http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/editorial/International-Criminal-Court-must-deal-with-racial-fears_78931
Editorial
International Criminal Court must deal with racial fears
Tuesday, November 01, 2016 9 Comments
President of Kenya, Uhuru Kenyatta
Just over two years ago we cautioned in this space that the
International Criminal Court (ICC) ran the risk of losing respect if
it did not shed the widely held perception that it is racially biased.
Our appeal had its foundation in a resurgence of that view when Kenyan
President Uhuru Kenyatta and his Vice-President William Ruto were
before the Hague-based court for violence in Kenya’s 2007 election. At
the time, prominent Kenyan social activist Mr Ngujiri Wambugu, in a
newspaper column, accused the ICC of selective prosecution.
“It is quite clear the ICC is not being fair,” Mr Wambugu wrote in his
column and questioned why former United States President George W Bush
and ex-British Prime Minister Tony Blair haven’t been indicted for the
invasion of Iraq, or why Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is not being
held responsible for the tens of thousands of deaths in that Middle
Eastern country.
Mr Wambugu’s sentiment, we noted, is apparently shared by many
Africans who have pointed out that the ICC, since its establishment in
2002, has only indicted suspects from Africa.
The court’s case log would, we believe, give credit to that view
because, of the 10 cases being investigated, nine involve African
countries, and so far, ICC arrest warrants have been issued only for
Africans.
To be fair to the court, it has conducted examinations into a number
of complaints from Afghanistan, Colombia, the Republic of Korea,
Georgia, Guinea, Honduras, and is now looking into British soldiers
accused of torture in Iraq, and has sent a team to Israel to discuss
crimes in Gaza.
Despite that, the perception of racial bias is strong, and anyone who
had doubts about that general feeling across Africa need only reflect
on recent developments on the continent relating to the ICC. Last
week, Gambia announced its withdrawal from the court. That came after
similar expressions from South Africa and Burundi. In addition, it has
been reported that Uganda and Kenya have been talking about pulling
out of the court.
Burundi’s Parliament, we are told, has claimed that the ICC is merely
“a political tool used by [foreign] powers to remove whoever they want
from power on the African continent”.
Importantly, Burundi’s decision came after the ICC disclosed in April
that it would investigate outbreaks of violence there.
South Africa has said it would be leaving the court because the ICC’s
Rome statutes were at odds with South African laws granting leaders
diplomatic immunity. We strongly hope that that decision has not been
influenced by increasing evidence of corruption against President
Jacob Zuma.
In the case of the Gambia, its information minister, Mr Sheriff
Bojang, is reported as saying: “The ICC, despite being called an
international criminal court, is in fact an international Caucasian
court for the persecution and humiliation of people of colour,
especially Africans.”
When you add to all that, the comment made in 2013 by Ethiopian Prime
Minister Hailemariam Desalegn that ICC prosecutions “have degenerated
into some kind of race hunt” you get a broader picture of the anger
building in Africa towards the court.
It will not be easy for the court to divest Africa of this view, but
it must, if it hopes to successfully prosecute perpetrators of
genocide and other crimes against humanity.
Received on Wed Nov 02 2016 - 08:57:57 EDT