Statement by Deputy Permanent Representative Maria Zabolotskaya at UNSC briefing on the ICC report on Darfur
Mr.President,
What the Security Council just heard from the so-called Prosecutor of the so-called International Criminal Court was not a report. Briefings by representatives of this politicized body have long turned into an absurdist theater.
This institution, which is an obedient tool in the hands of the West, has two "modes". It either fabricates (and rather expeditiously) cases against undesirable persons from undesirable countries or imitates busy work and invents explanations why it brings no result.
The Sudanese file at the ICC has activated mode number two. Which is why the Security Council once every 6 months has to watch ICC’s lip service and listen to explanations who must be blamed that nothing is happening.
In this context, we could not fail to note that in his report, Mr.Khan speaks of the only trial - against A. Kushayb - as "the most effective in the history of the court". May I just remind that this case was opened 17 years after the situation was referred to the ICC.
Apparently, the “the most effective process” is as good as the court itself. After all, the ICC concluded that there was nothing wrong with the massive war crimes committed by NATO in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Against this background, one defendant in Darfur is a truly quite a success.
The latest report on Darfur is an empty shell, just like the previous ones. Let’s be frank and admit that the ICC is not capable of or willing to implement the mandate assigned to it by UNSC resolution 1593 (2005).
As soon as the story of "electoral violence" in Darfur ceased to be of interest to its Western masters, the ICC switched for a sluggish low-performance mode, and so it remained for the past 20 years.
At the same time, the ICC has chosen the easiest way to explain its ineffectiveness – to blame all its failures on the national authorities. Indeed, with a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars, why not report twice a year that the ICC is powerless because, say, Sudan is not cooperating with it?
If we look at what has become of the ICC after the Darfur file was referred to it in 2005 and at the implications of the ICC activities i.a. for Sudan, then we will find it very hard to reproach Khartoum.
The situation in Sudan is a good illustration of the falsity of Western slogan “no justice, no peace”, where the ICC justice is implied. The Darfur and Libya files that were referred to the ICC were similar. In both of them, though it did not take the same amount of time, but the ICC still implemented its main and only task – be a battering ram crushing the statehood of “unwanted” developing countries.
The ICC is complicit in crimes of the collective West. With equal fervor of devotion, it replicates cases against those who were picked to be “the bad guys”, turns a blind eye to the atrocities of the “really bad but loyal to the West guys”, and sweeps under the rug numerous crimes by its masters.
To those who serve as the main architects and beneficiaries of the chaos that invariably follows a collapse of statehood, the justice of the ICC has come to signify impunity. The deadly price of various "color revolutions" organized by Western countries is always measured in hundreds of thousands of ruined and broken civilian lives. The blood of these victims is on the conscience of the ICC officials too.
Now a conflict has erupted in Sudan again. The level of civilian suffering is clearly higher than in the "electoral violence" of 2005. The ICC is still in standby mode. Why? Because its "Western masters" have not yet decided who exactly they want to support in the conflict. However, as soon as we see Mr. Khan's activity in Sudan, it will mean that priorities have been set.
One has to wonder whether it was worth spending millions on the ICC's work on the Darfur case. Wouldn’t it have made more sense to assist Sudan in strengthening its institutions? Shouldn’t the justice be in the hands of the people of Sudan, rather than in the hands of overseas forces? As we know from practice, in the latter case the process is more effective and is certainly not accompanied by the a collapse of statehood.
The main question to think of is who and why needs the ICC at all. This one pops up not only in the Sudanese context.
This court was conceived as a global, international body of justice. However, from the very beginning, something went wrong with the practical implementation of this concept. Western countries were quick to use the ICC as a tool to impose their will within the framework of the notorious "rules-based order".
At first, they trod carefully so as not to scare off potential supporters. In its early years, the ICC was only doing investigations as regards non-state actors. However, once the West was convinced that enough countries had fallen into the toils of the Rome Statute, the ICC shifted to a more explicit and direct work, acting as a tool to combat those who crossed the path of the hegemon and its satellites. Its focus instantly shifted to state leaders, including former and even current African heads of state.
It is noteworthy that the absolute majority of cases in the "judicial basket" of the ICC relate to Africa, although the most massive and deadly atrocities in modern history have been committed by Western countries, whose military aggression bulldozed not just through countries, but entire regions. During its existence, the ICC has indicted 52 people, 47 of whom were Africans. Citizens of Western countries are not on this list. The conclusion is clear: the ICC is just an instrument of reprisal against those who have crossed the path of the West.
It’s high time we recognized frankly that the ambitious project of creating a truly universal and impartial international court has failed. We invite States that sincerely seek rightfulness, inevitability of punishment and national reconciliation to reflect on strengthening national justice and to stop participating in this politicized structure, which has nothing to do with justice.
Thank you.
