Is The ICC an "Imperialist Court"?

[Onyango Oloo]

demokrasia-kenya.blogspot.com/2013/10/is-international-court-and-imperialist.html

[Onyango Oloo]

Updated. Refresh/Reload.

OO

[OtishOtish]

An interesting and very informative essay, Comrade Oloo. I may make some comments when I have read it again and properly absorbed it.

For now ... tell your leader the Gaddafi kid is not standing trial at the ICC, but he has been fighting very hard to be taken there. In fact, just last month he asked that the court refer Libya to the UN Security Council for refusing to hand him over to Bensouda.

[jakaswanga]

Oloo,
Something I want you to explain to me, what your thinking is.

When the Hague option was fronted by a reluctant Anan, I do not remember a hysterical condemnation of the court then as an IMPERIALIST project. What is it that has changed between then and now in the structure of the court, that now it is the universal imperialist thing it wasn't six years ago.

Only Old JOhn Michuki do I remember loudly against it. But his reasons were different from the imperialist tag.
What do you think happened, Oloo, that we woke up to recognise this court for what it is only yesterday?

[Onyango Oloo]

Jakaswanga:

I understood your question as a RHETORICAL one.

www.dictionary.com informs me:

rhetorical question
noun
a question asked solely to produce an effect or to make an assertion and not to elicit a reply, as “What is so rare as a day in June?”
Origin:
1835–45

[podp]

Nov 1, 2013 12:00:02 GMT 3 jakaswanga said:

Oloo,
Something I want you to explain to me, what your thinking is.

When the Hague option was fronted by a reluctant Anan, I do not remember a hysterical condemnation of the court then as an IMPERIALIST project. What is it that has changed between then and now in the structure of the court, that now it is the universal imperialist thing it wasn't six years ago.

Only Old JOhn Michuki do I remember loudly against it. But his reasons were different from the imperialist tag.
What do you think happened, Oloo, that we woke up to recognise this court for what it is only yesterday?

sometimes reading something out of of motherland can be refreshing

just about to finish The Price of Politics by Bob Woodward. he dissects Obama presidency from the time he started openly declaring and talking on himself and now on your question the UhuRuto team appears to have played the same card. in many ways The Price of Politics provides a character study of the two main characters of this book: President Obama and Speaker of the House, John Boehner. Woodward did a remarkable job of being as fair as possible and in several instances acknowledged where the accounts may have differed.

now coming back home only the hoi polloi think that ICC is an imperialist court while the elites, depending where they come from, are feeding their hoi polloi that religion or debunking it. for the UhuRuto supporters from our elites the tone is that of the late Michuki. infact they go as far as to confess that when the ICC and Rome Statute was adopted the thinking then was that would be the best way to fix Mo1 for the 1990 to 1997 pogroms in the Rift Valley. as it appears Mo1 was correct in saying 'nguruwe hujikaanga kwa mafuta yake' as none of the NARC supporters of the Rome Statute would have though 1997/98 would be so horrible as to pale the 1990/97 Mo1 acts.

so now that it is UhuRuto facing the ICC the song has to change and no stops will be spared to have kaMwana as Uhuru is fondly referred by his people not to go to Hague. what is interesting is that Ruto has sensed a shortcut to the presidency by deciding to play the good cop (go to Hague and not be Vague) while Uhuru who cannot say the revenge killings were spontaneous needs to play the bad cop

[Daktari wa makazi]

Oct 31, 2013 1:22:56 GMT 3 Onyango Oloo said:

demokrasia-kenya.blogspot.com/2013/10/is-international-court-and-imperialist.html

Oloo

In a nutshell, you are asserting that the ICC is not an imperialist creature simply because your definition of imperialism derived from your interpretation of Marxist-Lenin doctrine has not been reached. You recant historical events, which led to the ICC, and you surmise the ICC is an African Court, and therefore cannot be an imperialist.

Wachira, and the other luminary writers you quote from, cover some important points in their pieces. Reading them, one forms the view that imperialism is a tag justifiably used for the ICC. But, it is not my intention to droll over those gems to support my point of view.

First, you lost the argument when you limited yourself to ICC historical timelines and used it to justify your conclusion. You should know that what is done in public does not translate the intentions/motives of the parties. For instance, it is not enough to say because the USA is not a member of the ICC, it hold no pivotal steering command over its functions. I would have preferred you dwelt on financiers. He who pays the piper calls the music!

As quick preview, three issues to bear.

1. If international justice is really supported by the West, why don’t they walk that talk? Lacombe perpetrator (Libyan Agent) was tried before Scottish judge, under Scottish Law, not under international regime. The same could be said of the many terrorist suspects held by the West, all of whom have faced their respective local national judgments. On the same vein, why let the ICC indict Gaddafi but not Saddam Hussein? I believe a deep analysis would reveal the lurking truth of imperial master from whose diktat the ICC dances.

2. How can the ICC justice be universal, when different region, societies, and peoples practice their own understanding of Law? Who’s Law is superior to be universally accepted, and who’s is inferior to be discarded on the sides by the ICC?

3. Where does the political reality fit within the rubric of the ICC? How does one treat Charles Taylor with disdain when it was only the other day he was hailed a hero, a savior of Liberia from Samuel Doe and supported by the USA. Liberia is the only country in Africa founded by United States colonization. The colonists, Black Americans, and their descendants led the political, social, cultural and economic sectors of the country and ruled the nation until Samuel Doe ( a native) in 1980 took power through a coup. A civil war erupted killing millions, until a descendant of the colonist took over as a president with open USA support. Taylor faced music not for Liberia but the looting of gold in Sierra Leone, a mine country owned by the mighty Capitalists.

Despite that shortcoming, I admire your call to historical attention. It is in that call that I intend to let myself loose.

I will hereafter lay the premise on which the West ( the Imperialists) have built an influencing and conniving attitude towards the poor , especially Africans, hence the birth of the ICC.

In my view, Capitalism as an ideology is where means of production are privately owned. In principle, Capitalistic concern in the 19th and 20th century was trade and business, especially on resources. As a tool, it introduced industrialisation, which resulted in several marginalised and disrupted groups. This ‘surplus’ population required remedial attention, not only for themselves but also for the stability of the general society. Therefore, the idea of development emerged, as ‘a practice to control the surplus population’. Hannah Arendt called the surplus population, ‘human debris, [whose who] industrial growth …eliminated permanently from producing society’ . Such debris fuelled European settlement of Canada, Australia and the United State of America.

