Here is a headline that sums up the situation exactly
right: “Trump administration finally begins to stand up to the ICC, a hostile
international organization,” It is the title of an article that was written by
Clifford D. May, and published on June 16, 2020 in The Washington Times.
What's right about this title is that it speaks of an
international organization, which means it speaks of the world. So, what about
the world? It is hostile, says Clifford May. Hostile to whom? Well, the rest of
the article mentions America and Israel. But why is the world hostile to
America and Israel? It is hostile to them because the two are behaving like
crooks and worse.
You see, my friend, what differentiates us from the
lower primates is that we act in response to one of two motivational streams:
instinct and intent, whereas the lower primates act only in response to
instinct. And so, unless we suffer from temporary or permanent insanity, in
which case we are driven by instinct alone, our actions are deemed to be
motivated by intent, which means by free will.
Because free will renders us responsible for our
actions, the spin doctors of the Jewish propaganda machine saw the enormous
advantage they could gain by attributing the permanent state of bad intent to
their opponents while attributing the permanent state of good intent to
themselves. Thus, everything that their opponents do––no matter how benign it
may appear to be––is said to represent but a small part of a larger evil
scheme, whereas everything that the Jews do––no matter how evil it may appear
to be––is said to represent but a small part of a larger good scheme.
As to the state of the International Criminal Court
(ICC); it was set up like any court to be the friend of those who do the right
thing, and be the opponent of those who do the wrong thing. And that's where
the attribution of intent becomes crucial when determining who is doing the
right thing and who is doing the wrong thing.
So, here is how and why, in Clifford May’s words, the
Court came into being: “The ICC was set up for what sounds like a noble
purpose: to bring to justice perpetrators of such heinous crimes as genocide.
The United States declined to ratify the treaty establishing the ICC because it
was unclear who would serve as judge and jury, and to whom this court would be
accountable”.
To say that the United States declined to ratify the
treaty is to admit that the United States participated in the setting up of the
Court, that the United States initialed the final version of the Court's
Charter, but that the political machinations in control of the sausage-making
at the Unite States' Senate refused to ratify the treaty. Why did it? Because,
says Clifford May, “it was unclear who would serve as judge and jury, and to
whom this court would be accountable”.
This is the result of the pressure that was brought on
the Senate by the mob of pundits, the special interest groups and the lobbies
that hijacked America's foreign policy long ago, and made it their private
domain. These groups wanted to have a role in the decision making of the Court,
thus be the ones to sit as judge and jury. In addition, they wanted the Court
to be accountable to them, not to the member states as is the case with every
treaty. When this did not happen, the groups sabotaged the ratification
process, and said goodbye to the Court. So did Israel because, after all, it
was the Judeo-Israeli lobby that took charge of the sabotaging process that killed
the ratification.
What tells you there was something louche in America's
refusal to ratify the ICC treaty in the first place, is the following passage
in Clifford May's article: “The US government has asked the ICC to please back
off, to abide by its own charter which authorizes investigations only when
national justice systems are 'unwilling or unable' to perform competently”.
Pray tell, who on Earth can look at America's system
of justice, especially in what concerns the prosecution of war criminals from
Vietnam to Afghanistan –– including the provision of presidential pardon –– and
say with sincerity that the system is willing and able to prosecute its own
with fairness and competence? There is much to be said in response to this
question, but the task is left for the reader to decide.
What can be observed, however, is that America’s
response to the possibility of having its soldiers tried by the International
Court for war crimes they may have committed, is doing more than reveal the
dark side of the soldiers' conduct; it reveals the truth about the decline of
America's power.
Think about it: There was a time when the small
countries of the Third World bandied together in groups such as the Non Aligned
Nations, to generate some sense of self-protection against the interference in
their affairs of the big countries. The small countries were laughed at and
dismissed as paranoid by the big countries who basically told them to “relax
and get a life.” Well my friend, look how, in Clifford May's words, fate has now
reversed the fortune of nations:
“Mr. Barr said the ICC has become a political tool
employed by international elites … foreign powers like Russia, are manipulating
the ICC. Mr. O'Brien echoed that we have every reason to believe our adversaries
are manipulating the ICC. China's rulers took control of the WHO. America's
adversaries have been commandeering international organizations such as the UN
Human Rights Council. Among the 15 most significant UN agencies, four are
currently run by Chinese citizens”.