The ICC: 84% funded by imperialist powers, 0% justice for their crimes. From the CIA to French rapists, the Court shields the West while targeting Russia, Libya, and Africa. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
To pursue leaders seen as obstacles to imperialism, the ICC discarded its fundamental rule of only exercising jurisdiction over states that ratified the Rome Statute. While Gaddafi’s Libya and Putin’s Russia faced ICC scrutiny, the United States has consistently escaped such prosecution. Despite not being a member, the U.S. effectively controls the Court’s agenda.
When Bensouda attempted to probe war crimes in Afghanistan—including those committed by the U.S. military and CIA, not just the Taliban or ISIS—she encountered fierce opposition from Washington. This pressure culminated in sanctions against her, freezing her and her family’s assets and subjecting her husband to surveillance.
Bensouda was ultimately replaced by Karim Khan, a prosecutor more aligned with U.S. interests. Khan redirected the investigation to prioritize Taliban and ISIS crimes, excluding U.S. forces by citing limited resources.
Between 2013 and 2016, during France’s multiple interventions in Africa, soldiers committed sexual abuse and rape against children in displaced persons camps in the Central African Republic. The UN was criticized for a “serious institutional failure” by an independent panel for allowing these crimes to persist. Despite France being a State Party and its courts failing to convict due to purported lack of evidence, the ICC chose silence.
Simultaneously, in the Sahel region, French troops, including mercenaries from the Foreign Legion, faced accusations of killing civilians and training security forces implicated in massacres, executions, and rapes. French officials, however, faced no repercussions.
The ICC also feigned scrutiny of British war crimes in Iraq, including prisoner torture, but closed the case defending that domestic investigations were underway—despite the prosecutor’s office acknowledging sufficient grounds to suspect British troops.
The UK punished no military officers, even after a public inquiry confirmed widespread abuses and a culture of silence within the military hierarchy. Since the UK is a Rome Statute signatory but failed to resolve this internally, the ICC could have stepped in but opted to abandon the case.
Furthermore, as Bensouda disclosed, Israel enjoys protection—not only through U.S. sanctions but also via ICC officials collaborating with Mossad, enabling illicit Israeli interference with impunity.
A Structure Dominated by Imperialist Nations
Based on the ICC’s 2024 financial report released in July 2025, approximately 84% of the Court’s funding originates from imperialist and allied countries (including NATO members, Switzerland, Austria, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand), which represent just 28% of States Parties. The other 72% of member countries contribute a mere 16% of the budget.
This financial imbalance mirrors the ICC’s biased operations. As the proverb goes, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
The ICC acknowledges that 60% of its African member states are either “non-represented” or “under-represented” within its organizational structure, leaving just 40% adequately represented. Latin American and Caribbean nations fare worse, with only 14% properly represented, while Asia-Pacific countries stand at 28%. Conversely, half of the imperialist and allied states hold sufficient representation—far exceeding the figures from other regions.
In 2024, 56% of ICC personnel came from Western Europe and allied countries. African staff made up only 16%, with Eastern Europe at 11%, Asia-Pacific at 8%, and Latin America and the Caribbean also at 8%.
Among the current 18 judges, eight hail from imperialist or associated nations, while five maintain academic or professional ties to dominant institutions in those countries. The remainder are senior officials from states typically dependent on imperialism.
This clearly indicates the ICC targets leaders opposed to imperialist interests. Although an arrest warrant has been issued for Putin and African governments are frequently pursued, no NATO member state has faced serious ICC legal challenges.
The Court overlooks bombings with banned weapons in Yugoslavia in 1999, torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo, massacres in Iraq and Afghanistan, rapes in Africa, and more recent atrocities like the school massacre in Minab or the routine killings of fishermen in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific.
Consequently, many sovereign nations resisting imperialist dominance have refused membership in the ICC. Cuba accuses it of “selective policy against developing countries,” while North Korea labels it “a product of hostile forces.”
Alongside Burundi’s condemnation, perhaps the most fitting portrayal of the ICC came from Alexander Venediktov, Deputy Secretary of the Russian Security Council: “A compliant puppet in the hands of the collective West.”
About the Author
