SA lambastes the US over sanctions against ICC judges
The South African government has strongly slammed the United States for imposing sanctions on judges of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Image: UN Photo/ICJ-CIJ/Frank van Beek
THE South African government has lambasted the President Donald Trump administration for imposing sanctions against judges of the International Criminal Court (ICC), a move regarded as a sheer act of intimidation against the court's decision to issue a warrant of arrest for the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
In a media statement laced with diplomatic speak from the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (Dirco), the government expressed a 'deep concern' at the latest move against the ICC.
Throughout recent years, US relations with the ICC have zig-zagged between quiet support to downright hostility. And now, under the Trump administration, relations have deteriorated to naked confrontation.
Back in February, Trump imposed sanctions on the ICC prosecutor, Karim Khan. This was as Trump issued an executive order against the ICC, claiming that the court 'has engaged in illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America and our close ally Israel'.
Last week, on June 5, the Trump administration moved further against the ICC. Secretary of State Marco Rubio imposed new sanctions on four ICC judges. Two of the judges had authorised an investigation into the US activities in Afghanistan, where for 20 years, the US military had occupied the country with the aim of keeping the Taliban out of power as punishment for masterminding the 9/11 attacks in New York.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Ad loading
The other two judges had approved the warrant of arrest for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his former Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant.
The Dirco statement read: 'These measures, in addition to those imposed earlier on the Prosecutor (Khan) represent a direct affront to the principles of international justice and the rule of law. Such punitive actions against judicial officers performing their mandated duties are regrettable and they undermine the independence of the ICC and threaten the integrity of international legal institutions.'
The South African government has been fearless and relentless in pursuit of justice against the State of Israel's 'genocidal' campaign in the Palestinian Gaza Strip. So far, Israeli troops have killed more than 60 000 Palestinians since October 2023 following Hamas's rare attack on Israeli territory, killing more than 1 000 people and kidnapping dozens. Israel's disproportionate response has enjoyed a huge US-led Western support, almost unconditionally.
South Africa hauled Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). By so doing, South Africa courted the ire of Washington, resulting in the expulsion of Pretoria's former envoy to Washington, Ebrahim Rasool.
And now, South Africa is once again at the forefront of calling out Washington's bluff, defending the independence of the ICC, especially its intimidated judges. The move is in line with SA's foreign policy, which is premised on being on the side of the weak against the powerful.
On the US sanctions against the ICC judges, the South African government said they are intended 'to hinder the court and its personnel in the exercise of their independent judicial functions'.
South Africa is a founding member of the ICC, which was established through a treaty better known as the Rome Statute. The US, meanwhile, has never become a party to the Rome Statute. Pretoria further lambasted Washington as follows, saying it views 'the sanctions and previous threats as an attempt to intimidate and obstruct the court's efforts to hold perpetrators of the most serious crimes accountable'.
Pretoria further said the ICC's mandate is to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression when national jurisdictions are unwilling or unable to do.
Given the stature of the US as the world's largest economy, in addition to being the country with the world's biggest military, South Africa taking on Washington is akin to David taking on Goliath.
I don't hold the ICC's Khan in any brief. Methinks the ICC has for far too long been a useful tool at the disposal of the Western powers against adversaries, real or perceived.
Under Khan, the ICC has gained a reputation for going predominantly after African leaders. And now that Trump is squeezing its leadership, for many people who have had a bone to chew with the ICC, it feels like the chickens have come home to roost.
The ICC, especially while led by Khan, must work hard to rid itself of the accusations my hordes of Global South nations that it is a tool of the Global North against weaker states of Africa in particular.
Judicial independence is sacrosanct. The ICC is learning the hard way that to dabble in sectarian politics is tantamount to playing with fire. Now, as South African artist Caiphus Semenya sang, 'fire is burning them', to paraphrase him.
The jury is still out on how far the ICC and Khan can go against US allies such as Netanyahu. Clearly, due to their own previous actions, looks like the ICC is caught between a rock and a hard place. They damned if they go against Israel, and damned if they don't. But then again, their conundrum is of their own making. As they say, he makes the bed, lies in it.
I am certain that the ICC has very few friends in Africa and across the Global South. They will have to see how they can untangle themselves from the spider web. They will have to it with much support from Africa.
