Speaker 1: Welcome back to It Could Happen Here, a podcast about
Speaker 1: world stuff fallen apart, putting it back together, all that
Speaker 1: good stuff. Today we're actually covering something that's at the
Speaker 1: intersection of all of that, both how fucked up things
Speaker 1: are and the attempt to make them more just, more equitable,
Speaker 1: less nightmarish. We're talking about war crimes, the International Criminal Court,
Speaker 1: and most specifically the warrant that was just issued for
Speaker 1: Vladimir Putin's arrest, which is something you've probably heard about
Speaker 1: on the internet. People have various takes on this in
Speaker 1: order to kind of talk about what's actually been done,
Speaker 1: what it actually means, and sort of the history of
Speaker 1: attempts to hold the leaders of nations to account for
Speaker 1: war crimes. I want to talk to Nick Waters. Nick,
Speaker 1: Welcome to the show. Higher Nick, you and I have
Speaker 1: some connections outside of this. First off, you're you're here
Speaker 1: on the show today because you work in an investigatory
Speaker 1: investigative capacity. Geez, can you tell that I'm not used
Speaker 1: to waking up this early for Belling Cat where we
Speaker 1: both work together. Your focus has been primarily on war crimes.
Speaker 1: You've been covering Ukraine lately, but you have a pretty
Speaker 1: wide purview and a pretty wide base of experience, including
Speaker 1: crimes in Libya. Um and yeah, I wanted to talk
Speaker 1: to you a little bit. First off, welcome to the show.
Speaker 1: Thanks very much, mate, Um of behind the Bastards. I
Speaker 1: have the largest knife I could find in this place
Speaker 1: next to me. It's not quite machete, but yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean I thought I should have one just in case.
Speaker 1: That's that's good, I've got um. Well, yeah, I actually
Speaker 1: am more or less knifeless here. I do have a
Speaker 1: nine millimeter in the desk, but somewhat more limited span
Speaker 1: of uses. Now, Nick, you and I. You and I
Speaker 1: have shared one of the strongest bonds that two men
Speaker 1: can share, which is eating some really delicious a rep us.
Speaker 1: But we also share an interest in the somewhat difficult
Speaker 1: history of attempts from our species to kind of grapple
Speaker 1: with the nature of war, crimes, of acts of genocide
Speaker 1: and hold people to account for them. I kind of
Speaker 1: think before we get into what's happened with Putin, we
Speaker 1: should talk about what the ICC is and what its
Speaker 1: history comes from. Because this it actually dates back a
Speaker 1: little over one hundred years, attempts to make the ICC.
Speaker 1: I think nineteen nineteen was the first convention in which
Speaker 1: a number of European nations were like, boy, we should
Speaker 1: really have some sort of court put together to attempt
Speaker 1: to hold leaders and individuals to account for committing war crimes. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I'm not a familiar with the kind of the very
Speaker 1: long history of attempts at international justice. Suffice to say
Speaker 1: that so far hasn't worked out quite how I think
Speaker 1: everyone expects it to. That, That is the TLDR, the
Speaker 1: international Justice good idea hasn't happened yet pretty much. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean there's been lots of yeah, lots of agreements obviously,
Speaker 1: kind of everyone knows Geneva Convention, et cetera, lots of
Speaker 1: other agreements about how not to kill people in the
Speaker 1: most horrific way as possible in war, and you know,
Speaker 1: as part of that, like Roman Statue which created the ICC. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it was agreed in nineteen ninety eight. So yeah, there's
Speaker 1: been kind of like one hundred years or sort of
Speaker 1: efforts before the ICEC actually got here. Yeah. Actually probably Also,
Speaker 1: I need to say, like before we kind of get
Speaker 1: going anything, I'm not a lawyer, which is super important
Speaker 1: because I know all the lawyers out there will be
Speaker 1: like angry about it. So nick I wanted to talk
Speaker 1: about what in particular this decision means because there's bit like, obviously,
Speaker 1: I think it's fair to say in the immediate term,
Speaker 1: probably nothing like it's not like the international um uh
Speaker 1: warrant agents are going to come out and arrest Vladimir
Speaker 1: in the Kremlin or in his his mansion that you
Speaker 1: see fake photoshopped images of on on Twitter all the time. Um.
Speaker 1: But yeah, yeah, yeah, so in kind of like day
Speaker 1: to day stuff, Yeah, it doesn't have that much an effect. Um.
Speaker 1: So Russia doesn't recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC. So
Speaker 1: it's not like, you know, the FSB are going to
Speaker 1: storm into the Kremlin and ar Resciputin and like export
Speaker 1: him to the Hague in a you know, different matter
Speaker 1: bag or something that's that's not going to happen. Um.
