“[Speaker Johnson] said that if the ICC is allowed to threaten Israel's leaders, then we know that America will be next. Our response is: Of course!" Pandor exclaimed.
  • noisefree@lemmy.worldEnglish
    14·
    5 months ago

    Setting aside (but stating) my stance that Israel’s policy of collective punishment against innocent Palestinian civilians is completely wrong and thus unconditional support from the US government for Israeli actions is also wrong - South Africa isn’t a good faith actor here.

    What was South Africa’s official position last summer, as a signatory to the Rome Statute that established the ICC and thus a nation obligated to arrest those with an ICC arrest warrant that step foot in their territory, about honoring their obligation to execute an arrest on the ICC warrant issued for Putin for war crimes should he step foot in their territory? It almost seems like they’re trying to distract from something or are maybe working towards mutual goals with some other entity (or entities) behind the scenes… Hmm.

      • noisefree@lemmy.worldEnglish
        6·
        5 months ago

        I’m aware of how it turned out, but, for the sake of clarity, I was speaking about a month prior to that outcome where the President of South Africa made it clear that he would now allow Putin to be arrested in the event that Putin chose to attend in person. Assuming his statements were straight forward, I even get the logical underpinnings of what he was saying here - it just seems an odd contrast for the SA government to turn around and champion the ICC months later. It’s hard to take a country that recently publicly pragmatized away the need to uphold the legitimacy of ICC authority seriously when they’re now using the ICC as a threat. Another country would be better to lead the charge here on behalf of the ICC.

        • FlowVoid@lemmy.worldEnglish
          5·
          5 months ago

          South Africa also failed to arrest Omar Al Bashir, who is charged with genocide by the ICC.

          It was very clear from the beginning that South Africa would not only be breaking international law by allowing Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir to fly out of a military base but would be going against its own courts.

    • nogooduser@lemmy.worldEnglish
      16·
      5 months ago

      It means as much as it does for Isreal who also doesn’t participate in the ICC.

      Technically, any American who is convicted (I’d imagine it could be President Biden and Anthony Blinken who they would try to prosecute) cannot travel to ICC countries otherwise they’d be arrested.

      Even if they were tried and convicted nobody would do anything about it.

      Can you imagine the shit show that would ensue if someone tried to arrest the US President as he visits their country.

    • jet@hackertalks.comEnglish
      8·
      5 months ago

      I guess I need to explain this for the down voters.

      For the same reason the security council includes the most powerful nations on Earth, as permanent security members, who can veto anything… At the global level military capability is the main factor. ICC is a fun rule of law experiment, and it’s a great way for the powerful to punish those falling out of favor, but the ICC cannot be used to punish the powerful.

      Nobody is going to start a world war, to enforce ICC rule of law. That’s exactly why nuclear power’s have veto power on the security council.

      There is no military attached to ICC decisions, only signatories, who will enforce it as its convenient.

      This is a big reason countries don’t sign the ICC, they’re not willing to commit themselves to the jurisdiction of a third party. Unwilling to let someone else commit them to military action, which arresting a head of state would be a de facto cause belli for war.

      Look at how much fun Canada had when they arrested a Huawei executive on behalf of the United States… They sure as shit won’t be doing that again any time soon.

    • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      5 months ago

      Sanctions against America are enforced by the only country that can defeat America: itself. And if that doesn’t work, maybe like a unified Taliban and Viet Cong coalition? I’m not sure. We’ll cross that bridge when we get there.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldBEnglish
    2·
    5 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:

    South African International Relations and Cooperation Minister Naledi Pandor affirmed US House Speaker Mike Johnson’s prediction that the United States would be next if the International Criminal Court (ICC) is allowed to prosecute Israeli leadership, the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) reported on Friday.

    Pandor’s comments were addressed to an audience at a mosque in Cape Town, South Africa, MEMRI noted.

    In the MEMRI video, the South African minister donned a black and white checkered keffiyeh and stood in front of a Palestinian flag.

    During a news conference last month, Johnson told reporters that “if the ICC is allowed to threaten Israel’s leader, we know that America will be next.”

    Speaking to the press in Tel Aviv, US Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) echoed Johnson’s warning.

    Pandor noted that a group of 140 international lawyers are currently working on a class action suit against non-Israelis, including South Africans, who have been serving in Israel’s military.

    The original article contains 336 words, the summary contains 156 words. Saved 54%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!