Who's the Unilateralist Now?

On its face, a simple story: yesterday, the UN Security Council voted 14-0 to renew the mandate of the joint UN-African Union peacekeeping contingent. The United States went off on its unilateralist way, abstaining from the vote because the resolution seemed to relieve some pressure from Sudanese President Omar Bashir to face a genocide charges recently filed at the International Criminal Court.

Except, a few years ago, the United States was fighting the ICC with every diplomatic tool there was. The administration even pointedly unsigned the treaty creating the thing. The US still isn't a signatory, even though it's acquiesced in the Court's work on Darfur.

So why is the US the only country holding out to protect the prerogatives of an institution that it doesn't even belong to? There are lots of possible explanations, but the one that seems most convincing to me is it's a tactical move: If the whole Council unites on the resolution and Bashir fulfills it even partway, then he's got a good chance to get off the hook. But if the U.S. stakes out a more principled stance, Sudan has to worry just what that crazy superpower will do. He'll be more likely to actually comply with the resolution if he has to be afraid of kicking the ball back into the Americans' court.

What'll be interesting, though, is to see how the right and left react to this. Will the left hail the Bush administration's rediscovery of international justice? Credit the US for sticking to principle? Will the right demand the US become more cooperative in the Security Council? Criticize the administration for being too unilateralist, insufficiently pragmatic?

I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. But I am looking forward to the partisan squirming.