S. Africa considers pulling out of ICC after Bashir visit

The South African Cabinet is reviewing the country's status as a signatory to the statute that set up the international court, the government said.

Ali Ngethi/AP/File
In this 2014 file photo, Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir speaks after meeting with South Sudan's President Salva Kiir, in the capital Juba, South Sudan.

South Africa will consider withdrawing from the International Criminal Court as a "last resort" following a dispute over a visit by Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who is wanted for alleged war crimes, the government said Thursday.

The South African Cabinet is reviewing the country's status as a signatory to the statute that set up the international court, the government said in a statement. It cited "contradictions" in the statute and said South Africa would have found it difficult to arrest al-Bashir because of treaty obligations to the African Union.

Al-Bashir was in South Africa for an AU summit. He left for Sudan on June 15 despite a South African provincial court order that he should remain in the country while judges deliberated on whether he should be arrested for alleged crimes linked to the conflict in Sudan's Darfur region.

The court then ruled that al-Bashir should indeed be arrested, but the Sudanese leader had already left.

On Wednesday, Dunstan Mlambo, a South African judge, said the government had not complied with the original order that al-Bashir should stay in the country.

"For this reason, we find it prudent to invite the national director of public prosecutions to consider whether criminal proceedings are appropriate," the South Africa-based African News Agency quoted Mlambo as saying.

Some African leaders say the International Criminal Court has unfairly targeted African heads of state. The African Union said delegates to the summit in Johannesburg had immunity.

James Stewart, deputy prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, said last week that South Africa had been obligated to arrest al-Bashir.

The International Criminal Court's charges against al-Bashir stem from reported atrocities in Darfur in which 300,000 people were killed and 2 million displaced in the government's campaign, according to U.N. figures.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.