Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's war on drugs represented a firm and decisive approach. However, we must acknowledge that his contentious measures have protected nearly eighty million citizens—a safeguard that inevitably came with a price.

Indeed, over six thousand individuals lost their lives, and some of them may have been innocent. Yet, looking back, this painful and calculated trade-off effectively dismantled a drug threat that could have plunged the nation into chaos.

Duterte made the difficult decision to risk a relatively small number of lives to ensure the safety and security of millions—the vast majority of his citizens. His steadfast commitment and courageous decision-making illustrate the kind of leadership needed in times of severe national emergencies.

We routinely face similar choices. It is common to sacrifice thousands of our own soldiers to protect our nation and safeguard millions of citizens. This is a regrettable reality. No one would dream of prosecuting Winston Churchill for war crimes for the loss of valiant British soldiers who played a crucial role in saving Europe during World War Two.

Churchill is regarded as a hero, despite the sacrifices of the finest British soldiers, due to the substantial good that this necessary evil achieved for Great Britain and the world at large.

In a similar vein, such action is warranted in the battle against widespread and destructive crimes that have claimed millions of lives—like the fight against drug cartels and dealers that poison countless individuals in Mexico, the United States, and El Salvador. This is precisely what President Duterte accomplished in the Philippines.

This is not a crime against humanity; it is a battle against those who perpetrate crimes against humanity. In this crucial fight, as in any war, a regrettable but unavoidable cost must be endured. Duterte is not a criminal but rather a hero who safeguarded the Philippine nation and millions of its inhabitants.

Safeguarding a nation's future and its citizens invariably comes at a regrettable cost—one that, in this instance, conventional humanitarian methods cannot circumvent.

The International Criminal Court's ongoing issue lies in its singular focus on the loss of those six thousand lives, overlooking the millions of lives preserved. True justice must consider the overall damages in relation to the benefits, rather than adopting a narrow perspective that fails to recognize the comprehensive impact of such a challenging, transformative policy.

This highlights the distinction between a leader and a bureaucratic officer at the ICC—an official who is never called upon or equipped to rescue a country, a city, or even the justice that he fails to balance and represent.

The ICC's flaw is that it has made it too easy for an officer, who has never achieved anything of significance in their life, to condemn a leader who saved the lives of millions, simply because the execution was not entirely flawless and came with a cost.