The United States government has publicly welcomed the decision by the three nations of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) to withdraw from the International Criminal Court (ICC). Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, which formed this alliance in 2023 following their departure from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), have now completed the formal process of leaving the Hague-based judicial body. Washington views this move as an alignment with its long-standing skepticism toward the ICC.
An unexpected alignment between Washington and Sahelian governments
This convergence of interests may come as a surprise. Since political transitions in Bamako, Ouagadougou, and Niamey, the Sahelian capitals have systematically distanced themselves from traditional Western partners, particularly France. The growing ties with Moscow, the expulsion of French military forces, and the renegotiation of security agreements had suggested a complete strategic shift. Yet, the U.S. endorsement of the ICC withdrawal introduces a nuance to this narrative, revealing that transatlantic relations in the region remain shaped by complex, underlying tensions.
The United States has never ratified the Rome Statute, the 1998 treaty that established the ICC. Successive administrations have argued that the court’s jurisdiction could expose American citizens—especially military personnel—to politically motivated prosecutions. This stance has hardened in recent years, with targeted sanctions imposed on certain ICC judges. By applauding the AES decision, U.S. diplomacy not only reinforces a long-held policy but also grants Bamako, Ouagadougou, and Niamey a valuable international endorsement.
ICC faces growing resistance from southern nations
The withdrawal of the three Sahelian states occurs amid rising criticism of the ICC across Africa. For years, voices on the continent have accused the court of applying double standards, focusing disproportionately on African leaders. Burundi took the first step in 2017, while other nations have at times threatened mass departures. The AES initiative now provides a bold political expression of this grievance, led by regimes born from coups and grappling with severe security challenges.
For Sahelian authorities, the primary justification is sovereignty. They portray the ICC as an external imposition, ill-equipped to understand local realities and potentially disruptive to counterterrorism operations. The three countries have faced over a decade of escalating violence from groups linked to Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, with devastating human costs. By leaving the court, these governments aim to preempt any future investigations into their military operations or those of their foreign partners.
A strategic challenge for global justice
The collective withdrawal of three nations from a regional bloc sets a significant precedent. It raises questions about the ICC’s ability to maintain effective jurisdiction in a region where violations of international humanitarian law are well-documented. Reports from non-governmental organizations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have highlighted abuses attributed to both state and non-state armed actors across the Sahel.
The U.S. support for this move could also reshape diplomatic balances. It paves the way for more pragmatic engagement between Washington and transitional governments, which have long been sidelined by European normative frameworks. The implications remain uncertain. The United States retains vital security interests in the Sahel-Saharan belt, particularly in counterterrorism and the monitoring of migration and supply routes. A thaw, even partial, with the AES could serve these objectives without necessarily aligning with European positions.
For the ICC, this development adds to a string of setbacks that undermine its moral authority. Already criticized for slow proceedings and few convictions since its creation, the court now confronts a united Sahelian front and a vocal American ally openly endorsing its fragmentation.