Why did the @washingtonpost publish an editorial on the #ICC and #China by an author, @ivanastradner, who doesn't understand the most basic aspects of how the Court functions? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/12/28/iccs-failure-investigate-china-genocide-is-vast-moral-failure/

1. The #ICC has no territorial jurisdiction over #China’s #genocide of the #Uighur. It has territorial jurisdiction over US crimes in Afghanistan.

2. The OTP acknowledged jurisdiction over Chinese actions in member-states and explained why it can’t prove deportation as a CAH.

3. Even if the OTP could prove deportation, that is the only CAH it could charge. It would still be unable to charge genocide, which the author insists it must.

4. The idea that the US’s efforts to investigate CIA crimes in Afghanistan satisfy complementarity is risible. It is nowhere near enough for the US to “prosecute[] several individuals” (all low-level, of course). And in any case CIA crimes are part of a much larger situation.

The author literally spends 90% of the editorial complaining that the OTP is not investigating crimes over which the #ICC has no jurisdiction. And that is the ICC-related editorial the @PostOpinions deigns to publish. Very disappointing.

A friendly suggestion: perhaps the US could promise not to use its veto in atrocity situations and convince the rest of the P5 to do the same. Then the Security Council could refer #China's (real, ongoing) #genocide of the #Uighur to the #ICC.

I’m not going to hold my breath.