Zelensky Wants Putin Tried for War Crimes
A Bold Step In An Unprecedented Conflict
Two weeks ago, President Zelensky made a bold and unprecedented stand for a world leader. In a speech at The Hague in the Netherlands, where the International Criminal Court (ICC) is headquartered, he said Vladimir Putin:
“deserves to be sentenced for (his) criminal actions right here in the capital of the international law.” (AP, 2023)
This is an unprecedented statement by one national leader about another, but it is at home among the escalating rhetoric passing between Russian and Ukrainian officials. Ukraine routinely describes Russian actions as terrorism, while Russian officials routinely call for Ukraine’s destruction as a state and for the assassination of Ukrainian leaders.
So, it was just another Thursday in the ongoing war in Ukraine.
Why Is This Unprecedented?
Relations between states are always meant to be cordial, and their leaders have an interest both in pursuing their country’s interest and not de-legitimizing their behavior by holding each other blameless for criminal liability for actions carried out in their official capacities.
There are examples of this in many wars throughout history, modern history especially. After the Six-Day War, Israel did not call for a tribunal for Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser. Ayatollah Khomeini did not ask for Saddam Hussein to be punished. Armenia does not call for it for the Azeri president.
This also reflects a reality that there is no means to arrest these leaders and try them, and any attempt to do so would be considered an act of war. It is only advocated for when war crimes are so heinous and the decisions to commit violent acts are so out of line with reasonable policy, that leaders are brought up on war crimes, and only when there is a chance of apprehension with minimal resistance.
Had Hitler lived, he would have likely been in the defendant’s seat at Nuremberg. Other WWII leaders were tried and convicted, such as Marshal Petain of Vichy France, and Prime Minister Tojo of Japan. Slobodan Milosevic, former Serbian president, was tried without a conviction due to his death in custody in 2006. A procession of third-world political leaders has also been tried, where the Western world had the political and military leverage to conduct such trials.
This points to the main criticism of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the selectiveness of its indictments. Until recently, only African leaders have ever been indicted on war crimes charges. The recent indictment of Russian president Vladimir Putin (ICC, 2023) broke the pattern, and with the leader of a nuclear power no less.
How Has the World Reacted?
Despite the moral depravity, brutality, and carnage of Putin’s unprovoked Ukraine invasion, the reaction to the indictment was muted. Most world leaders feel awkward since the prerogatives of their offices lead to decisions that might be considered amoral in less novel circumstances. Surely the leaders of nations engaged in preventive wars against weaker opponents (America in Afghanistan, France in West Africa, etc..) feel the stink.
For Russian allies, it’s even more awkward. Many of them (the BRICS nations, for example, which include Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) are signatories of the treaty establishing the jurisdiction of the ICC. South Africa’s president was forced to announce that Putin would be arrested upon stepping foot in the country for the BRICS conference, after searching for a way out of this obligation (The Hill, 2023). Brazil announced the same thing.
America, for its part, is not a signatory of the ICC treaty, even though the U.S. president lauded the indictment of Putin. The United States has always avoided submitting its sovereignty in any way to an international body. There is also concern about the potential for American officials to be brought up on war crimes due to actions in the Middle East, such as in Iraq or Afghanistan.
“. . . growing U.S. support for the ICC . . . . is only possible because investigations of U.S. crimes by the court are no longer an immediate prospect. Two years ago, the ICC prosecutor “deprioritized” its Afghanistan investigation . . . essentially leaving the U.S. off the hook for its own crimes in the country.” (Intercept, 2023).
Despite the concerns within the Biden administration, there is broad support in Congress for assisting the ICC in its investigation and prosecution of Putin. Today, the House Foreign Affairs Committee sent a bill to create a special tribunal to bring up Putin on war crimes to the House floor for a vote. Even hawkish senators like Lindsey Graham support the effort over objections from the Department of Defense (VOA, 2023).
But for Ukraine to support this at this juncture, with the possibility of negotiations looming is very bold. It reflects Zelensky’s judgment of his country’s military capacity vis-a-vis Russia and the likelihood of a minimal downside. It certainly backs Putin into a corner that makes it harder to stand down from the war, but this may be immaterial if Ukraine manages to take back most of its territory.
Why Did Zelensky Call for Putin’s Prosecution?
Typically, calls for war crime prosecutions occur after the fact, when the logistics of having the trial are not in doubt. It’s risky to do so before discussing terms when the odds of getting that leader into custody are very low. Especially when that leader has nuclear weapons that he can use if the integrity of his regime is threatened.
Why would Zelensky do this, then? Calling attention to Russian atrocities is a means Zelensky has used to draw attention to the conflict. By using this to increase the urgency of Western governments, and motivating the sense of humanity of their populations, Zelensky has been able to obtain the aid he needs to keep his country together in a timely way.
Calling for Putin specifically to be prosecuted is consistent with the strategy, but in the past, it would have been seen as non-credible coming from Zelensky. Now that an independent arbiter has issued an indictment, the calculation has changed. This way, his statement does not seem to defy credulity, and he maintains credibility while stretching the moral case, the key to prosecuting the military case, to its furthest limit.
The moral standing of Putin and Russia in this war needs to be made as clear as possible to maximize support for Ukraine. This is the messaging war and is an important component of the overall war effort that gives Western governments the diplomatic cover to provide weapons. If Ukraine hopes to regain its territory, and America wants to preserve its rule-based international order, winning the messaging battle is essential.
Sources
Associated Press. “Ukraine’s Zelenskyy Calls for War Crimes Tribunal Similar to Nuremberg.” Accessed May 16, 2023. https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-war-zelenskyy-icc-netherlands-ceddd00e3576d474d2ed80dc2665426b.
Foreign Policy. “Zelensky’s Plea for a Special Tribunal for Putin.” Accessed May 16, 2023. https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/05/04/zelensky-hague-speech-putin-ukraine-russia-icc-special-tribunal-nuremberg/.
International Criminal Court. “Situation in Ukraine: ICC Judges Issue Arrest Warrants Against Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and Others.” Accessed May 16, 2023. https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-ukraine-icc-judges-issue-arrest-warrants-against-vladimir-vladimirovich-putin-and.
The Hill. “South Africa, Facing Putin Arrest Warrant, Looks to Leave ICC.” Accessed May 16, 2023. https://thehill.com/homenews/3971537-south-africa-facing-putin-arrest-warrant-looks-to-leave-icc/.
The Intercept. “War Crimes Prosecutions Are Not Just for the Losers Anymore.” Accessed May 16, 2023. https://theintercept.com/2023/03/15/war-crimes-russia-ukraine-iraq-icc/.
Voice of America. “US Lawmakers Advance Legislation to Prosecute Russian War Crimes in Ukraine.” Accessed May 16, 2023. https://www.voanews.com/a/us-lawmakers-advance-legislation-to-prosecute-russian-war-crimes-in-ukraine/7096038.html.