Should Africans Be Immune From The International Criminal Courts?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/going-after-leaders-is-antiafrican-the-continents-heads-of-state-threaten-to-break-away-from-international-court-8876479.html

It seems they are arguing that they are being unfairly 'picked on' because they are African.

/// The ICC was described by Mr Adhanom as a "political instrument targeting Africa and Africans". He said it was "condescending" and rejected what he called the court's "double standard" in dispensing international justice. ///

[mikey4444]

From what I have read about this, they are complaining about unfairness and seem to think that they can look after their won affairs. But Africa can't seem to do that in any shape or form, which is where the problem lies in the first place.

The ICC isn't targeting them unfairly, its targeting the problems. Perhaps Africa should try examining the message, rather than trying to shoot the messenger.

[FredPuli43]

That should go down well in Kenya. Realpolitik may take over; when someone is overthrown, the victors may find it better, for their image, not to have the former leader tried by themselves.

[Brenden]

It appears that another lot want to belong to the "untouchables" - beggars belief - talk about tinpot dictators - they have been responsible for 1000's of people dying.

[Gromit]

The International Criminal Court is something nations voluntary join. It adds respectability, and until now, it was an harmless body to sign up to.

Immunity has nothing to do with it. They can just decide not to sign up to it anymore.

The arrest of the Kenyan leader is not anti-African. If they have a case, it is their duty to arrest him.

The African leaders may have a point that the ICC are going after easy targets. The Arab leaders are not averse to torturing their own people, putting down rebellions nd stealing the wealth of their countries. But they have most of the worlds' oil, so they are left alone.

[Buenchico]

The African nations seem simply to be giving their current leaders immunity from ICC proceedings (with no guarantee of such immunity continuing when their term of office ends). That would seem to be vastly better than a country refusing to ever allow any of its citizens to be tried before the ICC. Which country (among very few others) takes that stance? Why, none other than the USA of course!

[OILhead]

The USA has not signed up to the International Criminal Court - Bush refused to believing that Americans would be targeted for political reasons and actively sought immunity from it for Amercian citizens, although the Obame administration has indicated more of a willingness to sign up to it. I think we need to be a bit cautious about criticising African nations wanting immunity from it when the USA has resisted joins for years using the same reasons.

[ichkeria]

I think what they are saying is that the ICC is indicting a serving leader, whereas other world leaders rarely if ever are indicted in office.
So they are not asking for special treatment, but fair treatment, in their eyes.

[LazyGun]

The ICC has a very specific remit. Crimes of Aggression ( territorial aggression, invasion of sovereignty), Genocide, Crimes against Humanity, War Crimes. If those Africans protesting bias against African leaders can show examples of such crimes elsewhere that the ICC have not followed up on, then they might have a point; Otherwise it seems rather self serving of them to make these kind of claims. No accident the ethopian ministers are in the vanguard of such claims, given whats been happening there.

Interesting about the US not signing up though.Does seem rather hypocritical of the US, berating other countries for human rights abuses, genocide etc but rather conveniently absenting themselves from the International Court just in case some claims are laid at their door.