The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin.
A major breakthrough.
But the example of the Iraq war shows how the West applies double standards.
Marburg/Cologne – It has been 20 years since one state launched an attack on another under international law.
March 20th marked the beginning of the US invasion of Iraq.
A war of aggression against a sovereign country, without legitimacy by a UN mandate.
The consensus today is that the war waged by America and its “coalition of the willing” – which led to the removal and execution of dictator Saddam Hussein – was a blot on history.
After the fall of Saddam, the country plunged into civil war.
Enemy militias and religious groups repeatedly brought it to the brink of ungovernability.
US soldiers tortured and humiliated Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.
The pictures went around the world, eleven perpetrators were later convicted.
According to official information, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and 45,000 US soldiers died in the so-called Third Gulf War.
And even after the withdrawal of US troops in 2011, there was no peace. Among other things, the terror regime of the Islamic State (IS) followed in parts of Iraq.
Iraq war marks its 20th anniversary: George W. Bush was never charged with it
The 2003 attack on Baghdad was ordered by then US President George W. Bush.
Falsified reports of alleged weapons of mass destruction in Saddam's possession, presented as fact before the United Nations, led states like Britain to go to war with the US.
Germany did not participate.
But has Republican Bush ever been seen in a dock for this?
No.
The example illustrates an accusation that is inherent in international law - and which has not yet been refuted: According to the global South, it is Western-centric and neglects the perspective of developing countries.
Especially since the start of the Russian attack on Ukraine, this accusation has become louder again.
This is confirmed by Professor Stefanie Bock from the International Research and Documentation Center for War Crimes Trials of the
Frankfurter Rundschau
of
IPPEN.MEDIA
.
War in Ukraine: Arrest warrant against Vladimir Putin for war crimes
Since the outbreak of the Ukraine war, evidence of criminal prosecution against Vladimir Putin has been collected and scenarios have been played out as to how the Russian ruler could be held accountable.
There is no doubt that this is right, because the Kremlin boss brought incredible suffering to Ukraine and shook the international community.
On Friday (March 17) the International Criminal Court in The Hague reported a breakthrough: it issued an arrest warrant against the Russian ruler over his responsibility for war crimes in Ukraine, specifically the "unlawful deportation" of Ukrainian children to Russia.
Ironically, China on Monday called on the International Criminal Court to avoid double standards and to respect the immunity of heads of state.
In the case of Putin, the court should maintain “an objective and impartial stance,” demanded the Foreign Ministry in Beijing.
Another criminal offense that is currently receiving a great deal of attention is the crime of aggression.
The UN Charter provides that no country may invade another.
Aggressive wars are therefore forbidden.
What is special about the crime of aggression: it is a so-called leadership crime.
A typical crime of the head of state.
It can therefore only be committed by the central political and military leadership, says Bock.
So by Putin.
Or by George W. Bush.
Russia's War on Ukraine and Law Enforcement: Alleged Western Bias
Back to Iraq in 2003. The invasion of Iraq by the “coalition of the willing” justified as a “preventive war” was not covered by a resolution of the UN Security Council, as mentioned.
This means that the Iraq war represented a breach of the UN Charter - precisely that prohibition of a war of aggression against another state.
But the UN Security Council could not condemn the invasion, which violated international law, because the USA and Great Britain blocked it with their veto rights.
Just as Russia is currently using its veto to prevent any critical resolution on the Ukraine war there.
Vladimir Putin also broke the UN charter with his invasion.
And even if Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who, among other things, unleashed poison gas on his citizens - and not a democratically legitimate government like President Volodymyr Zelenskyj in Kiev: The same law must apply to all states, otherwise the UN Charter is worthless.
To date, no evidence has been found of the alleged weapons of mass destruction or support for anti-American terrorist groups by Saddam.
Bush wanted this war.
This had no consequences under international law.
Special Tribunal for Russia's Aggression: A Court of the West?
Neither Russia nor the US has ratified the Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Thus the court cannot prosecute the facts of aggressive war in either case.
There are therefore various considerations in connection with Putin, for example an internationalized tribunal.
The problem with this: A special tribunal could be viewed as an illegitimate court of the West, especially in the Global South.
"For the first time in a long time we have a war that affects Western interests - and we are currently using international criminal law," says Stefanie Bock.
In contrast, the Americans' Iraq war was "actually accepted".
The accusation of a Western-centric application of international law is in the room, and acute, says the expert.
Even if no one sheds a tear after Saddam and suffering must not be weighed against each other: Iraq is still an extremely fragile state with an uncertain future.
Not least because of the war of aggression by the USA.