adminWITH the call for African countries to pull out of the International Criminal Court (ICC) getting louder and gaining momentum by the day, Namibia has come on board, announcing that it has resolved to pull out of the “dangerous” criminal court.
Media reports coming from Windhoek indicate that the country’s Cabinet has approved a recommendation by the ruling Swapo party to withdraw from the ICC.
Namibia in June 2002 joined 117 countries that had ratified the Rome Statute under which the ICC was created. That means that the country was subject to the rulings and instructions of that court.
The majority of African leaders, through the continental body, African Union (AU) currently under the chairmanship of President Mugabe have taken a stance of non-co-operation with the ICC which they accuse of baying only for the blood of African leaders.
Namibian’s resolution comes hard on the heels of strong sentiments from the African National Congress (ANC), South Africa’s ruling party, which announced that its National General Council had resolved that South Africa must withdraw from the ICC.
These two African countries will join three other countries that originally signed but have withdrawn their membership to the ICC, these are Sudan, Israel and USA.
The ICC was formed to prosecute for crimes of aggression defined as a “state using armed forces against another state, whether by invasion, blockage of ports and coasts, or even if one state’s armed forces were allowed into another state for a specified period and they surpassed that period.”
The first impression one might glean from its founding principles is that the ICC is benevolent, acting for the greater good of the entire world but alas, it’s a wolf in a sheep’s skin!
To date, close to 90 percent of those indicted and prosecuted by ICC are Africans, a development which clearly shows that a total pull out and refusal to abide by the Treaty is worthwhile as some pundits have even gone to describe ICC as the International Criminal Court for Africans (ICCA). The reason for saying so is because the institution seems to harbour a deep-seated “Africa problem.”
The West and America have given themselves a “Big Brother” tag where Africans despite being independent states are seen as toddlers who can’t manage their affairs.
Former African leaders Laurent Gbagbo of Côte d’Ivoire, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Muammar Gaddafi of Libya were all hunted by ICC while Charles Taylor from Liberia was in 2012 sentenced to 50 years in prison for crimes he reportedly committed in Sierra Leone during its civil war in the 1990s.
Ironically, the ICC, set up in 2002, clearly spelt that it can only prosecute crimes committed on and after that date. This then boggles the mind as to why the ICC “crucified” Taylor for the so-called atrocious acts of 1990.
The ICC is still not yet done as Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta and Deputy President William Ruto were dragged to the same court accused of inciting violence which led to the death of thousands of Kenyans during the largely contested 2007 Kenya elections.
It seems the self imposed prefects — the United States and the Nato nations (Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom) — are free to violate the international law and to violate human rights with complete impunity.
Since the ICC was founded, the United States invaded Iraq, Israel attacked Gaza, targeted a civilian population and so it seems the rules apply only to developing nations.
Weapons of mass destruction which USA claimed Iraq was in possession of, were not found and are still yet to be found but the operation saw people being massacred like flies while their leader Sadam Hussein was hanged.
As if that wasn’t enough, the USA, UN and EU imposed sanctions to ruin Côte d’Ivoire’s economy, just to force Gbagbo to step down from leadership. When that didn’t work, French and UN helicopters bombed his place of residence, dropping missiles on the whole city of Abidjan.
One is then tempted to ask whether all these are not crimes against humanity or crimes of aggression that cry loud for the attention of the ICC?
ICC’s headquarters are in The Hague, Netherlands and its top four funders are Britain, Italy, Germany and France. Incidentally, all are EU members. Therefore, an ICC action does not seem to surprise any because he who pays the piper calls the tune.
Some African states, Malawi and Botswana have come out strongly against the move for Africa to pull out of ICC as they are largely controlled by the developed world. Almost 90 percent of Malawian budget comes from the donor community hence they can’t go against the hand that feeds them.
USA which withdrew from the statute has been ravaging the continent through imposing sanctions and bombing states which are against their policies and nothing has been done to them. George Bush who left Iraq in tatters is a free man, Tony Blair who supported him too is a happy and free man.
Surprisingly, Libya is not a part to the Rome Statute, and is therefore not bound by the ICC. Nato forces, however, bombed Libya and left it in the Stone Age era all because its leader Gaddaffi refused to be told how oil should be sold. A reward was offered for people to capture him so that he could be arraigned before the ICC — an institution to which his country is not a signatory to and left the African leaders with more questions than answers at the application and definition of democracy.
Zimbabwe is not a signatory to the Rome Statute but calls have been made by oppositional political forces to arrest the President and other Government officials, leaving people asking why their liberators and political icons should be judged using an instrument which their nation is not a signatory to.
There is therefore no need for Africa to be chained to this marriage which seems dead set against her. It is commonsensical that the ICC is working with a template that is usually prescribed by the economically rich American and European nations whose similar genetic make-up is that of having a moral code of gangsterism.
True to the words of African icon, Julius Nyerere that, “no nation has the right to make decisions for another nation; no people for another people” hence if Africa can’t stop oppression when it is a seed, it will be very hard to stop it when it is a tree.
Africa has the right to prosecute its own criminals and get rid of international intervention. Above all, African Union and the African Court on Human and People’s Rights (AfCHPR) are in place and these organisations can help solve African problems without any intervention.
Questions have been asked why the ICC does not seem to tire in forcing its rule down African throats by painting a picture of Africa as the only place where dictators abound and human rights are compromised for selfish greed? It is now crystal clear that the ICC is another Eurocentric plot against African progression.
Above all, Namibia and South Africa are making positive strides in joining other African states like Zimbabwe that could not be swayed into the lion’s den of ICC. Democratic institutions in Africa should be strengthened via strong African constitutions and this will add deliberate focus on ending poverty and economic rape by the West so that African citizens are empowered and can take part in citizen and government processes without their reality being defined by the West.
A stronger united Africa, a dream which Gaddafi died longing to see, can then deal with wars and corruption on the continent and it is here that the West must take responsibility and also stop driving the process of subjugation of Africa via the arms of war and dictatorship they create and support for purposes of corruptly benefiting from African resources. A transparent Africa will deal with corruption and end poverty.
Online Reporter