This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/22/world/africa/south-africa-international-criminal-court.html

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
South Africa to Withdraw From International Criminal Court South Africa to Withdraw From International Criminal Court
(35 minutes later)
LONDON — South Africa became on Friday the second African country to announce that it would leave the International Criminal Court, a decision that campaigners for international justice fear could lead to a devastating exodus from the embattled institution.LONDON — South Africa became on Friday the second African country to announce that it would leave the International Criminal Court, a decision that campaigners for international justice fear could lead to a devastating exodus from the embattled institution.
The deputy foreign minister of Uganda, meanwhile, said on Friday that the country was “undecided” about whether to remain in the court, and that the “hot issue” of African participation might be taken up at an African Union summit meeting in January. “There is a real chance that there will now be large-scale African withdrawals,” said David L. Bosco, an associate professor of international studies at Indiana University and the author of a book on the court. “The Burundi decision was easy to dismiss as a government seeking to avoid direct scrutiny; South Africa’s is much more significant. The African Union has been a forum for anti-I.C.C. sentiment and countries like Kenya and Uganda may now seek to capitalize on the momentum.”
The action by South Africa and the statement by the Ugandan minister, Oryem Okello, in an interview with The Associated Press, follow Burundi’s decision this month to withdraw from the court. They reflect concerns across sub-Saharan Africa that the body had failed to adequately address war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in other parts of the world, including the Middle East. To date, every person convicted by the court has been an African man. Henry Oryem Okello, a Ugandan minister, told The Associated Press on Friday that his country was “undecided” about whether to remain in the court, and that the “hot issue” of African participation might be taken up at an African Union summit meeting in January.
South Africa had signaled its discontent last year, saying it would leave the court in response to criticism that it had ignored an order by the tribunal to arrest President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan. South Africa’s move to withdraw, coming after Burundi’s decision this month, reflects concerns across the continent that the court has failed to adequately address war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in other parts of the world, including the Middle East. To date, every person convicted by the court has been an African man.
South Africa signaled its discontent last year, saying it would leave the court in response to criticism that it had ignored an order by the tribunal to arrest President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan.
Mr. Bashir, who faces charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan, was allowed to leave South Africa after a visit last year, even though a local court had ordered the government to prevent him from departing because of a warrant for his arrest. (Mr. Bashir has denied the accusations.)Mr. Bashir, who faces charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan, was allowed to leave South Africa after a visit last year, even though a local court had ordered the government to prevent him from departing because of a warrant for his arrest. (Mr. Bashir has denied the accusations.)
Under the Rome Statute, the 2002 treaty that established the court, based in The Hague, countries are obligated to arrest anyone sought by the tribunal. “Legal uncertainty” around the statute blocks South Africa from resolving conflicts through dialogue, including inviting adversaries for visits, Justice Minister Michael Masutha said, and handing over a foreign leader to the court would have amounted to an infringement of South Africa’s sovereignty. Under the Rome Statute, the 2002 treaty that established the court, which is based in The Hague, countries are obligated to arrest anyone sought by the tribunal. “Legal uncertainty” around the statute blocks South Africa from resolving conflicts through dialogue, including inviting adversaries for visits, Justice Minister Michael Masutha said, and handing over a foreign leader to the court would have amounted to an infringement of South Africa’s sovereignty.
The Rome Statute “is in conflict and inconsistent with” South Africa’s law giving sitting leaders diplomatic immunity, Mr. Masutha said at a news conference on Friday.The Rome Statute “is in conflict and inconsistent with” South Africa’s law giving sitting leaders diplomatic immunity, Mr. Masutha said at a news conference on Friday.
“A difficult choice had to be made,” he said, adding that the government would submit a bill to Parliament to withdraw from the international court after the country had unsuccessfully sought clarification of its responsibilities under the statute. After South Africa sought unsuccessfully to clarify its responsibilities under the statute, a “difficult choice had to be made,” Mr. Masutha said. He added that the government would submit a bill to Parliament to withdraw from the international court.
“One cannot think of a more plausible scenario of forced regime change by one country on another,” he said. The Associated Press and Reuters reported that Foreign Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane had signed a document formally notifying the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, of South Africa’s intention to withdraw from the international court. Leaving the body would take about a year, during which South Africa would still have to cooperate with the court’s proceedings.
The Associated Press and Reuters reported that Foreign Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane had signed a document formally notifying the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, of the country’s intention to withdraw from the international court. Leaving the body would take about a year, during with South Africa would still have to cooperate with the court’s proceedings.
On Tuesday, President Pierre Nkurunziza of Burundi signed a bill passed by Parliament that made his country the first to withdraw from the court, which had planned to investigate recent political violence there.On Tuesday, President Pierre Nkurunziza of Burundi signed a bill passed by Parliament that made his country the first to withdraw from the court, which had planned to investigate recent political violence there.
