At a House Rules Committee hearing last week, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) spoke about legislation on the ICC.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Chair, thanks again.
00:01The lady generally deals back to the gentleman from Texas, if I can ask for questions.
00:05I thank both gentlemen for being here and testifying.
00:08Just a few things.
00:09I know we're trying to move along in the interest of time.
00:12I would just, since we had the exchange with the gentleman from Kentucky, just stipulate
00:15for the record, I assume the gentleman from Texas or from both gentlemen, in broad terms,
00:21the findings are laying out first that the United States and Israel are not parties to
00:26the Rome Statute or members of the ICC, and so therefore that raises legitimacy or jurisdiction
00:33over the United States or Israel.
00:35That's one primary, I think an important point, lays out the extent to which the prosecutor,
00:42Mr. Kahn, announced arrest warrant applications for the Prime Minister, which I don't believe
00:48is disputed, and applications, to be clear, because some people get that wrong in the
00:54press.
00:55But for the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense, Mr. Kahn, and does say that those
01:02should be condemned, I think, which I certainly agree with respect to condemnation.
01:08I believe there's bipartisan agreement on that in broad terms.
01:13And then there's a couple of other things in here which people can see, and the ICC's
01:18actions against Israel are illegitimate and baseless, which, again, consistent with the
01:22point here about the ICC itself, which I would argue is consistent with what the gentleman
01:27from Kentucky was saying.
01:28I'll let him judge that for himself, but just for clarifying, because we had a discussion
01:32about it, I wanted to make sure people understood why those findings existed.
01:37I would ask the gentleman, Mr. Crow, respectfully, having served, do you believe that the ICC
01:52should be able to go after an American serviceman?
01:56I do not.
01:57Good.
01:58On that, we have agreement.
02:01Do you believe that the ICC should be able to go after one of our allies?
02:12It depends on the allies and the circumstances.
02:17Every individual circumstance is different.
02:19I'm assuming you're talking about this instance of Israel.
02:22I do have concerns of jurisdictional issues, and those are concerns that I think are worth
02:27debating.
02:28So the question is not, in my view, the concerns about jurisdictional issues, which have multiple
02:34components.
02:35There's the component of whether or not you're a party, but then there's also the implication
02:39that the ICC has made here, the assumption that the ICC has made here that the West Bank
02:47and Gaza are basically a State actor, part of a Palestine, which, of course, is something
02:54that should be debated as well.
02:56So those are debates that are worth having.
02:58The issue is, what is the remedy?
03:00And the remedy should not be, in this instance, sanctions, because I think that the blowback
03:05and the risk to the United States of this approach are severe.
03:09I appreciate that.
03:10I would ask my colleague from Texas about the importance of sanctions here.
03:15I think we've had some discussion here about the precedent setting, and the gentleman from
03:21Texas discussed the precedent setting, and the extent to which we allow the ICC, which
03:30we do not – the jurisdictional question has been discussed here, which we're not
03:35a party to, that you have a court out there that could be turned on, and it's not without
03:40precedent that they try to come after and target American service members.
03:46And when the ICC takes this kind of a step, which has been condemned pretty roundly by
03:54members of both sides of the aisle, executive branch and legislative, that that – and
03:59this is now I'm going to assert my position on it – that that is deserving of significant
04:03rebuke, and that without something with teeth, that you're not going to limit the extent
04:11to which the ICC feels empowered and permitted to engage in this sort of activity in the
04:16future, including directed towards our own service members or our own Americans engaged
04:22in this kind of activity.
04:25And so I would ask the gentleman from Texas if he agrees with that and underscores the
04:30importance and the importance of timing, that stopping this before it moves very far
04:36down the track is critically important, because of the unbelievably egregious nature of the
04:43ICC announcing the intent to issue warrants against the prime minister of Israel – I
04:51just want to say that out loud – and the defense minister of Israel, and that that
04:55merits the strongest possible rebuke by the United States.
05:00And therefore, setting up a construct, which this is designed to do, not haphazardly but
05:06in direct consultation and working, by the way, across the aisle – not that we reached
05:10agreement on every point, as is evidenced here in the debate – but reaching the ability
05:16to use a model, in this case, CAATSA – I mean, we took an existing framework that had
05:22been passed and passed on a bipartisan basis, applied that framework, and that is literally
05:29the basis of the construct for how the president could grant some waiver by coming to Congress
05:34and presenting it on a case-by-case basis.
