Back it, join it

SOUTH AFRICA’S decision to stomp out of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is deplorable. It is inconceivable that Nelson Mandela would have done such a thing. Virtually all right-thinking liberals and lawyers in his country have condemned the move. In the name of standing up against the supposed anti-African bias of the court, South Africa has aligned itself with the autocrats of the continent and given succour to those who have committed appalling human-rights abuses. Its announcement on October 21st followed that of Burundi, which is under “preliminary examination” by the ICC for its president’s bloody suppression of dissent; the Gambia, another nasty regime, followed suit this week (see article). It would be tragic if South Africa set in motion a domino effect that prompted ever more African countries to leave the court. A wave of withdrawals would reverse the progress towards greater rule of law across the continent and beyond.

The charge of anti-African bias laid against the court, mainly by a clutch of governments whose leaders are vulnerable to its vigilance, is understandable—but wrong. True, eight of the nine countries about which cases have been heard, or are under way, are African. And all those so far convicted have been African. But that is because African governments, mindful of the horrors of apartheid and the genocide in Rwanda, have been keenest to sign up to the court and have actively initiated cases. Indeed, most of the ICC’s cases were referred to it by African governments themselves, while two (Libya and Sudan) were brought by the UN Security Council. The only exceptions to this pattern involve Kenya. The ICC indicted the current president and deputy president after at least 1,300 people were killed in post-election violence in early 2008. It was Kofi Annan, the UN’s former head, a Ghanaian, who recommended that the ICC bring charges. After the cases against President Uhuru Kenyatta and his deputy were dropped a year ago, the court issued a “finding of non-co-operation”, a polite term that included accusations of witness-tampering.

Jacob Zuma, South Africa’s dire president, has already tarnished his country’s reputation as a beacon of morality by his own entanglements with the law at home. Now he has added to the damage by disdaining the ICC abroad. He thinks it should, among other things, grant immunity to incumbent leaders. Leaving the international court may, Mr Zuma hopes, make it easier for him to fend off the remonstrations of his own courts, which may yet punish him for inviting Sudan’s president, Omar al-Bashir, to cosy meetings in South Africa, despite his indictment by the ICC for mass murder in Darfur.

African leaders who seek to play the populist, anti-Western card to fend off the long arm of the law, whether domestic or international, are—so far, at least—the minority. They belong to the bad old Africa of the past. The good Africa, still happily in the ascendant, has rallied to the ICC. All the same, the ICC and its admirable chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda (a Gambian woman), do need to reassure African countries that it is impartial. Even governments that take human rights seriously jib at the way non-Africans seem to get away with murder.

Syria, a non-signatory along with most Arab countries, should obviously be in the ICC’s sights, but Russia would block its referral in the UN Security Council. Last year’s addition of Georgia to the list of places where war crimes are being investigated was timely. Of the ten other countries where “preliminary examinations” are under way but not yet close to a trial, half are outside Africa, namely Afghanistan, Colombia, Iraq, Palestine and Ukraine. It would be better still if big countries signed up to the court. But the United States has refused to do so, as have Russia and China.

The wheels of justice move slowly

International justice is plainly imperfect, but is worth pursuing. Patience is in order. Tribunals for Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone, whose experience led to the creation of the ICC’s permanent court, all took time to bear fruit. The ICC, though underfunded, has begun to speed up, and has established important new principles, including convictions for rape and destroying historic monuments in conflict, both now deemed potential war crimes. In any event, the ICC’s purpose is to bring justice to voiceless victims, not to let the powerful off the hook, be they from Africa or any other part of the world.