Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, too often in our foreign policy, we turn to sanctions as a first choice rather than a tool of last resort. Sanctions should not be our only go-to punishment to express our displeasure because they have real consequences.

That being said, I will say that on the Foreign Affairs Committee, we do try to work together and get a bipartisan bill. I thank the chairman for that. Unfortunately, we could not get to a final conclusion.

As I review the bill that we are about to vote on today, the bill that is on the floor, in this instance, this bill would have a chilling effect on the ICC as an institution and hamper the court's efforts to prosecute serious atrocities that have been perpetrated in many places around the world from Ukraine to Uganda. We can't forget that the ICC is a venue through which we can hold accountable bad actors.

I know many of us celebrated in March of last year when the ICC judges issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and other senior Russian officials for abducting thousands of Ukrainian children.

In fact, in the wake of Putin's renewed war in Ukraine, Congress passed legislation to enable the United States to provide financial support to and share information with the ICC to investigate and prosecute Putin and his regime for their heinous crimes.

Put simply, we leaned in on engagement with the ICC because it was in our interest and because it reinforces the prospect that the justice we want to see will be delivered.

Let me also be clear that President Biden has said from the very start that the ICC prosecutor's application last month for arrest warrants against Israeli leaders is clearly outrageous. In doing so, the ICC prosecutor has attempted to equate the self-defense decisions made by Israel's democratically-elected leaders to those of Hamas' terrorist leaders.

There is no, and I repeat, there is no moral or legal equivalence here. This is one reason why we try to work together and continue to figure out a way we can get to a bipartisan deal. Chairman McCaul and I will continue to do that.

Furthermore, let me just say that the United States has, since its inception, opposed, and we continue to oppose in the strongest terms, this investigation as an overreach into a matter for which the ICC has no jurisdiction.

That said, if our goal is to change the ICC's actions, sanctions is the wrong tool. They are simply not going to work here. They are not going to convince the ICC to back down and could, in fact, push the ICC to pursue this case with even greater vigor.

This bill will bluntly curtail the United States' ability to engage the court to advance our interests in supporting justice and accountability processes and, critically, to share relevant information that can impact the outcome.

The sanctions will have a chilling effect on States who would otherwise be inclined to align with us in ensuring the court delivers justice and avoids overreach.

Not only that, this particular legislation is overly broad. It would sanction our allies around the globe who support the ICC through resources and personnel.

Per the proposed text, anyone who has offered financial, material, or technological assistance to the court shall be sanctioned.

Let's look at what that means when we break it down. If you wrote a list of the largest funders of the ICC and a list of America's closest allies in Europe and in Asia, they would be virtually identical: the U.K., France, Germany, Italy, and Japan.

As drafted, the leaders of these countries would need to be sanctioned for providing material assistance to the ICC. The legislative bodies of the countries would also need to be sanctioned for appropriating funds to go to the ICC. Interparliamentary travel to Europe could become a sanctionable activity.

Is sanctioning Rishi Sunak, Emmanuel Macron, or Giorgia Meloni smart policy? To me, that is absurd on its face.

This bill would further risk sanctions on the over 900 staff members from approximately 100 countries at the court, from judges and prosecutors to administrative staff, including nationals of close U.S. allies and partners who collectively work to prosecute war criminals around the globe.

The language in this bill is so broad that even a cafeteria worker or janitor, even their families, could be construed as having supported or materially assisted in these prosecutions by providing services to the ICC.

It is almost certain that the ICC relies on American companies for cloud services, productivity software, and other gold-standard tech products. All of these American companies would be banned from doing such business with the ICC, and their Chinese competitors could rush to fill that gap.

Do we want the ICC reliant on the PRC for its email services, data service, or cloud storage? Do we want to send a message to all other international organizations that America could pull the plug on their business services at any moment? This will undermine America's interests and bolster those of China and Russia.

The broad sanctions language included in this legislation will also affect many innocent Dutch companies and nationals. The same sanction risks would apply to companies from other U.S. allies and partner companies that provide services to the ICC. It is unclear how sanctioning close allies' financial institutions and small businesses will aid our foreign policy interests.

The path that has been chosen--not of leaning in, not of engaging the court and its supporters to ensure just outcomes, but of just punitive action--is dangerous for our national security. Behind-the-scenes diplomacy with the court and our allies and partners that support it is far more likely to yield a result that is better than a blunt-force approach.

I am for sending a message of concern to the ICC for seeking arrest warrants for Israeli officials, but we need to do it in another way. Therefore, I must oppose this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

I think it is important for me to say, Mr. Speaker, at the outset that I really do appreciate the efforts that were made to make this legislation bipartisan. Trying to get to good in a bipartisan way is always my goal on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and Chairman McCaul has, indeed, been a partner in that effort. I thank him for his partnership.

That said, the bill as it is on the floor, I can't support because I believe it will be counterproductive to our interests, harm our relations with allies, and undermine American global leadership. Unfortunately, I believe the bill on the floor will do exactly that. Sanctioning the court and all those who support it will backfire badly on us, and I must oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source