THE ICC Debate: To be or not to be ?

It is not in contention that serious human rights violations were committed in January 2008 and that society demands punishment for this or, at the very least, holds a person or persons accountable. And that is how Kenya ended up pacing the corridors of the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague. However, a three-year-long blame game and political trapeze involving politicians whose hopes for high office were ranged against one another in the 2007 General Election remain bitter adversaries, unable to agree on just about any matter. So one school of thought is dissatisfied with the decision to try Kenyans at The Hague, arguing this would amount to surrendering national sovereignty and be mistaken for being a failed state. This group is seeking deferral of the ICC hearings for 12 months as structures are erected for a local tribunal. Ferrying envoys Their opponents see Kenya as being a paying member of the international community and should be beholden to any and all conventions it is party to. Right or wrong, each has compelling arguments to justify their stand. However, the case for deferral seems to have hit a dead end when UN Security Council members, the US and Britain, indicated they would veto the rquest. In the interests of the tax payer, wouldn’t it be prudent to stop seeking deferral and use the funds being sunk into ‘shuttle diplomacy’ and ferrying Kenya’s envoys home for ‘consultation’ to better use? Why fight a battle that clearly seems to have reached a wall?