**Title: Former Duterte Spokesman Critiques ICC's Role in Global Justice**
In a recent interview with RT, Harry Roque, the former spokesman for Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, expressed strong criticism of the International Criminal Court (ICC), claiming that it is being used by Western powers to maintain control over their former colonies. Roque's remarks come in the wake of Duterte's first public appearance since his arrest in March 2025 and subsequent transfer to The Hague, following an ICC warrant that alleges crimes against humanity related to his controversial war on drugs.
Roque highlighted what he perceives as a double standard in the application of justice by the ICC, noting that to date, the court has predominantly prosecuted individuals from African nations. He stated, “At the time Duterte was charged, only African individuals have been tried... by the court.” This observation underscores a growing concern regarding the ICC's perceived focus on certain regions while seemingly neglecting actions taken by leaders from Western nations.
The former spokesman pointed out that no sitting or former leaders from the United States or Western European countries have faced indictment by the ICC. This absence has led to accusations of selective justice, particularly among members of the African Union, who have voiced their frustrations with the court's operations. Roque argued that this situation contributes to a narrative in countries like the Philippines that the ICC functions as a tool for former colonial powers to exert influence over newly independent states.
Roque elaborated on this perspective, stating, “The powers behind the ICC want their former colonies to stand in line, but they don’t want their own nationals to be subjected to justice.” His comments suggest a belief that the ICC's actions are not only about justice but also about maintaining geopolitical power dynamics.
Additionally, Roque characterized the ICC as having a “schizophrenic personality,” claiming that while it aims to provide international justice, it does so in a context where several of the world’s most powerful nations, including Russia, China, India, and the United States, remain outside its jurisdiction. These countries have not ratified the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC, which Roque argues creates an inherent imbalance in the court's ability to enforce its mandates effectively.
The implications of Roque's statements are significant, as they raise questions about the legitimacy and impartiality of international legal institutions. He asserted that the current imbalance in the ICC's jurisdiction is unlikely to change unless nuclear-armed nations agree to submit to its authority.
As the international community continues to grapple with issues of accountability and justice, Roque's critique of the ICC reflects broader concerns about the effectiveness and fairness of international legal frameworks, particularly in the context of post-colonial relationships. The discourse surrounding the ICC's role may influence future discussions on reforming international justice mechanisms to ensure they are equitable and representative of all nations, regardless of their historical contexts.
Duterte's ongoing legal challenges and the broader implications of Roque's comments will likely remain a topic of discussion as the ICC continues to navigate its role in global justice.