ICC may appear moribund but the world still needs a prefect

The International Criminal Court based at The Hague just turned 20 this year and it is not having a nice time.

Indeed, one can say that this important body has already started exhibiting the symptoms of premature menopause, but this is only because those who always profess to uphold its values are the same ones who are busy undermining it.

The result is that although there may be no overt campaign to kill the ICC, its ability to fulfil its mandate has been so seriously compromised as to be non-existent.

Take the issue which is foremost in people’s minds — last week’s decision by the United States to revoke the entry visa to the long-suffering ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda.

WAR CRIMES

The lady from Gambia has been insisting on investigating atrocities allegedly committed by US soldiers during the country’s campaign in Afghanistan.

The issue is not whether there were atrocities; such things are to be expected in war. The issue is that the US long ago warned that it would never allow the ICC to investigate or try any American soldier for war crimes.

Two years ago, Ms Bensouda requested the ICC judges to authorise an investigation. The Americans balked. Nobody should have expected anything different.

In 1998, 120 countries signed the Rome Statute which set up the ICC, and America was not among them. Now the rest of the world can understand why.

NATIONALISM

Since the US is not a member state, it does not recognise the court’s authority over Americans.

In fact, as late as last year, the US threatened violence against any country that would surrender American soldiers to the court’s jurisdiction. Russia also pulled out of the ICC after howls of protest over its actions in Ukraine.

It’s easy to understand why. No other countries have waged as many wars as the two in the recent past, and in such circumstances, self-interest is quite understandable.

The trouble is, no other country is willing to follow the dictates of the Rome Statute for similar reasons — misplaced nationalism.

The ICC does not have its own army or police force, and it can only be effective with the compliance of member states.

HYPOCRISY

This is rarely forthcoming, which is why Sudan’s beleaguered Omar al-Bashir, an indicted war criminal, has been roaming the world without fear of being arrested and handed over to the ICC.

Of course, by the time this article is published, Mr Al-Bashir may have more serious things to think about, like saving his own life.

There is an element of hypocrisy in the whole issue. The US has been instrumental in hunting down notorious war criminals in many parts of Africa.

We in Kenya can vividly remember how hard the then American ambassador Johnnie Carson worked to ensure our current leaders were not elected, even going as far as warning Kenyans that choices have consequences.

The only result of that arrogance was that the two were duly elected and are still in power today.

DETERRENCE

Having said all that, the world still needs the ICC or a similar body to prefect it. If only for its deterrence value, a court of last resort is absolutely necessary.

It cannot prevent wars for they have always been fought between and within nations, but it can ensure that such violence is moderated to conform to the rules of civilisation. Of course, war and civilisation are a contradiction in terms.

* * *

Could someone kindly tell former Sports Cabinet Secretary Rashid Echesa to shut up and give the country a break!

Practically every week since he was sacked, the man has been grating on everyone’s ears, complaining bitterly and demanding to be told why it happened.

The latest salvo was on Sunday when he accused the President of allowing other ministers suspected of wrongdoing a chance to defend themselves while he himself was not given any.

I have news for Mr Echesa: The President is not obliged by the Constitution to give any reasons why he appoints anyone to his Cabinet or chooses to revoke any such appointment.

In short, subject to parliamentary approval, he has the sole prerogative of choosing whom he wants to work with. Mr Echesa was plucked from nowhere for the plum job and we still don’t know why.

CABINET

Many Kenyans have been sacked from their jobs, fairly or unfairly, but they do not go on a month-long whining binge seeking sympathy.

At the moment, Kenyans have a lot on their minds and do not have the time for idle prattle.

In fact, were they to be asked, they would urge the President to sack half his Cabinet. Too many ministers are in the wrong jobs anyway.

My advice to Mr Echesa is to get over it and move on: Sitting in the Cabinet is not a matter of life and death.

The way to deal with such adversity is not to moan endlessly; the best revenge is to seek an even higher position and prove that a mistake was made.

Perhaps he should have a quiet word with Governor Charity Ngilu on how to go about it.

Mr Ngwiri is a consultant editor. [email protected]