As for South Africa, the country deserves a lot of praise for its consistency in pursuit of justice against Israel's waywardness.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
an hour ago
- The Citizen
Here's why Rasool won't be able to help ANC reclaim the Western Cape
Political analysts say Rasool's extensive experience may not be enough to bolster the ANC's campaign ahead of the upcoming elections. ANC, SACP and Cosatu members welcome former South African Ambassador to the US Ebrahim Rasool at the Cape Town International Airport on 23 March 2025 in Cape Town. Picture: Gallo Images/Die Burger/Theo Jeptha The Western Cape is a lost cause to the ANC, whether or not South Africa's former ambassador to the US, Ebrahim Rasool, comes to its rescue. Political analysts argue that Rasool could not gain ground for the ANC when he was previously the provincial leader in the province. They added that it will be more difficult now because many Western Cape voters, particularly coloureds, have found new and more attractive political homes. The Western Cape, which has been dominated by the DA for 16 years, has become a formidable challenge for the ANC. Can Rasool rescue the ANC? The analysts believe that even Rasool's potential involvement, with his extensive experience, diplomatic prowess, and his role as the province's former leader, may not be enough to bolster the party's campaign efforts in the upcoming elections. The landscape is increasingly challenging now with new dynamics. The ANC faces an uphill battle to reclaim ground that has slipped from its grasp since the DA ousted it in 2009. ALSO READ: Mapaila says SACP to contest 2026 elections as standalone party, Ramaphosa warns against the move Independent political analyst, Goodenough Mashego, gives the ANC no chance of reclaiming the Western Cape. Asked if Rasool could rescue the party now that he had returned after his controversial exit as the country's envoy in Washington, Mashego said: 'The return of Rasool is not going to get them the votes. The ANC used to own the coloured votes in the Western Cape because of Alan Boesak and others, but it has since lost those votes to other parties. 'It would be unwise of the ANC to impose a coloured leader merely to win an election. Many coloured people had permanently abandoned the ANC and joined other parties, old and new. 'I think the Western Cape is a lost cause for the ANC, I don't think Rasool is going to salvage them,' he said. Mashego said the ANC lost the plot when it put black African leaders instead of coloured ones in the forefront after those leaders toppled Rasool as the ANC provincial chairperson. He said Rasool's exit left a vacuum that would be difficult for anyone to fill. He said many of the ANC's coloured voters were disgruntled after Rasool's removal and joined other parties, such as the DA, Independent Democrats, Patriotic Alliance and other coloured-inclined parties. ANC recovery 'highly unlikely' This view was shared by political economy analyst Daniel Silke, who said it's too late for the ANC to even imagine retaking the Western Cape. 'It's a very long haul for the ANC to claw back any semblance of hope that it can get close to a majority in the Western Cape. Western Cape voters have systematically left the ANC in previous elections, with the last election being its lowest performance for the party to date. I think the ANC's recovery, ultimately, to a position of threatening the DA is highly unlikely,' Silke said. He added that the ANC brand had been severely dented, both in the Western Cape and nationwide. The province itself has an additional dynamic that complicates the ANC position. The DA, the Patriotic Alliance and other smaller parties have 'provided potential ANC voters with other choices and perhaps more attractive choices as well'. ALSO READ: A fight for survival: Next political moves will be crucial ahead of 2026 elections Mashego said the ANC has lost ground in the province since Boesak's days in the Western Cape, and the party is unlikely to recover soon. If Rasool were to return as the face of the ANC in the province, he would have no choice but to carry the coloured race card in an attempt to attract voters, but that could tarnish his image and damage his legacy. 'Rasool is a coloured person, but I don't think he is capable of really building very strong structures of the ANC that can contest the DA and other coloured parties,' Mashego said. Rasool better suited to national politics He suggested that Rasool should be deployed at the national level, perhaps at the Department of International Relations and Co-operation, where his experience as a former ambassador would be better used. According to Silke, Rasool was not universally liked within the Western Cape ANC during his reign as provincial leader and premier. Instead, the ANC became divided and polarised around him. 'So, in terms of being a unifying candidate, it's not a given that he can achieve that. I think we are in for fragmented politics in the Western Cape – the DA clearly remains the ascendant power in the Western Cape. However, I think for the ANC it's a hard slog and an unlikely slog to think that it could get back into the seat of power unless it is part of a much broader coalition following a surprise decline for the DA, but I don't necessarily see that happening in any dramatic form in the near future,' he said. NOW READ: WATCH: 'I will wear my persona non grata as a badge of dignity,' says expelled Rasool
eNCA
an hour ago
- eNCA
Marines deployed in LA ahead of mass anti-Trump protests
