South Africa’s changing attitude on a sensitive issue: quitting the ICC?

South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa said on Tuesday that his party, the African National Congress, had decided “it is prudent” to withdraw from the International Criminal Court – only for representatives of his and the party to later clarify that none both of them actually argued for quitting. court, at least for now.

The ANC would push for withdrawal only as a last resort if other efforts are made to end what it sees as the court’s unfair treatment of certain countries, according to separate statements issued late overnight by a spokeswoman for the ANC. the party and a spokesman for the president.

The shifting statements underline the complexity and sensitivity of the matter at a fraught geopolitical moment, as South Africa and other countries push back against a world order dominated by the United States and the West.

The ICC has issued an arrest warrant for war crimes for President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, who is invited to a summit in South Africa in August. South African officials have not said whether they will fulfill their promise to the ICC and arrest Mr Putin, and Mr Ramaphosa said his government is still considering what to do.

Over the years, officials in South Africa and the ruling African National Congress have argued that the ICC, and the international community at large, has cracked down on African leaders and select countries such as Russia, authorizing other countries, perhaps most especially Israel because of what they believe is unjust violence against Palestinians.

“Our view is that we want this issue of unfair treatment to be properly discussed,” Mr Ramaphosa said at a press conference with Finland’s president on Tuesday. “But in the meantime, the governing party has again decided that there must be a withdrawal.”

But within hours, the president’s spokesman Vincent Magwenya issued a statement saying that “the presidency would like to clarify” that South Africa remained a court signatory and that the ANC reversed its earlier decision to withdraw last December. had withdrawn.

The president, answering a question about an ANC statement about South Africa’s participation in the court, had “wrongly” given the impression that his country was withdrawing, the statement said.

The statement also said South Africa “will continue to campaign for the equal and consistent application of international law”.

While the statement made it clear that South Africa would not soon embark on what would become a years-long process of withdrawal, the president’s unscripted remarks sparked a media frenzy and highlighted the country’s different stance from a big part of the West about both the court and the war in Ukraine. .

South Africa refuses pressure from its Western allies to condemn the Russian invasion. The two countries, along with China, joint military exercises this year it coincided with the first anniversary of the start of the war. Government and ANC officials have repeatedly reiterated that South Africa and Russia are friends.

That South Africa was at least considering a withdrawal from the ICC underlined that the ANC was “clearly committed to a new world order” that was “not dominated by what are seen as Western interests,” said Gerhard Kemp, a law professor specializing in international criminal law at the University of Derby in England.

The history of the court, which was established two decades ago as a permanent body to investigate war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity, does not support frequent allegations that it is uniquely biased against African defendants. Of the nine cases involving African countries that the court has examined, five were the result of requests from African governments wanting their enemies to be punished, and two cases were referred to the court by the United Nations Security Council.

In particular, the leaders of Sudan and Kenya began campaigning against the court after they were personally targeted by investigations. African human rights lawyers and activists often counter that only the powerful complain, while the many victims of violence in Africa are overlooked.

Two countries, Burundi and the Philippines, have left court, in both cases following announcements that prosecutors planned to investigate their leaders for alleged atrocities. The Gambia also paused, but rejoined the court after the country’s authoritarian ruler lost his chance at reelection.

It is not the first time that South Africa has threatened to withdraw from the ICC

Following a dispute over whether or not to arrest Sudan’s former president, Omar al-Bashir, when he came to South Africa in 2015 while under an ICC arrest warrant, lawmakers introduced a bill in parliament to withdraw from court. The bill was eventually withdrawn when a court in South Africa ruled it unconstitutional.

On Tuesday, the ANC, which has been the ruling party since South Africa’s first democratic elections in 1994, once again railed against what it called the unilateralism of the West. There was “a growing problem with the West threatening to violate international law and circumvent international consensus to impose its will,” the ANC said in a statement summarizing a meeting recently held by its national executive committee. was held.

The West sees itself as “an enlightened civilization,” the statement continued, and it has “claimed for itself the right to impose its will on others in the name of human rights and democracy.”

Anushka Patil and Marlise Simons contributed reporting.