NEW YORK CITY: Independent experts at the UN on Monday strongly condemned recent US sanctions targeting the International Criminal Court, its personnel and any individuals or entities who cooperate with it.
The sanctions, authorized in an executive order signed by US President Donald Trump on Feb. 6, sparked a wave of global concern for the future of international justice.
The ICC, the world’s top war-crimes court, issued arrest warrants in November last year for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, and Hamas’ military chief, accusing them of crimes against humanity in connection with the war in Gaza.
The court said there was reason to believe Netanyahu and Gallant intentionally targeted civilians during Israel’s military campaign against Hamas in Gaza, and used “starvation as a method of warfare” by restricting deliveries of humanitarian aid to the territory. At the time of the ICC action, the death toll from Israel’s assault on Gaza had surpassed 44,000.
Criticizing the US sanctions against the court, the UN experts said: “The order is an attack on global rule of law and strikes at the very heart of the international criminal justice system.
“The financial restrictions will undermine the ICC and its investigations into war crimes and crimes against humanity across the world, including those committed against women and children.”
Trump’s executive order declares that “any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute protected persons” is a “threat to the national security and foreign policy” of the US. It declares a national emergency in response, demanding that America and its allies oppose any actions by the ICC against the US, Israel or any other nation that has not consented to the court’s jurisdiction.
The UN experts denounced these actions, describing them as a dangerous backward step in the fight for international justice.
The experts included Margaret Satterthwaite, the UN special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers; Francesca Albanese, the special rapporteur on human rights of Palestinians in the occupied territories; Ben Saul, the special rapporteur on the promotion of human rights while countering terrorism, and George Katrougalos, an independent expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order. Their statement was endorsed by several other experts.
“The jurisdiction of the ICC has been clearly defined by the Court itself and recognized through international law,” the experts stated. “By sanctioning the ICC, the United States is undermining the ‘never again’ legacy established after Nuremberg, which has been a cornerstone of evolving international criminal law since 1945.”
The ICC was established in 2002 as the court of last resort to prosecute individuals responsible for the most heinous atrocities worldwide, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and the crime of aggression.
The 125 member states of the court include Palestine, Ukraine, Canada, the UK and every country in the EU, but dozens of countries do not accept its jurisdiction, including Israel, the US, Russia and China.
The experts said the US executive order empowers war criminals and will deny justice to thousands of victims around the world, particularly women and children. It also mocks the global quest to “place law above force” and prevent atrocities, they added.
A core principle of the ICC is its commitment to holding the perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression accountable, regardless of nationality. The experts stressed the importance of maintaining a judicial system in which justice applies equally to all.
“Upholding international law is a shared responsibility that strengthens, rather than undermines, global security, including that of the United States,” they said.
They welcomed the expressions of solidarity from UN member states who have reaffirmed their support for the crucial role the court plays in ensuring the principals of accountability and justice around the globe.
Imposing sanctions on ICC personnel is seen as a violation of the basic principles of judicial independence, said the experts, who pointed out that such action stands as a direct contradiction to human rights protections, specifically the fundamental right of individuals to carry out their professional duties without fear of retribution.
Any attempt to impede or intimidate an official of the ICC is punishable under Article 70 of the Rome Statute, the international treaty that established the court. The US sanctions could be viewed as a violation of this provision, which seeks to protect officials from potential retaliation as a result of their work to administer justice.
The UN experts said they have shared their concerns with US authorities and called for a reevaluation of the sanctions.
Special rapporteurs are part of what is known as the special procedures of the UN Human Rights Council. They are independent experts who work on a voluntary basis, are not members of UN staff and are not paid for their work.
UN experts condemn US sanctions on International Criminal Court and call for reversal
https://arab.news/m2db8
UN experts condemn US sanctions on International Criminal Court and call for reversal
- The sanctions, authorized in an executive order signed by US President Donald Trump, sparked a wave of global concern for the future of international justice
- ‘The order is an attack on global rule of law and strikes at the very heart of the international criminal justice system,’ the experts warn
US signs new health deals with 9 African countries that mirror Trump’s priorities
- US aid cuts have crippled health systems across the developing world, including in Africa, where many countries relied on the funding for crucial programs, including those responding to outbreaks of disease
- The agreements signed so far, with Kenya, Nigeria and Rwanda among others, are the first under the new global health framework, which makes aid dependent on negotiations between the recipient country and the US
JOHANNESBURG: The US government has signed health deals with at least nine African countries, part of its new approach to global health funding, with agreements that reflect the Trump administration’s interests and priorities and are geared toward providing less aid and more mutual benefits.
