. as a punching bag while enjoying our lavish benefits. Executive Order 13928, issued by Mr. Trump, should be reissued by Mr. Biden, which would authorize asset freezes and family entry bans against ICC officials. ICC judges and prosecutors should be barred from entering the U.S., and their funds in the U.S. should be targeted. They and their families should be added to the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN list). Furthermore, Senate Republicans and Democrats have announced that they would draft their own set of legal sanctions; when Senator Lindsey Graham asked Mr. Blinken for his support, Mr. Blinken reiterated, “I welcome working with you on that.” Mr. Biden, in lockstep, should announce his unequivocal support for these sanctions.
The ICC directly threatens our national interests, justice, and the rule of law. It is an institution fraught with flaws, political bias, and ineffectiveness. The United States, steadfast in its commitment to justice and sovereignty and in standing with Israel and the rest of our allies, should not lend legitimacy or support to such a body and should work towards its eradication. Otherwise, while it is Israel today, it shall be us targeted tomorrow.