280 The making of American foreign policy
United States and its friends and allies. The United States must defend
its homeland, its forces and its friends and allies against these threats.
We must develop and deploy the means to deter and protect against
them, including through limited missile defense of our territory.Although the abrogation of this treaty suggested that the United States
wished to be less inhibited in its arrangements for nuclear defence, at least a
more positive step was taken later the same year when the Treaty on Strate-
gic Offensive Reductions was signed by President Bush and President Putin,
limiting the number of nuclear warheads of the United States and Russia
to 1,700–2,200 each. Welcome as this was, it of course left enough nuclear
warheads in existence to destroy all life on the planet if they were to be used.
The Treaty was approved by Senate in 2003 by ninety-five votes to nil.
Another initiative by President Clinton was his support for the negotia-
tions in 1996 for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which banned all nu-
clear explosions for military or civilian purposes. The treaty could only come
into force when signed by 44 countries including those who possessed nuclear
weapons. However, when President Clinton submitted it for ratification by
the Senate, then controlled by a Republican majority, it was rejected by 51
votes to 48. During the election of 2000 George W. Bush made it clear that
he did not approve of the treaty, and no further action has been taken. In any
event it is unlikely that the treaty would ever come into force because it was
not signed by North Korea, India or Pakistan and it has not been ratified by,
among others, China, Iran or Israel.
The International Criminal Court was established under the Rome Stat-
ute of 1998 as a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide,
crimes against humanity and war crimes. It came into operation in 2002
when more than sixty states had ratified it; however the United States has
not ratified it, and refuses to be bound by it. President Clinton signed the
agreement setting up the Court, but did not submit it to the Senate for
ratification; in 2001 President Bush nullified the signature and made it clear
that the United States did not intend to ratify the agreement. The main
objection to adhering to the treaty, an objection which is widely supported in
the United States, is that American soldiers or officials could be subject to
politically motivated prosecutions, and that any wrongdoing by Americans
should be dealt with by American courts. In 2002 Congress went further by
passing the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act, which was intended
‘to protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed
officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an
international criminal court to which the United States is not party’. The Act
authorised the president to use military force to free US military personnel
held by the Court. The Act also prohibits the provision of military assist-
ance to countries that have not signed ‘Article 98’ agreements; an ‘Article 98’
agreement is a bilateral agreement whereby countries pledge not to seek the
prosecution of US citizens in the International Criminal Court. However, in
2005, the Security Council of the United Nations decided to hand over to the