05:36We tried to use that existing model.
05:38But I think at the end of the day, it's just a question of sanctions or no sanctions.
05:41I mean, you know, I mean, we can debate some of the specifics, and I think the gentleman
05:45raises points about the extent to which the language allows it extension to countries
05:50that are supporting the ICC, allies that are supporting the ICC, and family members.
05:55The purpose of it was to, in fact, put teeth into it.
05:58It was to say that if you're a judge and you are targeting Americans or you're targeting
06:03our friend, the prime minister of Israel, yeah, maybe your kid who wants to roll over
06:08here and go to Harvard, maybe that kid shouldn't be able to do that.
06:11I think these were questions that I think we thought through and thought were important
06:15to address.
06:16What are the gentlemen from Texas would have thoughts on that matter, and then I'll allow
06:20It's vitally important we kill the snake while it's young in the nest.
06:25That's the analogy.
06:26And that's, I believe we talked a lot about alliances here.
06:31I believe that our Western European allies, when they realize they could be next, they
06:38might join us.
06:41And frankly, there is a national security waiver in this bill, if I remember right,
06:45Mr. Roy.
06:46So we can actually have waivers for this bill, should it be in the national interest
06:51of the United States.
06:53So absolutely, you are exactly right, because I've heard several comments here about undermining
06:58our alliances, damaging our reputation in the world.
07:01Folks, I don't know how much our reputation in the world can get any lower.
07:06There's an old saying about whales in the ocean, but we've got to do something to re-establish
07:12our reputation in the world.
07:15And I yield back.
07:16I'll let the gentleman respond.
07:18Mr. Roy, did you want to respond?
07:20Sure.
07:21I vehemently disagree with this notion that our reputation worldwide couldn't be lower,
07:30so what does it matter?
07:31I think our reputation matters a lot.
07:34I think our reputation is very strong.
07:37We certainly have issues like every country that we need to address.
07:41But as I said in my opening, this is not a race to the bottom, nor should it be.
07:46We work with the ICC all of the time when it's in our vital national interests.
07:53So if we're going to be about rules of law, if we're going to be about consistency, if
07:58we're going to be about supporting international institutions, then the thing about rule of
08:04law is you either support it all the time or you don't.
08:07You can't support it some of the time, or you can only support it when you agree with
08:11it.
08:12And the reason I raised that last point is because, and I raised this also in my opening,
08:18you all supported the Ukraine War Crimes Deterrence and Accountability Act, right, which supports
08:25the ICC investigations against Russia, when Russia is not a party.
08:32So to stand here now and say the jurisdictional issue is the predominant one doesn't really
08:38fit with the history there.
08:40And then the last thing I'll say is the facts of specific instances are really important,
08:44because one of the primary things to look at when you look at whether any tribunal is
08:49appropriate for a given instance is the issue of whether or not there is an internal domestic
08:54legal process that can actually handle the issue within a country, right?
08:59And that's one of the reasons why we've all supported prosecutions and actions against
09:04Russia, because of course there is no viable internal process there.
09:08So we have to look at every individual circumstance on its own merits.
09:13Mr. Roy, if I could respond to the Ukraine comment.
09:15Did not Ukraine authorize action inside Ukraine?
09:24My recollection of that bill is that it did not specifically mention the ICC.
09:27I understand the gentleman's point.
09:29But I think what's important here is the threshold question, and the gentleman responded to it
09:34honestly, and I appreciate that, that when posed with the question whether the ICC, if
09:39it went after our own service members, the gentleman said he would not support that,
09:43nor would I, nor do I think any of us should.
09:46And I think the question here is whether when we have a close ally and you have the ICC
09:49and you're empowering the ICC, right, if you kind of sit back and allow the ICC to engage
09:54in that activity against a non-party state, our ally, engaged in defense, then what precedent
09:59does that set, right?
10:01What precedent does that set to have an international tribunal to which we're not a party, to which
10:04our allies are not a party, having a judge issue warrants against the prime minister
10:08of somebody that we're relying on to help defend us in the Middle East, in theater,
10:13engage in active conflict, dealing with the fact that they have their own individuals
10:16who were targeted and killed, October 7th, of the most horrific crimes possible, dealing
10:20with the constant affront of thousands of missiles being shot at them from Hamas.
