Africa and the ICC: the myths, facts and politics

The African Union (AU) celebrated its golden jubilee last month. Having started as the Organization for African Unity (OAU) it subsequently changed its name to AU in 2001 but came into legal existence in 2002 through its Constitutive Act. It has the objectives of inter alia promote peace and security on the continent.

Among the rafts of issues – on peace and security – discussed at its 23rd Summit was the Kenyan cases at the International Criminal Court (ICC). The AU chair who is also the Ethiopian Prime Minister read out a communique after the session. Therein he stated that the court was engaged in a ‘racial hunt’ implying that the ICC is unfairly targeting African countries. He also said that all the situations at the court were African and that all the persons before it were consequently African. This this week’s entry looks into the myths, facts and politics (read perception) of the ICC in Africa.

Question: Are all the situations and cases (difference being that situations are country specific and cases are individual specific) at the ICC African?

Answer: YES!

There are eight situations at the ICC. These are situations in the Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Mali, Libya, Sudan and Uganda. HOWEVER it would be too temerarious to make such a conclusion without ruminating on the jurisdiction of the ICC, thus caution ought to be exercised in using this fact as proof of malfeasance on the part of the court or the powerful in the international system. Many observers argue that this is living proof that the ICC is either being used as an instrument of neo-colonialism by western powers bent on implementing their policies in Africa or a tool for a rogue prosecutor with nefarious intentions for the continent. Please read on to see just how inaccurate this assessment maybe.

Question: Is the court an instrument of western powers?

Answer: NO!

There are three ways through which the ICC is seized of a matter. The first is through a referral by the concerned state itself as is the case with Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali and Uganda. The second in through a referral process by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) as was the case in Libya and Sudan. The last one is through the prosecutor’s own motion and the examples here are Ivory Coast and Kenya.

Out of the eight only two situations were presented to the ICC through the UNSC. Accepting (rather assuming) that the UNSC is controlled by those with veto power – in as much as it has 10 other non veto wielding members – and that this is the way these western powers would use to allow the court to intervene in African affairs, I will assume (for the moment) that it is the body that is being accused of sending Africans to the Hague. However out of the five members that have the said power, only three are western European; relevance of who has veto power does not arise as it takes only one veto to torpedo an entire resolution – case in point is the Syria debacle.

Further, I examined how the UNSC voted on the two African cases. On the Sudan case, the UNSC passed in Resolution 1593 (2005) with 11 for, none against and 4 abstentions. Curiously, Algeria, Benin and the United Republic of Tanzania voted for the matter to go before the ICC citing, among other things, fighting impunity in the continent. Also equally interesting is that China and the USA abstained from taking a vote; one of which is being accused of using the court to drive is foreign policy in Africa.

The Libyan case also presents the same scenario. Interestingly the UNSC was unanimous in it Resolution 1970 (2011) to refer the situation in Libya – which was going through a bitter revolution – to the ICC. Gabon, Nigeria and South Africa supported the move, never you mind that the person they were sending to the ICC ‘gallows’ was a chief adherent, advocate and later the embodiment of Pan-Africanism. So, is it really feasible to purport that the western powers are using UNSC to hit out at unfavorable African governments?

Into the bargain, another spurious argument that is usually presented is that the African states were somehow coerced to vote the way they did. Without any cogent evidence of this claim, I would treat that as mere conjecture to justify the position that UNSC is being used by western powers. I see no evidence of sufficient probative value to safely conclude that there is a witch hunt on the part of UNSC.

Question: Is the Prosecutor unfairly targeting African states?

Answer: NO!

Again, of the eight situations in the court, only two – or 25% if you like – were initiated by the Prosecutor: Ivory Coast and Kenya. But even this is not accurate enough. In the case of Kenya, the state was given an opportunity to create a local judicial mechanism to try the post election violence cases. It failed with a section of parliamentarians – and some accused persons now before the court – joining the bandwagon of those raising the clarion call ‘don’t be vague, go to the Hague!’. It was at that point the Prosecutor decided that it was time to initiate the proceedings; Kenya – in other words – had the opportunity to avoid the Hague. Therefore it is only Ivory Coast situation that, I think, would warrant to be categorized as initiated by the Prosecutor on his own motion in the strictest sense as they never had the same opportunity Kenya had.

