Ever since its creation in 1998 in virtue of the Rome statute, the International Criminal Court has
vowed to effectively deal with major international crimes, therefore presenting itself as some kind
of binder in a world torn by brutal conflicts. Ideologically, it is supposed to be the pure expression
of democracy, taking down violent leaders and making sure that international justice is guaranteed,
in order to maintain global safety. Similarly to the UN, it presents itself as a permanent
international and universal judge. Paradoxically, the ICC's actions are not particularly well
perceived by several African states and it has not concretely saw its objectives through, as the
general outcry following president Omar Al Bashir's trial and the arrest warrants issued against
LRA commanders shows it. Indeed, it seems that the entirety of the concept of justice conveyed by
the ICC is contested. That is why we are going to ask ourselves to what extent the tools of justice
and reconciliation used by the ICC might actually be unfit to resolve African conflict, through the
Sudanese and Ugandese examples.
One of the first issues outlined during our class debate was Luis Ocampo's virulence when treating
Bashir's case. Indeed, the crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes charges have met large
discontent from many African states. One can argue that these charges are excessive on one hand
and inadequate for the Sudanese context on another hand and they have not concretely led to any
kind of improvement whatsoever of the situation in Darfur. Even worse, during the Addis Abeba
summit, a « strategy of collective withdrawal » from the ICC have been discussed , signifiying the
growing African opposition to the ICC which leads to another question : is the ICC anti-African ?
Many critics, such as Ethiopian Prime Minister Haile Mariam Dessalegn, argue that « it is a neocolonialist
institution which indulges in a racial hunt », since it only puts African leaders on trial.
Others, such as Kenyan head of diplomacy Amina Mohamed, consider the ICC as the « instrument
of the Western world ». Despite Ocampo's replacement by Fatou Bensouda as main prosecutor, this
feeling of unfairness keeps growing bigger, especially since former Côte d'Ivoire's President
Laurent Gbagbo's arrest in 2016, which has been perceived as a political manœuvre to favor
Alassane Ouattara rather than an effort to restore real justice.
As of 2016, Burundi, Gambia and South Africa announced their withdrawal from the ICC, a
decision that was also greatly criticized as it reinforces tensions between the ICC and African states.
Furthermore, concerning the LRA situation in Uganda, the ICC has intervened by arresting one of
its commanders, Dominic Ongwen. One can argue that Ongwen's arrest will not lead to any kind of
resolution as it shows a lack of understanding of the LRA's actions in Uganda. Indeed, like many of
its fellow commanders, Dominic Ongwen was originally a child soldier, meaning that he will also
be accused of the crimes of which he has been the victim. Therefore, one can argue that African
states should favor local and national conflict resolution mechanisms rather than leaning on the
ICC, as they will comprehend these issues in a more realistic and pragmatic way. With this in mind,
the Ugandese government decided to employ the Mato Oput mechanism, which alludes to a
restorative justice mechanism for forgiveness and reconciliation among the Acholi people in
Northern Uganda consisting in finding a middle ground between victims and perpretrators, in order
to bring peace back. The Mato Oput might be considered as a more appropriate resolution
mechanism as it deals directly with violation of people and the relationships between them.
However, this solution is still at the heart of many debates. In one hand, one can argue that
restorative justice gives a chance to peace and reconciliation since it takes into account the fact that
the LRA soldiers are also the victims of this vile status quo while retributive justice mechanisms
(such as the ICC) magnify the tensions between people. On the other hand, detractors argue that the
Mato Oput mechanism will grant total impunity to the LRA and banish accountability as no one will
be judged.
In addition, one can also compare the Mato Oput mechanism to Paul Kagame's « forgetfulness
policy » (from the original French « politique de l'oubli ») in Rwanda. Indeed, following the Tutsi
genocide, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda has been created on November 8th 1994 in
order to punish all perpetrators of the Tutsi massacre. After its dissolution in 2015, the number of
effective convictions has been estimated to 61 in about 20 years, which is a far cry from reality.
This is why Kagame decided to give prominence to forgiveness and reconciliation between Hutus
and Tutsis, as it would be almost impossible to arrest all perpetrators of the genocide. However, the
tensions between Tutsis and Hutus are still strong and many Tutsis, such as writer Révérien
Rurangwa who wrote Génocidé about his family's death and his own mutilation during the
genocide, feel forsaken by their country, as they did not see justice done. This kind of policy might
maintain political and social stability but the victims' memories are still unbearable.
Finally, one can argue that some African leaders indulge in the collective withdrawal strategy from
the ICC only because they want to avoid being prosecuted for acts of violence they have committed,
the main example being Pierre Nkurunziza, President of Burundi. Moreover, some African leaders
also seem to consider the ICC as a tool in their political agendas. Indeed, after August 27th
elections, President Ali Bongo Ondimba accused his main rival Jean Ping of being responsible of
some acts of violence that took place the day of the election after the latter built a case according to
which there have been crimes against humanity in Gabon, which directly incriminates Ali Bongo
Ondimba.
All in all, it seems that the ICC is more and more contested in Africa and that local justice and
reconciliation mechanisms are favored, as the ICC is on one hand considered as a Western binding
instrument and on the other hand seen as completely disconnected from the reality that it judges.
However, it seems that many African leaders are being dishonest, as they mostly oppose the ICC
because of their personnal political agendas but even so, it would be absolutely misleading to
consider the ICC to be some kind of magic bullet for African conflict resolution. This creates a
crucial debate between restorative and retributive justice, between international intervention and
local management of conflicts. In any case, international intervention cannot be considered if it does
not comprehend the exact context in which these conflicts take place. Otherwise, it might worsen
the situation and magnify tensions, as the growing anti-ICC feeling shows it.
No comments:
Post a Comment