After the abolition of slavery, freed slaves became surplus population, and because they were free, they effectively become in political terms ‘superfluous’. For example, anecdotally, the Baptists missionary established developmental trusteeship for the freed slaves in Jamaica. They were given land, guidance on religion, hygiene and civic responsibility meant to imitate the ‘master’s’ home, work and church ethos. In Sierra Leone, the freed slaves formed a communal self-government, which was meant to be self-reliant. The aim was to alter both Jamaicans and Sierra Leoneans mental status so that they could enjoy the fruits of freedom.

With the fading of capitalism as the only ideology, liberalism emerged. Liberalism (liberty and equality) signifies ‘security of people, their well well-being, freedom and rights’ . Escobar noted, on this basis, Truman in his liberal speech in 1947, signalled the problems associated with surplus population that half of the world’s population was living in a miserable condition, their poverty was ‘a handicap and a threat to both them and to the more prosperous areas’. By this pronouncement, development, which then was in its infancy, had been radicalised by including conflict reduction measures. Representing underdevelopment as dangerous not only demanded a remedial process of social transformation, it also created urgency and belief ensuring that this process was no longer trusted to chance.

The promotion of development has become synonymous with the pursuit of security for the West. There was need to change behaviour and attitude, especially in relation to violent conflict. These denote interventionism.

As noted, development was seen as a solution to unstable surplus population, achieved by exerting a moral and educative guardianship over it. It is linked to the broad security, which betters the world’s poor and marginalised peoples. But, the difficulty in attaining security therefore meant that development was tailored as a security tool to achieve the targeted aims of liberal society .

As a liberal tool, the goal of development was to manage the underdevelopment in such away that their instability does not affect the developed regions. It therefore did not reduce the economic gap between the poor and the rich, or extending the poor people’s level of social protection to the rich. Its function was to contain and neutralise destabilising effect of underdevelopment, which were refugees, criminality and undesirable migrants. The resulting outcome was widening difference in what has been called ‘unending war’ .

It followed development had an ulterior motive. It was seen as helping ‘dangerous’ people in adapting to the potential that progress brings, hence development became a security tool. It is argued that, ‘in ensuring this transition’, development as security is tasked with reconciling, ‘the moral, intellectual and material qualities of progress with social order’. In this respect, development exists, as a liberal alternative to modernity’s other solutions to the problem of surplus life: extermination and eugenics.

More defined intervention methods have been applied. They include, the frequent use of sanctions regimes, the questioning of the culture of impunity, an increase in the number of international tribunals prosecuting war criminals, and significantly a greater willingness to use force in the interest of international stability. These are all proactive approaches to contain the threat of surplus population. However, while intervention reduces threat by suppression or containment, it is not a permanent solution.

Indeed, the donors who use development required security as a tool to achieve it. In Africa, the focus of security as a tool of development has meant containment policies of ‘troubled’ regions, by for instance encouraging militarisation.

To some, development (now a liberal idea) is seen as a process of ‘trusteeship’, which will gradually enlightened the lives through liberal imperialism by protecting and bettering the world. For the insecure people, trusteeship is aimed at changing behaviour and organise society to suit the donor community. This operated as sustained development, especially under the regimes of aid agencies in empowerment and partnership. However, sustained development was not modernization based on material advancement and closing the economics gap between rich and poor countries. It was concerned with introducing new forms of social organisation that encourages self-regulating conditions of self-reliance.

Hence, ‘helping strengthen the capacity of a society’ to manage conflict without violence must be seen on the eyes of the West as a foundation for sustainable development. At the same time, security had become a prerequisite for sustainable development as commitment to conflict prevention and resolution. The reason for conflict in the first place would suggest that earlier social conditions were not conducive to sustainable development.

Governments, projects partners and populations had to show themselves fit for consideration. That is, they had to meet defined standards of behaviour and normative expectations. In the case of governments, this could mean following neoliberal economic prescriptions, adhering to international standards of good governance or subscribing to donor-approved poverty reduction measures.

Range of exclusion, such as the sanction regime presently encompassing so-called rogue states, to conditional types of partnership and inclusion for authorities with whom the North felt able to do business. Indeed, the more extensive and significant application of an exclusionary logic was contained in the nuanced and complex interface of partnership, cooperation and participation through which the North now engages and selectively incorporates the South.

In other words, developmental policy on humanitarian assistance includes initiatives and tools with ameliorating powers that will reduce violent conflict and prevent its recurrence. The function was performed by non-state actors like NGOs to attain what Duffield refers to as ‘liberal peace’ .

Old wars were fought between nation-states, but with the proliferation of the non-state units dictating policies, new wars had emerged. These are based on collapse, chaos and regression, which resulted from poverty, resource competition, and social exclusion. By continually reordering themselves using privatisation, the West is positioning for these ever-present wars. Indeed, it was these wars Duffield called the ‘unending wars’. Market deregulations are used to stratify markets and populations into the global economy. With globalisation, emergence of protections, legitimacy and rights to wealth is a process of social transformation.

In response, development was emerged with security. Development and security converged when conflict resolution became a significant aim of reconstruction to avoid recurrence of instability. These are a concerted transformation of societies to be achieved through development addressing security. Hence, the constant war to change minds, attitudes and beliefs.

With the emerging of development and security, the interaction was sealed. Development was ultimately impossible without stability and, at the same time, security was not sustainable without development. Conflict resolution transforms the humanitarism behind development by focusing the support to the processes not people.

While market deregulation and structural adjustment had encouraged stability by cementing the interventionist idea of expansion and was seen as a tool of conflict resolution, it however deepens all forms of parallel and shadow transborder trade. That means the South is widely integrated into the global market place through shadow networks, which breeds a life of its own.

The threat from the South’s poverty and underdevelopment yield conflict because they destroy assets and social capital. Underdevelopment was dangerous since it can lead to violence; at the same time, conflict entrenches and deepens that danger.

Chomsky calls this ‘reworking of imperialism’. Development was tied to not only to progress with economic liberalisation but the support of democratic and pluralistic institutions as well. Rather than requiring the reform of the international system, it had been redefined in terms of the radical transformation of the South to change so that they can fit and better adapt to the Northern created system. Financial deregulation has made increasingly complex and opaque forms of transaction and ownership possible.

