Hypocrisy Watch: @NYTimes laments ICC indictee winning #Kenya’s election, forgets US not a signatory3
March 14, 2013 by soniauwimana
The New York Times strains to strike a balanced tone in its coverage of the Kenyan presidential election:
Kenya’s apparent decision to elect a president charged by the International Criminal Court at The Hague for crimes against humanity is deeply unsettling. But if Uhuru Kenyatta withstands an expected legal challenge by his opponent Raila Odinga, the United States and Europe are going to have to find a way to work with the new government, given Kenya’s standing as a vital security ally and a regional economic power.
A couple of things.
First: Kenya’s “apparent decision”? Spare me. African voters are only given sufficient agency by the venerable Times to “apparently” elect people to democratic office? Interesting take, especially since 86 percent of Kenyans apparently participated in the recent elections, compared to 57.5 percent of eligible US voters who actually bothered showing up to re-elect Obama.
Second: How can you, with a straight face at least, pen an editorial urging your government to tread cautiously with the newly elected Kenyan President because of a case in the Hague that everyone knows is laughably weak when that same government does not recognize the International Criminal Court in the first place. Or most pointedly, how can you not mention that fact at all? It seems as if the Americans, epitomized by the NYT editorial board and fellow travelers like Johnnie Carson, are beyond shameless when it comes to ICC-related hypocrisy. They are happy to use the court as a battering ram as long as it batters in one direction.