Justice, Equity and Compassion Go International

A Sermon by the Rev. James R. Bridges

 

Since our RE classes, and indirectly, our congregation is doing a study of the UUA Principles which we, as a member congregation, covenant to affirm and promote, I thought I would touch on these principles periodically in my sermons as well.  Our second principle, which I believe the RE program is talking about this month, is that of justice, equity and compassion in human relations.  That principle parallels our sixth principle, which calls us to affirm and promote world community with peace, liberty and justice for all.  Further, our principles and purposes statement also notes that, in part, we draw inspiration from the “words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love.”

 

There is a word which appears in both principles, as well as in the inspirational history segment of them, and that word is justice.  The word justice appears many, many times in the Tanack, sometimes called the Hebrew Bible.  Isaiah, for example, uses it in Chapter 1 like this:

“26 And I will restore your judges as at the first, and your counselors as at the beginning. Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city."

 

27 Zion shall be redeemed by justice, and those in her who repent, by righteousness.

28 But rebels and sinners shall be destroyed together, and those who forsake the LORD shall be consumed.

 

As Isaiah used it, so shall I.  To him, justice is something that makes things right.  Justice redeems.  Justice transforms relationships.  Justice places things and people into right relationship.  In America we often think of it in relationship to courts of law.  Indeed, Lady Justice – blindfolded and holding the scales of justice, has become a symbol for our court system. 

 

But my focus today is not meant to look at local examples of justice.  Instead, it is to look at the idea of justice at the international level.  Such a topic is still overly broad, and there would be many, many areas that could be pursued.  One could focus on human rights; one could focus on economic disparities between nations; one could focus on educational differences; ad infinitum.  Today, I wanted to share my concern regarding America’s relationship to the International Criminal Court.  And in that respect, one might say that this is a sermon that is somewhat late.  You see, back in 2002, the General Assembly of the UUA passed a resolution of immediate witness addressing this theme. 

 

The resolution acknowledged America’s historic role in prosecuting war crimes and other crimes against humanity, mentioning specifically the international tribunals covering Yugoslavia and Rwanda.  It could also have mentioned the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials as well.  Indeed, not too long ago there had been talk of submitting Saddam Hussein to an international trial, although presently our government seems to favor letting the Iraqi government try him.

Why did this resolution arise in 2002 at that GA?  Because the United States was at that time withdrawing our former support for an International Criminal Court, which had been designed specifically to try war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, and once defined, aggression.  Our present Administration fears that our soldiers might be arrested and tried in this court.  It also fears that the justices of this court would not be accountable to anyone, and that the decisions of the court could become politically based, in other words, anti-American.  Although never so stated, I personally believe there is also self interest involved.  The President himself might fear being tried in such an international court of law.

 

How reasonable are some of these fears?  The ICC, as organized by the 1998 Rome Statute, has safeguards within it, including giving precedence to national courts and prosecutors, which guarantees that Americans who might be charged by the international court can be tried under our American legal system.  However, under this court, whose genesis emerged from legislation passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1998, there are no winners and losers after a war.  It will be different than the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials of the Second World War, where the winners tried the losers.  In this court, the winners will be just as equal as the losers of any conflict.  This point of view nicely addresses the equity portion of our second principle. The court will take the view of the victims into consideration, be they winners or losers.

 

Another feature of the court is that since the legislation was passed by the General Assembly, Security Council members cannot shield their citizens by a veto.  The court truly equalizes the playing field for Security Council members, still another way of bringing equity to the international arena, a fact the permanent Security Council members may not like.

 

The court is designed to complement the national courts and will take on a case only where a national court cannot or will not investigate and prosecute such war crimes as alleged by the victims.

 

Once 60 nations ratified the ICC, it became the law of the world.  Some nations which have committed war crimes may choose to ignore the ICC, or to work against it, but should their leaders be overthrown, the new government would have the choice to proceed against the former leaders, should they have engaged in war crimes, or to turn the case over to the ICC. 

