Attack on Hague court could bolster dictators

THE HAGUE, Netherlands — In a city that symbolizes international peace and justice, Vestine Nahimana, the ambassador from Burundi, has had a lonely job. As her government faces accusations of murder, rape and torture, she has made the unpopular argument that the International Criminal Court should butt out.

Her critiques echo those of warlords and despots whose arguments have long been dismissed by the West. But Burundi’s position got a powerful voice of support this week from President Donald Trump, whose national security adviser, John Bolton, declared the international court “ineffective, unaccountable, and indeed, outright dangerous,” and threatened sanctions against the court’s prosecutors and judges who pursued cases against Americans.

“We can only rejoice that another country has seen the same wrong,” Nahimana said.

The court, which opened in 2002, was envisioned as the world’s permanent judicial body for cases of war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity. But a former prosecutor has faced accusations of corruption, and the court’s record has been spotty.

The United States has always regarded the court warily, fearing that it would be used against U.S. troops as a way to subvert Washington’s foreign policy decisions. President Bill Clinton signed the 1998 Rome treaty establishing the court, despite noting its “significant flaws.” But Congress never ratified the treaty.

“The court is vulnerable,” said Carsten Stahn, an international law professor at Leiden University here. “Bolton is using that vulnerability to attack.”

Bolton said the court’s prosecutors were politically motivated and represented a threat to U.S. sovereignty. And he said that, to many in Africa, the court has become a tool of modern day European colonialism. That argument stunned court supporters because it echoes the view of Sudan’s president, Omar alBashir, who is under indictment for genocide and has campaigned for African nations to withdraw from the court.