At the risk of stating the obvious: This is a rough time for U.S. public diplomacy. Recent studies have shown that over the last four years the world’s perception of the United States—although slightly improving—has remained disconcertingly negative. In fact, a June 2005 Pew Research Center Poll revealed that the populations of just six of 16 major industrialized nations gave the United States a favorability rating of 50 percent or above. While the ongoing Iraq conflict is a key source of frustration, it is not the only one. U.S. policy on a broad range of issues including climate change and development policy has failed to consider the wishes of the global community, including our key allies.

As sad as these statistics are, even more depressing has been the ineffectual steps the Bush administration has taken to repair America’s sagging reputation. Assuming that the use of more multilateral rhetoric and the appointment of Karen Hughes as undersecretary of state for public diplomacy will solve this crisis suggests a fundamental lack of understanding of the problem facing the country. Practical changes in policy will do more than rhetorical flourishes to improve global perceptions. A good place for the administration to start is with a simple reconsideration of the way the U.S. engages countries who are party to the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC is the only permanent international court capable of trying individuals accused of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity when there is no other recourse for justice.

Since it came into office in January 2001 the Bush administration has spent an enormous amount of political energy trying to de-legitimize the court’s existence. The administration secured passage of the anti-ICC American Servicemembers’ Protection Act (which is commonly referred to in Europe as the “Hague Invasion Act” due to its polemic language), decided to un-sign the ICC Rome Statute and flirted with a global anti-ratification campaign. Most recently the administration and its congressional allies have sought to force members of the ICC (the number of countries that have ratified the treaty is now 99 and growing) to sign Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIAs), which exempt all U.S. nationals and non-national contractors from accountability before the International Criminal Court.

Its current tool of choice in the effort to secure BIA’s is the Nethercutt Provision (which became law in 2005 and is up for renewal in this year’s House version of the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill.) The provision ties U.S. foreign policy assistance to countries support of the ICC by pushing these countries to sign BIAs. Under Nethercutt, ICC member countries stand to lose Economic Support Fund (ESF) Assistance if they do not put all U.S. citizens on their territory, even mercenaries and common criminals, above domestic law—law that their own citizens and leaders are expected to obey.

This high-handed policy is harmful to both U.S. interests and standing in the world. Even worse, it’s completely unnecessary. For starters, the ICC has refused to prosecute individuals where there is an able and willing national justice system in place to investigate the alleged crimes. In addition, in almost all countries party to the ICC, agreements granting immunity to U.S. service members are already in place. “Status of Forces Agreements,” or SOFAs, have been settled international policy between the U.S. and other nations since before the ICC’s conceptualization. Under SOFAs, countries must turn over U.S. officials and other military personnel accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide to the U.S., instead of putting them on trial in domestic courts or sending them to an international court or tribunal.

Clearly, the legal framework exists—with or without BIAs—to ensure comprehensive protection for U.S. nationals abroad. The real consequence of the administration’s push to secure BIAs is that it harms America’s global standing and ironically undercuts key policy objectives.

Perhaps the most startling case of this undercutting is that of Jordan. According to the State Department’s own funding request, “Jordan is a vital ally in the Global War on Terrorism, providing intelligence, diplomatic, military and security cooperation with the United States.” The $250 million that Jordan is slated to receive in fiscal year 2006 would benefit a country whose “critical location and highly cooperative government make it a linchpin of regional stability and security.” In addition, “Jordan’s record of cooperation on Iraq stability has been stellar and Amman has become the venue of choice for many Iraq-focused initiatives,” including the training of Iraqi police and conferences on economic reconstruction.

Unfortunately, Jordan also happens to be a strong supporter of the ICC and its U.N. ambassador, the president of the ICC's Assembly of States Parties. Consequently, the United States is threatening to withhold aid destined to support Jordan’s economic growth and governance reforms. Considering the role Jordan plays in the Middle East, it defies logic that the U.S. would seek a fight over a BIA that it does not need.

Jordan, of course, is not alone in bearing the brunt of the BIA campaign. Fledgling democracy and regional leader Kenya has recently come under the crosshairs, as have other African nations such as South Africa, Mali, Namibia, Tanzania, Lesotho and Niger.

At a time when the U.S. is desperate to repair its image abroad, threatening foreign aid as part of the BIA policy stands out as unnecessarily, even overtly, antagonistic. The Bush administration must take pause and rethink this ideologically driven campaign. Bilateral Immunity Agreements not only fail to provide any additional protections for our troops, they also fail to endear us to some of our most important, regional and political supporters. The numbers don’t lie; America has a ways to go to reclaim its historical position as a leader of international law and justice. Stopping this BIA campaign is a good start.

Raj Purohit is senior fellow for international law and justice and Sam Stein is press secretary at Citizens for Global Solutions.

READ ON THE TOMPAINE.COM WEBSITE

Contact:

Raj Purohit
Senior Fellow, International Law and Justice
202 546 3950 ext 103

Sam Stein
Press Secretary
202 546 3950 ext 123