On May 6, George W Bush undid one of Bill Clinton's most admirable, if belated, diplomatic moves by unsigning the agreement on the first permanent international war crimes court. The reasoning is as simple as it is disgusting.

The United States demands immunity for US citizens under the new court. In short, the United States refuses to support the greatest advance in international security and rule of law in 50 years because the rest of the world refuses to recognise its right as a world superpower to perpetrate war crimes with impunity.

When the new court was finally launched July 1 after four years of struggle, the US representation in the UN threatened to veto all UN peacekeeping mandates, starting with the mission in fragile Bosnia, unless its petulant tantrums were heeded. The UN finally gave in, granting US peacekeepers immunity from prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for one year, an immunity that can be renewed each year.

It was the most grotesque display of the "might makes right" principle I have ever witnessed. Granting the most powerful military in the world immunity to international law renders laws irrelevant, and by capitulating the UN has further undermined its already shaky authority. Only when it dares to stand up to its most powerful member will the UN become strong.

Bush's fears

The American argument for special immunity to international law is that frivolous or politically motivated cases might be brought against the United States.

However, the new court safeguards against just such abuse. First, any case brought before the ICC would have to be extremely serious. The court covers only the worst categories of war crimes, such as genocide and crimes against humanity. Such crimes require a long-term campaign with extraordinarily malicious intent. It will not consider stray bombs in Afghanistan.

Second, the court allows countries the option of trying cases at home. If the domestic legal system is willing and adequate, the ICC drops the case. Thus, it would be easy for the United States or any other nation to show in preliminary proceedings if an accusation is truly nothing but political smoke.

Of course, it is more likely that the Bush administration fears far more serious problems from the ICC. It is altogether possible that the United States has committed war crimes in the past, given its heavy reliance on military solutions. The current development of small nuclear weapons for use in conventional wars could open the United States up to further war crimes accusations in the near future. I am not certain whether historical complaints against the United States are serious enough to be brought before the International Court, but I don't see why they should not be examined.

Real power to UN rejected

When the ICC was launched in the summer of 1998, CNN broadcast a documentary about allegations made by former soldiers, including a retired admiral, that US forces, while battering Laos back to the Stone Age in the 1960s, used nerve gas against American defectors.

But wait a minute.

Officially, the US military never even fought in Laos. The military put pressure on CNN's sources to withdraw their statements and, although only a few did so, the investigative team that covered the story was eventually fired or reprimanded. It was an effective illustration of the kind of history US leaders would rather the world forget.

Ironically, one of Bush's campaign catchwords was accountability. He seemed to mean accountability by underpaid schoolteachers in the crumbling American school system. Why is accountability by US politicians in wartime so different? Perhaps because he is one of them.

Yet there is no advantage in hiding from a checkered past. It only ensures that the same mistakes will be made again. The United States has as much to gain from an International Court as anyone. Because the UN has no teeth, the United States has long been forced to take up the slack and act as guardian to various oppressed people. The ICC finally gives the UN the beginnings of real power. It is among the greatest signs of hope I have seen in my lifetime. That my country rejects it saddens me deeply.

Once we have a permanent International Court, we will no longer have to wait years to set up ad-hoc tribunals while another Bosnia occurs in the hands of an impotent UN. Imagine if we had had a reliable International Court to turn to on Sept 11. Eventually, the ICC could develop into just such an institution, a high court where we could bring our greatest grievances. Currently, if we are attacked we have only two choices: Seek equally violent revenge or swallow our pain and vainly hope it doesn't happen again.

On Sept 11, we were finally, rudely awakened to the truth that America is not immune to the suffering of the world. Only when we realise that we also have unfulfilled responsibilities in the world will we be able to prevent another catastrophe. — GVNN/The Prague Post

The writer is a Prague-based free-lance writer and documentary filmmaker.