More than a year of deadly violence followed Mr. Nkurunziza’s decision last year to pursue a third term, a move his critics say is unconstitutional.More than a year of deadly violence followed Mr. Nkurunziza’s decision last year to pursue a third term, a move his critics say is unconstitutional.
Although the relatively young court has opened preliminary investigations involving non-Africans, only Africans have been convicted: Thomas Lubanga, a Congolese warlord who conscripted child soldiers; Germain Katanga, a Congolese militia leader, an accomplice to war crimes; Jean-Pierre Bemba, a Congolese politician, found guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity and — this week — witness tampering; and Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi, a member of a Qaeda-linked jihadist group, who destroyed holy sites in Timbuktu, Mali, and was convicted of destruction of cultural heritage as a war crime.Although the relatively young court has opened preliminary investigations involving non-Africans, only Africans have been convicted: Thomas Lubanga, a Congolese warlord who conscripted child soldiers; Germain Katanga, a Congolese militia leader, an accomplice to war crimes; Jean-Pierre Bemba, a Congolese politician, found guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity and — this week — witness tampering; and Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi, a member of a Qaeda-linked jihadist group, who destroyed holy sites in Timbuktu, Mali, and was convicted of destruction of cultural heritage as a war crime.
Observers note that African governments had overwhelmingly supported the creation of the court, which came at least in part in response to the Rwandan genocide of 1994 and the Balkan Wars of the 1990s. (The crimes of those conflicts were tried by separate tribunals.)Observers note that African governments had overwhelmingly supported the creation of the court, which came at least in part in response to the Rwandan genocide of 1994 and the Balkan Wars of the 1990s. (The crimes of those conflicts were tried by separate tribunals.)
But in recent years, support for the court has waned, particularly after it indicted top Kenyan politicians, including President Uhuru Kenyatta and Vice President William Ruto, on charges stemming from postelection violence in 2007.But in recent years, support for the court has waned, particularly after it indicted top Kenyan politicians, including President Uhuru Kenyatta and Vice President William Ruto, on charges stemming from postelection violence in 2007.
That case collapsed because of witness intimidation, bribery and a lack of cooperation, according to prosecutors.That case collapsed because of witness intimidation, bribery and a lack of cooperation, according to prosecutors.
Since 2011, the court’s top prosecutor has been Fatou Bensouda, a lawyer from Gambia, but the court has been unable to shake the perception among some African leaders that it is an instrument of modern colonialism.Since 2011, the court’s top prosecutor has been Fatou Bensouda, a lawyer from Gambia, but the court has been unable to shake the perception among some African leaders that it is an instrument of modern colonialism.
Dewa Mavhinga, a senior researcher for Human Rights Watch’s Africa division, said on Friday that he feared the South African decision would lead to an exodus.Dewa Mavhinga, a senior researcher for Human Rights Watch’s Africa division, said on Friday that he feared the South African decision would lead to an exodus.
“South Africa’s proposed withdrawal from the International Criminal Court shows disregard for justice from a country long seen as a global leader on accountability for victims of the gravest crimes,” he said. “Questions remain about whether the government even acted in line with its own laws for leaving the court. It’s important both for South Africa and the region that this runaway train be slowed down, and South Africa’s hard-won legacy of standing with victims of atrocities be restored.” “South Africa’s proposed withdrawal from the International Criminal Court shows disregard for justice from a country long seen as a global leader on accountability for victims of the gravest crimes,” he said.
Including Burundi, the court has 124 members, of which 34 are in Africa. The United States never ratified the Rome Statute; it signed the treaty during the Clinton administration, but the Senate never ratified it. The Obama administration has cooperated with the court, abandoning what Hillary Clinton called, when she was secretary of state, a past policy of “hostility.” Including Burundi, the court has 124 members, of which 34 are in Africa. The United States signed the Rome Statute during the Clinton administration, but the Senate never ratified it.
“The decision represents changes in South African politics but also political realities facing the I.C.C.,” said David L. Bosco, an associate professor of international studies at Indiana University and the author of a book on the court. “It has been easier for the court to launch investigations in Africa than many other places, including Afghanistan, Palestine and Colombia. That emphasis on Africa has been coupled with a prosecutorial strategy of going after the highest-level perpetrators possible. In Sudan, Kenya and Libya, that meant going after heads of state and senior ministers. That choice generated a lot of anger in African capitals, where court processes were seen as an obstacle to diplomacy.” Mr. Bosco, the associate professor, said the focus on Africa was partly a result of the difficulties of conducting investigations in other places, like Afghanistan, the Palestinian territories and Colombia, and partly a reflection of the prosecutorial strategy of going after the high-level perpetrators. “In Sudan, Kenya and Libya, that meant going after heads of state and senior ministers,” he said. “That choice generated a lot of anger in African capitals, where court processes were seen as an obstacle to diplomacy.”