Human security as security technologies aimed to create self-managing, self-reliant and docile subjectivities in the Third World, which can then survive in a situation of serious underdevelopment (or being uninsured as Duffield terms it) without causing security problems for the developed world. It will result in compromised human rights.

Human security seems to be a calculated move. There is no doubting the language of western institutions and the explicit framing of threats from the developing world in the human security discourse, as report of the International Commission in Intervention and State Sovereignty which argued;

Human security is indeed indivisible. There is no longer such a thing as humanitarian catastrophe occurring ‘in a far way country of which we know little’ […] In an interdependent world, in which security depends on a framework of stable sovereign entities, the existence of fragile states, failing states, states who through weakness or ill-will harbour those dangerous to other, or states that can only maintain internal order by means of gross human rights violations, can constitute a risk to people everywhere.

The sheer scale of what is suggested and posed in terms of a general focus on global poverty, underdevelopment and human rights as the only way in which to ensure global security implies a truly expansive and global agenda and strategy. One can see the similarity in the language to the earlier one of the Capitalist whose agenda was also expansionist.

The liberal order entailed the breaking down of the old colonial order and the establishment of supposedly free states in which trade rather than imperial rule was to form the basis of the relationship. America invited the 40 nations in founding the United Nations based on global principles of sovereign equality, non-intervention and the right to self-determination. This also entailed breaking protected trade arrangements, establishing the international Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. Importantly, newly created states had a role to play in the new global system.

Following in hot pursuit, was a remedial approach to the chaos in terms of Law and Order. It would be preposterous for those perceived to cause criminal chaos to face the music in the West. That will be a an open and shut case of imperialistic intervention.

But, how better would it be for that Court to be seen to be run by the people cut from the same cloth as the culprits. After all, slaves were caught and brought to the slave masters by other black people.

Endnotes:

1. Quoted in Duffield M; Development, Security and Unending war – governing the world of peoples, polity, 2009, as Arendt, Hannah, Imperialism: Part Two of the Origin of Totalitarism, Harvest [1951]: page 150.
2. Quoted in in Duffield M; Development, Security and Unending war – governing the world of peoples, polity, 2009, as Dean 1999 at page 216.
3. Escobar A; Encountering Development, the making and unmaking of the third world, Princeton, 1995; page 36
4. Duffield calls it, Liberal Problematic of security
5. Duffield, M; Development, Security and Unending war- governing the world of people, Polity, 2007
6. Quoted by Duffield M, Development, Security and Unending war, governing the world of peoples, Polity, 2007, page 9-10, as Cowen and Shenton 1996: 27
page 9-12
7. Quoted by Duffield M, Development, Security and Unending war, governing the world of peoples, Polity, 2007, page 33 as Chomsky 1999;11
8. Quoted by McCormack Tara; Human Security and the Separation of Security and Development, Conflict, Security & Development 2011, as ICISS, Responsibility to Protect, page 5

[OtishOtish]

Nov 4, 2013 23:53:41 GMT 3 Daktari wa makazi said:

Oct 31, 2013 1:22:56 GMT 3 Onyango Oloo said:

demokrasia-kenya.blogspot.com/2013/10/is-international-court-and-imperialist.html

Oloo

In a nutshell, you are asserting that the ICC is not an imperialist creature simply because your definition of imperialism derived from your interpretation of Marxist-Lenin doctrine has not been reached. You recant historical events, which led to the ICC, and you surmise the ICC is an African Court, and therefore cannot be an imperialist.

Wachira, and the other luminary writers you quote from, cover some important points in their pieces. Reading them, one forms the view that imperialism is a tag justifiably used for the ICC. But, it is not my intention to droll over those gems to support my point of view.

First, you lost the argument when you limited yourself to ICC historical timelines and used it to justify your conclusion. You should know that what is done in public does not translate the intentions/motives of the parties. For instance, it is not enough to say because the USA is not a member of the ICC, it hold no pivotal steering command over its functions. I would have preferred you dwelt on financiers. He who pays the piper calls the music!

As quick preview, three issues to bear.

1. If international justice is really supported by the West, why don’t they walk that talk? Lacombe perpetrator (Libyan Agent) was tried before Scottish judge, under Scottish Law, not under international regime. The same could be said of the many terrorist suspects held by the West, all of whom have faced their respective local national judgments. On the same vein, why let the ICC indict Gaddafi but not Saddam Hussein? I believe a deep analysis would reveal the lurking truth of imperial master from whose diktat the ICC dances.

2. How can the ICC justice be universal, when different region, societies, and peoples practice their own understanding of Law? Who’s Law is superior to be universally accepted, and who’s is inferior to be discarded on the sides by the ICC?

3. Where does the political reality fit within the rubric of the ICC? How does one treat Charles Taylor with disdain when it was only the other day he was hailed a hero, a savior of Liberia from Samuel Doe and supported by the USA. Liberia is the only country in Africa founded by United States colonization. The colonists, Black Americans, and their descendants led the political, social, cultural and economic sectors of the country and ruled the nation until Samuel Doe ( a native) in 1980 took power through a coup. A civil war erupted killing millions, until a descendant of the colonist took over as a president with open USA support. Taylor faced music not for Liberia but the looting of gold in Sierra Leone, a mine country owned by the mighty Capitalists.

Despite that shortcoming, I admire your call to historical attention. It is in that call that I intend to let myself loose.

I will hereafter lay the premise on which the West ( the Imperialists) have built an influencing and conniving attitude towards the poor , especially Africans, hence the birth of the ICC.

In my view, Capitalism as an ideology is where means of production are privately owned. In principle, Capitalistic concern in the 19th and 20th century was trade and business, especially on resources. As a tool, it introduced industrialisation, which resulted in several marginalised and disrupted groups. This ‘surplus’ population required remedial attention, not only for themselves but also for the stability of the general society. Therefore, the idea of development emerged, as ‘a practice to control the surplus population’. Hannah Arendt called the surplus population, ‘human debris, [whose who] industrial growth …eliminated permanently from producing society’ . Such debris fuelled European settlement of Canada, Australia and the United State of America.

After the abolition of slavery, freed slaves became surplus population, and because they were free, they effectively become in political terms ‘superfluous’. For example, anecdotally, the Baptists missionary established developmental trusteeship for the freed slaves in Jamaica. They were given land, guidance on religion, hygiene and civic responsibility meant to imitate the ‘master’s’ home, work and church ethos. In Sierra Leone, the freed slaves formed a communal self-government, which was meant to be self-reliant. The aim was to alter both Jamaicans and Sierra Leoneans mental status so that they could enjoy the fruits of freedom.

