Who will defend the International Criminal Court? の全文書き起こし

00:04:20.480 Attention, tribunal. 00:04:20.800 --> 00:04:25.600 Judges from Britain, America, Russia, and France assemble in Nuremberg's courthouse. 00:04:25.759 --> 00:04:29.120 The tribunal sits in judgment upon 20 leaders of the Nazi Party. 00:04:29.439 --> 00:04:33.680 The ICC is, of course, not the first international court. 00:04:33.920 --> 00:04:50.079 In 1945, the Nuremberg trials, supported by the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain, and France, ensured that key leaders of Nazi Germany were prosecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity. 00:05:06.639 --> 00:05:18.959 In the 1990s, international tribunals for Rwanda and former Yugoslavia sought justice for those who had suffered the most terrible atrocities, including genocide. 00:05:19.439 --> 00:05:27.279 The International Criminal Court, says James Goldstone of Open Society, was born out of the same desire for justice. 00:05:33.759 --> 00:05:39.040 It was the dream of the generation that gave us Nuremberg after the Second World War. 00:05:39.279 --> 00:05:54.720 And when it was finally activated at the beginning of this century, it was seen as the last place that victims of the most serious crimes could go to secure some form of redress for the violence that they had suffered. 00:05:54.959 --> 00:06:00.959 So it's a precious public good that the world as a whole thought was vitally important. 00:06:01.360 --> 00:06:19.040 And so it's really a significant departure and quite a loss, and I would say a great disappointment to see the United States now really turning its back and not only turning its back, but aggressively trying, in its own words, to dismantle this institution. 00:06:19.279 --> 00:06:25.920 And Philippe Bolopian of Human Rights Watch points to what he sees as the success of the court today. 00:06:26.160 --> 00:06:48.959 I've been in this field as a journalist or human rights advocate for over two decades now, and I've seen several cases that for me are incredible moments to see the former president of the Philippine, Rodrigo Duterte, in a cell in The Hague, having to answer for his uh out-of-control war on drugs against uh drug users in the Philippines. 00:06:49.199 --> 00:06:50.000 Incredible moment. 00:06:50.240 --> 00:06:56.720 Janjaweed leaders from Darfur, who wreaked havoc in the country two decades ago, held to account. 00:06:56.879 --> 00:07:02.800 Even more recently, uh militia leader, a Seleca leader from the Central African Republic who was sentenced. 00:07:02.959 --> 00:07:06.560 I was in the Central African Republic almost uh 13 years ago. 00:07:06.720 --> 00:07:14.319 I went several times, we documented some of the crimes, horrendous crimes, that without the ICC would go completely unpunished. 00:07:14.399 --> 00:07:16.800 So is the ICC a perfect court? 00:07:16.959 --> 00:07:20.560 No, but it's starting to really deliver justice for victims. 00:07:20.720 --> 00:07:27.920 Often it takes too long, but it's the only way to signal that there will be

no impunity for the most serious crimes. 00:07:28.160 --> 00:07:35.600 Even to see the ICC have an arrest warrant against Vladimir Putin for crimes committed in Ukraine. 00:07:35.680 --> 00:07:38.720 That's huge, unthinkable a couple of decades ago. 00:07:38.959 --> 00:07:47.360 To see the ICC have an arrest warrant against uh Prime Minister uh Benjamin Netanyahu for the crimes committed in Gaza, unthinkable. 00:07:47.519 --> 00:07:49.600 Are they gonna be held to account tomorrow? 00:07:49.759 --> 00:07:50.399 Maybe not. 00:07:50.560 --> 00:07:52.319 But you know, their world is shrinking. 00:07:52.399 --> 00:08:01.199 They have now, when they travel around the world, they have to worry about 125 countries who have a duty to arrest them if they are present on their territory. 00:08:01.519 --> 00:08:06.480 But Richard Goldberg of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies thinks differently. 00:08:06.720 --> 00:08:17.839 He believes a country like the United States, which has a functioning judicial system and anyway hasn't ratified the ICC, shouldn't be the target of its investigations. 00:08:18.319 --> 00:08:36.080 To an American uh who watches investigations opened on American forces who operated uh in Afghanistan, obviously watching the ongoing uh investigations, indictments against Israeli leaders uh for their own responses to terrorist attacks. 00:08:36.159 --> 00:08:39.519 Uh, this obviously hits home for us. 00:08:39.840 --> 00:08:42.159 We understand the history of the ICC. 00:08:42.240 --> 00:08:43.759 We know why it was created. 00:08:44.000 --> 00:08:44.639 The U.S. 00:08:44.799 --> 00:08:53.360 uh was very supportive in past eras of setting up uh various uh dedicated tribunals to hold war criminals accountable. 00:08:53.440 --> 00:08:58.799 Uh we remembered the uh war crime tribunals for Yugoslavia, for instance, uh and others. 00:08:58.879 --> 00:09:22.399 Uh, we understood that in a large part of the third world, there is no rule of law, there are no functioning courts, um, there are dictators that do very bad things uh to people, and uh a wide swath of the international community with good intentions wanted to find some sort of a forum to bring uh those types of war criminals uh to justice. 00:09:22.559 --> 00:09:30.559 Um, but notably Bill Clinton, the Clinton administration, was not comfortable uh with the ideas that were put there. 00:09:30.720 --> 00:09:51.120 The idea that potentially this court could one day be abused to uh come after those that have functioning rules of law, that uh have functioning court systems, that have strict uniform codes of military justice, and hold themselves to high account as democracies and free nations uh that abide by the laws of war. 00:09:51.440 --> 00:09:59.200 The United States has imposed sweeping new sanctions on the International Criminal Court, accusing it of trying to prosecute Americans. 00:09:59.600 --> 00:10:06.559 The United States, under President Trump, has been sanctioning individual ICC judges and lawyers for some time. 00:10:06.960 --> 00:10:18.159 In October this year, it went further, sanctioning the entire court and imposing financial blocks and threats of punishment on anyone who does business with it. 00:10:18.399 --> 00:10:22.639 Secretary of State Marco Rubio says he wants to dismantle the court. 00:10:34.000 --> 00:10:38.480 But Human Rights Watch is challenging the US moves in a US court. 00:10:38.639 --> 00:10:40.159 Philippe Bolopian again. 00:11:03.039 --> 00:11:12.480 So we would have a court that will not allow impunity for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, some of the worst crimes known to humanity. 00:11:12.720 --> 00:11:20.480 So, in my view, the creation of the ICC was probably one of the greatest achievements of the human rights movement in the last few decades. 00:11:20.720 --> 00:11:22.720 So there is a lot at stake here. 00:11:22.799 --> 00:11:37.519 And to have the world power like the US announce publicly that they will use the flight of their power and their foreign policy to sanction the court, to go after each member of the court to try to get them to withdraw, it's an existential threat. 00:11:37.600 --> 00:11:42.639 So we feel that as a human rights organization, we have to step up, and we did. 00:11:42.799 --> 00:11:46.639 We we sued the Trump administration in a US court. 00:11:46.960 --> 00:11:56.480 But I would say it's mostly for the members of the court to step up, for governments who are members of this court and you know are paying for it, are supporting it. 00:11:56.720 --> 00:12:00.559 Where are they in this moment when the US is threatening to destroy it? 00:12:00.639 --> 00:12:04.080 We we are really hoping that there will be a collective reaction. 00:12:04.159 --> 00:12:08.000 It's still 125 countries who are members of the court. 00:12:08.080 --> 00:12:11.679 Together they are powerful and they can certainly stand up to the US. 00:12:12.000 --> 00:12:14.960 It's a really dangerous moment for international justice. 00:12:15.279 --> 00:12:18.159 But the US has always had doubts about the ICC. 00:12:18.240 --> 00:12:19.200 It's not a member. 00:12:19.519 --> 00:12:26.559 Do you see a point that that an evolved democracy could actually prosecute its own criminals? 00:12:26.879 --> 00:12:30.399 If they did, the court would not intervene, right? 00:12:30.559 --> 00:12:33.519 The International Criminal Court is a court of last resort. 00:12:33.679 --> 00:12:40.240 They only come in when others do not uh play that role because they can't or because they are not willing. 00:12:40.559 --> 00:12:52.159 The US argument that the court, because it could have theoretically jurisdiction over US citizens, is somehow violating uh US sovereignty is a fallacy. 00:12:52.480 --> 00:13:03.919 If an American citizen comes to uh, let's say Switzerland, where I am today, and commits a crime, that person who committed the crimes in Switzerland will have to answer in front of a Swiss

court. 00:13:04.159 --> 00:13:09.759 That's not a violation of uh US sovereignty, it's an affirmation of Swiss sovereignty. 00:13:10.000 --> 00:13:20.480 Now, if any of these governments, Switzerland or any other, want to entrust the International Criminal Court with dealing with certain cases, that's totally their prerogative. 00:13:20.720 --> 00:13:24.080 So I think these are hypocritical arguments. 00:13:24.399 --> 00:13:34.960 And James Goldstone of Open Society suggests the US claim that the ICC will go after US citizens is not entirely persuasive. 00:13:35.360 --> 00:13:43.919 The argument that the court poses a threat to American citizens seems a little out of place if we look at the history. 00:13:44.159 --> 00:13:50.799 There was one uh investigation years ago at the court that looked at the role of uh U.S. 00:13:50.960 --> 00:13:55.360 soldiers uh in Afghanistan back at the early part of the 21st century. 00:13:55.519 --> 00:14:01.919 But the prosecutor um uh affirmatively shelved that investigation uh quite some time ago. 00:14:02.159 --> 00:14:04.320 And there really is no threat to U.S. 00:14:04.399 --> 00:14:05.440 citizens at present. 00:14:05.600 --> 00:14:10.480 Moreover, the ICC itself is a court of last resort. 00:14:10.639 --> 00:14:27.919 Uh it is premised on the notion that if a national government decides it is going to, in good faith, investigate, and if if the facts warrant, prosecute its own nationals, the ICC will back off and give precedence to the national investigation and prosecution. 00:14:28.159 --> 00:14:37.120 So the United States, like any other government, would always have within its power to launch its own investigation of anyone that the ICC decided to investigate. 00:14:37.200 --> 00:14:38.879 But again, that's not a threat at present. 00:14:38.960 --> 00:14:40.879 Aaron Powell Are there other reasons? 00:14:41.120 --> 00:14:45.200 Do you think are there other reasons than fear that U.S. 00:14:45.360 --> 00:14:47.200 service members might be prosecuted? 00:14:47.360 --> 00:15:03.279 Aaron Powell Well, one of the arguments that has been made is that the Trump administration objects to the ICC investigating uh citizens of countries that have not ratified the Rome Statute, which would include uh both Israel and the United States. 00:15:03.519 --> 00:15:05.200 But there are a couple of problems there. 00:15:05.360 --> 00:15:22.559 One is that the United States uh Congress and almost unanimously uh recently supported, endorsed the ICC's actions against Vladimir Putin, who of course is the head of state of another country, Russia, that has not ratified the Rome Statute. 00:15:22.720 --> 00:15:25.840 So um there seems a great inconsistency uh there. 00:15:26.240 --> 00:15:31.120 So why really is the US position on the ICC so tough? 00:15:31.360 --> 00:15:37.919 Richard Goldberg's right-leaning Foundation for Defense of Democracies supports the US strategy. 00:15:38.240 --> 00:15:39.519 He told me more. 00:15:39.759 --> 00:15:44.720 And be prepared, listeners in Europe, for some views that might surprise you. 00:15:44.960 --> 00:15:49.840 For a start, Goldberg does not see the court as especially successful. 00:15:50.159 --> 00:15:51.840 So what so what so what's the success here? 00:15:51.919 --> 00:15:54.320 With there are successes in Africa, I can point to. 00:15:54.480 --> 00:15:55.279 I concede that. 00:15:55.440 --> 00:15:58.559 That was, in fact, the impetus for the court. 00:15:58.960 --> 00:16:05.200 The British government, targeted by the ICC as well for uh now a member of the court, right? 00:16:05.440 --> 00:16:17.519 But obviously functioning democracy, functioning self-accountability in its military, high ethical standards, also investigated by the court, potentially could still be pursued, just like the Americans. 00:16:18.240 --> 00:16:21.200 Well, the the difference is the British are okay with that. 00:16:21.600 --> 00:16:23.360 Now it's up to the British government what they want to do. 00:16:23.440 --> 00:16:25.840 Obviously, they still participate in the court. 00:16:26.159 --> 00:16:26.879 We do not. 00:16:27.039 --> 00:16:36.720 So certainly as a non-member, non-signatory, non-ratified member of the Rome Statute, we should not be in any way investigated. 00:16:36.799 --> 00:16:37.519 And yet we are. 00:16:37.679 --> 00:16:48.240 And there's now talk that they're gonna go after Donald Trump, they're gonna go after Secretary of War Pete Heggseth, they'll go after Marco Rubio, they'll go after maybe our command structure in the military. 00:16:48.480 --> 00:16:48.879 Why? 00:16:49.039 --> 00:16:53.120 Because we took out drug boats in the Caribbean, we took the euro. 00:16:53.840 --> 00:17:06.559 The the international lawyers, I just have to interject there, would point out, would suggest to you that the action in the Caribbean was not necessarily in the rules of engagement. 00:17:06.799 --> 00:17:12.480 Forget about the ICC, other international law that the US is a signatory to. 00:17:12.720 --> 00:17:30.559 My question to you though is if you're so unhappy with the ICC, why does the US not try to engage and accept what other countries' democracies have accepted is that not every single time is a country perfect. 00:17:30.960 --> 00:17:42.480 Most countries' democracies don't expect ever to be in indicted by it, but they agree that there is a need for an international court just in case. 00:17:43.200 --> 00:18:04.400 A court of last resort for war criminals in places where there is no democracy, there is no rule of law, there is no ethical military, there is no military court system that is real, and you're talking historically largely in parts of Africa, perhaps a couple other areas of the world. 00:18:04.559 --> 00:18:06.240 That's the central thesis here. 00:18:06.480 --> 00:18:08.720 That's not what it's being used for right now. 00:18:08.960 --> 00:18:26.079 And in fact, they claim now that their mandate can go after

the United States, our officials, our military can go after Israel, its officials, its military, other democracies who apparently decide to go along with such a kangaroo court and allow themselves to be subject to that while being members. 00:18:26.400 --> 00:18:27.519 There's two choices here. 00:18:27.680 --> 00:18:46.319 As an American who is going to be looking out for American citizens and the rule of law and American sovereignty, understanding that we have the highest ethical standards in the world for ourselves and how we hold ourselves accountable. 00:18:46.559 --> 00:19:03.680 And we work with democracies like Israel, who we know from the battlefield in a command center, with their lawyers around, putting lawyers into the field with their units, calling off strikes, having to approve certain collateral damage estimates, having to say that we can't do that. 00:19:03.920 --> 00:19:09.440 So in a system like that, well, Israel could bring all that to Oh, really? 00:19:09.839 --> 00:19:10.319 Really? 00:19:10.559 --> 00:19:21.759 Yes, you could absolutely walk into court and plead your case with a court that's already decided politically, because they hate you, what the verdict is going to be. 00:19:22.079 --> 00:19:31.359 And it's not just the Jews in Israel, it's also America, because there is a larger anti-Western Marxist Islamist alliance that has been created. 00:19:31.519 --> 00:19:33.680 We're seeing it on the streets of Europe right now. 00:19:33.839 --> 00:19:36.559 Anybody who just turns on the TV and watches France, you know. 00:19:36.880 --> 00:19:45.519 This I'm sorry, but I am not taking a side here, but I live in Europe and I'm a journalist and I'm looking for objectivity, and I'm gonna have to call you out on that. 00:19:45.920 --> 00:19:48.079 What are what are you what are you concerned about? 00:19:48.319 --> 00:19:55.839 That there's not an as there's not an Islamist Marxist uprising going on in Paris right now and other parts of France and Italy? 00:19:56.079 --> 00:19:56.720 That's a fact. 00:19:56.799 --> 00:19:57.759 It's actually happening. 00:19:58.240 --> 00:19:59.839 This is nonsense. 00:20:00.079 --> 00:20:01.440 Utter nonsense. 00:20:02.720 --> 00:20:03.200 All right. 00:20:03.440 --> 00:20:06.240 Look, Rich, I'm gonna move you back to the ICC. 00:20:06.400 --> 00:20:14.319 I think I think you've got the message through that you have no faith in the ICC or its judges or its lawyers. 00:20:14.640 --> 00:20:17.839 How about Western European leaders? 00:20:18.160 --> 00:20:18.319 Sure. 00:20:18.640 --> 00:20:21.200 They don't agree with the United States position on this. 00:20:21.680 --> 00:20:22.720 Why do you think that is? 00:20:23.119 --> 00:20:28.880 Well, the European leaders who currently are overseeing a Marxist-Islamist uprising. 00:20:29.839 --> 00:20:49.920 And that's where this particular section of our interview came to a halt, because I had advised Goldberg that Inside Geneva likes to stick to facts,

and that if he continued to repeat his false narrative about the riots in France and the situation in Europe, I would at least temporarily stop the interview. 00:20:50.160 --> 00:21:03.599 His claims are ones we hear often from the MAGA wing of the Republican Party, but it's important for us at SwissInfo to point out, fact check, there is no evidence for those claims. 00:21:03.759 --> 00:21:12.960 We'll hear more from Goldberg later in the programme, once he'd been persuaded to return to our designated topic of the international court. 00:21:13.279 --> 00:21:19.759 But first, here's some news about an Inside Geneva special series coming your way. 00:21:20.480 --> 00:21:35.279 Since 1948, thanks to the diversity and the commitment of its 194 member states, the World Health Organization has had a profound impact on improving the health of human beings around the world. 00:21:47.200 --> 00:21:54.559 A vaccination campaign to combat the polio virus, which has reemerged in Gaza for the first time in a quarter of a century, continued on Monday. 00:21:54.720 --> 00:21:58.240 The United Nations led mission is working with Palestinian health authorities. 00:21:58.480 --> 00:21:59.759 Supporting health services. 00:22:00.160 --> 00:22:03.039 And tackling disease outbreaks in conflict zones. 00:22:03.440 --> 00:22:07.200 Ebola keeps spreading in the east of Democratic Republic of Congo. 00:22:07.359 --> 00:22:08.640 It's moving so quickly. 00:22:08.799 --> 00:22:12.799 The World Health Organization adds, it's outpacing response efforts. 00:22:13.119 --> 00:22:15.440 And advising on essential medicines. 00:22:15.839 --> 00:22:19.759 But it's also an organization facing huge challenges. 00:22:20.000 --> 00:22:24.880 The United States, a key donor and global superpower, has left. 00:22:28.480 --> 00:22:29.839 Oh, that's a bad one. 00:22:30.160 --> 00:22:38.480 Other member states are cutting their funding, and public health advice everywhere is being undermined by myths and disinformation. 00:22:47.920 --> 00:22:52.559 So who really wants to be the WHO's Director General? 00:22:52.799 --> 00:23:00.559 In this series, each episode brings you an in-depth, exclusive interview with a candidate for the job. 00:23:02.720 --> 00:23:08.000 That special series begins October 31st, wherever you get your podcasts. 00:23:08.160 --> 00:23:09.359 Don't miss it. 00:23:09.680 --> 00:23:14.240 Now let's return to today's topic: the International Criminal Court. 00:23:14.480 --> 00:23:21.920 Although the court supporters, Human Rights Watch, and Open Society among them, had been preparing for more U.S. 00:23:22.000 --> 00:23:28.640 sanctions targeting individual judges and lawyers, the new blanket sanctions caused shock. 00:23:28.880 --> 00:23:32.640 Open Society's James Goldston explains their effect. 00:23:33.039 --> 00:23:40.079 As you know, the judges and the prosecutors who uh have already been sanctioned have suffered very, very severely. 00:23:40.160 --> 00:23:42.319 It's like a financial death sentence. 00:23:42.559 --> 00:23:52.240 You lose access to virtually any kind of service that has a connection to the American financial system, whether that's computers, banks, health access, etc. 00:23:52.640 --> 00:23:58.960 So in some ways it's understandable that individuals and private institutions will do what they can to comply. 00:23:59.119 --> 00:24:13.200 But I think the requirement now that these court-wide sanctions have been issued is that all stakeholders across the board stand up for this court and make clear what is at stake and how essential it is that it survived. 00:24:13.599 --> 00:24:14.640 Is there a way? 00:24:14.799 --> 00:24:20.640 I mean, there are still more than 120 countries have ratified the ICC are part of it. 00:24:20.799 --> 00:24:22.960 How would you be urging them to push back? 00:24:23.359 --> 00:24:36.640 I think it's incumbent uh on everyone just to recognize what is at stake here, what has been gained, and what the just extraordinary loss would be if this institution were unable to operate in the future. 00:24:36.799 --> 00:24:47.039 And we know that the court has been taking steps in recent months to shore up its capacity to operate even under the withering force of sanctions. 00:24:47.119 --> 00:25:08.720 Um, but I think it's absolutely incumbent at this point for um all parties, states, civil society, citizens of the world to uh speak out in defense of this institution, to provide the support that they can, financial, political, and otherwise, to ensure that it is able to operate going forward. 00:25:08.880 --> 00:25:12.400 You know, different parts of the world have different tools that they can use. 00:25:12.559 --> 00:25:20.319 Now is the time for them to use those tools to defend this institution, to support the victims of crimes that this court serves. 00:25:20.559 --> 00:25:28.000 And Philippe Molopion of Human Rights Watch warns the sanctions imposed by Washington were never designed for such cases. 00:25:28.319 --> 00:25:31.200 These sanctions were designed for terrorists. 00:25:31.279 --> 00:25:34.720 They were not designed for international judges and prosecutors. 00:25:34.960 --> 00:25:38.480 I was at the security conference in Munich a few months ago. 00:25:38.640 --> 00:25:43.279 I met there with the president of the ICC, Tomoko Akane. 00:25:43.359 --> 00:25:51.519 She's a Japanese judge, venerable Japanese judge, elected to this position in her 70s, incredibly courageous and unflappable. 00:25:51.680 --> 00:25:53.920 But she's now under this type of sanctions. 00:25:54.160 --> 00:25:54.799 For what? 00:25:54.960 --> 00:25:56.480 What crime did she commit? 00:25:56.640 --> 00:25:59.039 Because she did her job as an international judge. 00:25:59.200 --> 00:26:00.480 That's the first part. 00:26:00.720 --> 00:26:08.400 The other part of the sanctions is that it becomes impossible for me or my organization to collaborate with the court. 00:26:08.640 --> 00:26:10.240

In the past, we did that all the time. 00:26:10.319 --> 00:26:12.559 We are trying to support the work of the ICC. 00:26:12.720 --> 00:26:15.119 I met with Tomoko Akane a few months ago. 00:26:15.200 --> 00:26:16.720 Now she's under sanction. 00:26:16.960 --> 00:26:20.720 I could not meet with her anymore without taking huge risks. 00:26:20.880 --> 00:26:28.960 I could be liable for up to 20 years in jail in the US and massive fines for violating these sanctions. 00:26:29.279 --> 00:26:41.200 So it means that not only are these individuals severely impacted, but it impacts the entire ecosystem of organizations like mine that are trying to support the idea of international justice. 00:26:41.279 --> 00:26:45.519 And that's very much why we sued the Trump administration in US court. 00:26:45.680 --> 00:27:00.720 We are making the case that these sanctions are actually a violation of our freedom of expression, our freedom of assembly, that they contravene international law, that it's an abuse of power by President Trump to impose these sanctions. 00:27:00.799 --> 00:27:07.119 And we're actually quite hopeful that the US justice system will recognize these sanctions for what they are. 00:27:07.440 --> 00:27:14.160 What about the IT companies and banking software systems that are going along with this? 00:27:14.480 --> 00:27:16.720 Surely they should be saying no. 00:27:16.880 --> 00:27:18.400 Or could you sue them as well? 00:27:18.720 --> 00:27:24.240 Look, they are governed by the US government and they have to abide by US law, sadly. 00:27:24.400 --> 00:27:37.920 So, you know, the problem is not really these companies, it's it's uh the abuse of power by the Trump administration trying to use a uh a sort of legal device designed for terrorists and trying to apply it to international judges. 00:27:38.160 --> 00:27:49.519 Even us as a US-based organization, we have to be very careful and we have to comply with these uh with these uh sanctions, or we take uh risks that are really unbearable for the organization. 00:27:49.759 --> 00:27:56.160 So that's why we we are suing to try to assert our right to continue to do our work. 00:27:56.319 --> 00:28:06.640 But to answer your question, we are not blaming the the companies that are affected by this, we are blaming the Trump administration, which is imposing this on everyone, whether they like it or not. 00:28:06.960 --> 00:28:15.759 The problem here is the US government and the Trump administration, which is trying to use the full weight of US power to silence the court. 00:28:15.839 --> 00:28:16.319 Why? 00:28:16.559 --> 00:28:22.160 Because the court was bold enough to do its job and issue an arrest warrant against the Israeli Prime Minister. 00:28:22.319 --> 00:28:28.559 At the end of the day, that's the reason why we are in this situation and the Trump administration is not even trying to hide it. 00:28:28.880 --> 00:28:29.599 They are proud of it. 00:28:29.920 --> 00:28:37.279 The International Criminal Court is asking its member states to stand up against sanctions imposed on it by President Trump. 00:28:37.440 --> 00:28:45.519 The White House issued the sanctions yesterday in response to what it called illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America and Israel. 00:28:45.680 --> 00:28:49.279 So what could persuade Washington to call off its sanctions? 00:28:49.440 --> 00:28:51.519 Richard Goldberg has an idea. 00:28:58.480 --> 00:29:04.799 That the United States, Israel, other democracies can simply never be investigated by the ICC. 00:29:05.039 --> 00:29:05.680 Airtight. 00:29:05.759 --> 00:29:07.119 I don't know if you can make that airtight. 00:29:07.200 --> 00:29:08.480 I don't know if you get it ratified. 00:29:08.720 --> 00:29:11.920 That's obviously a decision point that's on the table right now, by the way. 00:29:12.079 --> 00:29:13.039 I mean, we should be clear. 00:29:13.200 --> 00:29:18.720 I mean, the sanctions announced on the ICC come with a six-month window provision. 00:29:18.960 --> 00:29:20.559 They could have been immediate. 00:29:20.799 --> 00:29:23.599 What is the off-ramp that is envisioned here? 00:29:23.759 --> 00:29:28.480 It's not a nice letter to the president saying, I promise we won't investigate you. 00:29:28.559 --> 00:29:30.240 That's not going to cut it here. 00:29:30.559 --> 00:29:44.799 They talk of fundamental change or fundamental reform to the ICC would therefore depend on amendments to the Rome statute that ensure the United States, its officials, its military will never be investigated and prosecuted. 00:29:45.039 --> 00:29:50.079 Israel, other democracies like that will never be investigated or prosecuted. 00:29:50.240 --> 00:29:54.799 If the British government wants to sign on to that as well to protect its own citizens, it should. 00:29:55.039 --> 00:29:59.920 That would be a really smart thing for the British government to do, even if they support the ICC. 00:30:00.160 --> 00:30:04.079 That is a possible off-ramp, uh, but it's probably the only one. 00:30:04.240 --> 00:30:19.759 Otherwise, the Trump administration will have two years to try to grind the operations to a halt as much as possible to see if you cannot stave off this disaster that's coming of this uh you know pseudo-kangaroo court coming after the United States and its allies. 00:30:20.480 --> 00:30:21.839 So that would be the deal. 00:30:22.000 --> 00:30:30.559 Amend the Rome statute so that United States and Israel have impunity for eternity. 00:30:31.200 --> 00:30:33.920 United States, Israel, I would say Great Britain. 00:30:34.000 --> 00:30:35.680 I would conclude democracies. 00:30:36.160 --> 00:30:45.200 But such a solution, an international court for some, but not all, and certainly not the powerful, is in Philippe Bolopian's view impossible. 00:30:45.599 --> 00:30:48.880 There is no uh renegotiating the Rome uh statute. 00:30:48.960 --> 00:30:52.319 You know, that took years to achieve in the first place. 00:30:52.640

--> 00:31:00.240 Governments are not going to want to uh exclude any citizenship from the reach of the court, you know. 00:31:00.480 --> 00:31:13.279 And I think these are just arguments that are put forward to try to weaken the court, to uh make it irrelevant, and you know, to dismantle it brick by brick, to use the words of uh Marco Rubio himself. 00:31:13.440 --> 00:31:14.240 That's the goal. 00:31:14.319 --> 00:31:20.559 It's not to make it stronger, uh refine its uh its mandate, it's to dismantle it brick by brick. 00:31:20.720 --> 00:31:24.000 You have to take this administration at its uh words, they mean it. 00:31:24.319 --> 00:31:32.000 Talking to Richard Goldberg, it's clear Washington or the current administration is indeed deadly serious. 00:31:32.160 --> 00:31:34.960 The disdain for the ICC is palpable. 00:31:35.359 --> 00:31:50.720 If I believe that I'm going to put some unelected outside of my jurisdiction, outside of my control, hodgepodge of random countries, and they're going to be the ones who get to sit in judgment of the United States of America. 00:31:51.279 --> 00:31:52.640 Everything has to be patronizing. 00:31:52.880 --> 00:31:56.799 That's no, that's actually that that's actually what is happening. 00:31:57.200 --> 00:32:00.640 And that's not allowable from a United States perspective. 00:32:00.880 --> 00:32:03.039 It should not be allowable to anybody in the United States. 00:32:03.119 --> 00:32:05.200 Republicans, Democrats should not be for this. 00:32:05.279 --> 00:32:06.400 I mean, it's just crazy. 00:32:06.880 --> 00:32:08.319 Can I just ask you then? 00:32:08.559 --> 00:32:10.640 Okay, stay out of the ICC. 00:32:10.960 --> 00:32:13.119 You don't the America doesn't want to play a role. 00:32:13.279 --> 00:32:16.640 But why go to the length of sanctioning lawyers and judges? 00:32:16.799 --> 00:32:19.440 That looks very punitive, a bit like bullying. 00:32:19.519 --> 00:32:28.000 It looks as if, as Marco Ruby said, you're trying to dismantle the ICC when other countries, 120 countries, still want to keep it. 00:32:28.240 --> 00:32:28.480 Yeah. 00:32:29.039 --> 00:32:39.359 So uh I will say this I have never supported truly the onesie twosie, you know, whack-a-mole approach of like hit this judge, hit this prosecutor, all that. 00:32:39.680 --> 00:32:41.279 I never thought it would work. 00:32:41.759 --> 00:32:44.319 I don't think it's unduly punitive. 00:32:44.480 --> 00:32:54.799 I mean, these people are truly trying to wage lawfare against the United States and our closest allies without basis and without jurisdiction. 00:32:55.039 --> 00:33:01.200 But the question then, of course, is well, then how do you actually respond to this threat that's coming at you? 00:33:01.359 --> 00:33:02.640 A form of warfare. 00:33:02.960 --> 00:33:03.920 It's what it is. 00:33:04.240 --> 00:33:06.559 Lawfare is an extension of war. 00:33:06.960 --> 00:33:07.839 This is what this is. 00:33:08.000 --> 00:33:09.119 This is lawfare.

00:33:09.759 --> 00:33:21.279 And so if if a if an entity is coming at the United States, I I don't think it's effective to just hit one judge, you know, one court person, some secretary taking notes. 00:33:21.440 --> 00:33:24.319 I think you have to go after the court in its entirety. 00:33:24.640 --> 00:33:31.039 I have for several years now called for direct sanctions imposed directly on the ICC as a whole. 00:33:31.279 --> 00:33:41.279 And the message to all the top funders of the ICC, remember, the closest allies of the United States make up most of the money that goes into the ICC. 00:33:41.359 --> 00:33:44.480 When you think about Japan and Britain and Canada and France. 00:33:44.960 --> 00:33:46.960 But none of them agree with the US on this one. 00:33:47.440 --> 00:33:59.920 Well, that's a shame because I am happy to make sure that any transaction that is attempted to go to the ICC for funding uh results in sanctions on the bank that attempted the transaction. 00:34:00.319 --> 00:34:05.200 And that's within our jurisdiction, and that's how you actually uh force change here. 00:34:05.279 --> 00:34:05.440 Trevor Burrus, Jr. 00:34:05.599 --> 00:34:08.000 That sounds like a serious threat. 00:34:08.159 --> 00:34:10.960 So where does the ICC go from here? 00:34:11.199 --> 00:34:18.320 Philippe Bolopian tries to stay hopeful, but he wants solidarity from the ICC's member states too. 00:34:18.719 --> 00:34:20.880 I think the ICC can survive this. 00:34:20.960 --> 00:34:34.480 I think the ICC will survive this if all of these countries come together and decide to protect the court and stand up for what they believe in, their values, the idea of international justice, and they're very powerful. 00:34:34.639 --> 00:34:38.800 Is the US gonna be able to pick off a few of the members of the court? 00:34:39.039 --> 00:34:41.519 Yes, I have no doubt that they will already. 00:34:41.679 --> 00:34:47.840 They put pressure on Venezuela, on Chad, on Aru to uh to announce that they would leave the court. 00:34:48.079 --> 00:34:50.880 But you know, look at the list of the members of the courts. 00:34:50.960 --> 00:35:00.320 It's a powerful group of countries, and and hopefully they will they will stand by what they uh they believe in, even in the face of uh uh US bullying. 00:35:00.719 --> 00:35:09.840 You said you were fairly hopeful that the International Criminal Court could survive in the face of US bullying. 00:35:10.159 --> 00:35:27.199 On a broader level, from human rights watchers' perspective, how do you rate the health and life expectancy now of these fundamental principles, the ones that we grasped with both hands in 1945? 00:35:27.599 --> 00:35:34.000 Because it does seem that every day you see another strike against those principles. 00:35:34.480 --> 00:35:44.320 There is no question that we are facing a dangerous moment for these ideals, for the human rights movement, for the idea of multilateralism, of international justice. 00:35:44.559 --> 00:35:51.280 You know, one of the biggest taboos that has been broken over the last few years is the prohibition of mass atrocities. 00:35:51.679 --> 00:35:52.719 Look at the world today. 00:35:52.800 --> 00:35:53.840 The world is on fire. 00:35:53.920 --> 00:35:58.159 We have more wars and conflicts than at any point since the Second World War. 00:35:58.320 --> 00:36:09.360 And many of these conflicts are marked by mass atrocities, whether it's in Ukraine, in Gaza, in the Sahel, in Darfur, in the DRC, in Myanmar, the list goes on and on. 00:36:09.519 --> 00:36:14.239 The ICC was created precisely to deal with these kind of cases. 00:36:14.480 --> 00:36:21.920 But before we reach that level, you know, the UN diplomacy has many, many tools to try to prevent these atrocities. 00:36:22.079 --> 00:36:24.400 And yet today they are largely tolerated. 00:36:24.480 --> 00:36:32.719 You have world leaders like President Trump who brag openly about violating international humanitarian law, the laws of war. 00:36:33.119 --> 00:36:47.519 So there is no question that it's a dangerous moment for the multilateral system, for the institutions like the UN, the Human Rights Council, the ICC that are designed essentially to make the world a better place. 00:36:47.679 --> 00:36:50.559 And if we are not careful, we we will lose ground. 00:36:50.800 --> 00:36:56.239 I look to countries like France and Germany and the UK and Canada in Australia. 00:36:56.559 --> 00:36:59.039 Where are they when the ICC is under attack? 00:36:59.280 --> 00:37:09.599 Yes, it's fine to have some uh vaguely worded statement saying that they still believe in the idea of international justice, but they have to prove it and show it and push back in a moment like that. 00:37:09.840 --> 00:37:11.280 It's not business as usual. 00:37:11.519 --> 00:37:27.039 The worst kind of threats that I have seen certainly in my adult life against the system, and if uh governments or civil society don't join forces to push back in this moment, uh then the world is gonna devolve into a much worse place than it already is. 00:37:27.360 --> 00:37:34.079 Meanwhile, open society's James Goldstone hopes his own country, the United States, will think again. 00:37:34.400 --> 00:37:37.440 You know, I have a um I have a personal history here. 00:37:37.519 --> 00:37:46.559 I I uh worked briefly at the ICC as a prosecutor, but before that, I spent a number of years as a federal prosecutor in the United States, uh, in New York. 00:37:46.800 --> 00:37:53.920 And I was proud to stand up in court and uh say that I represent the United States of America. 00:37:54.079 --> 00:37:56.320 That was something that meant a lot to me. 00:37:56.480 --> 00:37:59.119 I don't want to give up on that kind of pride. 00:37:59.360 --> 00:38:05.679 I want to believe that my government recognizes the value of the rule of law and courts that defend it. 00:38:05.760 --> 00:38:16.880 So I'm hopeful that over time, with enough support from around the world, the United States will change its view and will ultimately join this historic effort in support of international justice. 00:38:23.199 --> 00:38:29.599 And that brings us to the end of this, for me at least, really thought-provoking edition of Inside Geneva. 00:38:29.760 --> 00:38:32.000 We hope you enjoyed the discussion. 00:38:32.239 --> 00:38:40.079 Do write to us at insidegeneva at Swissinfo.ch with your thoughts on the International Criminal Court. 00:38:40.320 --> 00:38:44.880 Subscribe to us and review us wherever you get your podcasts. 00:38:45.039 --> 00:38:52.800 And don't miss our special series of in-depth interviews with the people vying to lead the World Health Organization. 00:38:53.039 --> 00:39:02.079 What are their views on equal access to medicines, on vaccines, on a pandemic treaty, on a tax on healthcare workers? 00:39:02.320 --> 00:39:07.599 That starts on October 31st, wherever you get your podcasts. 00:39:15.119 --> 00:39:19.440 A reminder you've been listening to Inside Geneva, a SwissInfo production. 00:39:19.679 --> 00:39:29.280 You can email us on inside Geneva at SwissInfo.ch, and subscribe to us and review us wherever you get your podcasts. 00:39:29.519 --> 00:39:43.280 Check out our previous episodes how the International Red Cross unites prisoners of war with their families, or why survivors of human rights violations turn to the UN in Geneva for justice. 00:39:43.519 --> 00:39:45.039 I'm Imogen Folks. 00:39:45.199 --> 00:39:47.039 Thanks again for listening.