Dale Franks, in a TechCentral column echoes 2 of the key sentiments in my article about the ICC.  In particular, he crisply articulates my point about the European faith in other national governments as equals:

Because the UN member states all have an equal vote in prescribing international norms, they assume that, since the process is ostensibly legitimate, the results must be as well. The trouble with this idea, of course, is that it gives the views of non-democratic, authoritarian states the same weight as those of free, democratic societies. It sanctifies the process, with no regard to the actual results.

And, their difficulty understanding our notions of constitutional rights:

... they are unable to make any moral distinction between the US refusals to join in a given international effort because we wish to preserve the liberty of our citizens, and similar refusals from Iraq because its dictator wishes to maintain his firm grip on power. Our repeated references to the US Constitution, and our unwillingness to bypass its provisions to comply with international norms, are incomprehensible to them. They assume, therefore, that our refusal is based on arrogance, rather than on a commitment to constitutional rights.

Their inability to make "moral distinctions" between the US and Iraq, coupled with the comparative openness of our society means that we get far more vitriol directed our way.   They know that a bunch of Iraqi thugo-crats working for Saddam will never listen.   By contrast, it makes 'em feel really good to know that they've hurt our feelings somehow.