Another one answered "That is wrong! sovereignty does not imply license to impunity-that is why we have the Responsibility to Protect as an internationally accepted standard that allows states to intervene in a country where there's evidence that there's gross violation of human rights...Hence, sovereignty is a conferred right not an assumed right. meaning if the indictees committed the atrocities but assumed that they will be protected by virtue of the sovereign office then this is wrong because the intent of leadership is to confer to a person who is above social reproach in terms of integrity. In drafting the constitution, we envisaged a president who does not bear the stain of international/domestic crimes..."
However another one asked: "How
comes some of these countries that have been pushing for these trials
are not even signatories of the Rome statute. And also why do the west
act as the leviathan yet we do not have that in the current international system?"
Another said, "I believe in equality...just because you can Marshall up a greater economic power, doesn't mean you are more sovereign than others"
Yet another one had an answer to counter that. And this was the answer: "That is the wrong way to interpret things-its narrow way of disguising Pan - Africanism as a ticket to impunity.. Just because we are Africans, does it mean that we should not be held accountable for atrocities we commit?" USA might not have signed the treaty but then they hold the veto power over the ICC and this is a procedural issue to which the accused consented to in their individual capacities not a selective issue.
Another said, "I believe in equality...just because you can Marshall up a greater economic power, doesn't mean you are more sovereign than others"
Yet another one had an answer to counter that. And this was the answer: "That is the wrong way to interpret things-its narrow way of disguising Pan - Africanism as a ticket to impunity.. Just because we are Africans, does it mean that we should not be held accountable for atrocities we commit?" USA might not have signed the treaty but then they hold the veto power over the ICC and this is a procedural issue to which the accused consented to in their individual capacities not a selective issue.
Some answered: "I bet you are biased!"
Yet there was an answer: "I am
talking as a student of international law not as a politician...I request
you to assume for once these same case would be taking place in country
X-as a scholar would you find my points fair..?"
“ If our people lose the courage to confront what is wrong then we become collaborators.”- Jerry Rawlings (Former President of Ghana)
Sovereignty is, basically put, the will of the people. It is expressed through their legitimate representative institutions (Parliaments, Monarchs, The Communist Party, Religious leaders and such..)
ReplyDeleteSo, the task we have is, when our parliament is acting, is it expressing our will? And here, we are talking of the people of Kenya, not Jubilee or CORD supporters. It is no-brainer this is the true test of statehood and only an objective, honest system can give us this, so, close to zero chance if it is against the survival of the government. (Government is temporal, State is permanent).
Another assumption is that the citizens know what they want and it is for the good of all (at least the functional level of all).
This consciousness is however elusive. Some citizens, unfortunately the majority, believe the country is as far ad their grandmother's ridge and as complex as their kitchen. Appreciation of Diversity has not take root.
On our issue of the ICC, therefore, as long as the will of the people is not the point, all else are attempts to erode it.
The questions; How do you deal with planned murder in your country? how do you punish those who displace fellow citizens forcefully? how do you administer justice for the lives lost and families wiped out?
If the citizens are enlightened enough to know what that means to their fellow citizens in another side of the country, would their call be withdraw from The Rome Statute or call for accountability and justice for past issues and largely for future guidance?
In my considered opinion, sovereignty is empty talk if the objective will is left behind. It will divide, rather than unite. That's not sovereignty, that's tyranny.