Brazilā€™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

Brazilā€™s leader has withdrawn his personal assurance that Russian President Vladimir Putin would not be arrested if he attends next yearā€™s Group of 20 summit in Rio de Janeiro, saying it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 Brazilā€™s membership in the United Nations war crimes court, saying on Monday ā€œemerging countries often sign things that are detrimental to themā€.

ā€œI want to know why we are members but not the United States, not Russia, not India, not China,ā€ Lula said. ā€œIā€™m not saying Iā€™m going to leave the court. I just want to know why Brazil is a signatory.ā€

Putin missed this yearā€™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 ā€œvoidā€.

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 ā€œwanted listā€ of its Ministry of Internal Affairs.

ā€˜The judiciary decidesā€™

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: ā€œIf Iā€™m the president of Brazil and if he [Putin] comes to Brazil, thereā€™s no way that he will be arrested.ā€

He changed tack on Monday at a press conference in Brazil telling reporters: ā€œI donā€™t know if Brazilā€™s justice will detain him. Itā€™s the judiciary that decides, itā€™s not the government.ā€

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 ā€œby then the war is overā€.

  • Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    Ā·
    1 year ago

    This is what happens when youā€™re wanted for war crimes. The reason the US, Russia, India and China are not members is the the possibility of needing to hand over citizens to the Hague.

    • Vilian@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      2
      Ā·
      1 year ago

      so US donā€™t want to take reponsability for their own war crimes?

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        2
        Ā·
        1 year ago

        As an American, we should sign the treaty, and we should remand people to The Hague if theyā€™re indicted for war crimes. The US needs to stop carving out exceptions for itself in contexts like this. Itā€™s frustratingly contradictory with our stated desire to reinforce the modern rules-based geopolitical order - and Iā€™m certain itā€™s quite a bit more than ā€œfrustratingā€ for non-Americans to watch.

      • Kbin_space_program@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        Ā·
        1 year ago

        The republican party didnā€™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@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        30
        Ā·
        1 year ago

        The US has their own justice system. War crimes are taken to US courts, offenders prosecuted and jailed. What the US doesnā€™t do is wait for international courts to act.

    • Redcuban1959 [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      Ā·
      1 year ago

      Nobody is going to arrest the leader of a nation with Nuclear Weapons.

      why they donā€™t do the same for Bush, Cheney, Blair, etc.

      Iirc the USA said the didnā€™t care about Hague and that they would invade netherlands if they ever tried to arrest a US politician or general.

      The United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Act authorizes the President of the United States to use ā€œall means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Courtā€. This authorization led to the act being colloquially nicknamed ā€œThe Hague Invasion Actā€, as the act allows the President to order U.S. military action, such as an invasion of The Hague, where the ICC is located, to protect American officials and military personnel from prosecution or rescue them from custody.

  • agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    Ā·
    1 year ago

    If Putin was more open to diplomacy then heā€™d probably be safer from international arrest, since it would kill diplomacy to speak of arresting the person youā€™re negotiating with. But if youā€™re the one who killed diplomatic efforts yourself, well you gotta imagine theyā€™re thinking of other ways to deal with you.

  • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    Ā·
    1 year ago

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

    This does not make sense. India is not a signatory to the Rome Statute.