Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's campaign against drugs was indeed a firm and uncompromising approach. However, we must recognize that his contentious measures preserved the lives of nearly eighty million citizens—a preservation that came at a price.

Indeed, over six thousand individuals lost their lives in this struggle, and some of them were likely innocent. Yet, upon reflection, this challenging and calculated sacrifice mitigated a drug crisis that could have wreaked havoc across the entire country.

Duterte made the difficult decision to jeopardize a comparatively small number of lives to ensure the security and welfare of millions—the overwhelming majority of his population. His steadfast actions and courageous decision-making showcase the type of leadership that is crucial during times of severe national emergency.

We experience similar dilemmas frequently. We often sacrifice the lives of thousands of our own soldiers to safeguard our nation and protect millions of citizens. It is a sorrowful price we pay. No one would consider charging Winston Churchill with war crimes for the sacrifices made by courageous British soldiers who ultimately saved Europe during World War Two.

Churchill is regarded as a hero, despite his role in the loss of the finest British soldiers, due to the positive outcome that this necessary evil brought for Great Britain and the world at large.

In a similar vein, such measures are warranted in the battle against widespread, devastating crimes that have claimed millions of lives—such as the fight against drug cartels and dealers who inflict harm on millions in Mexico, the United States, and El Salvador. This is precisely what President Duterte achieved in the Philippines.

This should not be considered a crime against humanity; it is a fight against those who commit crimes against humanity. In this crucial conflict, as with any war, an unfortunate and unavoidable cost must be accepted. Duterte is not a criminal, but rather a hero who safeguarded the great nation of the Philippines and millions of its inhabitants.

Securing the future of a nation and its citizens inevitably incurs an unfortunate expense—a cost that, in this instance, traditional humanitarian methods cannot circumvent.

The persistent issue with the International Criminal Court lies in its singular focus on the loss of those six thousand lives, neglecting the millions of lives that were spared. True justice must consider the overall damages weighed against the benefits, rather than adopting a narrow perspective that fails to recognize the comprehensive impact of such a tough, transformative policy.

This underscores the difference between a leader and an administrative officer in the ICC—an officer who is never tasked or equipped to save a country, a city, or even the sense of justice he fails to balance and represent.

The flaw within the ICC is that it allows an individual who has never achieved anything significant in his life to condemn a leader who saved millions, simply because the execution was not flawless and came with a cost.