With the fading of capitalism as the only ideology, liberalism emerged. Liberalism (liberty and equality) signifies ‘security of people, their well well-being, freedom and rights’ . Escobar noted, on this basis, Truman in his liberal speech in 1947, signalled the problems associated with surplus population that half of the world’s population was living in a miserable condition, their poverty was ‘a handicap and a threat to both them and to the more prosperous areas’. By this pronouncement, development, which then was in its infancy, had been radicalised by including conflict reduction measures. Representing underdevelopment as dangerous not only demanded a remedial process of social transformation, it also created urgency and belief ensuring that this process was no longer trusted to chance.

The promotion of development has become synonymous with the pursuit of security for the West. There was need to change behaviour and attitude, especially in relation to violent conflict. These denote interventionism.

As noted, development was seen as a solution to unstable surplus population, achieved by exerting a moral and educative guardianship over it. It is linked to the broad security, which betters the world’s poor and marginalised peoples. But, the difficulty in attaining security therefore meant that development was tailored as a security tool to achieve the targeted aims of liberal society .

As a liberal tool, the goal of development was to manage the underdevelopment in such away that their instability does not affect the developed regions. It therefore did not reduce the economic gap between the poor and the rich, or extending the poor people’s level of social protection to the rich. Its function was to contain and neutralise destabilising effect of underdevelopment, which were refugees, criminality and undesirable migrants. The resulting outcome was widening difference in what has been called ‘unending war’ .

It followed development had an ulterior motive. It was seen as helping ‘dangerous’ people in adapting to the potential that progress brings, hence development became a security tool. It is argued that, ‘in ensuring this transition’, development as security is tasked with reconciling, ‘the moral, intellectual and material qualities of progress with social order’. In this respect, development exists, as a liberal alternative to modernity’s other solutions to the problem of surplus life: extermination and eugenics.

More defined intervention methods have been applied. They include, the frequent use of sanctions regimes, the questioning of the culture of impunity, an increase in the number of international tribunals prosecuting war criminals, and significantly a greater willingness to use force in the interest of international stability. These are all proactive approaches to contain the threat of surplus population. However, while intervention reduces threat by suppression or containment, it is not a permanent solution.

Indeed, the donors who use development required security as a tool to achieve it. In Africa, the focus of security as a tool of development has meant containment policies of ‘troubled’ regions, by for instance encouraging militarisation.

To some, development (now a liberal idea) is seen as a process of ‘trusteeship’, which will gradually enlightened the lives through liberal imperialism by protecting and bettering the world. For the insecure people, trusteeship is aimed at changing behaviour and organise society to suit the donor community. This operated as sustained development, especially under the regimes of aid agencies in empowerment and partnership. However, sustained development was not modernization based on material advancement and closing the economics gap between rich and poor countries. It was concerned with introducing new forms of social organisation that encourages self-regulating conditions of self-reliance.

Hence, ‘helping strengthen the capacity of a society’ to manage conflict without violence must be seen on the eyes of the West as a foundation for sustainable development. At the same time, security had become a prerequisite for sustainable development as commitment to conflict prevention and resolution. The reason for conflict in the first place would suggest that earlier social conditions were not conducive to sustainable development.

Governments, projects partners and populations had to show themselves fit for consideration. That is, they had to meet defined standards of behaviour and normative expectations. In the case of governments, this could mean following neoliberal economic prescriptions, adhering to international standards of good governance or subscribing to donor-approved poverty reduction measures.

Range of exclusion, such as the sanction regime presently encompassing so-called rogue states, to conditional types of partnership and inclusion for authorities with whom the North felt able to do business. Indeed, the more extensive and significant application of an exclusionary logic was contained in the nuanced and complex interface of partnership, cooperation and participation through which the North now engages and selectively incorporates the South.

In other words, developmental policy on humanitarian assistance includes initiatives and tools with ameliorating powers that will reduce violent conflict and prevent its recurrence. The function was performed by non-state actors like NGOs to attain what Duffield refers to as ‘liberal peace’ .

Old wars were fought between nation-states, but with the proliferation of the non-state units dictating policies, new wars had emerged. These are based on collapse, chaos and regression, which resulted from poverty, resource competition, and social exclusion. By continually reordering themselves using privatisation, the West is positioning for these ever-present wars. Indeed, it was these wars Duffield called the ‘unending wars’. Market deregulations are used to stratify markets and populations into the global economy. With globalisation, emergence of protections, legitimacy and rights to wealth is a process of social transformation.

In response, development was emerged with security. Development and security converged when conflict resolution became a significant aim of reconstruction to avoid recurrence of instability. These are a concerted transformation of societies to be achieved through development addressing security. Hence, the constant war to change minds, attitudes and beliefs.

With the emerging of development and security, the interaction was sealed. Development was ultimately impossible without stability and, at the same time, security was not sustainable without development. Conflict resolution transforms the humanitarism behind development by focusing the support to the processes not people.

While market deregulation and structural adjustment had encouraged stability by cementing the interventionist idea of expansion and was seen as a tool of conflict resolution, it however deepens all forms of parallel and shadow transborder trade. That means the South is widely integrated into the global market place through shadow networks, which breeds a life of its own.

The threat from the South’s poverty and underdevelopment yield conflict because they destroy assets and social capital. Underdevelopment was dangerous since it can lead to violence; at the same time, conflict entrenches and deepens that danger.

Chomsky calls this ‘reworking of imperialism’. Development was tied to not only to progress with economic liberalisation but the support of democratic and pluralistic institutions as well. Rather than requiring the reform of the international system, it had been redefined in terms of the radical transformation of the South to change so that they can fit and better adapt to the Northern created system. Financial deregulation has made increasingly complex and opaque forms of transaction and ownership possible.

Human security as security technologies aimed to create self-managing, self-reliant and docile subjectivities in the Third World, which can then survive in a situation of serious underdevelopment (or being uninsured as Duffield terms it) without causing security problems for the developed world. It will result in compromised human rights.

