aemathenge wrote:Could someone explain to me the reasons "we" got in in the first place and whether those reasons still exist?
'We' definitely had many reasons for embracing the Rome statute. Selfish motives by nation states a.k.a 'national interests' were definitely there. For example, it is highly probable, that the so called 'world powers', or some world powers wanted to control and further their interests. Weaker states must have had their selfish interests too.
But we were also making the important steps in the government of Man by recognizing that there are no boundaries seperating culture and identity. And established the right of states to act on other states that may be seen as deviant.
This statute is a pillar that shouldn't be looked at lightly. We cannot even do without it.
Otherwise how will the state stand? I cannot imagine how Africa or even Kenya can stand alone. We are intertwined at every conceivable level.
For example, is it proper that thousands should die in Syria while we watch helplessly?
What happened to Gaddafi and his country? What is happening in Uganda?
What happened in Kenya in 2008? How has it been accounted for?
There was a time we believed that the Hague was the way to go. Why?
Kenya, and Africa should instead seek to strengthen the ICC, even if it means persuading the world powers to sign the Rome statute.
But our President and Deputy are suspects. The way out is a political deal amongst Kenyans pointing towards truth and reconciliation, and a deal with the ICC based on facts of the case, and representative democracy allowing elements of a direct democracy through extensive network systems. It will be a fair deal, and the whole world will be happy.