Vladimir Putin missed the G20 summit in India, avoiding any risk of criminal detention under an ICC arrest warrant.

Brazil’s Lula backtracks on Putin arrest safety at Rio G20

Putin missed the G20 summit in India, avoiding any risk of criminal detention under an ICC warrant for alleged war crimes.

Published On 11 Sep 202311 Sep 2023

Brazil’s leader has withdrawn his personal assurance that Russian President Vladimir Putin would not be arrested if he attends next year’s Group of 20 summit in Rio de Janeiro, saying it would be up to the judiciary to decide.

President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva also questioned Brazil’s membership in the United Nations war crimes court, saying on Monday “emerging countries often sign things that are detrimental to them”.

“I want to know why we are members but not the United States, not Russia, not India, not China,” Lula said. “I’m not saying I’m going to leave the court. I just want to know why Brazil is a signatory.”

Putin missed this year’s G20 gathering in the Indian capital, New Delhi, avoiding possible political opprobrium and any risk of criminal detention under an International Criminal Court (ICC) warrant.

In March, the ICC announced an arrest warrant for Putin over the war crime accusation of unlawfully deporting Ukrainian children. The Kremlin denies the accusations insisting the warrant against Putin is “void”.

Russia issued an arrest warrant for Karim Khan, the prosecutor at The Hague-based war crimes court, in May and he was added to the “wanted list” of its Ministry of Internal Affairs.

‘The judiciary decides’

Brazil is a signatory to the Rome Statute, which led to the founding of the ICC. Lula raised eyebrows at the weekend when he told Indian news network Firstpost: “If I’m the president of Brazil and if he [Putin] comes to Brazil, there’s no way that he will be arrested.”

He changed tack on Monday at a press conference in Brazil telling reporters: “I don’t know if Brazil’s justice will detain him. It’s the judiciary that decides, it’s not the government.”

Putin has skipped recent international gatherings and sent his Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to New Delhi instead for the September 9-10 G20 meeting, even though India is not an ICC signatory.

On Saturday, the G20 nations adopted a declaration that avoided condemning Moscow for the war in Ukraine but called on all states to refrain from using force to grab territory.

The next summit is slated for November 2024 in Rio de Janeiro and Lula said he hoped “by then the war is over”.

    • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      35·
      10 months ago

      As an American, we should sign the treaty, and we should remand people to The Hague if they’re indicted for war crimes. The US needs to stop carving out exceptions for itself in contexts like this. It’s frustratingly contradictory with our stated desire to reinforce the modern rules-based geopolitical order - and I’m certain it’s quite a bit more than “frustrating” for non-Americans to watch.

    • Kbin_space_program@kbin.social
      23·
      10 months ago

      The republican party didn’t want to take responsibility for war crimes.

      President Bill Clinton was critically involved in setting the thing up, but left office before he could sign it.

      Dubya, aka president George Bush, then pulled out of it entirely unless they baked in perpetual blanket immunity for the US. Notably this was before 9/11, legalizing torture, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

    • Rapidcreek
      9·
      10 months ago

      The US has their own justice system. War crimes are taken to US courts, offenders prosecuted and jailed. What the US doesn’t do is wait for international courts to act.

            • Rapidcreek
              1·
              10 months ago

              That’s why it’s gitmo. It’s not under US law. If it was those prisoners would have other kinds of rights that we don’t want them to have.

              Last US War crime I can remember was Clint Lorance who k I liked some Afgan villagers. He was serving a 19 year sentance, and was pardoned by Trump.

                • Rapidcreek
                  1·
                  10 months ago

                  I didn’t say it was okay. But I do understand it. We call them unlawful combatants. That is a specific term akin to pirate. You can, by law, do anything you want to a pirate on the high seas. They have no rights. That’s old British law and international law. So, by calling them that we imprisoned them in a place not in this country so they would have no rights. US laws do not apply. Screwed up? SURE.

                  • hoodatninja@kbin.social
                    9·
                    10 months ago

                    Dude, I understand the logic behind Gitmo, we have all had 20 years to figure it out. That’s not the point. You said we are in line with a International laws, but we bend and break them at will constantly, because the US can essentially shrug and go “what are you gonna do about it?” We do it all the time. We are seen as one notch better than a schoolyard bully by many countries. Gitmo is grey area at best partially because we would never let another country do that to our citizens.

              • cnnrduncan@beehaw.orgEnglish
                6·
                10 months ago

                Oh yeah the US breaking the Geneva Convention by fucking torturing people to death totes didn’t break international law

                • Rapidcreek
                  2·
                  10 months ago

                  The Geneva Convention is a treaty, signed by the US. It’s Tennant can be found in US military law.