 |
| Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta |
THE African Union’s (AU) demand for the International Criminal Court
(ICC) to defer trials against Kenya’s leadership is unlikely to get
United Nations (UN) Security Council support but poses a dilemma for
western powers, analysts say.
An AU summit last Saturday stopped
short of withdrawing from The Hague-based ICC, but it urgently asked for
the deferral of the cases against Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta and
his deputy, William Ruto, so they can fulfil their duties to run the
country.
"This declaration sends the wrong message, that
politicians in Africa will place their political interests above those
of victims of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide," says
Tawanda Hondora, an Amnesty International deputy director.
The
Kenyan leaders have been charged with crimes against humanity for
allegedly masterminding the ethnic violence that left at least 1,100
dead after disputed elections in 2007. Justice for the victims and a
clear stand against immunity for heads of state would be among the key
arguments against a trial deferral, analysts say.
"There is no
chance that immunity would be granted. It is a core principle of the
court: everyone must answer for his actions and especially those who are
the most responsible," says Herman van der Wilt, an international
criminal law professor at Amsterdam University.
As for postponing
the Kenyan trials, he says: "I can’t predict but I think it is very
unlikely" because the permanent members of the security council can use
their veto power and "France and Britain have always been very
supportive of international justice".
But now a new dynamic has
entered into the debate that could influence the decision-making: the
attack last month by the al-Qaeda-linked Somali group al-Shabaab on a
Nairobi shopping centre that left at least 67 people dead.
"The
dynamic and the politics around Kenya have changed. The attack at the
Westgate mall has probably shifted the priorities for two countries,
France and Britain," says, Institute for Security Studies MD Anton du
Plessis in Johannesburg. Alex Vines, head of the Africa programme at the
Chatham House think-tank, also points to the dilemma facing the western
powers, who sit on the security council.
He says they find the
Kenya case "uncomfortable". "Kenya is economically and strategically
important for western countries … (they) also can’t ignore that Mr
Kenyatta was elected through a credible electoral process (in March),"
Mr Vines says.
"This is new ground for western partners on how to navigate their interests versus values in this case."
Kenya had tried unsuccessfully in May to get action from the security council, which can defer ICC proceedings for one year.
Kenyan
newspaper the Daily Nation has argued that this time the request would
get more attention as some African nations have accused the ICC of
acting like a neo-colonialist institution that has singled out Africans.
The court founded in 2002 has so far issued indictments related to
conflicts in eight countries, all in Africa.
Mr du Plessis says he
"would be very surprised" if the security council agreed to the
deferral. But he said the AU summit did not go as far as to pull out of
the court and recognised "that they need to follow legal routes".
Still,
it remains unclear what action the AU could take next if the security
council does turn down its request. The bloc has warned it would support
a no-show by Mr Kenyatta at the ICC — his trial date is November 12 —
if a deferral is denied.
Sapa-AFP
SCROLL DOWN TO LEAVE A COMMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment