• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Africa to quit ICC forever

sudan

Active member
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
267
Reaction score
20
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There has been tension between African States and the ICC regarding the indictment of African leaders.

It is reported that the Assembly of the African Union has adopted a resolution calling on all African States not to cooperate with the International Criminal Court on these cases.

The African Union (AU) has accused the International Criminal Court (ICC) of “hunting” Africans because of their race.

On September 6, 2013, a majority of Kenyas National Assembly voted in favor of a motion, urging the government to "urgently undertake measures to immediately withdraw" the influential East African nation from the Rome Statute which established the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The decision to pull out of the International Criminal Court has reinforced Sudans anti ICC stand. Sudan has accused Hague of partiality and injustice for the baseless charges.

ICCs miscalculation and misjudgement will destabilize the situations in Kenya following the fabricated charges against the President elect and his deputy.

As a result, the differences between the Sudanese government and Darfur rebels have increased and chances for peaceful settlement have faded away since UN Security Council refereed the case to ICC according to resolution 1593.

According to Sudan Safari, the African countries are to hold emergency meeting to explore new measures to withdraw from ICC and Rome statute. The action is only a matter of time.

The current charges against the Kenyan President and his deputy tend to blackmail the Kenyan officials and undermine the democratic process and governance.

The charges will encourage Kenya to withdraw from Rome statute establishing ICC along with other countries.

If they do, ICC will lose about 40 African countries. This means that ICC is no longer acceptable body.

The mass withdrawal will lead to shut down of the court which has never prosecuted western countries, prompt other states in Asia for example to flow suit and force Security Council to stop issuing resolutions referring some cases to ICC to prosecute.
 
The current charges against the Kenyan President and his deputy tend to blackmail the Kenyan officials and undermine the democratic process and governance.

The charges will encourage Kenya to withdraw from Rome statute establishing ICC along with other countries.

Kenyatta and his vice president (Ruto) were charged before he was elected, along with 4 others (2-3 were dropped). Kenya will not withdraw from Rome.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that a decision to ensure there is no accountability for one's leaders should be made in haste.
 
We might also note that Bashir is a scumbag piece of garbage terrorist who should be brought to justice.
 
LoL. The continent with the highest murder rates want to withdraw from the ICC. I wonder why...

If the ICC loses 40 african countries it loses 3/4th of it's workload. I think it's a blessing really for the ICC.
 
The ICC should be abolished as quickly as possible.
 
LoL. The continent with the highest murder rates want to withdraw from the ICC. I wonder why...

If the ICC loses 40 african countries it loses 3/4th of it's workload. I think it's a blessing really for the ICC.

And take away the only real hope of bringing mass murderers to justice? However long it takes?

How does that help ordinary Africans?
 
And take away the only real hope of bringing mass murderers to justice? However long it takes?

How does that help ordinary Africans?

The ICC doesn't provide justice.
 
And take away the only real hope of bringing mass murderers to justice? However long it takes?

How does that help ordinary Africans?

It's not like other countries are kicking out the African countries from the ICC. They themselves want to do it.
 
It's not like other countries are kicking out the African countries from the ICC. They themselves want to do it.

Yes but that's the leaders, not the people. Very few are democratically elected leaders - many like Charles Taylor were bullyboys who rose to power at the point of a gun. He would never have been tried in Sierra Leone but the ICC has sentenced him to 50 years in prison.

That alone is worth it.
 
Yes but that's the leaders, not the people. Very few are democratically elected leaders - many like Charles Taylor were bullyboys who rose to power at the point of a gun. He would never have been tried in Sierra Leone but the ICC has sentenced him to 50 years in prison.

That alone is worth it.

If that is how you feel then you should be logical with yourself and advocate turning Liberia and Sierra Leone into colonies.
 
If that is how you feel then you should be logical with yourself and advocate turning Liberia and Sierra Leone into colonies.

That doesn't follow - pleas expand.
 
Yes but that's the leaders, not the people. Very few are democratically elected leaders - many like Charles Taylor were bullyboys who rose to power at the point of a gun. He would never have been tried in Sierra Leone but the ICC has sentenced him to 50 years in prison.

That alone is worth it.

That is true, and indeed, those are grounds for not permitting them to remove themselves from the ICC. But in countries where they have at least some functioning democracy, if those countries want to remove themselves, that's fine.
 
That doesn't follow - pleas expand.

Since you feel these countries are not capable of exercising sovereignty obviously they should cease existing as sovereign and independent countries. I'm not advocating this, you are.
 
Since you feel these countries are not capable of exercising sovereignty obviously they should cease existing as sovereign and independent countries. I'm not advocating this, you are.

They are practicing sovereignty - even done badly it is sovereignty. A dictatorship - however ruthless is sovereignty. Your argument is still weak. My concern is a lack of accountability to wider humanity as well as those within a society. Sometimes a people are subjugate - such as the situation in Darfur and the only protection (however weak) is the international community.