10:24And we can debate, and I'll take the gentleman's word about the relative ratio, rate of casualties
10:33and with respect to civilians in Gaza, I've certainly seen reports that would suggest
10:40that the numbers are actually fairly impressive in terms of what they've been trying to do
10:44to target and avoid hitting civilians while still trying to carry out the activity of
10:49taking out Hamas.
10:50And I think here the question is whether the United States of America stands alongside
10:53Israel in trying to stop Hamas from continuing to do what they're doing, which is targeting
10:58Israel, to eradicate Israel, undermine Israel, our ally, our stated ally.
11:04And that I think is what is right before us right now.
11:07And when we have the extent to which the ICC effectively broke its own rules
11:13under the Rome Statute of the ICC by permitting the recognition of the state of Palestine,
11:20when in fact it's only countries can be part of the ICC, understanding the debate that's
11:26ongoing about that, these are the issues that I think are significant and at play.
11:31I would also note that former President Trump, when he engaged in, and not to politicize it
11:37in that way, but we're bringing up the issues that are important, that the sanctions against
11:43the ICC worked, right?
11:45And that the United States taking positions like that matter.
11:50And this is what it boils down to, bottom line here is.
11:53We have a significant number of our democratic colleagues who recognize what the ICC did here
11:58was horrific and needs actual teeth in response.
12:02We hope and believe that those democratic colleagues will join with us in saying the
12:06United States should speak with a consistent, loud voice and sanction the ICC for what they're
12:11doing to our ally Israel.
12:13And unfortunately, the White House seems unwilling to want to take that step for political reasons,
12:19whatever reasons we want to ascribe to the White House.
12:24And I'll only say that I had a significant, I'm not gonna talk about private conversations,
12:30but I had a large number of conversation of democratic colleagues across the leadership
12:34spectrum and rank and file about this bill and this issue.
12:38And there's a lot of interest in wanting to work on it.
12:41A lot of it, and I'm working on this construct.
12:44A construct that is not plucked out of thin air, isn't just made up,
12:47is modeled after existing statutes that we have agreed to.
12:50Literally, take the statute right out of it, boom, put it in here and apply it.
12:54I think this is a simple question.
12:56And I think that's what's being laid bare here.
12:57Should we sanction the ICC or not?
13:01I think that is the question that is before us.
13:03Mr. O'Reilly, can I comment on that?
13:04Yeah, I think there's a question of the underlying concerns of which
13:09there is broad bipartisan concern about certain elements of this case
13:13versus what's the appropriate remedy.
13:15Fair.
13:16And the White House did come out and release a statement of administration policy just
13:21a couple of hours ago where they said they're willing to work with Congress
13:25to figure out the appropriate remedy.
13:27So people are coming to the table and they're saying, all right, we have concerns.
13:31We have bipartisan concern about this.
13:33Let's figure this out.
13:35But the remedy can't possibly be we're going to put ourselves into a position of sanctioning
13:4136 of our NATO and major non-NATO allies, sanctioning children of officials of the ICC,
13:50and also directly undermining all of the cooperation that is in our interests that the ICC is doing,
13:57that we are assisting in because it serves our national security interests.
14:01That couldn't possibly be the remedy.
14:03And that's my point.
14:04I think there's a lot of people who are willing to step up to the plate and say, you know what?
14:07Let's take a step back.
14:09Let's go through the process.
14:11Let's have a hearing.
14:12Let's think about the secondary and the tertiary and the unintended consequences of this.
14:17Let's take a breath and figure out a path that doesn't jeopardize our own national security
14:22and our own interests in the manner in which this bill, because of the way it's drafted, does.
14:26Mr. Stolz, do you want to speak to that?
14:28I would just say, Mr. Roy, I appreciate your leadership getting movement on this
14:33because I think he's right.
14:34There's movement and I appreciate this bill doing that.
14:36Thank you.
14:37I appreciate it.
14:37From Texas, I would just note that since the ICC's founding,
14:41which has now been over 20 years ago, every United States administration,
14:44both sides of the aisle, both parties have refused to join the court.
14:48Recognizing the concerns with its politicization and misuse,
14:51we are seeing a direct misuse directly right in front of us.
14:55As this Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, said, quote,
14:57we maintain our longstanding objection to the court's efforts to assert jurisdiction
15:01over personnel of non-state parties such as the United States and Israel.
15:04We're seeing them engage in it as we speak.
15:06It is incumbent upon Congress to act, particularly when the White House refuses to.
15:10With that, I yield back to the Chairman.
15:13The gentleman yields back to the Chair.