USA - Armed Marines arrived on the streets of Los Angeles Friday, part of a large deployment of troops ordered by Donald Trump that has raised the stakes between the US president and opponents claiming growing authoritarianism. Men in fatigues and carrying semiautomatic rifles were seen around a federal building, where passersby questioned why they were in an area 11 miles (18 kilometers) from the protests against immigration raids. "Taxpayer dollars could be used for other things," RonNell Weaver told AFP. "Is this really necessary?" AFP witnessed Marines temporarily detaining one man at the federal building before they handed him over to law enforcement. The US military would not say why he was detained, despite multiple requests, but the incident appeared to be a minor - albeit extremely rare - example of federal troops detaining a US civilian. Seven hundred Marines - normally used as crack troops in foreign conflicts - along with 4,000 National Guard soldiers are tasked with protecting federal buildings, while local police handle protests over Trump's sweeps for undocumented migrants. An intense legal battle is underway over Trump's authority to deploy troops on US soil as the country braces for widespread protests Saturday, when the Republican will be overseeing a rare large-scale military parade in Washington. The parade celebrates the 250th anniversary of the US Army but also coincides with Trump's 79th birthday, and will be the first time tanks and other heavy weaponry have rolled through the capital city in three decades. In response, a "No Kings" movement has sprung up promising to stage protests in more than 2,000 places across the country, including a large demonstration expected in Los Angeles, which organizers say will feature a "20-foot-tall balloon of Trump wearing a diaper." "Unprecedented" crowds could attend, Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell told reporters Friday. Los Angeles County Sheriff Robert Luna, whose deputies are part of a large law enforcement response in the enormous city, urged protesters to behave properly. "It's a good cause, but we do not want violent agitators out there destroying property or committing acts of violence," he said. - California v Trump - In a show of political force, Trump overrode the objections of Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom to deploy California's National Guard. The president has repeatedly exaggerated the scale of violence, claiming that without troops, Los Angeles would be "burning to the ground right now." On Thursday, District Judge Charles Breyer ruled Trump's actions were "illegal" and ordered that he return control of the guard to Newsom. Breyer said the LA unrest fell "far short" of the "rebellion" Trump had described. However, a higher court quickly paused the order pending an appeal hearing with the Trump administration next Tuesday. The Department of Justice slammed Breyer's ruling as "an extraordinary intrusion on the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief." The dispute mirrors multiple other tussles over Trump's attempts to expand the limits of presidential power -- but is the first to involve troops. - Hamlet - Many in Los Angeles are angry about immigration raids carried out as part of Trump's ambition to deport vast numbers of undocumented migrants from the country. About 100 mostly good-natured protesters gathered Friday evening outside the federal detention center in Los Angeles that has been at the heart of the rallies, ahead of a nightly curfew placed on the downtown area by Mayor Karen Bass. In a sign of how contained the demonstrations have been, however, those attending a performance of "Hamlet" - Shakespeare's play about a mad prince - and other shows at nearby venues were exempt from the curfew. Outrage at Trump's raids and the use of masked, armed immigration agents backed by uniformed soldiers have also sparked protests in other cities, including San Francisco, New York, Chicago and San Antonio, Texas. Tensions hiked further Thursday when California Senator Alex Padilla, a Democrat, was handcuffed and forcibly removed from a news conference by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
IOL News
6 hours ago
- IOL News
Trump's white South African resettlement plan and the global colour line
The narrative that white South Africans are victims of racial persecution has long circulated in far-right echo chambers, sustained by groups like AfriForum and amplified by conservative US media. Yet no credible human rights body has substantiated claims of systematic violence or oppression based on race in South Africa. Image: File/X THE arrival of over 3 000 white South Africans in the United States under President Donald Trump's fast-tracked refugee resettlement programme is a racial spectacle of historic proportions. Framed by Trump as a rescue mission from 'racial discrimination' and even 'genocide' in post-apartheid South Africa, the scheme repackages whiteness as victimhood while reasserting racial hierarchies through the veneer of humanitarian concern. Cheryl Harris's seminal concept of 'whiteness as property' is especially instructive here. This programme protects not the displaced, but the entitlements embedded in whiteness — land, social status, and the right to global mobility. These arrivals, facilitated under a controversial executive order, mark the first time in US history that white South Africans have been accepted en masse as refugees. The move has drawn intense scrutiny, with South African Foreign Minister Ronald Lamola dismissing the claims as 'unfounded and inflammatory'. He clarified that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had no involvement and had consistently found no basis for refugee status for white South Africans. 