Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger Highlight Anti-Africa Bias (ICC Court)
Sawako Uchida and Chika Mori
Modern Tokyo Times
In recent years, the Sahel has undergone profound political upheaval. Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger rejected the authority of ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States), challenged France’s lingering colonial influence, and formed the Alliance of Sahel States (AES). Although united by a common vision of sovereignty, all three nations remain vulnerable to Islamist insurgencies and ethnic tensions.
The alliance charter declared: “Any attack on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of one or more contracted parties will be considered an aggression against the other parties.”
It was therefore unsurprising when Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger later withdrew from the International Criminal Court (ICC), denouncing it as an instrument of “neo-colonialist repression.”
The BBC reported: “The three military-led countries issued a joint statement, saying they would not recognise the authority of the UN-backed court, based in The Hague.”
In their joint declaration, the three nations stated: “The ICC has proven itself incapable of handling and prosecuting proven war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes of genocide, and crimes of aggression.”
Echoing long-standing criticisms voiced by Rwanda and other African nations, the AES members accused the ICC of entrenched anti-African bias. Rejecting external interference, they pledged to establish “indigenous mechanisms for the consolidation of peace and justice,” asserting their right to define justice according to their own realities and priorities.
The criticism is difficult to dismiss. Since its establishment in 2002, the ICC has opened 33 cases, with all but one focused on African nations. Meanwhile, powerful actors involved in devastating conflicts in Sudan, Yemen, and elsewhere have largely escaped meaningful scrutiny. While the ICC proclaims impartiality, its record has fueled accusations of selective justice and political convenience.
Equally troubling is the fact that states supplying weapons to conflicts often remain beyond the court’s reach. The United States and the United Kingdom, for example, have armed Gulf powers involved in the war in Yemen, yet face no prospect of ICC prosecution. Such realities reinforce perceptions that international justice is applied unevenly—vigorous against weaker states but restrained when powerful nations and their allies are involved.
Lee Jay Walker (Modern Tokyo Times analyst) states: “Likewise, nations that funnel weapons into warzones—notably the United States and the United Kingdom, which arm Gulf powers embroiled in the brutal war in Yemen—consistently evade the ICC’s reach. Despite their direct complicity in fueling conflict, they remain untouched by international indictment. The message is unmistakable: the ICC’s hand is swift against the weak, but conveniently restrained when it comes to the powerful. Its selective prosecutions reveal not only a glaring double standard but also a troubling alignment with Western interests—targeting adversaries like the Russian Federation while turning a blind eye to the West’s own entanglements in global bloodshed, covert arms deals, and proxy wars.”
Given these concerns, many critics argue that the ICC requires fundamental reform if it is to regain credibility as a truly impartial institution. After all, several NATO and Gulf powers have participated in conflicts that have caused immense human suffering, yet they operate without fear of ICC action. For supporters of Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, this disparity vindicates their decision to withdraw from a court they view as selective, politicized, and detached from genuine universal justice.
http://moderntokyotimes.com Modern Tokyo Times – International News and Japan News
http://sawakoart.com – Sawako Utsumi’s website and Modern Tokyo Times artist
https://moderntokyonews.com Modern Tokyo News – Tokyo News and International News
PLEASE JOIN ON TWITTER
https://twitter.com/MTT_News Modern Tokyo Times
PLEASE JOIN ON FACEBOOK