Political Slogans

I would like to follow up to Rob’s and Rick’s postings regarding the Republican Party’s slogan, “Country First.” As with any political slogan, the inquisitive observer can ask, “but what does it mean?” This is true with the Republican statement as it is with the Democrats’ “Change.” Change for what? It is evident that the Constitution and the November election will bring a change, but what is its content? Only time will tell, but it would be nice to have some good insights now prior to the election. Getting back to “Country First,” is the Republican statement intended to be a rhetorical device to establish American hegemony or is it an endorsement for the common good on a national level? (By the way, I am grateful for Rob’s clarification that he is not seeking “UN First.”) Given the fact that the Presidential candidates are running for national office rather than international office, perhaps we might, for the time being, give the benefit of the doubt to this latter interpretation about the prominent role of the common good. Indeed, Govern Palin addressed the common good in her acceptance speech last evening. And surely the statement “Country First” has more appeal on substantive moral grounds than “Me First.”

            But if slogans like “Country First” and “Change” are subject to numerous and different interpretations, some credible and others less so, it is clear that other political slogans from the past were not immune from ambiguity either. For example, we might consider the meaning of: “A New Deal,” “A Square Deal,” “The New Frontier,” “The Great Society,” and, from a foreign perspective, “The Great Leap Forward.” With the passage of time, the content of these slogans took shape, and so I think the same can be said with regard to “Change” and “Country First.” As with past political catchphrases, these will be defined by the understandings of the agents whose future influence will be considerable but at this stage indeterminable. As Rob suggests, “Country First” could be defined by some of those whom he has identified. But he has no similar list for those who will or may define the meaning of “Change”?

            I would like to supplement Rob’s reliance on President George W. Bush’s past statement that the United States “should not join the International Criminal Court because we should not ‘join a foreign court’ where ‘our people could be prosecuted’” as an illustration of the meaning of “Country First.” There is more to the quotations Rob relies on in his illustration that must be considered before judgment concerning the implications of President George W. Bush’s position on the Court can be reached. First of all, we must recall that the United States, under the Clinton Administration, voted against the Statute of the International Criminal Court at the Rome Diplomatic Conference that concluded on July 17, 1998. The grave concerns of the Clinton Administration had regarding the Statute’s text were expressed by Ambassador David Scheffer. I was a delegate at the Conference, and I recall hearing first hand the passionate and reasoned statement presented by Ambassador Scheffer in critiquing the text and explaining why the US voted “no” and joined the ranks of Iraq, Israel, Libya, the People’s Republic of China, Qatar, and Yemen that also voted in the negative. Within weeks after the closing of the Diplomatic Conference, Ambassador Scheffer issued an official statement [HERE] and testified before a Congressional Committee [HERE] to explicate the views expressed and the actions taken by the United States at the Diplomatic Conference.

            It is true that President Bill Clinton signed the Statute (this is not to be confused with ratification and becoming a party to the International Criminal Court) on the last date possible for signature, i.e., December 31, 2000, in the twilight of his Administration. But signing the Statute was a way of retaining negotiating options so that the United States could continue to express formally its concerns about the Court and preserve its objections—a prudent policy followed by sovereign States in public international law circles. At the signing, President Clinton stated the following:

In signing, however, we are not abandoning our concerns about significant flaws in the treaty. In particular, we are concerned that when the court comes into existence, it will not only exercise authority over personnel of states that have ratified the treaty but also claim jurisdiction over personnel of states that have not. With signature, however, we will be in a position to influence the evolution of the court. Without signature, we will not. Signature will enhance our ability to further protect U.S. officials from unfounded charges and to achieve the human rights and accountability objectives of the ICC. In fact, in negotiations following the Rome Conference, we have worked effectively to develop procedures that limit the likelihood of politicized prosecutions. For example, U.S. civilian and military negotiators helped to ensure greater precision in the definitions of crimes within the court’s jurisdiction. But more must be done. Court jurisdiction over U.S. personnel should come only with U.S. ratification of the treaty. The United States should have the chance to observe and assess the functioning of the court, over time, before choosing to become subject to its jurisdiction. Given these concerns, I will not, and do not recommend that my successor submit the treaty to the Senate for advice and consent until our fundamental concerns are satisfied. Nonetheless, signature is the right action to take at this point. I believe that a properly constituted and structured International Criminal Court would make a profound contribution in deterring egregious human rights abuses worldwide and that signature increases the chances for productive discussions with other governments to advance these goals in the months and years ahead. (bold italics mine)

President Clinton’s full statement given at the signing of the Statute of the International Criminal Court is [HERE]. As suggested by bold italicization I have provided in the excerpt, President Clinton was counseling his successor, President George W. Bush, not to seek ratification of the Statute until “fundamental concerns” (which in fact are shared by both of these Presidents) are satisfactorily addressed. President Clinton asserted that he would not seek ratification in spite of his signature. To critique President Bush’s perspective as a reinforcement of a particular meaning of “Country First” should not proceed without taking stock of the significant role of President Clinton that undergird’s President Bush’s approach to the International Criminal Court. Rob’s interesting illustration of “Country First” that uses President Bush stands on the shoulders of the earlier deeds of President Clinton.

RJA sj