Uhuru Kenyatta - How Elites Commit Suicide

 In 2002, the United States "unsigned" the Rome Statute, indicating that they no longer  have legal obligations arising from their signature of the statute. In 2003, the United States led a 'coalition' of countries to invade the sovereign territory of Iraq. In this coalition were the following countries:

1. United Kingdom
2. Australia
3. Japan
4. Poland
5. Bulgaria
6. Georgia
7. Denmark
8. Italy
9. Netherlands
10. Spain

Again: all of the above signed up to the Rome Treaty that established the international criminal court and, since this invasion, by definitions established by the same legalistic system that set up the ICC, can be comfortably described as a war crime [1,2], all having a case of joint criminal enterprise to answer [3,4] .

To date - i.e. from 2003 up until 2014 - none from the political leadership of the countries above has been named by the Hague based court as a person of interest.

On December 2010, the Kenyan President, Uhuru Kenyatta was identified as a suspect for crimes against humanity by the international criminal court. This was based on reports that following the disputed elections of 2007,  he had given support to those who had commited violence. While at first he rejected the accusations, on October 2014, Mr Kenyatta gave himself over to the jurisdiction of the ICC.

Now, as can be expected, this apparent act of self-abnegation has met with the approval of those NATO-based 'human-rights' entities who usually have a say when the time comes to decide who is (and who is not) deserving of alms from the generous coffers of NATO's civil and military outreach components (i.e. Aid). And since Mr Kenyatta and his cronies are highly dependent on alms from NATO countries, it kind of makes sense that he is willing to play his scripted part in the further validation of the so-called international criminal court to sit in judgement over supine nations.

Mr Kenyatta's is described as a scripted role because there can be no doubting his eventual cleansing by the court. His appearance is based on assurances given about the outcome of this show-trial. In other words, Mr Kenyatta gets what he thinks he needs to ease his sojourn through the lush valleys of the new world order and the court gets what it needs. Which is the validation that comes from being seen to be active over a period of time. This is what the ICC needs as it proceeds on its way to becoming the self-appointed and undisputed chamber of final and dreadful judgement for non NATO-compliant elites. Keeping in mind the fact that perception is more often than not reality, it becomes easy to overstand the utility of having elites from 'under-developed' countries like Mr Kenyatta standing in front of the 'lords' of the ICC.

In nigeria, if it were not the case before, it can now be expected that fear of the court's power will influence policy. The war against boko haram's insurgency will be fought with increased apprehensive glances towards those directions from which the percieved majesty of the ICC 'lords' may descend without warning upon the heads of elites. Subtle warnings have already been given in the form of media-based discussions about the probability that nigeria's military has been commiting 'war-crimes'.

So what can we expect? Well, for a start, we can expect that 'leaders' who so far have not shown the slightest recognition of the fact that all current relationships in trade and development are skewed against our interests to suddenly begin devising and implementing policies that will be to our collective benefit. They are sold to foreign interests and they will remain sold because they know that to step out of line will see them in front of an ICC 'milord'.  At best, as a last resort to retain whatever crdibility they still have as 'leaders', we can expect them to participate in a scripted event of the type that Uhuru Kenyatta is currently starring in.  

REF:
1: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/02/law-f27.html
2: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-bush-blair/
3: http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/03/31/joint-enterprise-a-definition/
4: http://www.mpil.de/files/pdf3/mpunyb_02_bigi_14.pdf