Photo by [Le Monde]
The International Criminal Courts’ warrant of arrest for Russian President Vladimir Putin shows how selective the ICC has been towards certain leaders over alleged crimes committed. Dr Gwinyai Regis Taruvinga, a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Humanities Graduate Centre at Wits University, has observed that many African countries view the ICC as a tool to target specific world leaders.
“What we are now seeing is that, indeed, it is selective in certain leaders that it claims to have committed certain crimes. This is the gripe that many African countries have, especially currently with the ANC as we’re seeing in South Africa, to say that it’s fine to have these institutional arrangements, but they need to be applied fairly.
This incident is not the first time South Africa was expected to apprehend a world leader. Some years ago, South Africa showed similar intent to withdraw from the ICC after declining to apprehend the former Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, who was accused of alleged war crimes.
Failure to Aptly Define War Crimes by the ICC
Last month, the ICC issued President Putin an arrest warrant for allegedly illegally transporting Ukrainian children to Russia. This decision, in turn, raised questions about the institution’s integrity.
Many believe the ICC should look at prosecuting Western leaders who have committed similar, if not worse, crimes in the past, such as the illegal invasion in Iraq and elsewhere, as well as the annual documented aggression and murder of Palestinians by Israeli forces and settlers.
Dr Taruvinga added the ICC’s failure to define war crimes is a significant challenge. This lack of definition leaves room for Western leaders to evade prosecution while others are forced to face it.
“This is one of the biggest challenges we’ve seen with ICC. There isn’t a clear definition of what war crimes are. In many cases, when there is a definition, you find that Western countries or leaders could fall into the trap of having committed crimes … Failing to have a clear definition for a war crime makes it very easy for [powers] to target certain leaders … The argument then goes back to how many people say the ICC is very selective, which almost makes it very ineffective because if people are seeing it in that way, it then almost fails to serve its purpose.”
SMread| ATM demands answers on UAE President’s controversial South African landing
Confusion Shrouds South Africa’s Possible Withdrawal from the ICC
Earlier this week, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa expressed, after much discussion, the intent of the ruling party to withdraw from the ICC.
President Ramaphosa said, “We would like this matter of unfair treatment to be properly discussed, but in the meantime, the governing party has decided once again that there should be a pull-out.”
Dr Taruvinga added that the initial declaration made by the President speaks broadly to how African leaders and the African continent perceive the ICC as it seems to target world leaders who criticise and oppose the West.
“African countries view the ICC as a tool that often targets particular leaders who have bad relations or weak relations with the West, as we’re currently seeing with Vladimir Putin.”
However, later in the day, the Office of the President issued a statement hoping to clarify the assertion made by the President at a media briefing alongside his Finnish counterpart. The report affirms that South Africa “remains a signatory to the Rome Statute and will continue to campaign for equal and consistent application of international law”.
“This clarification follows an error in a comment made during a media briefing held by the governing African National Congress (ANC) on South Africa’s status with regard to the ICC. Regrettably, the President erroneously affirmed a similar position during a media session today.”
