Have you read through their case? It's pretty weak in my opinion. They seem to think that any war with a high number of casualties and insufficient humanitarian aid counts as genocide. By their standard the US committed "genocide" against Japan in WW2, arguably Germany too.
The person isn’t saying that Germany committed genocide during WW2, which is obviously true, but pointing out that by the above definition of genocide, the US committed genocide against Germany and Japan during WW2.
I’m also not sure why SA would want to “gain brownie points from the people who support Hamas”. Wouldn’t they want to earn brownie points from those who support Israel, like the US, who they’d benefit more from?
> 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.
Hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed in Ukraine.
Putin is explicitly aiming to destroy Ukrainian national identity, which is genocide. He has disappeared countless people in the occupied territories… literally, countless, no one knows how many because rights orgs don’t operate there. He’s indicted by the ICC for stealing children from occupied territories to solve the Russian “demographic crisis,” and to remove the future generation of Ukrainians. There’s nothing frivolous about this, ask a Ukrainian. See Putin’s many speeches, including from February 24, to this effect, he doesn’t believe Ukrainians or Ukraine has a right to exist, and believed that Ukrainians can be dispensed with like subhumans.
"Mortality reporting is a crucial indicator of the severity of a conflict setting, but it can also be inflated or under-reported for political purposes. Amidst the ongoing conflict in Gaza, some political parties have indicated scepticism about the reporting of fatalities by the Gaza Ministry of Health (MoH).
The Gaza MoH has historically reported accurate mortality data, with discrepancies between MoH reporting and independent United Nations analyses ranging from 1·5% to 3·8% in previous conflicts. A comparison between the Gaza MoH and Israeli Foreign Ministry mortality figures for the 2014 war yielded an 8·0% discrepancy.
Public scepticism of the current reports by the Gaza MoH might undermine the efforts to reduce civilian harm and provide life-saving assistance." [0]
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
If I were South African, I'd want my government to not risk nuclear annihilation (or even blackmail) - however small the risk may be.
And if you aren't South African, and especially if you live in a country under NATO's nuclear umbrella, you have no business telling them they should risk their lives (for whatever reason).
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.
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 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.
Well, we could conclude with this logic that all countries are politically motivated. After all, the countries that condemned the Russia's invasion of Ukraine were also the countries that abstained from supporting the South Africa’s genocide case against Israel.
Moreover, it should not be forgotten that there is a much bigger number of civilians deaths in Gaza than Ukraine. In one month the number of deaths surpassed civilian casualties in Ukraine war. There is a more serious problem there than in Ukraine.
This is the same government that was just months prior going to quit the ICC so they could host Putin. They have no credibility, and frankly, no fucking power for most of the day. Utterly failed state.
I will say this: SA is a deeply troubled country, but for once I think the ruling government has actually done a good thing by pursuing this.