Cuba/Re: why the left is so hopeless in AmeriKKKa

[Peter K.]

>The insistence on immunity, then, is from considerations of hegemony, possible
>future exposure (meaning: anticipated war crimes) and was probably an effort to
>shoot down the court outright.  This is precisely the sort of behaviour which
>Chomsky and his acolytes have for a long time attributed to the US.
>
>Thiago Oppermann

It was a back down because the US wanted permanent immunity or else it would
gather its toys and go home. The EU, Japan, etc. played some brinkmanship
with this and succeeded in keeping the court alive and forcing the US to
compromise. Chomksy and his acolytes, I suspect, see the ICC as an institution
for providing cover for big powers should they want to prey on smaller/poorer
countries via humanitarian interventions. The rabid conservatives in the US
Congresssee it as an infringement on US sovereignty, so it has to be killed.

Peter