 

Ironically, the United States has been an advocate for some sort of international court of law since the 1950’s.  But when this legislation was passed in the General Assembly, we were one of seven states voting NO.  Although we have participated in many discussions regarding the court, at times we have acted to undermine it, for we want our citizens and soldiers exempted from its authority.  Such exemption has not been granted, and now the court has come into existence, with or without our government’s participation.  Currently two investigations are underway by the prosecutor, one in Uganda and one in the Congo.

 

In August of 2002 The American Servicemembers Protection Act was signed into law by President Bush. It approved withdrawing U.S military aid from countries ratifying the ICC and restricts U.S. participation in UN peacekeeping unless the U.S. obtains immunity from prosecution. The U.S. began seeking “impunity agreements” with other countries so they will not surrender or transfer U.S. nationals to the ICC if they are accused of crimes.  Such an approach works to undermine the court.  In Nov. of 2002, both Germany and Canada firmly rejected U.S. impunity agreements.  Oddly enough, in October of 2002, the quadrennial public opinion survey “Worldviews” reported that 65% of Americans support the ICC even if “trumped up charges may be brought against Americans, for example, U.S. soldiers who use force in the course of a peacekeeping operation.”  65%.  That is almost two-thirds of the country which supports it.

 

Marjorie Cohn, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law has stated “Although virtually every Western democracy has ratified the treaty under which the Court will operate, the United States will not participate . . .On a macro level, it sends a message to the rest of the world that the United States will continue to renounce international obligations, as it has done with the land mine ban treaty, the Kyoto Potocol, the biological weapons treaty, the comprehensive test ban treaty and the ABM treaty . . .

 

On a micro level, the U.S. will not have input into selection of the Court’s judges and prosecutors.”  Such a selection has now indeed occurred without U.S. input.

 

Still another commentary:  James Carroll, a prominent author and columnist for the Boston Globe reminds us, “the 139 nations that signed in 1998 the agreement for the International Criminal Court no longer include the United States, since George W. Bush ‘unsigned’ that treaty early in his term.  The U.S. refusal to participate in the new world court . . . lays bare the world’s greatest problem,“ which Carroll describes as “an American contempt for the creation of alternatives to war.”

 

To me, it only seems right that our country should be part of and support the International Criminal Court.  I believe that the ICC fights against human injustice and evil through the rule of law, which is essential to promoting long-term peace building and to reconciling peoples and communities devastated by violent conflict.  I also believe that its prime objective should not only be punishment of offenders, but also rehabilitation, protection, compensation, and restitution for the offended and victimized, thereby addressing the issue of compassion.  The ICC can help insure that the concerns of the United Nations Charter, the International Bill of Human Rights, the Genocide Convention, and all relevant United Nations Conventions for justice, peace, and compassionate order will be adhered to and implemented.  The ICC appears to mesh well with both our second and sixth principles….seeking justice.  And it is one way to counter structures which promote evil and harm.

 

If you agree with me, what can one do?  At this point, if you have not done so already, find out your federal representatives’ position on the ICC.  Do your Senators and Representatives support the ICC, or are they opposed to it.  If they are opposed, perhaps you could engage them in a conversation on the topic.  Let them know your position and concerns, your concern for justice and equity in the world, and your concern for human rights.  Perhaps before the election is the best time to drive home our concerns regarding the US absenting itself from the ICC.  Lastly, don’t be afraid to base your conversation upon your religious beliefs and values, that as a person of faith, you believe the ICC is the best route towards “world community with peace, liberty and justice for all.”

 

Still another route to go would be to work with the UU – United Nations Office, which supports USA involvement in the ICC.  To this end….we will pass around the collection plate again for the UN office.  We gave generously last week to them; may we give just as generously this week too.

 

Thank you for your consideration.

 

Are there any comments? 

---