Human security seems to be a calculated move. There is no doubting the language of western institutions and the explicit framing of threats from the developing world in the human security discourse, as report of the International Commission in Intervention and State Sovereignty which argued;

Human security is indeed indivisible. There is no longer such a thing as humanitarian catastrophe occurring ‘in a far way country of which we know little’ […] In an interdependent world, in which security depends on a framework of stable sovereign entities, the existence of fragile states, failing states, states who through weakness or ill-will harbour those dangerous to other, or states that can only maintain internal order by means of gross human rights violations, can constitute a risk to people everywhere.

The sheer scale of what is suggested and posed in terms of a general focus on global poverty, underdevelopment and human rights as the only way in which to ensure global security implies a truly expansive and global agenda and strategy. One can see the similarity in the language to the earlier one of the Capitalist whose agenda was also expansionist.

The liberal order entailed the breaking down of the old colonial order and the establishment of supposedly free states in which trade rather than imperial rule was to form the basis of the relationship. America invited the 40 nations in founding the United Nations based on global principles of sovereign equality, non-intervention and the right to self-determination. This also entailed breaking protected trade arrangements, establishing the international Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. Importantly, newly created states had a role to play in the new global system.

Following in hot pursuit, was a remedial approach to the chaos in terms of Law and Order. It would be preposterous for those perceived to cause criminal chaos to face the music in the West. That will be a an open and shut case of imperialistic intervention.

But, how better would it be for that Court to be seen to be run by the people cut from the same cloth as the culprits. After all, slaves were caught and brought to the slave masters by other black people.

Endnotes:

1. Quoted in Duffield M; Development, Security and Unending war – governing the world of peoples, polity, 2009, as Arendt, Hannah, Imperialism: Part Two of the Origin of Totalitarism, Harvest [1951]: page 150.
2. Quoted in in Duffield M; Development, Security and Unending war – governing the world of peoples, polity, 2009, as Dean 1999 at page 216.
3. Escobar A; Encountering Development, the making and unmaking of the third world, Princeton, 1995; page 36
4. Duffield calls it, Liberal Problematic of security
5. Duffield, M; Development, Security and Unending war- governing the world of people, Polity, 2007
6. Quoted by Duffield M, Development, Security and Unending war, governing the world of peoples, Polity, 2007, page 9-10, as Cowen and Shenton 1996: 27
page 9-12
7. Quoted by Duffield M, Development, Security and Unending war, governing the world of peoples, Polity, 2007, page 33 as Chomsky 1999;11
8. Quoted by McCormack Tara; Human Security and the Separation of Security and Development, Conflict, Security & Development 2011, as ICISS, Responsibility to Protect, page 5

Sadik:

Your argument might be easier to follow if, for example, you structured in differently. For example, you might try to make clear where you are quoting the works others and where you are presenting your own arguments. As things stand, a great deal of the text is the former but might appear as the latter, and the reader interested in the ICC issuse (as raised by Oloo) might be troubled by what appears to a logic-free stringing together of texts  taken from different sources and without proper attribution.   There are some "endnotes" attached but nowhere are they linked back to the preceding (main) text.

Perhaps one example will help. Since I was unable to see exactly how things fit together, I thought I might have better luck elsewhere, e.g. searching via Google and in the "endnotes. I did this with a few paragraphs.    For example, if one takes

"The liberal order entailed the breaking down of the old colonial order and the establishment of supposedly free states in which trade rather than imperial rule was to form the basis of the relationship. America invited the 40 nations in founding the United Nations based on global principles of sovereign equality, non-intervention and the right to self-determination. This also entailed breaking protected trade arrangements, establishing the international Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. Importantly, newly created states had a role to play in the new global system."

and runs it through Google, one of the identified sources is

Tara McCormack:

www.operationspaix.net/DATA/DOCUMENT/6399~v~Human_Security_and_the_Separation_of_Security_and_Development.pdf
(pretty much the same text will be found in couple of other places, I think)

"an ostensibly liberal international order entailed the breaking down of the old colonial order
and the establishment of ostensibly free states in which trade rather than imperial rule was
to form the basis of the relationship. In the dying days of World War II in April 1945,
America invited over 40 nations to participate in the United Nations founding conference
....
This also entailed breaking down protected trade arrangements and
inconvertible currencies, dismantling the Commonwealth trading block, establishing the
International Monetary Fund, the World Bank".


Having identified the source, I looked at the "endnotes". Sure enough, there is:

"8. Quoted by McCormack Tara; Human Security and the Separation of Security and Development, Conflict, Security & Development 2011, as ICISS, Responsibility to Protect, page 5"

Oddly enough, this "endnote" simply states that it is "quoted by ...", which gives the reader the unfortunate impression that the "endnote" too is the product of a cut-and-paste exercise, rather than an attempt by today's author here to indicate the source of the work. McCormack, of course, does indicate here sources whenever she is lifting the work of others, and her "endnotes" are properly linked to her main text.

Anyway ... I did read that paper but could not see what your argument is and how that particular text supports it. And I did not have much luck with the surrounding text in your writing: a great deal of it suffers from a similar problem as the example I have give above.

Eventually, I gave up. But I will give you this: the thing definitely has a deep, heavy, scholarly thing going. Or something. Just what that is and what the point might be, especially in relation to Oloo's points about the ICC, will have to wait for another day.

[OtishOtish]

Sadik:

I had some free time today and a couple of beers at hand; so ... You've been a naughty little fellow, haven't you?

Starting, roughly, from where you "cut loose", I believe that I have identified the source of almost every paragraph of "your" essay. It helped that you were in a hurry with the glue and scissors and so changed almost nothing. In some cases, however, you omitted words, e.g. at the start of a sentence, in ways that seem trivial but which could alter the intended meaning. For example, take "your" paragraph that starts with

"Governments, projects partners and populations had to show themselves fit for consideration ..."

The original text actually reads

"Southern governments, projects partners and populations had to show themselves fit for consideration ..."

As a cobbled-together piece of work, with so many "co-authors", the thing probably isn't too bad. I still have to make some sense of the entire thing: as might be expected, the logical flow is not entirely smooth, and the different writing styles*** of your "co-authours" makes it a bit more awkward ... but I will get there.  Then I might even work on what it has to do with the title of this thread.  

So what should the "casual" reader make of "your" essay? Samuel Johnson comes to mind. He once equated a certain situation---which I wouldn't describe here, because it would be considered "backward" in these modern days---with that of a dog walking  on just its hind legs: instead of complaining that it's not done very well, simply marvel at seeing it done!    (Google will readily supply context and exact quotation.)

