The Bloody Handshake: Failing to Condemn War Criminals
By Maksym Valchuk
1/11/2024
On 17 March 2023, the International Criminal Court made a historic decision - an arrest warrant was issued against Vladimir Putin. Putin is allegedly responsible for the war crimes concerning unlawful deportation of population (children) and unlawful transfer of population (children) from the occupied territories of Ukraine to the Russian Federation (under Articles 8(2)(a)(vii) and 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute).
Since then, the Russian ruler has focused on his visits to countries that don't comply with the Rome Statute - these states are not obliged to arrest him before the ICC. Putin's most notable diplomatic 'successes' were his visits to China and North Korea.
Mongolia could have shown its commitment to international law in early September when Putin paid an official visit to the country. There were few hopes that Mongolia, which balances its neutrality between China and Russia, would be able to make with this occasion a bold political move. But the world waited, and it didn't happen - after the visit Putin went back to Moscow and not The Hague. The government’s spokesman later explained that the country is dependent on Russian energy, so they couldn't 'handcuff' Putin at the airport. (However, the question of the link between energy dependence and obligations under international law remains open.)
On 24 October, the ICC's Pre-Trial Chamber II found that Mongolia had failed to cooperate with the Court and deemed it necessary to refer the matter to the Assembly of States Parties. It is now up to the ASP to determine the legal consequences for Mongolia. However previous examples of non-cooperation under the Rome statute, showed that the system is lacking provisions in sufficient addressing and combating non-cooperation by the States.
On 22-24 October, the BRICS 2024 Forum took place in the Russian city of Kazan. Together with the leaders of China, Iran and Turkey, the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres paid a visit. In one of his tweets, Mr Guterres stressed that in Kazan he had called for a just peace in Ukraine in accordance with the UN Charter, international law and the General Assembly's resolutions.
"I emphasised that everywhere we must uphold the values of the UN Charter, the rule of law and the principles of sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity of states," Guterres said. However, Russia has its own vision of what constitutes just peace, sovereignty and regional security, so Mr Guterres' generalities leave plenty of room for Russian propaganda about 'pre-emptive strikes', 'NATO within its 1997 borders' and 'Russia's territorial integrity' (with Ukrainian-occupied territories in 2014 and 2022).
Nonetheless, the image of Guterres shaking hands and exchanging smiles with war criminal and ICC arrest warrant holder Vladimir Putin is truly shocking in its legitimisation of evil. Not only did Mr Guterres violate ethical and moral rules, but also UN rules which in general prohibit any meetings between United Nations officials and persons who are the subject of arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court. No ceremonial meetings should be held with such persons, nor should standard courtesy calls be made. The same applies to receptions, photo opportunities, attendance at national day celebrations and so on.
Antonio Guterres’ visit to Russia and meeting with Vladimir Putin was extremely damaging to the UN's image and reputation, as the Secretary-General legitimised this way a person who started a bloody war in Europe and whose army committed crimes against humanity. If the UN's top official can meet with a war criminal, should it be considered a “business as usual” agenda again?
Even though a UN spokesman explained that there were valid reasons for holding the meeting—highlighting that it would be conducted under strict conditions to address only operational matters, particularly in relation to indicted personnel—this justification for a senior official’s engagement with an ICC arrest warrant holder still leaves many questions unanswered.
If Mr Guterres wanted to talk to Putin behind closed doors, why were there official ceremonial parts with handshakes and pictures in front of the BRICS banner with the war criminal? And why did this necessary visit take place during the summit used by Putin to create an anti-Western, totalitarian axis? By doing so, Mr Guterres legitimised Putin’s actions and blatantly disregarded the grief of all Ukrainians who have lost their loved ones as a result of Russia's war against Ukraine.
The two stories above point to the need for fundamental reform of the institutions that are supposed to be the guardians of international peace, democracy and justice. The UN Secretary General attends forums organised by war criminal, while the ICC and the UN Security Council lack have adequate means to punish countries for non-cooperation with international arrest warrants. The role of Antonio Guterres in negotiating a sustainable peace for Ukraine can be best described by the Lithuanian Foreign Minister, Gabrelius Landsbergis:
“Guterres is no longer accepted as an honest broker, and if he decides to resign, we would certainly not be the ones to discourage him from doing so”.