…Analysts question the motive
By Stefanus Nashama
Political analyst Ndumba Kamwanyah describes the United States’ decision to impose sanctions on officials linked to the International Criminal Court (ICC) as a “destructive approach”, arguing that diplomatic engagement would be a more effective way of resolving disputes.
Kamwanyah says the US could have pursued peaceful mechanisms that allow the parties involved to come together, negotiate and reach an agreement.
“Those are destructive approaches from the US. Mediation, if that is the intention, should be peaceful,” Kamwanyah says.
The US recently announced sanctions against ICC President Tomoko Akane of Japan and senior trial lawyer Abdoulaye Seye of Senegal over their involvement in proceedings concerning officials whose governments have not accepted the court’s jurisdiction.
The sanctions include asset freezes, travel restrictions and limits on services that can be provided by US companies.
The ICC, established in 2002, is an independent international court, empowered by more than 120 member countries and mandated to investigate and prosecute individuals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes under conditions set out in the Rome Statute.
The United States is not a member of the ICC and has consistently rejected the court’s jurisdiction over American nationals. Kamwanyah questions whether the sanctions would achieve their intended objective, noting that the ICC has faced sanctions before.
“I do not know if those sanctions will work, as it has been done for many countries and on individuals. Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe was also sanctioned, but we did not see behaviour changes,” he explains.
According to Kamwanyah, the use of sanctions as a tool of international diplomacy does not necessarily guarantee changes in the conduct of targeted individuals or institutions.
He maintains that dialogue, negotiation and peaceful mediation should take precedence where the objective is to resolve disagreements.
Meanwhile, political analyst Sakaria Johannes also questions the US motives for imposing sanctions on the ICC, arguing that Washington may be seeking to protect its own strategic interests.
“Whenever people talk about the US, there is always a question of how innocent they are and who they are protecting,” says Johannes.
He further questions why similar action had not been taken earlier if the US had concerns about the ICC’s activities.
“Why is it only happening now and why not in the past when it was more necessary? It is questionable.”
According to Johannes, the latest measures could be viewed as part of a broader political strategy aimed at exerting influence over one of the world’s most powerful international judicial institutions.
“What the US is doing can be viewed in the spectrum of political strategy to capture the ICC for its unknown interest.”
“The US almost wants to control a powerful institution in the world. Maybe they have interests in those they are protecting. We see the type of game they are playing there.”
ICC REJECTS SANCTIONS
In response, the ICC has strongly condemned the sanctions, describing them as an attack on an independent judicial institution. The court has maintained that measures targeting its judges, prosecutors and staff undermine the rule of law and threaten the international legal order. “The ICC remains undeterred and stands firmly behind its personnel,” the court said.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, however, has defended Washington’s position, accusing the ICC of being a “corrupt and fatally politicised supranational court” that has exceeded its mandate.
Rubio argued that the US will not tolerate what it regards as an assault on state sovereignty.
The latest sanctions form part of a wider campaign by the Trump administration against the ICC. Washington has previously sanctioned ICC officials over the court’s investigations into US personnel and its proceedings involving Israeli leaders. Israel and the US are not members of the ICC, while Palestine joined the court in 2015, giving the ICC jurisdiction over crimes within the scope of the Rome Statute committed on Palestinian territory.
GROWING INTERNATIONAL CONCERN
The confrontation has attracted criticism from human rights organisations, which have accused the US administration of attempting to weaken international accountability mechanisms.
Human Rights Watch international justice director Liz Evenson has argued that the US campaign could undermine efforts to hold governments and individuals accountable for serious international crimes.
The dispute has also prompted legal challenges in US courts, including challenges brought by ICC judges and human rights organisations over the sanctions. Johannes, added that the controversy raises a broader question about the balance between national interests and international justice.
He said countries should be cautious about attempts to weaken institutions established to address some of the world’s most serious crimes. Foreign minister Selma Ashipala-Musavyi says she is aware of the sanctions but requested that questions be sent to her in writing. “I am driving now. I would like to respond in writing. Please send through your questions,” the minister says.However, she had not responded by the time of publication.
