Comment by timcobb
1 year ago
> South Africa asks ICC to exempt it from Putin arrest
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2YY1E6/
SA does not really present itself as an earnest or true actor in the sphere oh human rights.
1 year ago
> South Africa asks ICC to exempt it from Putin arrest
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2YY1E6/
SA does not really present itself as an earnest or true actor in the sphere oh human rights.
> SA does not really present itself as an earnest or true actor in the sphere oh human rights.
Well, who does?
Among the major players in world politics I can't see any country with a clean reputation on human rights.
Disclaimer: I am Brazilian, a country with an horrible record of police brutality, of farmers killing indigenous people and environmental activists and an hypocritical ambivalence towards Putin's crimes. And that goes to the previous right-wing and current left-wing governments.
I mean, sure. Personally, I’m a relativist. It’s just weird to see the country that recently bent itself backwards—like no other country—to let Vladimir Putin into its territory (it was reported they even considering leaving the ICC), is now bringing suit in the ICC for arguably less worse crimes than Putin. SA was not just apathetic to the genocide/domicide in Ukraine, it basically went out of its way to be party to it. Now it’s taking Israel to court. strange. Sure, many countries are still dealing with Russia, but only SA is dealing with Russia _and_ bringing countries to The Hague at the same time.
"for arguably less worse crimes than Putin"
How many civilians have died in the Ukraine and in Gaza?
"to the genocide/domicide in Ukraine"
That's very frivolous use of the word 'genocide'.
"Now it’s taking Israel to court."
Don't you think that it should have been done by the countries which took Russia to the court? They have done nothing. Strange.
8 replies →
SA is dealing with Russia, so it might want to help Russia’s allies, and one of them is Iran who incidentally dreams of nothing less than, well, wiping Israel off the map with wiping out Jews as a cherry on top. Oops.
It’s all a tangled mess and I wouldn’t haste to take everything diplomats say at face value.
1 reply →
Arresting a head of a nuclear-armed state ? One that does not subscribe to the ICC ? How moronic would one have to be ?
Amusingly, the Biden govt had no issues officially supporting the ICC to deliver a ruling against Russia despite the US not being a party to the ICC themselves. That's like having your cake and eating it too.
None of China, India, Russia, and the United States are parties to the ICC.
> South Africa asks ICC to exempt it from Putin arrest
"to avoid war with Russia" was how the rest of that headline went, along with two quotes about how Russia said such an arrest would be considered an act of war.
While I would welcome Putin's arrest, I can't exactly fault South Africa for saying they'd rather not go to war.
They can avoid arresting Putin by not allowing a plane with Putin to land in South Africa.
Well it didn't. Putin never ended up going there, he attended the BRICS summit remotely.
There's 0 chance of Putin get arrested if he lands in SA. This is international law summarized in one sentence
> SA does not really present itself as an earnest or true actor in the sphere oh human rights.
Adversarial justice systems are an approach to dealing with the fact that individual actors in a system (including states in the international system) tend to be self-interested rather than earnest or true consistent advocates of the notional rules of the system.
And the US had threatened military force and sanctions should ICC ever decide to go after American. So what's your point?
The US actually put sanctions on the members of the ICC. [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat...
> SA does not really present itself as an earnest or true actor in the sphere oh human rights.
If Putin is arrested in a foreign country, you'll have the largest nuclear weapons arsenal in the world staring down at the very existence of that nation. No country would do this, however earnest they may be about human rights. Neither will it be fair to expect anyone to do this.
> If Putin is arrested in a foreign country, you'll have the largest nuclear weapons arsenal in the world staring down at the very existence of that nation
Eh, or not. Putin isn’t Russia. Depending on timing, it might be a convenient time for a change in government. They could then demand his remittance, where he would no doubt get lost along the way or have a change of heart about his place in public policy.
That said, the prudent thing to do is that which was done. Barring Putin from entering South Africa.
"you'll have the largest nuclear weapons arsenal in the world staring down at the very existence of that nation"
Do you really think that Russian government and military would kill in cold blood tens of millions of people over Putin's fate?
Besides, they would be too busy jockeying for power after Putin is out of the game.
So you want to play a game of Russian roulette? If you and your kind are the only potential victims I'd say go for it. Otherwise thanks but no.
3 replies →
True
Nation states are often immoral and hypocritical
The outrage from the USA at the invasion of Ukraine, when the invasion of Iraq is a crime of the same magnitude - both dreadful stains on humanity
Most recently the international support for the actions of the IDF whilst condemning Russian actions in Ukraine
SA is just normal in this regard
From a narrow, legalistic perspective Iraq was in material breach of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 in 2003 and so the invasion was justified on that basis. I am not arguing that the invasion was right (or even remotely a good idea), just that it was never firmly established as illegal under any treaty in force at the time. By contrast, there was never even a fig leaf of a legal justification for Russia's invasions of Ukraine in 2014 and 2022.
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/478123?ln=en
>"so the invasion was justified on that basis"
Bullshit. There was nothing in the resolution that called for war. The most it had said was in tune of - you must comply and if you don't we will report you. No particular enforcement.
the resolution is here - https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF...
>"it was never firmly established as illegal"
Really? It was an act of aggression. It is illegal by definition unless the UN had explicitly decided otherwise which I believe it did not.
> The outrage from the USA at the invasion of Ukraine, when the invasion of Iraq is a crime of the same magnitude.
I was certainly against it in 2003. The WMDs were bullshit. A war on "terror" is farcical. The profiteering and the industrial military complex, etc.
But I did later come around to the idea of getting Saddam and his government to stop genociding the Kurds.
Of course you should always assume a country like the US to be self-serving in its actions, but it's not as if it was taking additional land as its own, as is the case with Russia and Israel. Iraq was never going to be the 51st state.
Yeah, they invaded Iraq, destabilized the country, and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. No biggie.