_______________________
*** One of the things that first struck me about "your" essay was the sharp differences in styles, not just between the paragraphs but especially between "vintage Sadik" and some of the highly polished bits on show. This, for example, is "vintage Sadik":

"As quick preview, three issues to bear."

[Onyango Oloo]

Nov 4, 2013 23:53:41 GMT 3 Daktari wa makazi said:

Oloo

In a nutshell, you are asserting that the ICC is not an imperialist creature simply because your definition of imperialism derived from your interpretation of Marxist-Lenin doctrine has not been reached. You recant historical events, which led to the ICC, and you surmise the ICC is an African Court, and therefore cannot be an imperialist.

Wachira, and the other luminary writers you quote from, cover some important points in their pieces. Reading them, one forms the view that imperialism is a tag justifiably used for the ICC. But, it is not my intention to droll over those gems to support my point of view.

First, you lost the argument when you limited yourself to ICC historical timelines and used it to justify your conclusion. You should know that what is done in public does not translate the intentions/motives of the parties. For instance, it is not enough to say because the USA is not a member of the ICC, it hold no pivotal steering command over its functions. I would have preferred you dwelt on financiers. He who pays the piper calls the music!

etc etc etc

Sadik:

Thanks for your feedback.

Whatever it was you were attempting to respond to, it was certainly NOT about the digital essay I wrote, interrogating the assumption that the ICC is "an imperialist court".

I will not add to what Otish Otish has pointed out in regards the sources/content of your rejoinder.

Let me point out that it was Vladimir Lenin who gave the world the first, comprehensive definition of "imperialism" as it is used in contemporary world. This is the Russian revolutionary's classic definition from almost a hundred years ago:

"Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capitalism is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed."

To read in full what Lenin meant go here:

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism


Written: January-June, 1916
Published: First published in mid-1917 in pamphlet form, Petrograd. Published according to the manuscript and verified with the text of the pamphlet.
Source: Lenin’s Selected Works, Progress Publishers, 1963, Moscow, Volume 1, pp. 667–766.

Which is available at the following link:

www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/

On this account, I think I can be forgiven, as a practising Marxist-Leninist, if I employ the classic definition of imperialism provided by one of the founders of our ideological doctrine, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.

For your further information Sadik, "liberalism" is a POLITICAL component of Capitalism; it does not therefore TRANSCEND capitalism.

My arguments on whether or not the ICC is an "imperialist court" remain intact.

Sincerely,

Onyango Oloo in Nairobi

[danielwaweru]

Nov 6, 2013 6:20:28 GMT 3 OtishOtish said:

Sadik:

I had some free time today and a couple of beers at hand; so ... You've been a naughty little fellow, haven't you?

Starting, roughly, from where you "cut loose", I believe that I have identified the source of almost every paragraph of "your" essay. It helped that you were in a hurry with the glue and scissors and so changed almost nothing. In some cases, however, you omitted words, e.g. at the start of a sentence, in ways that seem trivial but which could alter the intended meaning. For example, take "your" paragraph that starts with

"Governments, projects partners and populations had to show themselves fit for consideration ..."

The original text actually reads

"Southern governments, projects partners and populations had to show themselves fit for consideration ..."

As a cobbled-together piece of work, with so many "co-authors", the thing probably isn't too bad. I still have to make some sense of the entire thing: as might be expected, the logical flow is not entirely smooth, and the different writing styles*** of your "co-authours" makes it a bit more awkward ... but I will get there.  Then I might even work on what it has to do with the title of this thread.  

So what should the "casual" reader make of "your" essay? Samuel Johnson comes to mind. He once equated a certain situation---which I wouldn't describe here, because it would be considered "backward" in these modern days---with that of a dog walking  on just its hind legs: instead of complaining that it's not done very well, simply marvel at seeing it done!    (Google will readily supply context and exact quotation.)

_______________________
*** One of the things that first struck me about "your" essay was the sharp differences in styles, not just between the paragraphs but especially between "vintage Sadik" and some of the highly polished bits on show. This, for example, is "vintage Sadik":

"As quick preview, three issues to bear."

The Johnson example is well-chosen (if a little politically-incorrect, in roughly the same way that jokes about pigs and lipstick can be in the mixed company).

[Daktari wa makazi]

Nov 6, 2013 12:17:13 GMT 3 Onyango Oloo said:

Nov 4, 2013 23:53:41 GMT 3 Daktari wa makazi said:

Oloo

In a nutshell, you are asserting that the ICC is not an imperialist creature simply because your definition of imperialism derived from your interpretation of Marxist-Lenin doctrine has not been reached. You recant historical events, which led to the ICC, and you surmise the ICC is an African Court, and therefore cannot be an imperialist.

Wachira, and the other luminary writers you quote from, cover some important points in their pieces. Reading them, one forms the view that imperialism is a tag justifiably used for the ICC. But, it is not my intention to droll over those gems to support my point of view.

First, you lost the argument when you limited yourself to ICC historical timelines and used it to justify your conclusion. You should know that what is done in public does not translate the intentions/motives of the parties. For instance, it is not enough to say because the USA is not a member of the ICC, it hold no pivotal steering command over its functions. I would have preferred you dwelt on financiers. He who pays the piper calls the music!

etc etc etc

Sadik:

Thanks for your feedback.

Whatever it was you were attempting to respond to, it was certainly NOT about the digital essay I wrote, interrogating the assumption that the ICC is "an imperialist court".

I will not add to what Otish Otish has pointed out in regards the sources/content of your rejoinder.

Let me point out that it was Vladimir Lenin who gave the world the first, comprehensive definition of "imperialism" as it is used in contemporary world. This is the Russian revolutionary's classic definition from almost a hundred years ago:

"Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capitalism is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed."

To read in full what Lenin meant go here:

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism


Written: January-June, 1916
Published: First published in mid-1917 in pamphlet form, Petrograd. Published according to the manuscript and verified with the text of the pamphlet.
Source: Lenin’s Selected Works, Progress Publishers, 1963, Moscow, Volume 1, pp. 667–766.

Which is available at the following link:

www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/

On this account, I think I can be forgiven, as a practising Marxist-Leninist, if I employ the classic definition of imperialism provided by one of the founders of our ideological doctrine, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.

For your further information Sadik, "liberalism" is a POLITICAL component of Capitalism; it does not therefore TRANSCEND capitalism.

My arguments on whether or not the ICC is an "imperialist court" remain intact.

