Skip to footer

Note of caution on the International Criminal Court trials in Kenya

New report highlights potentially destabilizing impact of ICC trials related to 2007 Kenyan election violence.

|
Jerry Lampen/Reuters/File
International Criminal Court's (ICC) Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo attends a news conference announcing suspects behind Kenya's post-election violence following the 2007 elections, in the Hague, in this December 2010 file photo.
  • By Alex Thurston Guest blogger

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is currently holding trials for six Kenyans accused of fomenting ethnic violence following Kenya’s 2007 elections. Several of the “Ocampo Six” (so named because of the ICC’s Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo) are prominent politicians, and two – Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto – are candidates in the presidential elections scheduled for this December. The case has already caused major controversy in Kenya, and has the potential to significantly affect the campaign this year – which includes stoking ethnic tensions. Whether the ICC likes it or not, by virtue of its work it is a political actor. In the case of the Ocampo Six, the politics of the ICC’s action feel wrong to me, at least as far as peace in Kenya is concerned.

The International Crisis Group (ICG), an organization I very much respect, has put out a thoughtful report sounding a note of caution about the case and its potential impact. Three key sentences from the report read:

These cases have enormous political consequences for both the 2012 elections and the country’s stability. During the course of the year, rulings and procedures will inevitably either lower or increase com­munal tensions. If the ICC process is to contribute to the deterrence of future political violence in Kenya, the court and its friends must explain its work and limitations better to the public.

Given the political reality that this case is likely to go forward, ICG takes the practical approach of giving suggestions to both the ICC and the Kenyan government for how to minimize the potentially incendiary effects of the case. In my view the recommendations are sound.

I am glad to see this kind of direct and pragmatic discussion of the ICC’s political role. The conversation about the politics of the ICC’s actions is not new – Alex de Waal and Julie Flint, in particular, began making insightful critiques of the ICC’s indictment of Sudanese President Omar al Bashir several years ago – but ICG’s contribution is timely and will likely make new audiences consider these important issues.

– Alex Thurston is a PhD student studying Islam in Africa at Northwestern University and blogs at Sahel Blog.

Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

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.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to Note of caution on the International Criminal Court trials in Kenya
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/Africa-Monitor/2012/0110/Note-of-caution-on-the-International-Criminal-Court-trials-in-Kenya
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe