ICC signed its own death warrant

Until World War II, history used to be cruel to the defeated. This began to change when the world order created in the Post-War period began to make it possible to condemn any country that violates the UN rules that make a clear distinction between illegitimate military aggression and a just military reaction in case of violated territorial sovereignty.

The victorious powers in World War II have the right of veto. Therefore, since the UN was created, the US, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom have always been above the rules, because they can simply veto Resolutions that condemn their imperialist military aggressions.

In general, we can say that the post-war international order oscillates between the predominance of order and the expansion of chaos. For decades, the nuclear powers avoided cataclysmic conflict and tried to create conditions for as peaceful coexistence as possible, and strove to preserve the UN. In extremely delicate situations, they at least did not fail to preserve the appearance that the UN is indispensable.

This reality was completely changed during the discussion of the Resolution that authorized the US and its allies to attack Iraq militarily. All the arguments raised by US officials at the UN were forgeries, malicious versions of unsubstantiated facts, or simply outright lies. Weapons of mass destruction did not exist. Saddam Hussein's regime posed no regional or global danger. He had no part in masterminding, organizing or funding the attack on the WTC.

During the military invasion and occupation of Iraq led by George W. Bush and Tony Blair hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed. Torture was systematically used by Americans. Executions of innocents and suspects in cold blood were committed. Tons of depleted uranium ammunition were used by Americans and the waste of this material causes diseases and fetal deformities until today.

The International Criminal Court has not punished any US and British politician or military commander for crimes committed during the Iraq war. The impunity of George W. Bush and Tony Blair is scandalous and undermines the image of seriousness of that international court. However, now the ICC has decided to issue an arrest warrant against Vladimir Putin.

I will not go into the merits of the accusations made against the Russian ruler here. In the heat of war it is difficult to tell who actually committed a crime and who acted to stop mass crimes being committed. The ICC, for example, did not issue any arrest warrants against Ukrainian officials during the long period in which Nazi battalions incorporated into the Armed Forces of Ukraine daily bombed the cities of Donetsk and Lugansk after the signing of the Minsk Peace Accord.

Russia will obviously not comply with the ICC decision. If any country attempts to enforce this decision, the arrest or attempted arrest of the Russian President will be considered an act of war. In practice, that Court placed a new obstacle in the discussions of a possible peace between Russia and Ukraine. Not only that, the ICC heightened Russians' perception that they are at war not just with the Ukrainian Nazis but with the entire international community. This will only reinforce the Russians' determination to crush their enemies with whatever means they have at their disposal.

During the discussions that led to the approval of the Resolution that authorized the war that the US and England imposed on Iraq, the UN was transformed into a diplomatic weapon of mass destruction against a member country of that international organization that had not committed any military aggression against Americans and English. This greatly compromised the ability of the UN itself to manage and reduce tensions between countries. At this point it seems clear to me that Russia's enemies are misusing the ICC and that is not good.

In addition to being accused by Russian diplomacy of having issued a hasty and unfair decision, the ICC has compromised its image by treating Vladimir Putin differently from the way it treated George W. Bush, Tony Blair and Zelenzky. A Court that issues decisions that cannot be enforced rarely helps to preserve its credibility. Therefore, we must conclude that the arrest warrant issued against the Russian leader will only function as the death certificate of the entire international system built in the Post-War period.

This war was not avoided by the European countries that participated in the discussions that led to the Minsk Peace Accord. A military conflict that cannot be ended diplomatically or won militarily by Ukraine will certainly not come to an end because of the new ICC decision.

By issuing a hasty and unenforceable decision to compromise the image of Vladimir Putin, the judges of that Court shot the institution itself in the heart. Not even they themselves will be able to enjoy any international prestige as a result of an arrest warrant that can only widen the war and accelerate the escalation of the means of destruction that will be used.