Sincerely,

Onyango Oloo in Nairobi

Oloo

I wouldn't let you off that easy, Sir.

How would you respond to the charge in this article?

www.newafricanmagazine.com/special-reports/sector-reports/icc-vs-africa/who-pays-for-the-icc

In particular, I think, the imperialist tag is well applied in the quotation,

"The biggest contributors to the ICC in 2009 were Germany €12.95m (almost 14%); UK €10.03m (10%); Italy €7.67m (8%); France €7.55m (8%); Spain €4.48m (4%). The five dominant EU countries paid 44% of the ICC budget.

There is, as always is the case, a direct relationship between levels of payment and control. Secondly, in the section of the ICC’s own website entitled “How is the Court funded”, the ICC interestingly reveals that it also receives money from “international corporations, individuals, and other entities”. Article 116 of the Rome Statute provides for these voluntary contributions. But no details are provided for this funding line and mysterious donors.

The thought of private interests such as major multinational businesses helping to finance a judicial organisation is one that should be of great alarm to all those who believe in the rule of law. Rosenthal notes: “None of us would put faith in the impartiality of a local or national court if it depended upon the largesse of private individuals or corporations, who, by definition, might have an interest in the outcome of particular proceedings.”

[Daktari wa makazi]

Samuel Johnson is a conniving garbage and to use him to illustrate my work is mischief. I spend better part of several hours to write my response to Oloo, and will shrotly be writing another on his further rejoinder.

I admit I know little on Lenin and his writings. The stuff I wrote was around the subject of 'human security'. I explicitly recorded my sources as I knew the 'bastards' in here will create diversions from the actual content. Despite the nonsense spewed on my writing and the unsubstantiated pathetic accussation from the familiar sources, no one has raise any thing worth of my response.

OtisOtish must try harder.

[OtishOtish]

Nov 6, 2013 18:02:32 GMT 3 Daktari wa makazi said:

Samuel Johnson is a conniving garbage and to use him to illustrate my work is mischief. I spend better part of several hours to write my response to Oloo, and will shrotly be writing another on his further rejoinder.

I admit I know little on Lenin and his writings. The stuff I wrote was around the subject of 'human security'. I explicitly recorded my sources as I knew the 'bastards' in here will create diversions from the actual content. Despite the nonsense spewed on my writing and the unsubstantiated pathetic accussation from the familiar sources no one has raise any thing worth of my response.

OtisOtish must try harder.

Sadik:

One more time: it is not your writing. What you have done is cut-and-paste from the works of others and without giving proper attribution. In other words, you have tried to pass off their work as yours.

Apparently you have noted the use of "endnotes" in scholarly writing but have not understood it and think they merely serve as and end to themselves: nowhere do you link the "endnotes" to the text to show that you are simply cutting and pasting. (The "endnotes" themselves are written in a very awkward fashion.)

What's more, the "endnotes" do not necessarily identify all your sources.

For example, "your" paragraph

"Human security is indeed indivisible. There is no longer such a thing as humanitarian catastrophe occurring ‘in a far way country of which we know little’ ...

is actually lifted from responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICISS%20Report.pdf which does not appear in your "endnotes".

Similarly, "your" paragraph

" ... Indeed, the more extensive and significant application of an exclusionary logic was contained in the nuanced and complex interface of partnership, cooperation and participation through which the North now engages and selectively incorporates the South"

is actually lifted from a book that is not listed in your "endnotes":

books.google.ca/books?id=eeqyAAAAIAAJ&q=Global+governance+and+the+new+wars:+the+merging+of+development+and+security&dq=Global+governance+and+the+new+wars:+the+merging+of+development+and+security&hl=en&sa=X&ei=H2Z6Uu3HJIPbrAGelYCwAQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA

And so on, and so forth. Astonishing plagiarism.

Please try harder: do your own thinking. And stay away from matusi; that approach shows a poor and unhelpful attitude.

[Daktari wa makazi]

I make no apologies in quoting Mark Duffield. His books are main reference to 'Human Security'. If you looked keenly, you would have seen that he features predominately in my endnotes, especially his book, 'Development, Security and Unending war'. This guy who is based at Bristol is an authority in that subject.
Near you, ( I know you are based at SOAS - can even give you your IP address), Mary Klador of LSE is another formidable source.

As expected, you have again shined with you stupidity. I thought Tilapia makes your 'clever'.

[OtishOtish]

Nov 6, 2013 20:15:03 GMT 3 Daktari wa makazi said:

I make no apologies in quoting Mark Duffield. His books are main reference to 'Human Security'. If you looked keenly, you would have seen that he features predominately in my endnotes, especially his book, 'Development, Security and Unending war'. This guy who is based at Bristol is an authority in that subject.
Near you, ( I know you are based at SOAS - can even give you your IP address), Mary Klador of LSE is another formidable source.

As expected, you have again shined with you stupidity. I thought Tilapia makes your 'clever'.

Didn't I just advise you to stay away from matusi? (Here on Jukwaa, we strive for positive, helpful, and friendly attitudes.)

There is no need to apologize for quoting Duffield or anyone else. (And, yes, I did look at the badly written "endnotes".) The main problem is that you have done a cut-and-paste from numerous sources without making any proper attribution, thus making it appear, as you indeed intended to make it appear, that it is all your thoughts and writing. 

Here is a hint on how you might have usefully applied your endnotes: where you have done a cut-and-paste, append a number ("1", "2", "3", etc.), and then in your "endnotes" link the number to the source. Of course, that would defeat your attempt to pull a fast one ...

Another problem is that almost the entire thing is of a product of your scissors and glue. That makes it inappropriate (and cheeky) for you to refer to "my writing".

A third problem is that there appears to be no logical plan in the gluing-together of the pieces. That makes it problematic for the reader who might have an interest in whatever point you wish to make. (See my earlier remark on a "smooth flow".) Here's an idea: why not try, again, to make whatever point it is, but this time put down the scissors and glue.

Here's an example where there is no doubt that Sadik is doing his own writing: "His books are main reference to 'Human Security'. If you looked keenly, you would have seen that he features predominately in my endnotes, especially his book, 'Development, Security and Unending war'."

SOAS, eh? I have heard about the place. Mary Klador. Hmm.

