International Criminal Court
On Oct. 22, 2016 South Africa announced that they were going to withdraw from the International Criminal Court after being criticized for not arresting the president of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir over a year ago. Believing that the ICC should not be able to control their actions and interfering with people who had diplomatic immunity they decided to leave the ICC.
South Africa wasn’t the only country to withdraw from the ICC as two other African nations, Burundi and Gambia, decided to withdraw as well on the grounds that the ICC was persecuting and humiliating people of color and had an intentional bias against African nations. These allegations were backed by the fact that the International Criminal Courts were singling out other African nations by investigating their activities.
These countries have no right to say they’re being singled out by the criminal court. Yes, they make up nine of the 10 countries currently being investigated by the ICC, but rightly so. Burundi, a country on the verge of investigation is complaining about how they are being targeted as part of political bias yet their country has a president, Pierre Nkurunziza, who is seeking an unconstitutional third term in office and has been part of a civil war which has caused the death of 300,000 Burundian citizens. In his quest for a third term, it is rumored that he carried out executions and beatings for political opponents.
Gambia, the third country to leave the ICC, is also based on bias against African nations and the persecution of people of color. They believe that the ICC is only going after the Africans as they did not attack the European Union for the role in killing thousands of migrants trying to immigrate to the EU and the non prosecution of Tony Blair’s role in the Iraq War. Saying that the court has made mistakes does not excuse your own. Just because the court went after African nations and not England and the EU doesn’t make these countries better, these nations also committed many crimes and should be investigated.
Just because the court went after African nations and not England and the EU doesn’t make these countries better, these nations also committed many crimes and should be investigated.
These countries that have made false claims of abuse and bias are making excuses for their incompetence and failures. South Africa failed to arrest Omar al-Bashir, guilty of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. South Africa believe that they should not have arrested him as he had diplomatic immunity yet as a part of the International Criminal Court they have an obligation to arrest anyone wanted by the court. This just highlights these countries’ inability to arrest a person that has committed countless crimes against humanity. South Africa has no reason to say that they are being called out for incompetence when this is a one hundred percent true statement.
Nations should be able to leave from the court if they have valid reasoning to do so, but they should not make false claims or bullshit reasons that they are being unfairly treated by the ICC. South Africa has a legal reasoning that makes this fine, as they believe that giving diplomatic immunity to sitting leaders conflicts with the ICC’s duty to arrest anyone that is wanted by the tribunal. On the other hand, however, nations like Gambia and Burundi cannot base their leaving on bias against them. Yes, the ICC should have investigated other countries not in Africa, but they should still investigate the African countries regardless as they also are guilty of many unjust acts. Just because someone else has done something wrong, does not give you the right to do the same.