US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s warning to the International Criminal Court (ICC) was stark: ‘Either the ICC will end its threats, or we will end the ICC.’ It followed US central administration accusations that the court was unfairly targeting Americans on the basis of trumped-up war crimes charges.
However, a new plethora of sanctions has been clamped on the ICC by the US, which in turn has spurred accusations by sections of the world that the latter has unleashed an ‘assault’ on the international legal order.
What some of the sanctions would mean for the ICC was outlined by Rubio: ‘We will ban transactions with this rogue court, cutting off their resources and crippling their ability to operate against us.’
The ICC has shown consistency of purpose over the years. Despite some operational constraints it has indicted a large number of political strongmen from around the world, accused of war crimes and other governance excesses that come under its purview. Two such recent figures are: Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Rather than enjoy a mere nominal presence in the world community, the ICC has proved its effectiveness by detaining and bringing to justice scores of VIP politicians and others of their ilk who have been found guilty of human rights abuses and kindred excesses that come within the terms of reference of the ICC.
Accordingly, the international justice system would be stymied considerably as a result of the ICC being dis-empowered, particularly financially. Needless to say, potential and real perpetrators of the species of crime coming under the jurisdiction of the ICC would stand to gain most from such anarchic tendencies. That is, political repression globally would be enabled to enjoy a new lease of life.
A detailing of the types of crime coming under the purview of the ICC provides an idea of what it would cost the international community if the ICC’s operations are gravely hampered. They are mainly: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression.
That is, the part of the world to be worst affected would be the global South, since the latter is awash with the mentioned crimes. Needless to say, a chronically-disaffected South will sooner rather than later undermine the well being of the world dangerously. The world is already being put through these paces.
At the time of writing, ‘illegal migrants’ from the South, for example, are aggravating many a Western economy’s woes, besides creating for them acute law and order issues. The fact that these migrants’ presence goes on to become a virtual test of the migrant receiving states’ ability to forge domestic social inclusion in the face of jingoistic protests by mainly white supremacist groups is evidence of the latter. As is known, the US, to take just one example, has been up against this crisis for quite a while.
Accordingly, it will be in the best interests of the West if ‘illegal’ migrant arrivals on their shores are stemmed. If the socio-political and economic problems assailing the South are effectively managed through North-South collaborative, ‘trouble-shooting’ efforts the causes leading to ‘illegal’ migration and connected issues could be resolved at source as it were. For, it is the aggravation of the South’s material questions that lays the basis for the emergence of repressive and anti-democratic regimes in the hemisphere.
Until such time that the aforementioned issues in North-South relations are visited afresh and addressed urgently, a vibrantly functioning ICC would be needed. For, the latter would prove a deterrent to Southern political and military strongmen, highly prone to power abuse and like excesses, from coming into being in the wake of the South’s chronic material woes and the wars and conflicts that result from them.
It stands to reason then that the US would be acting in its own interests by enabling the ICC to perpetuate its mandate without hindrance. For a crop of issues that impinges negatively on internal law and order would be defused.
Meanwhile, there needs to be a meeting of minds among the rest of the West to put back in place a North-South dialogue process aimed at reducing some of the economic pressures that are weighing on the South.
Since economics usually drives politics it will be in the interests of the world community to scrutinizingly re-visit North-South issues of the past and put in place economic relief packages for Southern publics that would enable them to tide over their material hardships rather than permit the latter to aggravate into social disaffection and eventually armed militancy. It is the latter juncture that paves the way for the emergence of authoritarian rulers in the South who then go on to be a blight on their publics.
Accordingly, the Southern-based global development thinking of the past that envisaged a more equitable world economic order needs to be seen as an urgent need. That is, NAM’s international development paradigms need to be resuscitated to the extent possible.
It is unlikely that rightist governments of the West, such as the current Republican administration in the US, would find these projects feasible, but democratic states of Europe, led by perhaps the UK, are likely to think otherwise. For it would not be beneficial for the democratic world to be having on their hands repressive governments in the South who would be gravitating towards the major military and economic actors of the South, such as Iran and North Korea, who tend to be in constant power struggles with the West.
However, until such time that the mentioned, pro-people initiatives are given serious thought the ICC would need to be enabled by the international community to be in place comfortably and carry on with its mandate of bringing repressive rulers to book. Besides the ICC should pave the way for the peoples of the developing world to enjoy some substantial respite from the political repression and even terror which tend to be their lot.
Meanwhile, the wars of West Asia are relentlessly aggravating the economic hardships of people everywhere, driving the point home to enlightened sections that there is no alternative to peacemaking. A challenge is to convert the US under President Trump to this line of thinking.