ICC, AL-BASHIR AND AMERICA’S HYPOCRISY

 

On May 6, 2002,  President George Bush administration officials notified the United Nations Secretary General, Mr Kofi Annan, that the United States was withdrawing from the International Criminal Court (ICC) Treaty.

According to the then Secretary of State, Donald Rumsfeld, the treaty which came into effect from July 1, 2002 put U.S. service men and officials at the risk of prosecution by a court that is  “ unaccountable to the American people, and “has no obligation to respect the constitutional rights of our citizens.”

In a written statement , Rumsfeld said the United States rejects the jurisdictional claims of the ICC. “The United States will regard as illegitimate any attempt by the court or state parties to the treaty to assert the ICC’s jurisdiction over American citizens”, he said.

The United States has a number of serious objections to the treaty, Rumsfeld said. There is a lack of adequate checks and balances on the powers of ICC prosecutors and judges. The treaty dilutes the UN Security Council’s authority over international criminal prosecutions. He noted that the US service members and officials could be charged with war crimes as a political move by other nations. Putting US service members at risk of politicised prosecution, Rumsfeld said, would discourage US military engagements in the world and be a “recipe for isolationism”.

“We have an obligation to protect our men and women in uniform from this court and to preserve America’s ability to remain engaged in the world”, he said. “And we intend to do so”.

The treaty would have cause problems at any time, Rumsfeld said, but they are “particularly troubling in the midst of a difficult, dangerous war on terrorism. There is a risk that the ICC could attempt to assert jurisdiction over US service members, as well as civilians, involved in counterterrorist and other military operations…something we cannot allow.”

Given United States total rejection of ICC, you may ask, why is it making itself the enforcer of ICC especially with respect to the Sudanese president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir,  who hurriedly left Nigeria recently out of fear that he could be kidnapped and forcefully handed to ICC for prosecution? Since America said that it objected to ICC because there was a lack of check and balances on the powers of the ICC prosecutors and judges, what makes them think that al-Bashir would find justice there? Just as the US feared that its officials could be taken to ICC based on politically motivated charges, the same can be claimed by al-Bashir or any other war crime indictee of the ICC. Make no mistake about it, leaders who committed genocide must be made to pay for their crimes, but let it be enforced by signatories of the ICC Treaty and not by some self-appointed world police man who is afraid to face its own genocide demons in Iraq and elsewhere. Why are George Bush and Tony Blair still freemen and pontificating all over the place as “do-gooders” when they should have their days in ICC to answer genocide charges against the people of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan among others?  The hypocrisy of United States is unprecedented in world’s history. It has nuclear weapon and remains the only country that has used this “genocide weapon”, yet it kicks when others want the same technology. It is not signatory to ICC and do not believe in the fairness of its judges, yet wants to drag others before the court. With the drones that President Barack Obama is throwing all over the place, he more than al-Bashir may yet have his days in ICC. The world is not fair as long as America’s hegemony continues.