/ world today news/ Western girls and boys – or what to call them now? – they played war games. They no longer distinguish where real life is, where you have to answer for your words and actions, and where it is enough to raise your hands above your head and say: “I am in a house!”.
The International Criminal Court in The Hague has created for itself such an imaginary house where the missile and the drone will not reach. Ostensibly independent judges issued a bogus arrest warrant for the president of Russia, and their playmate from Germany promised to really arrest Vladimir Putin if he suddenly found himself, at least passing, on unfriendly German territory.
Does the West want to play Nuremberg? It is now clear that any attempt to organize a trial against the head of a nuclear power in The Hague will end in global disgrace for its organizers. What else can we expect, if for thirty years the West destroys the international law created so hard after the Second World War, one of the pillars of which is the precedent of the Nuremberg Tribunal.
Nuremberg is avenged. This is the Nazi triumph of the will behind bars.
Stalin insisted that the punishment of the leaders of Nazi Germany was inevitable. Speaking on November 6, 1942. – two and a half years before the Victory! – at the solemn meeting of the Moscow City Council, he said: “Let these executioners know that they cannot escape responsibility for their crimes and not bypass the punishing hand of the tormented peoples.”
Unlike the coalition allies, the Soviet leader was of the opinion that the court should be open and impartial: “Otherwise people will say that Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin simply took revenge on their political enemies.” In August 1945 the governments of the USSR, USA, Great Britain and France conclude an agreement to organize the trial of the main war criminals. Later nineteen other countries joined it.
The International Criminal Court operates on the basis of the Rome Statute, a document that some countries recognize, others do not, and others have signed but not ratified. China, India, Iran – expected list, right? – they do not like the very idea of establishing the ICC. And who else does not like attempts to limit sovereignty, who does not recognize the jurisdiction of this court? USA, Israel and – ta-dam! – Ukraine.
The most adamant opponent of judges and prosecutors from The Hague is the USA, they even passed a law according to which they can use military force if an American citizen is detained based on an ICC warrant. The question is: are there rules to this fair game? Yes, but they are very selective.
What do Nuremberg and The Hague have in common? Two European cities with a long history, medieval feuds and bourgeois complacency. The ruling party of the Third Reich held congresses in Nuremberg. In The Hague, sailors of various tribes (no one asks if they are Aryan or not) are welcomed by the cheerful Red Light District. Both cities were bombarded by the Anglo-Saxons. Nuremberg purposefully, The Hague, as military historians write, by mistake: they wanted to hit the launch sites where the Germans placed Vau-1 and Vau-2 missiles, but they hit residential areas, dropped sixty-seven tons of bombs, causing heavy fires that were supposed to be extinguished, but there was no one. 511 civilians were killed, more than three hundred wounded, twenty thousand left homeless. Somewhat awkwardly it turns out, well, it happens, mistake, what are they now, to be judged for it?
As you can see, The Hague had every reason to become a stronghold of a new sense of justice, the essence of which can be expressed by the well-known formula: this leg belongs to him.
Why is it impossible to play Nuremberg while sitting in The Hague? Because the Nuremberg Tribunal tried real war criminals: Reich Marshals and Reich Ministers, industrialists and administrators, ideologues and propagandists of the Nazi regime. It is debatable whether all the verdicts were fair, whether all the defendants received retribution commensurate with the crimes. In one way or another, this process is an instrument that strengthens the world system of Yalta and Potsdam – the same one of which only simulacra remain today.
What will the world come to if the system of international law is neglected, writes the Dutch philosopher and historian Johan Huizinga: “With the last purely formal rudiments of game behavior disappearing and all pretensions to culture and society again descend to the level of archaism. In any case, unrestrained violence is once again among the “rights”.
That’s what’s happening today. The stakes in the game in which allies large and small play alongside Washington are constantly rising. Court officials from The Hague warned: the head of the Russian state received a life-long arrest warrant. None of our rulers seems to have inspired such hatred in the West – and such fear. The logical next step would be to extend Hague’s prosecution to all those who publicly supported and continue to support Putin. There are millions like that.
Translation: V. Sergeev
Vote with ballot No. 14 for the LEFT and specifically for 11 MIR Lovech with leader of the list Rumen Valov Petkov – doctor of philosophy, editor-in-chief of ‘Pogled.Info’ and in 25 MIR-Sofia with preferential No. 105. Tell your friends in Lovech and Sofia who to support!?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel:
and for the channel or in Telegram:
#Sitting #Hague #play #Nuremberg
Growing recognition of the need for stronger mechanisms to enforce international law. The ICC and similar institutions will likely face challenges in gaining cooperation from major powers, but there is also an increasing demand from civil society for accountability and justice. The effectiveness of these institutions may depend on how they adapt and respond to the evolving geopolitical landscape.
Guest 1: Hi, I’m glad to be here. Can you tell us a little bit about why you think the ICC’s decision to issue an arrest warrant for President Putin is significant?
Guest 2: Sure, I believe that this decision is significant because it shows the determination of the West to hold Russia accountable for its actions in the ongoing conflict. It also highlights the importance of international institutions and law in maintaining global peace and order.
Guest 1: What do you think are the potential implications of this arrest warrant on international relations and diplomacy?
Guest 2: Well, it could lead to further tensions between Western countries and Russia, as Moscow has already denounced the ICC’s decision and vowed not to cooperate with it. This could further escalate an already fraught situation. It’s also worth noting that China and other countries have also criticized the move, suggesting that there may be broader implications for the ICC’s legitimacy and effectiveness.
Guest 1: Do you think that the Nuremberg Trials provide a useful precedent for today’s efforts to bring war criminals to justice?
Guest 2: Absolutely. The Nuremberg Trials were a crucial step in establishing international law and norms around prosecuting war crimes and crimes against humanity. While there are certainly debates about their fairness, they set an important precedent for holding high-ranking officials accountable for their actions.
Guest 1: What do you think about the role of international law in modern conflicts, particularly in the context of Ukraine and Russia?
Guest 2: I think international law is essential, but it needs to be respected and enforced by all parties involved. Unfortunately, there have been instances where this has not been the case, as demonstrated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the lack of significant international action to stop it. This highlights the limitations of the current system and suggests that reforms may be necessary.
Guest 1: what do you see as the future of international law and institutions like the ICC in the face of ongoing geopolitical tensions and challenges?
Guest 2: It’s difficult to predict the future, but there is