'The resettlement of South Africans under the guise of being 'refugees' is a political project to delegitimise our democracy,' Lamola asserted. The narrative that white South Africans — particularly Afrikaner farmers — are victims of racial persecution has long circulated in far-right echo chambers, sustained by groups like AfriForum and amplified by conservative US media. Yet no credible human rights body has substantiated claims of systematic violence or oppression based on race in South Africa. In February 2025, Trump signed Executive Order 14152: Addressing Egregious Actions of the Republic of South Africa, suspending non-essential aid. He cited South Africa's land reform policies and its support for Palestine at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as evidence of 'anti-white discrimination'. His language echoed apartheid-era rhetoric, framing land expropriation without compensation — a constitutional measure designed to redress historical injustice — as proof of racial targeting. This is not a story about humanitarian rescue. It is about the repackaging of privilege as persecution. Trump's administration, by reclassifying specific 'South African communities' for humanitarian parole, has revived the settler-native divide. As Mahmood Mamdani has noted, this manoeuvre casts descendants of apartheid's beneficiaries as 'refugees' and South Africa itself as the oppressor. Achille Mbembe's critique of global humanism is relevant here: the programme renders Black suffering invisible while privileging whiteness as a passport to refuge and legitimacy. Consequently, while Black refugees languish in camps, whiteness is deemed inherently worthy of protection, effectively enacting a form of apartheid within the asylum system itself. The 1951 Refugee Convention defines a refugee as someone fleeing a 'well-founded fear of persecution.' Neither the Convention nor US law has ever interpreted this to include the loss of economic dominance or historical privilege. Fleeing land redistribution or reduced social status does not amount to persecution, especially when these changes are legally enacted by a democratic society seeking to correct historical wrongs. The parallels to earlier racial engineering are striking. In 1932, the US-sponsored *Carnegie Poor White Study* analysed the 'problem' of poor whites in South Africa. The initiative was not rooted in concern for poverty but in preserving white supremacy. The report warned that poor whites threatened the racial order and recommended state interventions to uplift them, while black South Africans were systematically excluded from similar support. This laid the foundation for apartheid's white welfare state and established a pattern of American intervention when white South Africans faced hardship, real or perceived. Trump's resettlement scheme is the 21st-century iteration of this pattern. White South Africans are framed not as beneficiaries of a violent racial order, but as victims of transformation, worthy of rescue. South Africa's Constitutional Court recently affirmed that acquiring foreign nationality — whether through refugee resettlement or otherwise — does not automatically strip someone of South African citizenship. In a landmark ruling, the Court struck down a section of the Citizenship Act that had quietly revoked citizenship without due process, calling the move irrational and unconstitutional. However, the case of these white South Africans is unique. Their refugee claims are based on false premises and a political agenda. South Africa may therefore have grounds to argue that accepting the US offer constitutes a voluntary renunciation of citizenship. The Constitutional Court's ruling on dual citizenship might not protect them in this politically charged context. Nowhere is the hypocrisy more glaring than in the American South. In the Mississippi Delta, six Black farmworkers filed a federal lawsuit in 2021 after being replaced by white South Africans brought in under the H-2A visa programme. The plaintiffs, many descended from enslaved people who built Southern agriculture, earned just $7.25 per hour — the federal minimum wage — while their white South African replacements were paid over $11. The lawsuit alleges that these Black workers were forced to train their replacements, who were then housed in better accommodations and elevated in status simply because they were white. Between 2011 and 2020, the number of South Africans on H-2A visas increased by 441%, making them the second-largest national group in the programme. The majority are white. The message is clear: in the racial calculus of US capitalism, white foreign labour is worth more than black American lives. Mexican seasonal workers, once the backbone of US agriculture, are also increasingly excluded — both by border walls and by labour policies that privilege whiteness over need. The result is a reshuffling of the global racial order, disguised as economic necessity. Trump's South African refugee programme is less about humanitarian concern and more about reaffirming a hierarchy of global suffering, where privilege continues to mask itself as victimhood. What we are witnessing is the reinforcement of a global colour line — one where whiteness retains its claim to mobility, safety, and opportunity, while blackness and brownness are rendered threats to be contained. The implications are profound: Refugee systems that prioritise whiteness over need. Economic visas favour white foreign farmers over Black citizens. Historical privilege is purposely mistaken for victimhood. This is not humanitarianism. It is neo-colonialism in motion. As the world watches Trump engineer the next stage of global apartheid, we must ask: What kind of refugee is it when only the privileged are welcome? When does skin colour ration citizenship, safety, and opportunity? If the notion of 'refuge' is to mean anything, it must centre justice, not historical comfort. Siyayibanga le economy! * Siyabonga Hadebe is an independent commentator based in Geneva on socio-economic, political and global matters. ** The views expressed here do not reflect those of the Sunday Independent, Independent Media, or IOL.
