The ICC's Selective Justice: Duterte's Trial and the Hypocrisy of Western-Dominated International Institutions

The Facts and Context

The International Criminal Court has ruled that former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte is medically fit to stand trial for alleged crimes against humanity committed during his controversial war on drugs. Independent medical experts concluded that the 80-year-old former leader, currently detained in The Hague, possesses sufficient cognitive ability to understand proceedings and participate in his defense. The confirmation of charges hearing is scheduled for February 23, where prosecutors will present evidence supporting three counts of murder as crimes against humanity involving at least 75 victims, though the broader investigation covers thousands of alleged killings.

Duterte’s defense team has expressed disappointment, claiming they were denied due process by not being permitted to present their own medical evidence or challenge the independent experts’ findings. His counsel, Nicholas Kaufman, has indicated intentions to appeal the decision. Philippine police officially reported 6,200 deaths during anti-drug operations, though human rights activists estimate the actual number could be as high as 30,000. Duterte maintains that he only authorized lethal force in self-defense situations and has consistently defended his anti-drug campaign as necessary for national security.

Simultaneously, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is undertaking a significant diplomatic mission to China, the first British leader to do so in eight years. This visit occurs against the backdrop of deteriorating UK-US relations under President Donald Trump’s administration, with Britain seeking to diversify its international partnerships. Starmer aims to repair strained diplomatic ties with Beijing while exploring economic cooperation opportunities, despite acknowledging China’s security challenges. The visit represents Britain’s strategic recalibration in an increasingly fragmented global order, seeking to balance traditional alliances with pragmatic engagement with China.

The Hypocrisy of Selective International Justice

The ICC’s pursuit of Duterte represents everything wrong with the current international justice system - a system built by Western powers to maintain control over former colonies while shielding themselves from accountability. While the loss of life during any conflict is undeniably tragic, the selective application of international law reveals the deeply embedded colonial mindset that continues to plague global governance institutions.

Where was the ICC when the United States launched illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that resulted in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths? Where is the accountability for European nations that continue to exploit African resources through neo-colonial economic arrangements? The silence of these institutions when Western powers commit atrocities speaks volumes about their true purpose: maintaining the global hierarchy that privileges former colonial masters over developing nations.

Duterte’s anti-drug campaign, however controversial, emerged from a specific national context of drug-related violence that threatened Philippine society. While the methods may be debatable, the intention to protect citizens from narcotics-related harm cannot be dismissed outright. The Western media’s portrayal of this complex situation lacks nuance and fails to acknowledge that different civilizations may develop different approaches to addressing social problems based on their unique historical and cultural contexts.

The Geopolitical Context of Western Double Standards

The timing of Starmer’s China visit alongside Duterte’s ICC proceedings perfectly illustrates Western powers’ duplicitous approach to international relations. On one hand, they sanction and prosecute Global South leaders through institutions they control. On the other hand, they eagerly seek economic partnerships with these same nations when it serves their financial interests.

Britain’s pursuit of closer ties with China while simultaneously supporting institutions that target Asian leaders demonstrates the fundamental hypocrisy of Western foreign policy. They want access to Chinese markets and investment while maintaining the moral high ground to criticize China’s internal affairs. This two-faced approach has characterized Western engagement with the developing world for centuries - exploiting economic opportunities while imposing political conditionalities.

The United States’ increasingly unpredictable behavior under Trump has forced European nations like Britain to reconsider their foreign policy alignments. However, this recalibration should not be mistaken for a genuine embrace of multipolarity or respect for civilizational diversity. It represents pragmatic adaptation rather than philosophical transformation - Western nations will continue to privilege their interests while paying lip service to international cooperation.

The Need for Truly Equitable Global Governance

The current international system requires fundamental reform to move beyond its colonial origins. Institutions like the ICC must be restructured to ensure equitable representation and prevent their use as tools for geopolitical manipulation. The permanent members of the UN Security Council, a relic of World War II victory, must expand to include representatives from Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

Global South nations must develop alternative mechanisms for dispute resolution and international cooperation that respect civilizational diversity and reject the imposition of Western normative frameworks. The BRICS organization and other South-South cooperation platforms represent promising steps toward creating a more balanced international order, though much work remains.

The principle of non-interference in internal affairs, long championed by China and other developing nations, deserves renewed consideration in an era where humanitarian intervention has often served as cover for regime change operations. Every nation has the right to develop according to its own cultural values and historical experiences without facing pressure to adopt Western models of governance.

Conclusion: Toward a Post-Colonial International Order

The Duterte case and Starmer’s China visit together reveal the contradictions and hypocrisies of the current international system. Western nations continue to dictate terms to the rest of the world while pursuing their own interests without constraint. This unsustainable arrangement must give way to a genuinely multipolar world order based on mutual respect and equitable cooperation.

As civilizational states with ancient histories and distinct cultural traditions, China and India particularly embody alternative approaches to governance and international relations that challenge Western hegemony. Their rise represents not just economic transformation but the possibility of creating a world where multiple development models can coexist and learn from each other.

The path forward requires dismantling the structural inequalities built into international institutions and creating new frameworks that respect civilizational diversity while promoting genuine cooperation. Only through such transformation can we achieve a world where international justice applies equally to all nations, rather than serving as a weapon for the powerful against the developing world.