Speaker 1: But in other ways it's it's a big deal in
Speaker 1: other ways. Um. And also it's for me, like the
Speaker 1: biggest thing about this is that it's an indicator about
Speaker 1: how seriously the ICC is taking taking this war. International
Speaker 1: justice moves so slowly, you know, we're talking like you know,
Speaker 1: mentioned in decades so to having a restaurants house. Yeah,
Speaker 1: in one year is like a really big deal for
Speaker 1: the ICEC at least. Yeah. And this is because, if
Speaker 1: I'm not mistaken, the both Putin and the woman, because
Speaker 1: he's not the only one, by the way, that's been
Speaker 1: been charged by the the ICCUM. There's also I'm gonna
Speaker 1: attempt to get her name right, Maria Lvova Belova, who
Speaker 1: is the Commissioner for Children's Rights in Russia. And part
Speaker 1: of the reason why this has happened so rapidly is
Speaker 1: that both Putin and Maria have made pretty unequivocal statements
Speaker 1: about the removal of Ukrainian children from their families, forced
Speaker 1: deportation and into Russia and adoption by Russian families, which
Speaker 1: is that is a war crime, that is an act
Speaker 1: of genocide. Yeah, so I think the actual crime is
Speaker 1: unlawful deportation or the actual citation is on awful deportation
Speaker 1: of Ukrainian children, which yes, could be arguably and again
Speaker 1: at this point emphasized not a lawyer, Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: can feed into the kind of accusations of genocide. And
Speaker 1: so it's a pretty big charge to level against Putin
Speaker 1: and this commissioner this early on. I think it's also
Speaker 1: like one of the easier ones as well, Like in
Speaker 1: the view of the Russian States, this is a you know,
Speaker 1: wonderful thing they're doing. They are essentially kind of rescuing
Speaker 1: these children from and you can't see if I'm doing
Speaker 1: air quotes right now, like Grainian Nazis educating them and
Speaker 1: bring them up as Russian children, and you know, they're
Speaker 1: they're taking these children away from their culture, their families,
Speaker 1: and their country to basically race who they all, which
Speaker 1: act plays a quite big part in the actuation that
Speaker 1: could be part of a active GENOCIDEA yeah, and it's
Speaker 1: it's interesting to me Levova Belova has kind of described
Speaker 1: this like her justification of this, and I think the
Speaker 1: Russian states justification of this is both that, yeah, the
Speaker 1: Ukrainians or Nazis, and also I've heard claims from her
Speaker 1: that like, well, we're removing children from a dangerous war zone,
Speaker 1: which you know that begs the question why is it
Speaker 1: a dangerous war zone right now? Among other things. But
Speaker 1: one of the things that's interesting to me is that
Speaker 1: Levova Belova is not just part of the state apparatus
Speaker 1: of carrying out this act, but has also thanked putin
Speaker 1: publicly for making it possible for her to adopt a
Speaker 1: child from dun Boss, which is one of the Russian
Speaker 1: occupied parts of Ukraine. So yeah, it is It is
Speaker 1: kind of interesting the stuff that had to fall into
Speaker 1: place for this to be able to happen in such
Speaker 1: an expeditious manner. Yeah, I think it helps that they've
Speaker 1: or the Russian state views this act is something that
Speaker 1: is beneficial, and so they want to say, hey, look
Speaker 1: we're rescuing these children. And you can see kind of
Speaker 1: similar You've seen similar vibes with like basically stealing Ukrainian
Speaker 1: cultural heritage from museums and stuff like that. They or
Speaker 1: the Russian state believes, you know, that they are doing
Speaker 1: the right thing, like we are very proud that we
Speaker 1: have taken these objects away and we are saving them
Speaker 1: again from Ukrainian artsies. And so they make public announcements
Speaker 1: about it. They say, yeah, we're doing the thing. It's awesome,
Speaker 1: isn't it. Yeah, And so the result is quite a
Speaker 1: lot of evidence that they're doing these pretty bad things.
Speaker 1: And so yeah, there's there's quit lot of evidence there.
Speaker 1: There are statements from his Commissioner for Children from Peutin.
Speaker 1: It's pretty clear what's happening. So it's quite a I
Speaker 1: think it's quite an interesting charge to bring. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: we're just so people are aware of the scale. President Zelinski,
Speaker 1: if Ukraine at least has says that his country has
Speaker 1: recorded about sixteen thousand cases of forcible deportations of children.
