I watched The Interpreter this past weekend. It’s a solid movie, with a decent twist at the end. I kind of liked the storyline and acting, but overall the movie did not do enough to keep me caring. Oh well.
But there were some blatant inaccuracies that only someone as pedantic as myself would notice (or care about). The movie revolves around a (possible) assassination attempt on the leader of made-up country called Matobo named Edmond Zuwanie, who committed crimes against humanity and genocide. Zuwanie would like to come to speak before the United Nations General Assembly in order to convince the UN not to arrest him and try him before the International Criminal Court.
OK, here are some problems with this movie:
1) There is a scene where the US ambassador is speaking with the ambassador from Matobo and notes how the US will push for the leader’s arrest and trial before the ICC. One small problem: The US has not ratified the Rome Statute creating the ICC (in fact President Bush removed the US signature). The US has also worked to undermine the ICC. It seems highly implausible that the US would push to have anyone tried before a court it wishes to see go away.
2) There’s a scene where the French ambassador is calling for his trial before the ICC. Yeah, right, the French calling for force to arrest a leader and try him before the ICC? Don’t make me laugh.
At the end the Security Council unanimously votes to try Zuwanie before the ICC. Can anyone really imagine a country like the Congo voting in favor of trying someone for war crimes (well, unless Israel was involved)? Come on.
Stuff like this has bothered me even since in Hart's War Bruce Willis told the head of the Nazi POW camp that summary executions violate the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions did not exist during WWII (they were signed in 1949).
These people have got to get their facts straight.