Harnessing the ‘neocolonial rhetoric’ debate, corrupt African leaders protect their own skin:
What precisely is that Egyptian/Arab/African position? There’s nothing that’s well-defined (outside of Khartoum), but the general view seems to be that the ICC is becoming one more form of neocolonialist oppression of poor states by the West. That’s a tired old drum to be beating and probably isn’t the real truth, but the perception is somewhat fair. Developing countries rarely have much of a say in how international treaties are hammered out, and the ICC’s composition and actions certainly reflect Western biases. Even though most developing states are signatories to the Rome Statute, it’s pretty difficult to argue that the ICC necessarily reflects the values and norms of their societies.
And that’s where things work somewhat to al-Bashir’s advantage. There’s a widely-held view in Africa (and, to some extent, in the Arab world) that decisions have to be made by top leaders who come to a consensus. And it’s very rare to get a consensus on something as contentious as removing a leader from office. That’s why we almost never see the African Union’s member states pressuring corrupt dictators out of office (Cough-cough! Mugabe! Cough!) What head of state wants to go after corruption or war crimes or general unpleasantness when he’s a recipient of corruption’s benefits and privileges, etc.? Or even when he or she is simply governing contested land? We’re unlikely to see much support for al-Bashir’s removal in most of the continent’s states he would choose to visit. And so the tour continues…
