Bush, the UN, and the ICC. (The Last Word).

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is well known to readers of this magazine as a leading opponent of the UN and other international agencies that compromise our national sovereignty. Since 1997, Representative Paul has introduced H.R. 1146, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, in each term of Congress. H.R. 1146 would accomplish complete U.S. withdrawal from the UN.

George W. Bush, on the other hand, is squarely in the UN's corner. Although he may occasionally offer lip service against some new proposal for radically expanding UN powers, his position on the UN is very clear -- and that position is the antithesis of Ron Paul's.

But regarding the UN's soon-to-be-established International Criminal Court, the administration has voiced concerns that could have come from Paul's lips. And Paul has responded by heaping almost lavish praise on the administration.

"Paul Applauds President Bush For Renouncing International Criminal Court," read the headline on a May 7th press release issued by the congressman's office, quoting him as stating: "I am thrilled that the President took this brave action to protect our citizens, our soldiers, and our Constitution.... In the face of tremendous international pressure to surrender more and more of our national sovereignty to global bureaucrats, the Bush administration stood firm against this unconstitutional tribunal."

The congressman's office issued a related May 9th release also praising President Bush for maintaining an anti-ICC stance: "[President Bush] deserves our praise and our support for bravely standing against the ICC and against UN bureaucrats who have so little regard for our laws. Congress must act to ensure that American taxpayers are not forced to pay for yet another UN scheme -- especially one that the President expressly rejected."

The release referred to H. Res. 416, introduced by Rep. Paul on May 9th, "Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the International Criminal Court." As was the case with the two press releases, the resolution mixes valid concerns about the ICC with more praise for Bush, namely: "President Bush should be commended for renouncing the U.S. signature from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) as a step toward protecting American service-members and citizens from the possibility of unwarranted and politically-motivated prosecutions...."

H.R. 1146 -- which, in the course of getting the U.S. out of the UN, would remove most of the threat posed by both the UN and the ICC -- has thus far picked up 11 cosponsors since its introduction on March 21, 2001. By contrast, H. Res. 416, chock-full of praise for the administration, has gained 27 cosponsors in less than a month.

It is apparently more politically expedient right now to warn of the dangers of the International Criminal Court than it is to call for U.S. withdrawal from the UN. This is ironic, since the ICC is intended to be a part of the UN's developing world government and only by getting out of the UN can America avoid the ICC threat. Ron Paul's position against both the UN and the ICC is clear. President Bush's position on the ICC is dubious at best.

Without diminishing Ron Paul's praiseworthy efforts to get the U.S. out of the UN, we believe some pointed questions regarding Bush's sincerity are in order:

* How can the Bush administration genuinely oppose the ICC when the administration is heavily salted with members of the Council on Foreign Relations and the plans for the ICC, as this magazine has demonstrated, originated from the CFR?

* How can Bush sincerely oppose the UN's ICC when he is working on so many other fronts -- the "war on terrorism," for one example -- to empower the UN?

* How can Bush be concerned about losing U.S. sovereignty to the ICC when he is pushing for the sovereignty-destroying Free Trade Area of the Americas?

* If the Bush administration is doing such a good job in safeguarding our citizens from international tribunals, why did U.S. Ambassador Pierre-Richard Prosper tell reporters (as summarized by the AP): "[T]he United States favors working with nongovernment organizations, private industry and universities and law schools to help individual countries set up tribunals...."?

* If President Bush so valiantly defends individual nations' sovereignty in the face of international courts, why -- during Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica's May 9th visit in Washington with the president and an assortment of administration CFR luminaries -- was President Kostunica told that aid to rebuild his ravaged nation would depend on his "cooperation" with the UN's "war crimes tribunal"?

* Does Bush not recognize that the UN, which he supports, is intended to become a world government, and that the ICC represents only one element of that threat?

The Bush administration's internationalism is completely at odds with the legislative record Rep. Paul has compiled for himself. Put simply, Bush is not Paul. To suggest otherwise is to give Bush protective coloration, regardless of who says it.