So? This means that half of the situations at the Hague were taken there by African Governments. Secondly, it means that African states seating at the UNSC at the time when Libya and Sudan situations were being referred consciously voted for the position. Thirdly, the cases in Kenya and Ivory Coast – and I single out Kenya – were brought about by the actions or inactions of their respective Governments.

In conclusion, I find it imperative that the ICC narrative sticks to the facts rather than fallacies and half-truths. I leave you, the reader, to convince yourself of the veracity of the arguments presented by the group that seeks to direct African public opinion in a particular direction versus the actual historical events and draw your own conclusions.

Advertisements

Domestic Politics in Kenya’s Foreign Relations II: Uhuru Talked to Aljazeera

 

It never received as much attention both in the so called mainstream and social media. Maybe it is I who needs to find new friends who follow such events of national importance, or follow the news a bit closer. I am talking about Uhuru Kenyatta’s interview with Aljazeera’s Folly Bah Thibault on the programme Talk to Aljazeera. If you missed it, here’s a link you can watch it and form your own opinion about your future leaders: http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/talktojazeera/2013/01/20131228450568673.html

The main issue, which may be obvious to fervent followers of Kenyan politics, was the ICC. A while back, on the 4th of November 2012, I published a post on a similar issue. It revolved around the consequences to our foreign policy of having the Hague pair at the helm of Kenya’s political leadership. For 25 good minutes Uhuru Kenyatta was grilled about the direction he would take the country if elected.

Notwithstanding the perpetual interruptions by the interviewer almost frantic for direct answers, there were pertinent questions that needed answers by the interviewee. A lot of commentators focused on the journalistic ethics of the former and did not objectively scrutinize the answers of the latter. What issues did this interview bring to the fore?

First, there is the issue of trial dates. The ICC trial chamber has set the dates in April. These dates will be smack in the middle of elections if the current opinion polls are above reproach. Under the current constitution of Kenya, if there is no clear majority winner (i.e. 50% + 1) then the county goes to a runoff. It must be done within 30 days of the general elections, between the first and second placed candidates. It means that UhuRuto ticket may be engaged in serious campaigns while at the Hague facing egregious charges.

Secondly, suppose they win what then? Folly posed this question to Uhuru who started off by reiterating their support for the process. Despite the barrage of questions on he could be genuine about this support whereas the current ICC prosecutor has accused the government which he serves of non compliance, Uhuru stood his ground. However therein lays a bigger issue.

If come April, we have Uhuru and Ruto as the president who will handle the affairs of the state while the pair fends off international criminal charges? In my view, Uhuru was elusive as he just said ‘the government will continue to run’ without any specifics as how that would happen. In case you have not noticed, it is unprecedented that the president and his deputy of any country would be out of that country at the same time. Considering the close proximity in dates and the preparations involved, there’s a strong likelihood that both the president and his deputy will be out.

Thirdly, there is the looming question on sanctions. The presidential candidate can shout sovereignty at the top of their lungs but must understand that the concept is not practiced in isolation. There is always the international community that we must deal with and I think it is not enough for him to say that he will work with those who are willing and ideally leave out the rest. He questioned the interests of those states in Kenya perhaps in an attempt to impute imperialistic motives.

The ambassador of the United Kingdom to Kenya has been categorical on the issue. It is not the policy of the United Kingdom to deal with persons subject to the ICC process. In other words, we will not deal with Kenya should they choose the ICC pair. This is a perfect example of freedom and necessity as there is what you want to do and what you can do.

Finally there is the issue of state failure. There is no universally accepted definition of the term. However whenever one speaks of the term the first example would be Somali. So can Kenya end up like Somali of the pair will be elected? I do not see any evidence of this owing to the strong institutions that have been placed by the constitution. If we had strong and armed resistance to the government like in Mali of DRC, then perhaps a situation like that could ensue.

All in all, it is up to the Kenyan voter to choose his/her leader wisely. Keep the peace!