Hypocrisy Watch: @NYTimes laments ICC indictee winning #Kenya’s election, forgets US not a signatory

3

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.

 

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Hypocrisy Watch: @NYTimes laments ICC indictee winning #Kenya’s election, forgets US not a signatory

  1. Mwene Kalinda says:

    In fact the US media studiously guards against reminding us that the American Service Members Protection Act, passed by Congress in 2002 and more popularly referred to as the Invasion of The Hague Act, is still on the books. How the US can keep this law, intended to forcefully extract any of it’s service personnel that might be detained by the ICC (a very remote possibility given the power of the US) for any crimes against humanity the US might be reluctant to prosecute (or more likely to prosecute only half-heartedly as has been the case regarding crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan and every other military campaign of recent years), and yet continue to be involved in referring others to the same ICC, is beyond belief. That American and most Western media rarely raise this point when they write or speak of non-Americans the US wants referred to the ICC shows how that media considers itself more a tool of Western geopolitics than an objective observer and chronicler of global events. And even more troubling is that neither the ICC nor it’s member States seem to realise how illegitimate the institution becomes when it allows itself to be used by a powerful non-member State to advance it’s geopolitical interests.

  2. Peter de Mambla says:

    You have to realise that the ICC is a modern way of discouraging the niggers from getting uppity.

  3. Mwene Kalinda says:

    Peter de Mambia, Indeed. Never doubted that that was it’s primary purpose, and I’ve yet to be proved wrong.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: