>> Chomsky says quite specifically that the ICC would be an imperfect
>> institution
>> since there is practically no chance it would ever prosecute the war crimes
>> of
>> US nationals. This is incidentally the stated position of those countries,
>> like
>> Canada, Brazil and Mexico, which do support the court.
>
> Why the weazel word "practically"? What if Lula is elected in October? What
> in the world of politics is not born "imperfect"?
You mean the guy with the conservative, textile industrialist Assembly of God vice president? I wouldn't place high bets on him making too much of a difference; personally, I don't know if I can bring myself to vote for him again (I am a Brazilian national.) In practice, should Lula decide to do something meaningful about, you know, the general calamity that is Brazil, I doubt he will have much diplomatic capital left over to spend on annoying the superpower.
As for your point, isn't the imperfection in question here a very important one? A court which prosecutes only some guilty parties will always find itself politicised, even if the guilty parties it chooses to prosecute are repulsive and factually guilty. I cannot in good conscience support the ad hoc court for the former Yugoslavia for this reason: the justice it dispenses is debased by the justice it fails to even consider dispensing. Some might say that it is a step towards real justice, but this is something which I am very sceptical about given that the US relations to the ad hoc courts, which was warm and manipulative, didn't at all translate into support for the ICC. The history of relations of the US to the ICJ, which Chomsky cites, is not very encouraging either.
Incidentally, I am a supporter of the ICC despite its flaws, at least up until the point it becomes another kangaroo court.
T.O.
------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: www-mail.usyd.edu.au