Intervention vs intrusion

    African countries view the work of international criminal courts like ICC as an intrusion if they are not invited. Although some countries are party to the Rome Statute, brewing beneath the covers is the fact that important decisions are made unilaterally by African countries to fight impunity without inviting the International Criminal Court or United Nations to intervene.

    Since the set up of an international Criminal Court in any state would require an invitation of the head of State; more African countries are moving towards not inviting the intrusion of international courts but invitation for training purposes of staff members of the court to share ideas.

    African countries are moving towards a unified front where they hold themselves accountable and they see no use of having the intrusion of international law bodies in their affairs more so if these bodies will employ expartriates who according to them, have no understanding of whats going on on the ground.

    This has been viewed and embraced by the African people that support their leaders. With the increase of unemployment, it makes no sense hiring foreign people to come and research issues of a national’s country and get paid high wages on jobs the locals could do more so since more Africans are highly educated these days.

    On a different note, it would require the use of unbiased personnel to investigate crimes in the region for fear that nationals or locals may be biased out of fear for their lives.

    Whichever way you look at it, International Criminal Courts and organizations like United Nations are becoming less of a necessity for African nations. Several instances have shown that African countries would rather settle their own issues themselves. Without transparent and open collaboration from African states, I am afraid to say that Foreign intervention will head for failure.