African leaders behind the move to
extract the continent from the
jurisdiction of the International Criminal
Court are effectively seeking a licence
to kill, maim and oppress their people
without consequences.
They are saying that African leaders
should not allow the interests of the
people to get in the way of their
personal ambitions. Being held to
account interferes with their ability to
act with impunity to achieve their
objectives. Those who get in their way –
their victims – should remain faceless
and voiceless.
They are arguing that the golden rule of
reciprocity – do unto others as you
would have them do to you – should not
apply to them. And nor should any legal
system.
But they know that they cannot say
these things in public, so they say that
the ICC is racist.
At first glance, when one tallies the
number of African leaders versus
European and North American leaders
prosecuted by the court, their argument
appears as if it might be plausible.
When one considers the facts, however,
one quickly realises that the number of
Africans put on trial is an indictment of
leadership and democracy in some
African countries, not of the ICC.
Africa has suffered the consequences of
unaccountable leaders for too long to
allow itself to be hoodwinked in this
manner.
When thousands of people are
murdered and displaced in any country,
one would hope, in the first instance,
that that country's own systems of
justice and fairness would kick in to
right the wrongs.
But when that country is unwilling or
unable to restore justice, who should
represent the interests of the victims?
Those behind the call to extract Africa
from the ICC say: Nobody.
Those accused of crimes proclaim their
innocence and vilify the institution as
racist and unjust, as Hermann Göring
and his comrades vilified the
Nuremberg Court that put Nazi leaders
on trial following World War II. The eight
matters brought before the ICC were
without exception initiated by African
countries and their leaders. There was
no witch-hunt or imposition, the judges
and investigators were invited in.
So, while the rhetoric of leaders at the
African Union may play both the race
and colonial cards, the facts are clear.
Far from being a so-called "White man's
witch hunt", the ICC could not be more
African if it tried. More than 20 African
countries helped to found the ICC.
Of the 108 nations that initially joined
the ICC, 30 are in Africa. Five of the
court's 18 judges are African, as is the
Vice-President of the court. The Chief
Prosecutor of the court, who has huge
power over which cases are brought
forward, is from Africa. The ICC is, quite
literally, Africa's court.
Leaving the ICC would be a tragedy for
Africa for three clear reasons.
First, without justice, countries can
attack their neighbours or minorities in
their own countries with impunity. Two
years ago, when the warlord, Thomas
Lubunga, was arrested to face charges
of enlisting and conscripting child
soldiers, the threat of the ICC
undermined his support from other
militias. In Cote D'Ivoire, since Laurent
Gbagbo was taken to face justice in The
Hague, the country has been able to
rebuild. Without this court, there would
be no brake on the worst excesses of
these criminals. And these violent
leaders continue to plague Africa: The
Great Lakes, Mali, northern Nigeria and
Egypt all give reason for concern.
Perpetrators of violence must not be
allowed to wriggle free.
Second, without justice there can be no
peace. In South Africa, the scars of
apartheid are still deep and painful and
it has taken a long process of truth and
reconciliation for these wounds to begin
to heal. In Kenya, the rioting and killing
across the Rift Valley will take a long
time to resolve. Put simply, where
justice and order are not restored, there
can be no healing, leaving violence and
hatred ticking like a bomb in the corner.
Third, as Africa finds its voice in world
affairs, it should be strengthening
justice and the rule of law, not
undermining them. Everyone has a
duty to adhere to these principles; they
are part of global collective
responsibility, not a menu we can
choose from as and when it suits us.
Right now, thousands of people from
across the planet are joining a
campaign hosted by Avaaz, an
international advocacy organisation,
calling on Africa's leaders to stay in the
ICC and stand behind international
justice and what it means for so many
vulnerable citizens everywhere. They
represent our global commitment to
working together to make the future
brighter and safer for the next
generations. The alternatives are far too
painful: revenge, like what happened in
Rwanda, Kosovo, Bosnia; or a blanket
amnesty, a national commitment to
amnesia like what happened in Chile.
The only way any country can deal with
its past is to confront it.
We need loud voices in Addis Ababa to
deliver the message of the world's
people, to shout down those that want
us to do nothing. At the front, we need
the heavyweight champions of Africa –
Nigeria and South Africa – to exercise
their leadership and stop those that
don't like the rules from attempting to
re-write them. If Africa's democracies
truly believe in justice and the rule of
law, they must stand up against this
attempt by their least democratic
brothers and sisters to undermine those
values.
This Friday's meeting is a contest
between justice and injustice. Far from
a fight between Africa and the West,
this is a fight within Africa, for the soul
of the continent.
May righteous Africans raise their
voices and affirm the ICC and the rule of
law. •Tutu is a former Archbishop of
Cape Town. He won the Nobel
Peace Prize in 1984 for his
contribution to opposing apartheid
No comments :
Post a Comment