The New York Post

Friday, December 15, 2000

A CRIMINAL WORLD COURT

Some 60 nations that have bought into an absurd idea of "international law and justice" want America to join their new, permanent war-crimes court.

On the face of it, the tribunal - called the International Criminal Court - seems like a noble plan.

It's not. America shouldn't go near it.

Officials from those countries met this month to perfect language that will underlie the creation of the new body - and to entice U.S. participation.

Their pitch: How can any law-abiding people be opposed to bringing monsters like Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic to justice?

Well, there already are mechanisms for pursuing justice abroad, like the International Court of Justice and the U.N. Security Council tribunals for war crimes in the Balkans and Rwanda.

But make no mistake: The legitimacy of those bodies stems from America's decision to support them - and little else.

On the other hand, the U.S. would have no veto over a permanent international court; the ICC could pursue "war criminals" of its own choosing.

Now, given that most nations are patently corrupt, and hostile to America, those "criminals" could turn out to be Americans acting on behalf of their country - our soldiers or leaders or those of our allies. The U.S. could find itself having to defend one of its own from a court to which it subscribes.

Though President Clinton has expressed support for the idea, even his administration seems to recognize the dangers. Still, the president has not ruled out signing on; if he does before Dec. 31, he wouldn't need ratification.

Meanwhile, Sen. Jesse Helms vows to oppose the court for as long as he's in office. And a bill in Congress would halt military aid to countries that join, except key U.S. allies.

That's the spirit.

War crimes tribunals have their place.

But America - the most important force for right in the world - needn't be a party to another U.S.-bashing body.