Cooperation was discussed on the morning of the second day of the 8th session of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP) of the International Criminal Court (ICC). On the surface, it was a relatively noncontentious subject. The purpose of the discussion was to clarify how the ASP Review Conference in June will consider how states and non-states parties cooperate with the court.
The United States made its first statement of the ASP during the cooperation discussion. Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Stephen Rapp made a statement that the United States has cooperated with both the ICC and the various ad hoc tribunals in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. The statement made clear that the United States will cooperate whether or not it ratifies the convention – it was up to the listener to decide which outcome was more likely. Various NGOs in attendance speculated that the United States had reserved its statement on aggression for Tuesday afternoon in order to be able to first make this positive statement on cooperation.
There was not much discussion of the U.S. statement at the time. However, on Thursday, the ASP was tasked with approving the summary of the week’s proceedings. Suddenly, cooperation became the major issue. In the draft summary, there was Paragraph 19 mentioned in general terms the substance of the U.S. statement – the United States was not named, and the comment was attributed to the general discussion. But Venezuela opposed inclusion of this paragraph. According to the Venezuelan delegation, it was irrelevant to mention the ad hoc tribunals in this context, and the paragraph should be rephrased.
The discussion steadily degenerated into a microcosm of world politics. Venezuela, the United States’s perpetual rhetorical foe in contemporary foreign policy, stood firm that the language must be changed. The representative spoke only Spanish. Meanwhile, the United States’s traditional allies, both at the ASP and more broadly, spoke in defense of the paragraph. Regardless of their native language and the available interpretation, nearly all spoke English (with the notable exception of France). Until late in the discussion, no one mentioned the United States by name. Three or four delegations would support leaving the paragraph, and then Venezuela would make another plug for alteration. A few states, including Cuba and Argentina, defended Venezuela. Progress beyond this one paragraph was at a standstill for nearly an hour.
Ultimately, language was chosen that satisfied all in the room; perhaps most delegates were simply too worn out to object. The final word on the infamous Paragraph 19 was Canada’s. That delegation had asked to speak before Venezuela had made its initial comment. The Canadians had wanted to add something to the summary about a secondary point they had made on Tuesday. But after all the vitriol that had filled the room over ad hoc courts, Canada said they would withdraw their request and would prefer to move on. Leave it to the Canadians to smooth things over.