The agreements signed so far, with Kenya, Nigeria and Rwanda among others, are the first under the new global health framework, which makes aid dependent on negotiations between the recipient country and the US.
Some of the countries that have signed deals either have been hit by US aid cuts or have separate agreements with the Trump administration to accept and host third-country deportees, although officials have denied any linkage.
The Trump administration says the new “America First” global health funding agreements are meant to increase self-sufficiency and eliminate what it says are ideology and waste from international assistance. The deals replace a patchwork of previous health agreements under the now-dismantled United States Agency for International Development.
US aid cuts have crippled health systems across the developing world, including in Africa, where many countries relied on the funding for crucial programs, including those responding to outbreaks of disease.
The new approach to global health aligns with President Donald Trump’s pattern of dealing with other nations transactionally, using direct talks with foreign governments to promote his agenda abroad. It builds on his sharp turn from traditional US foreign assistance, which supporters say furthered American interests by stabilizing other countries and economies and building alliances.
A different strategy
The deals mark a sharp departure from how the US has provided health care funding over the years and mirrors the Trump administration’s interests.
South Africa, which has lost most of its US funding — including $400 million in annual support — due in part to its disputes with the US, has not signed a health deal, despite having one of the world’s highest HIV prevalence rates.
Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, reached a deal but with an emphasis on Christian-based health facilities, although it has a slight majority Muslim population. Rwanda and Uganda, which each have deportation deals with the US, have announced the health pacts.
Cameroon, Eswatini, Lesotho, Liberia and Mozambique also are among those that have signed health deals with the US
According to the Center for Global Development, a Washington think tank, the deals “combine US funding reductions, ambitious co-financing expectations, and a shift toward direct government-to-government assistance.”
The deals represent a reduction in total US health spending for each country, the center said, with annual US financial support down 49 percent compared with 2024.
A faith-based deal in Nigeria, a lifeline for several others
Under its deal, Nigeria, a major beneficiary of USAID funds, would get support that has a “strong emphasis” on Christian faith-based health care providers.
The US provided approximately $2.3 billion in health assistance to Nigeria between 2021 and 2025, mostly through USAID, official data shows. The new five-year agreement will see US support at over $2 billion, while Nigeria is expected to raise $2.9 billion to boost its health care programs.
The agreement “was negotiated in connection with reforms the Nigerian government has made to prioritize protecting Christian populations from violence and includes significant dedicated funding to support Christian health care facilities,” the State Department said in a statement.
The department said “the president and secretary of state retain the right to pause or terminate any programs which do not align with the national interest,” urging Nigeria to ensure “that it combats extremist religious violence against vulnerable Christian populations.”
For several other countries, the new deals could be a lifeline after US aid cuts crippled their health care systems and left them racing to fill the gaps.
Under its deal, Mozambique will get US support of over $1.8 billion for HIV and malaria programs. Lesotho, one of the poorest countries in the world, clinched a deal worth over $232 million.
In the tiny kingdom of Eswatini, the US committed to provide up to $205 million to support public health data systems, disease surveillance and outbreak response, while the country agreed to increase domestic health expenditures by $37 million.
No deal for South Africa after disputes
South Africa is noticeably absent from the list of signatories following tensions with the Trump administration.
Trump has said he will cut all financial assistance to South Africa over his widely rejected claims that it is violently persecuting its Afrikaner white minority.
The dismantling of USAID resulted in the loss of over $436 million in yearly financing for HIV treatment and prevention in South Africa, putting the program and thousands of jobs in the health care industry at risk.
Health compacts with countries that signed deportation deals
At least four of the countries that have reached deals previously agreed to receive third-country deportees from the US, a controversial immigration policy that has been a trademark of the Trump administration.
The State Department has denied any linkage between the health care compacts and agreements regarding accepting third-country asylum seekers or third-country deportees from the United States. However, officials have said that political considerations unrelated to health issues may be part of the negotiations.
Rwanda, one of the countries with a deportation deal with the US, signed a $228 million health pact requiring the US to support it with $158 million.
Uganda, another such country, signed a health deal worth nearly $2.3 billion in which the US will provide up to $1.7 billion. Also Eswatini, which has started receiving flights with deported prisoners from the US
