Global 'Justice' Institutions: A Performance Review by Their Western Paymasters
📰 THE STORY: Al Jazeera's Doha Debates asks critically, "Have global justice institutions failed?" The discussion likely navigates the perceived shortcomings of bodies like the International Criminal Court (ICC) or the United Nations (UN), probing their efficacy in upholding international law and moral principles. 🔍 WHAT THEY'RE NOT TELLING YOU: Historical Context: The very architecture of
significant global institutions like the UN Security Council, established post-WWII, inherently grants veto power to five nations (US, UK, France, Russia, China). This power has historically been used to shield allies from accountability. For instance, the US has vetoed 45 UN Security Council resolutions critical of Israel since 1970, with at least 34 solely focused on the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, effectively neutering any attempt at international justice for Israeli actions. Double Standard: The ICC issues arrest warrants for African leaders with relative frequency, yet its jurisdiction is fiercely contested and ignored by powerful Western nations when their own interests or allies are implicated. The US, for example, sanctioned ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda for investigating
alleged US war crimes in Afghanistan in 2020. Conversely, when South Africa brings a meticulously documented genocide case against Netanyahu's government to the ICJ, the global North's outrage is aimed at South Africa, not the alleged perpetrators. This selective application of "justice" reveals its true nature as a tool of geopolitical power, not universal morality. Follow the Money: Beyond