In truth, the ICC threat is a ‘nothingburger’

Ambassador Teodoro Locsin, Jr., the Philippines’ Permanent Representative to the United Nations, has transmitted the formal notification of withdrawal to UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres. He characterized the decision as “a principled stand against those who politicize and weaponize human rights.”

Under the rules, the Philippines’ withdrawal will become effective one year after the service of the notice to the UN. Before then, we will continue to pay our dues.

Neither side listens in raging debate

Since the ICC issue rose to this high pitch, the contending sides in the controversy have unfurled their flags and their positions.

The president’s and the government’s supporters have rallied behind the decision to withdraw. And they have seized the moment to openly campaign for other countries to withdraw from the ICC.

The political opposition has roundly criticized the withdrawal as misguided and injurious to the national interest. Most columnists have declared where they stand, and aligned their analysis

Oddly, no broadcast network has been brave or imaginative enough to bring both sides together in one discussion. This will be better than airing selfpromoting interviews of lawyers and politicians.

I’ve been watching the debate from a distance, and am frankly saddened that I could not take part.

the debate is this banal fact that the two sides do not comprehend or listen to what the other side is saying. The arguments go unnoticed.

They listen with their mouths, not with their ears.

The administration appears to be smug about its position because the government has formally withdrawn from the ICC. Its spokesmen are totally unwelcome repercussions arising from the withdrawal. There is no existing case for President Duterte and other administration

The government has seized the opportunity to loudly denounce a massive conspiracy between Philippine groups, UN agencies and human rights groups to discredit President Duterte and set the stage for regime change in the country.

The opposition is telling the administration, not so fast. You are not getting away with impunity. Duterte critics and the Liberals claim that the ICC can and will continue to investigate the president and others in the government, and they hope that eventually the court will be able to indict DU30. They have seized on the fact that Philippine withdrawal from the ICC won’t take effect until one year hence, as an opportunity to propagandize that Duterte cannot escape the clutches of the court.

ICC threat to Duterte

There is more propaganda than substance to all the talk about the ICC indicting President Duterte for crimes against humanity.

I arrived at this after reading through much of the literature that has accumulated around the ICC‘ s history, the prominence given internationally to the seem DU30 before the ICC, and the galvanizing impact of the decision by the ICC’s special prosecutor to conduct a preliminary examination of the case.

From all that I could gather from my readings and analysis of the materials, I arrived at some conclusions.

First, the ICC today is a troubled institution, and its troubles may be foundational. It detracts from its stability and legitimacy that the biggest countries of the world— China, Russia, the United States, India and Indonesia— have all refused to ratify the Rome Statute and are not members of the court. How can it plausibly claim to be a world court without these countries as members?

Second, I have concluded that the ICC threat to Duterte of a preliminary examination, leading to an investigation of possible crimes against humanity, and - ment is essentially nothing. it is a nothingburger.

The original June Sabio complaint is nonsensical, as fatuous as the story and claims of his client, Edgar Matobato, who was exposed in the Senate.

What fully bolstered my suspicion of a false story were the rules governing the work of the ICC. A primer produced by the BBC on the court is particularly enlightening. It is readily available online.

For a case against President Duterte to move forward, our government literally has to request it, or DU30 himself must go bonkers and turn himself in.

Failing these, it will take a referral from the UN Security Council for the ICC to investigate Duterte. Who would wish there to put DU30 on the rack?

Hype without the payoff

Back in July last year, AJ Willingham of CNN expressed on the cable network a most vivid description of a nothingburger.

“What’s a nothingburger? Imagine biting into what you think is a thick, juicy, hot halfpound of wagyu on a kaiser only to come away with a mouthful of...nothing.

“It’s the hype without the payoff. It’s a promise that never delivers. It’s a bag of hot air ensconced in a deceptively delicious coating.”

“And, for some reason, it’s the hottest new political insult.”

The term “nothing burger” (or “nothingburger,” if you’re feeling compounded) is not really a new, appeared in print in the 1950s, when a gossip columnist Louella Parsons used it to dismiss an actor.

She wrote in 1953: “After all, if it hadn’t been for Sam Goldwyn, Farley Granger might very well be a nothingburger.”

The term gained currency in politics, beginning in 1984, when US Environmental Protection Agency administrator Anne Gorsuch Burford used it tellingly. She was charged with agency mismanagement, political manipulation She resigned. Later, she was appointed chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere. She described her job and the committee as “a

nothing burger” and “a joke.” Mrs. Burford resigned the day before she was to be sworn in.

every stripe have been lobbing the slang ever since. It has been for years, to discount or dismiss warring conspiracies, investigations and controversies swirling around in the giant tornado that is our current political discourse.

“What’s a nothingburger? are fond of hamburger, get used to a nothingburger.