By the way late last night, while engaged in the task of locating some of your sources, I exchanged email with one of your "co-authors", who was helpful. He/she was amused but gave you marks for "creativity". His/her opinion on the Samuel-Johnson bit matched Waweru's. (I deliberately left out certain contextual bits, in order to avoid offending anyone, but, lest I be misunderstood, I apologize to the women on Jukwaa for any unintentional slight.) Anyways ... he/she was also of the opinion that you should never consider going into academia---that some Disciplinary Committee would have you for quick lunch, on the matter of plagiarism.

P.S. It's hard to get tilapia where I live. That explains what Omwenga referred to as my lack of "brains and what it takes". Still, one works with whatever one has, and I do try my best. Surely, even you would admit that I do.

[enigma]

I would challenge Sadik to analyze budgetary contributions to the OPCW (this year's winner of the Nobel Peace Prize) and then tell us whether it is also imperialist. I would also like him to comb through the budget of ICIPE or ILRI and then he can place them in the appropriate column using his yardstick of budgetary contributions.

On his copy and paste, am doing a lot of the same for a court case in which am a litigant-in-person. If I can do it to save my life, Sadik reserves the right to even masturbate at the sophisticate copy and paste maestro he has become.

[OtishOtish]

Nov 6, 2013 22:49:00 GMT 3 enigma said:

I would challenge Sadik to analyze budgetary contributions to the OPCW (this year's winner of the Nobel Peace Prize) and then tell us whether it is also imperialist. I would also like him to comb through the budget of ICIPE or ILRI and then he can place them in the appropriate column using his yardstick of budgetary contributions.

On his copy and paste, am doing a lot of the same for a court case in which am a litigant-in-person. If I can do it to save my life, Sadik reserves the right to even masturbate at the sophisticate copy and paste maestro he has become.

The guy relies too much on lazy writers. Consider, for example, this quoted bit:

the ICC interestingly reveals that it also receives money from “international corporations, individuals, and other entities”. Article 116 of the Rome Statute provides for these voluntary contributions. But no details are provided for this funding line and mysterious donors.

The only thing mysterious here is that the writers apparently did not bother to ask anything of the ICC. If they had, they would probably have been surprised to get a list. Along with the list, they would also get an explanation of the procedures the court uses to "vet" the sources of funding.

On the cut-and-paste: As I have tried to explain, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with that. The issue is one of failing to acknowledge the sources and trying to pass off the work of others as one's own. Looking at what he produced, without doing a search, can you determine which parts are Sadik's thoughts and writing? And almost all of it is "borrowed".

Another issue I have tried to highlight is that the random cut-and-paste actually obscures whatever point he might have been trying to make. Given that yours is a legal case, I hope you will show more care.

[enigma]

Otish

I am not really copying and pasting, I rely a lot on precedent so there is a lot of verbatim stuff but obviously I have to give it give it relevance to pass muster. I was just stretching the argument to save him from censure for what is evidently intellectual dishonesty. Might former professors celebrate his copy and paste prowess as much as they would celebrate a certain scribe's logical formulae? And they all spew anti-ICC rhetoric.

P.S - OPCW is also based in The Hague, so are ICJ, ICTY, Special Court for Sierra Leone as well as Special Tribunal for Lebanon. Enough there to populate Sadik's table of imperialist institutions (of course with a bit of help from his mouse).

[Onyango Oloo]

kenyastockholm.com/2013/10/22/icc-uhurus-anti-imperialist-rhetoric-is-hollow/

[Onyango Oloo]

I met Ms. Diana Johnstone in the 1990s when I was living and working in Toronto, Ontario. She is a Canadian who used to be in the leadership of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist). She thinks that the ICC IS AN IMPERIALIST COURT:

www.globalresearch.ca/what-does-the-icc-stand-for-the-imperialist-crime-cover-up

[podp]

what I do agree with wholeheartedly is

'The whole thing about the ICC being "an imperialist court" is a chimera; a bogey man; a red herring.'

it is obvious by calling ICC and imperialist court, the indictees are referring to something that misleads or detracts from the actual or otherwise important issue, the latter the being their roles in 2007/09 and to date to their collusion to erase as many witnesses as practicable possible and continue with impunity. in addition to the hoard of Westerners they are employing they are also reaching out to locals to do their local binding in the villages, towns and forums such as this one. they have unleashed the whole arsenal and will not stop until re-instating impunity to the 80s levels.

[Daktari wa makazi]

Nov 7, 2013 15:52:21 GMT 3 podp said:

what I do agree with wholeheartedly is

'The whole thing about the ICC being "an imperialist court" is a chimera; a bogey man; a red herring.'

it is obvious by calling ICC and imperialist court, the indictees are referring to something that misleads or detracts from the actual or otherwise important issue, the latter the being their roles in 2007/09 and to date to their collusion to erase as many witnesses as practicable possible and continue with impunity. in addition to the hoard of Westerners they are employing they are also reaching out to locals to do their local binding in the villages, towns and forums such as this one. they have unleashed the whole arsenal and will not stop until re-instating impunity to the 80s levels.

Prof.

How so?

You can’t assert that the call by some of us that the ICC is a tool used by the imperialist is merely a red herring, without justifying your assertion.

I can only talk of myself.

I call the ICC an imperialist endeavour because I believe it is simply a mechanism by which interventions are made to neutralise those who don’t toe the imperialistic line. That is why, for instances, the West pay considerably for the ICC , when ICC directly does not impact on them or their citizenry.

Now, what is you explanation for the charge of 'red herring'?

[OtishOtish]

Nov 7, 2013 17:35:26 GMT 3 Daktari wa makazi said:

... it is simply a mechanism by which interventions are made to neutralise those who don’t toe the imperialistic line. That is why, for instances, the West pay considerably for the ICC , when ICC directly does not impact on them or their citizenry.

For how the court is financed, see Articles 113-118 of the Rome Statute. The system is similar to that of the UN and requires rich countries to pay more than poorer countries. The scale having agreed on, countries do not have a say on their levels of "assessed contribution"; they get "bills" and they pay. So "controlling the court", "impact on them or their citizenry", etc. have no role.

Article 117
Assessment of contributions

The contributions of States Parties shall be assessed in accordance with an agreed scale of
assessment, based on the scale adopted by the United Nations for its regular budget and adjusted
in accordance with the principles on which that scale is based.

www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/ADD16852-AEE9-4757-ABE7-9CDC7CF02886/283503/RomeStatutEng1.pdf

[abdulmote]

''Justice' favors the powerful'

Discuss.