been making progress on that front, too.rnThe preparatory commission for the establishmentrnof the International CriminalrnCourt has been busy at work this past summerrnat the United Nations. According tornan Associated Press report (August 14),rnthe United States is not opposed to thernidea in principle. America’s ambassadorrnfor war crimes issues, David Scheffer, “isrntrying to find a legal solution that will enablernWashington to sign the treaty” byrnmaking American citizens and militaryrnpersonnel immune to “politically motivatedrnprosecutions.” In her internet columnrn{www.origmalsources.com, August 17),rnMiiry Mostert explained the meaning ofrnthis proviso:rnThe unspoken concern here isrnthat the International CriminalrnCourt, which i s designed torndo on a international basisrnwhat the International Tribunalrnfor the Former Yugoslaviarnhas been doing-targetingrnmilitary and electedrnYugoslav leaders for warrncrimes—could end up indictingrnand trying Bill Clinton. Movesrnto indict him, Madeleine Albrightrnand Tony Blair for theirrnbombing of Yugoslavia and forrnallowing the KLA to implementrni t s long held desire to seizerncontrol of Kosovo and evict orrnk i l l a l l non-Albanians, arerngathering steam.rnThis was confimied in a Reuters reportrn(August 15) in which U.S. Senate ForeignrnRelations Committee spokesperson MarcrnThiessen warned that the Clinton administrationrnwants to exempt from investigationrnor prosecution by the ICC any personnelrninvolved in official military actions:rnThe United States wants “arnclear recognition that statesrnsometimes engage in very l e ­gitimaternuses of militaryrnforce to advance internationalrnpeace and security,” he explained.rnThiessen called forrn”100% c e r t i t u d e that thisrncourt is not going to be turnedrninto a vehicle for p o l i t i c a lrnattacks against the UnitedrnStates, [or] p o l i t i c i z e d prosecutionsrnof American soldiersrnand o f f i c i a l s . ” Thiessen saidrnthat without the exception,rnthe United States will bernpushed “into a policy of isolation,rnagainst i t s w i l l . ” Withoutrnsuch protection for U.S.rntroops, the United Statesrnwould not risk humanitarianrnintervention in places whererni t has no v i t a l national securrni t y i n t e r e s t s , he said.rnThiessen admitted that caiving out protectionrnfor the United States—but not forrnpeople the United States accuses of warrncrimes (like Slobodan Milosevic)—is goingrnto be difficult. “1, quite frankly, don’trnknow how they are going to thread thernneedle,” he said.rnThe prospect of the United States beingrn”pushed” into a policy of isolation andrngiving up its addiction to “humanitarianrnintervention” is pleasing—so much sornthat one can only hope the needle doesn’trnget threaded after all. As Mary Mostertrnaptly concludes:rnwhat seems to be happening isrnthat Clinton’s and MadeleinernAlbright’s arrogance in assumingrnthat, as leaders of thernWorld’s only Super Power, theyrnwere untouchable and that theyrncould break any InternationalrnLaw they wanted to break withrnimpunity may not be e n t i r e lyrnaccurate. Clinton’s fear ofrnindictment may help the conservativesrnwho fear the unbridledrnand unchecked nature ofrnthe proposed ICC. Indictmentsrnmake strange bedfellows.rnA further illustration of the administration’srnmoral duplicity can be found in thernGuardian, and it concerns Al Gore’s rolernin preventing low-cost AIDS medicationrnfrom reaching needy patients in the ThirdrnWorld (August 11). According to thernBritish paper,rnAl Gore’s presidential bandwagonrnhas fallen into a suddenrnand unexpected mire . . . Gorernstands accused of conspiringrnto help his supporters in thernr i ch and powerful Americanrnpharmaceutical companies atrnthe expense of the lives ofrnAids sufferers. The issue isrnthe price of a medicineagainstrnthe price of a humanrnl i f e .rnThis most touchy-feely of presidentialrnhopefuls seems unconcerned that, withoutrnthese drugs, tens of millions of people inrnthe developing world will die in the nextrnfew years. The dnigs are very expensive,rnbeyond the means of most people inrnAfrica and Asia. Gore has repeatedly defendedrnthe U.S. pharmaceutical firms’rnclaim that their price reflects the enormousrnsums of money that they invested inrnresearch and development. But, accordingrnto the Guardian, this is disingenuousrnsince many key AIDS drugs, such as Ritonavirrnand ddl, were developed with governmentrnmoney. And yet the Americanrnpharmaceutical industry, backed by Gore,rnis attempting to stop countries such asrnSouth Africa and Thailand from developingrntheir own versions of AIDS drugs at arnfraction of the usual price.rnThailand has produced goodqualityrnversions of v i t a lrndrugs, which have forcedrnmultinational companies torndrop their prices locally.rnPfizer used to charge $14 for arndaily dose of fluconazole . . .rnLast year, three local companiesrnbegan making i t and thernprice dropped to just over $1.rnLikewise the monthly cost ofrnthe Aids drug zidovudine hasrnbeen forced down, from a prohrni b i t i v e $324 in 1992 to $87.rnThe U.S. government has borne downrnon Thailand with all its superior economicrnmight and threats of trade smictions, finallyrnforcing the Thais to curtail licensing ofrndrug patents to local companies. SouthrnAfrica has been in dispute with the UnitedrnStates over AIDS drugs for years, with AlrnGore leading the negodations, and Pretoriarnhas been threatened with sanctions if itrndoes not relent. According to thernGuardian, the outcome would have beenrnthe same regardless of which party controlsrnthe White House: “It is his bandwagonrnthat has got mired, but it could havernbeen anybody’s. The drugs industry isrnlavish in its support of both the Democraticrnand Republican parties.”rnWh en in Rockford,rnEat atrnLee’s Chinese Restaurantrn3443 N. Main StreetrnNOVEMBER 1999/27rnrnrn