I think that takes the ICC's record over almost twenty years to four black Africans and... and nobody else.
That's right! While the ICC's mandate is to prosecute genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, the ICC can only find these heinous crimes among black Africans.
Latest heinous war criminal to be exposed is Ahmed al Mahdi. His crime? He ordered the destruction of some historical mausoleums in Timbuktu.
Yup, he's admitted that he is a war criminal. The story got big-time press all over the Nations of Virtue. Even my Globe and Mail had a fawning editorial about how great this breakthrough was for the cause of humanity and civilization.
As well it should be... after all, what could be a worse case of war crimes or genocide or crimes against humanity than ordering the destruction of historical artefacts that Western elites consider "important?"
Which is where this story confuses me.
If ordering the destruction of historical artefacts is a "war crime," what is causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians with a brutal sanctions regime?
What is it when you cause tens of thousands of Iraqis to die in an illegal invasion?
What is it when you destroy entire societies like Libya and Syria?
Apparently, whatever it is when you do those things, it doesn't rise to the level of "war crime" or "crime against humanity."
No, because if it did, we'd have to ask why Tony Blair and George W. Bush and Barack Obama aren't being prosecuted for their crimes against humanity.