Why US stance on ICC redeems African leaders

Washington’s ‘contemptuous dismissal’ of the International Criminal Court's (ICC) attempts to investigate allegations of torture against US soldiers in Afghanistan demands a relook of African leaders' long-standing criticism of this institution. In an analysis on the allAfrica site, Socrates Mbamalu notes that while the US is not a state party to the ICC, Afghanistan is. ‘The ICC therefore asserts jurisdiction over Afghanistan, regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator. For a long time the ICC has been condemned for its one-sided prosecution of Third World leaders accused of such crimes. While it has investigated and jailed warlords like Charles Taylor, and even declared Omar al-Bashir a wanted man, the court's attempt to investigate the crimes of American soldiers in Afghanistan has led to a nasty response from the US National Security Adviser, John Bolton. While attempts by African countries like Burundi and SA to withdraw from the ICC was heavily condemned, it was noteworthy that the ICC has often come under criticism from African leaders.’ Mbamalu argues that given Washington’s flagrant dismissal of the ICC, African leaders seem justified in their distrust of the court. ‘The question that arises is this: If the court can't deal with the powerful, how can its existence be justified?'