Mankind’s hope for world justice hangs precariously on one flimsy thread. How can you hope for international fairness when you allow a so-called world institution of justice to proceed from the legal premises of only one small and extremely self-interested section of mankind?
That question always poses itself concerning The Hague. The adjective international should describe the common pursuits and interests of all the member-states. That and that alone should be the raison d’etre of the so-called International Court of Justice.
Based in The Hague, the court was established to serve only the econo-strategic interests of the dominant classes of the few “nations” that the world knows collectively as the West or the North Atlantic. Objectively, then, that is what can justify The Hague’s court to call itself an international instrument.
To be sure, all its activities are international. All human beings – including the poorest Africans – contribute not only personnel but also vital finances to that court. The question is: Why doesn’t it, then, feel obliged – by the very adjective “international” in its name – to serve humanity equitably?
Which Afro-Asian or Latin American politician can you compare to Julio Andreotti, George Bush, Charles de Gaulle, Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy, Henry Kissinger, John Major, Richard Nixon, Margaret Thatcher – whatnot – concerning what the West has done to Latin Americans, South-East Asians, Middle Easterners and Africans in terms of plunder and repression?
No, we cannot seek to hide under the carpet what certain Kenyan politicians themselves did to Kenya’s electorate just before and just after a certain election. But, if we claim to be independent, how can we allow the very perpetrators of much more grotesque national and international inhumanities elsewhere to be our accusers, judges and executioners?
Why do certain Kenyans ululate that a court based in Europe – a court known to serve only the interests of a certain class of Caucasian Western Europeans and North Americans – will not allow William Ruto, our very Vice-President, any rest in a case which is no longer a case because the prosecutors have miserably failed to produce any clinching evidence?
Under Western liberalism, evidence is the stock-in-trade of any genuine court of law. In Mr Ruto’s case, after several years, no clinching evidence is in the offing. Through the merry-go-round, every lawyer involved has become a trillionaire. Yet no prosecution lawyer appears close to producing any credible evidence.
Even in terms of local politics, you do not have to be an ODM-ist or vehemently anti-Ruto to be able to see that it is completely unjust to subject a person to a legal process which, even after several excruciating years, does not make even a flea-hop of progress in any direction.
To be quite sure, since practically all of our world’s so-called “nation-states” subscribe to it, the court is international. Yet what is purely Western liberalism and what are purely Western interests – are the entire spirit that drives that court. Thus, for the simple reason that I also don’t know, even I cannot judge Mr Ruto one way or the other.
My point is merely that The Hague’s judges do not seem to know either. Indeed, we gather from the media that the court is not likely to come by any information that will significantly change the judges’ collective mind.
The Hague, then, is a tool of world domination by a certain class of Westerners. Practically all its victims are non-Caucasian Third Worlders. But Mr Ruto can serve his people fully only after his mind has been wrenched free of this yoke.