Your alternative is to just ignore genocide or ethnic cleansing I suppose?

That is true, and indeed, those are grounds for not permitting them to remove themselves from the ICC. But in countries where they have at least some functioning democracy, if those countries want to remove themselves, that's fine.

The concept of African democracy is still very new and can be subverted so easily even where it is supposedly in practice. I completely disagree. There should be all sorts of measures in other areas that penalise any countries who walk away.
 
They are practicing sovereignty - even done badly it is sovereignty. A dictatorship - however ruthless is sovereignty. Your argument is still weak. My concern is a lack of accountability to wider humanity as well as those within a society. Sometimes a people are subjugate - such as the situation in Darfur and the only protection (however weak) is the international community.

Your alternative is to just ignore genocide or ethnic cleansing I suppose?

No, I feel countries should be responsible for what happens on their territory.

The ICC is a perversion of international law. It does not provide justice, just propaganda trials and moralizing grand-standing.
 
No, I feel countries should be responsible for what happens on their territory.

The ICC is a perversion of international law.

So you feel international law would only cover boundary disputes, rules on international waters, rules on trans-national conduct of war and the like?

A despot murdering millions in his own country should just be ignored by everyone else because it's not their business?
 
So you feel international law would only cover boundary disputes, rules on international waters, rules on trans-national conduct of war and the like?

A despot murdering millions in his own country should just be ignored by everyone else because it's not their business?

I believe that international law should stick to what traditionally falls under international law. I feel no need for an instance to play policeman for the whole world. If we followed your ideas pretty much the whole of Africa would have to be military occupied and subjected to outside rule. And most of Asia too.
 
I believe that international law should stick to what traditionally falls under international law. I feel no need for an instance to play policeman for the whole world. If we followed your ideas pretty much the whole of Africa would have to be military occupied and subjected to outside rule. And most of Asia too.

How would your preferred version of a world dealt with someone like Hitler?
 
How would your preferred version of a world dealt with someone like Hitler?

I think the world dealt appropriately with Hitler. When he started attacking other countries his country was attacked and he was driven from power.

How do you feel the world should have dealt with the despotism of Mao. Should the US have invaded China and conducted nuclear war to end his despotic reign?
 
I think the world dealt appropriately with Hitler. When he started attacking other countries his country was attacked and he was driven from power.

In the meantime, he was free to kill Jews, homosexuals, Roma and political adversaries. The fact we looked the other way so long gave him the courage to attack other nations.

How do you feel the world should have dealt with the despotism of Mao. Should the US have invaded China and conducted nuclear war to end his despotic reign?

The world dealt badly with Mao or even Pol Pot and Idi Amin, however in the case of the latter two - outside forces teamed up to stop their reign. Vietnam invaded Cambodia and brought an end whereas Tanzania and Kenya invaded Uganda and overthrew Amin.

In Mao's case, there weren't any powerful neighbours who wanted to see an end - Russia (most powerful neighbour of China) wasn't interested and was dealing ruthlessly with internal opposition anyway. The international community should have done more - and that means more than just America.
 
In the meantime, he was free to kill Jews, homosexuals, Roma and political adversaries. The fact we looked the other way so long gave him the courage to attack other nations.

You should try to learn some historical facts first. The Holocaust occured during WWII, not before.
 
In Mao's case, there weren't any powerful neighbours who wanted to see an end - Russia (most powerful neighbour of China) wasn't interested and was dealing ruthlessly with internal opposition anyway. The international community should have done more - and that means more than just America.

Vietnam invaded Cambodia and Tanzania invaded Uganda for their own reasons and to protect themselves.

What you advocate is a prescription for world-wide chaos and perpetual world war.
 
You should try to learn some historical facts first. The Holocaust occured during WWII, not before.

The trouble with taking the "smart-alec" route and insulting me is that you're wrong. Kristallnacht -date 1938; invasion of Poland 1939.

1938, 32 leaders of various countries meet in Evian, France to discuss the growing problem of jewish emigrant numbers. International community takes the appeasement route thus trapping millions of Jews who would otherwise escape.

goodbye and good riddance to your rubbish argument for appeasement. Please don't waste my time by responding further - I've no time for your stupid and ignorant argument.

[/thread]
 
How would your preferred version of a world dealt with someone like Hitler?
Hitler and Stalin were both bad. How did the world deal with them?
They played dirty, together with Stalin.

However, Jewish dealt pretty well with the Germans with Haavara agreement.
If things went the way it happen, it was for so many other reasons and none of what we learned in school or internet.

---
If African league want to leave, i do not see any big deal.
People are responsible for their actions. They know the costs of staying or leaving, so their decision will be for their best.
Of course in another time or other circumstances it may look stupid.
 
Back
Top Bottom