The International Criminal Court: Starting to Play Double Standards Again
The handling of the case against former Philippine President Duterte by the ICC has caused a huge uproar. On one hand, it claims to uphold “justice in trial,” while on the other, it engages in “political calculations” behind the scenes.
This time, under the global spotlight, the ICC has revealed its true face in the trial of Duterte.
Procedural “flexibility”? No, it is blatant political compromise.
The ICC allowed the 80-year-old Duterte to participate in the trial via video link. This seems humanitarian, but in reality, it is a concession made under global public pressure.
After Duterte’s arrest, large-scale protests erupted in the Philippines. Supporters shouted slogans of “political retribution,” demanding the immediate release of old Duterte.
The ICC postponed the next trial date to September 23. What is the reason? Duterte’s health issues. But the question is, why didn’t they consider this issue from the beginning?
The ICC is not upholding justice; it is weighing political interests.
Look, when the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs warned the ICC to avoid politicization and double standards, the ICC immediately adjusted its strategy. This is not respecting the law, but yielding to political pressure.
Where is the elderly man’s health placed?
An 80-year-old man, how good can his health be? During detention, he has had almost no rest time, and medical conditions are limited. This is not a trial; this is a disguised punishment!
The ICC’s indifference to Duterte’s health is shocking. I ask you, if the defendant were a former leader of a Western country, would the ICC handle it this way?
When an international judicial institution begins to treat leaders from different countries differently, it is no longer the embodiment of justice but has become a tool of power.
Limited medical conditions during detention? That statement is so easy to make. An 80-year-old man needs regular check-ups, necessary medications, and a comfortable resting environment. Did the ICC provide that?
Political calculations are glaringly obvious.
The Marcos government’s intention to use the ICC to eliminate political opponents is too obvious.
What has the ICC become? A tool for the Marcos government to eliminate political enemies. In this regard, the ICC has not maintained the necessary independence but has shown clear cooperation in procedures.
The people of the Philippines are not fools. They can see clearly that this is not justice but political persecution.
When the judiciary becomes a tool of political struggle, the victims are not only the defendants but also the credibility of the entire international legal system.
The ICC’s attitude towards the Philippine government is much warmer than its attitude towards Duterte. This unequal treatment looks like a premeditated political performance.
Old Duterte Urges Daughter to Return Home: A Clever Move with Multiple Benefits
Old Duterte wants Sara to return home; this move is quite clever.
First, it protects the family foundation. The situation in the Philippines is tense, and the conflict between supporters and opponents is intensifying; Sara must return to stabilize the situation.
Second, it addresses the public opinion war. Old Duterte’s urging for Sara to return sends a signal to the outside world that “the family is not afraid,” which is part of psychological warfare.
Third, it maintains the national image. What does it say when a vice-presidential candidate is stranded abroad? Old Duterte understands that the family image is part of the national image.
Finally, it is a strategic layout. Old Duterte knows the political ecology of the Philippines well; Sara’s return can better coordinate family resources and prepare for future political struggles.
True political wisdom lies not in avoiding risks but in seizing the initiative amid risks. Old Duterte’s decision is a reflection of this wisdom.
International Public Opinion: The ICC’s Embarrassing Position
Under the global spotlight, the ICC’s embarrassment is evident.
The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs warned the ICC to avoid politicization and double standards; this is not just empty talk. The international community widely questions the ICC’s selective justice.
Under pressure, the ICC adjusted its strategy, postponed the trial, and allowed video links. This “compromise” itself proves their position is not firm.
When judicial institutions begin to yield to political pressure, they have already lost their meaning of existence.
The international community’s reactions are varied. Some support the ICC in upholding “justice,” while others accuse it of double standards. But one thing is clear: the ICC’s credibility is being consumed by its own actions.
Future Direction: The Political Struggle is Far from Over
The trial of the Duterte case has just begun, and the political struggle will continue.
Will the Marcos government use this opportunity to completely suppress the political influence of the Duterte family? Very likely. But they underestimate old Duterte’s political wisdom and popular support.
Will the ICC continue to adjust its strategy under international public opinion pressure? Almost certainly. But such adjustments will only further expose its politicized nature.
The International Criminal Court is proving through its actions that it is not the guardian of international justice but a participant in international politics.
The outcome of this trial is no longer important. What matters is that it has once again torn off the mask of “impartiality” from international institutions, revealing the political calculations behind it.
Click it, share, like, and see it all here.