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.
Join us on Telegram
, Twitter
, and VK
.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
In order to persecute rulers deemed inconvenient to imperialism, the ICC overrode its own basic principle: limiting its jurisdiction to countries that ratified the Rome Statute. Yet while Gaddafi’s Libya and Putin’s Russia became targets of the ICC, the United States has remained immune. And it has demonstrated that, even while not being a member of the Court, it is the one truly in command.
When Bensouda sought to investigate war crimes in Afghanistan — not restricting her inquiry to the actions of the Taliban and the Islamic State, but also including what she viewed as the greatest perpetrators of that war (the U.S. military and the CIA) — she came under intense pressure from Washington, pressure that ultimately resulted in government sanctions. Her and her relatives’ bank accounts were frozen, and her husband was subjected to surveillance.
Eventually, Bensouda was replaced by a new prosecutor compliant with the United States. Karim Khan altered the focus of investigations into Afghanistan, declaring that priority would be given to the Taliban and ISIS while the United States would no longer be prioritized, citing a lack of resources for a broader undertaking.
During one of France’s many military interventions in Africa this century (between 2013 and 2016), soldiers raped and sexually abused children in displaced persons camps in the Central African Republic. The UN, although it devoted limited attention to the case, was accused of a “serious institutional failure” by an independent commission for having allowed the atrocities to continue. The ICC — which could have intervened, since France is a State Party and French magistrates failed to convict any soldier due to an alleged lack of evidence — preferred to remain silent on the matter.
During the same period, amid its intervention in the Sahel, French soldiers — including mercenaries from the Foreign Legion — were accused of murdering civilians and training and arming security forces responsible for massacres, summary executions, and rapes. French leaders likewise had little to fear.
On the other hand, the ICC even pretended to examine war crimes committed by the United Kingdom in Iraq, including the torture of prisoners. But it justified closing the case by claiming that British authorities were already conducting domestic investigations — even though the Office of the Prosecutor itself acknowledged there was a “reasonable basis” to believe British troops had committed war crimes.
The United Kingdom punished no officers, even though a later public inquiry concluded that there had been widespread violence and an institutional silence — in other words, responsibility reaching high military ranks. Since the United Kingdom had not truly been capable of concluding the matter, the ICC could have intervened, given that London is party to the Rome Statute. But the ICC once again washed its hands of the issue.
Now, as Bensouda revealed, Israel is also protected — and not only through U.S. sanctions, but also through the actions of an ICC bureaucracy working hand in glove with the Mossad, allowing direct and illegal Israeli interference without taking any action against it.
A Structure Dominated by Imperialist Nations
According to data made available in the ICC’s latest financial report, referring to 2024 and published in July 2025, it is possible to calculate that around 84% of the Court’s total funding comes from imperialist and associated countries (NATO members, Switzerland, Austria, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand). Yet together they account for only 28% of the Court’s States Parties. Meanwhile, the remaining countries (72%) contribute just 16% of the Court’s budget.
There is a clear structural imbalance in the ICC’s financing. Naturally, this is directly related to the Court’s partial conduct. As the saying goes, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
The ICC itself considers that 60% of African countries that belong to it are “non-represented” or “under-represented” in its internal structure. In other words, only 40% have some form of representation. For Latin American and Caribbean countries, this percentage is even lower: only 14% of the Court’s members are adequately represented. For Asia-Pacific countries, the figure is 28%. By contrast, half of the imperialist and associated countries are properly represented, a far higher percentage than in the other regions.
According to a report by the Assembly of States Parties, 56% of ICC staff in 2024 came from the group composed of Western European and related countries. Only 16% were African, 11% came from Eastern Europe, 8% from Asia-Pacific, and 8% from Latin America and the Caribbean.
Among the Court’s current 18 judges, eight belong to imperialist and associated countries, and five maintain academic and/or professional ties with hegemonic institutions in those countries. The others are senior state bureaucrats, generally from countries whose state apparatus is intrinsically dependent on imperialism.
Thus, it is clear that the ICC’s victims will always be leaders who are inconvenient to imperialist powers. While even Putin has had an arrest warrant issued against him by the Court and African governments remain its preferred target, no NATO country has ever been seriously troubled by ICC proceedings.
The bombings using prohibited weapons in Yugoslavia in 1999, the torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo, the massacres in Iraq and Afghanistan, the rapes in Africa, or, more recently, the massacre at the school in Minab and the weekly killings of fishermen in the Caribbean and the Eastern Pacific, do not concern ICC judges.
For this very reason, the majority of sovereign countries that refuse to kneel before imperialism have never joined the ICC. Cuba accused the Court of pursuing a “selective policy against developing countries.” North Korea described its maneuvers as “a product of hostile forces.”
But together with Burundi’s declaration, perhaps the best definition of what the ICC is came from the Deputy Secretary of the Russian Security Council, Alexander Venediktov: “A compliant puppet in the hands of the collective West.”
Login