Speaker 1: That's not like a final number, just like the death
Speaker 1: tallies and whatnot are not final numbers. But that's that
Speaker 1: is the Ukrainian state's estimate of how many kids have
Speaker 1: been taken away, which is a I mean, that's a
Speaker 1: pretty staggering number. I mean, yeah, that's a huge number
Speaker 1: of children. Yeah, yeah, I know, that's an absolutely huge
Speaker 1: number of children. And then you have to account you
Speaker 1: know that it's not just a children they're the victims.
Speaker 1: It's also their families who are the victims. So are
Speaker 1: we're talking about like a knock on effect with you know,
Speaker 1: tens of thousands of people who've been affected by these arcs,
Speaker 1: if not more than that, Yeah, I think probably. I
Speaker 1: mean sixteen thousand children, that probably higher than the tens
Speaker 1: of thousands in terms of family members and whatnot who
Speaker 1: are impacted by this. In terms of what technically this
Speaker 1: means for Putin. There's about there's I think one hundred
Speaker 1: and twenty signature signatory nations to the Rome Statue it Um,
Speaker 1: and within those countries, theoretically, if if Putin or if
Speaker 1: Maria were to travel there, they would theoretically be arrested
Speaker 1: if they were to set foot in one of those
Speaker 1: signatory nations. Yes, so theoretic theoretically doing a lot of
Speaker 1: walking there. Yeah, doing a lot of heavy lifting. Okay.
Speaker 1: So yeah, in theory, if Putin traves to any of
Speaker 1: these nations, he should be arrested. But some of the
Speaker 1: nations don't recognize or believe that heads of states are
Speaker 1: basically immune, and I imagine there will be several of
Speaker 1: those signatories who will likely refuse to extradite Putin should
Speaker 1: mister Putin visit them. And this has actually happened before,
Speaker 1: so I think it was South Africa refused to extradite
Speaker 1: a former head of states. I think it was a
Speaker 1: leader of self suit done. But yeah, it wasn't it
Speaker 1: wasn't it Olmarba Shar, Yeah yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I believe it was Olmarba Shar. Yeah. So he mactually
Speaker 1: travel our m and was not arrested and extradited as
Speaker 1: theoretically should have been. However, um, it still gives mister
Speaker 1: Putin and especially a security details some headaches because they're
Speaker 1: still going to have to check with these states when
Speaker 1: they go and visit you know, Hey, are you going
Speaker 1: to like arrest him yea, which is not like a
Speaker 1: cool usually have to ask. And then if they were
Speaker 1: planning to arrest him, you know, they might not tell
Speaker 1: them that they're planning to arrest them. So there's always
Speaker 1: going to be well at the moment, there's still like
Speaker 1: a cost applied to mister Putin t other of traveling
Speaker 1: to these countries that would still you know, might still
Speaker 1: like consider the IC jurisdiction over the heads of state
Speaker 1: to be lacking. Um. Yeah, yeah, so there's still there's
Speaker 1: still like some some cost applied. Though if I'm rembering correctly,
Speaker 1: there have been three sitting heads of state that have
Speaker 1: faced ICC charges in office. We talked about Omar Bashir,
Speaker 1: m Momar Kaddafi, and now Putin is number three, which
Speaker 1: is if we're if we're looking at the history of
Speaker 1: the last you know, I mean just since the establishment
Speaker 1: of the ICC, fewer than the number of world leaders
Speaker 1: who have been involved allegedly in crimes against humanity, I
Speaker 1: think fair to say, which brings us to the question of, like,
Speaker 1: what does it mean to be a signatory to rome,
Speaker 1: to the ICC, what does it mean to actually be
Speaker 1: bound by any of these rules? Because both Russia and
Speaker 1: the United States I was looking at a map earlier
Speaker 1: that kind of lists out every country's relationship to the ICC,
Speaker 1: and both Russia and the United States are in the
Speaker 1: position of like having endorsed aspects of the ICC and
Speaker 1: then not signed on right, yeah, yeah, yeah, Again, not
Speaker 1: a liar, not that familiar with how the ICC works
Speaker 1: in practice, But basically, if you sign up to the ICC,
Speaker 1: you have to agree to enforce their judgments, you know,
Speaker 1: including a restaurants, which again is something in the US,
Speaker 1: and US and Russia haven't done. The idea that basically
Speaker 1: the ICC markets itself as markets itself basically thinks of
Speaker 1: itself as a court of last resort. So you know,
Speaker 1: they're not going to be out there prosecuting individual sold
Speaker 1: or fair unlikely to be prosecuting like individual soldiers who've
Speaker 1: like say, executed like teen Prinson of War in a ditch.
Speaker 1: That's something that is unlikely that the ICC is going
Speaker 1: to prosecute. They are going for you know, high in commanders,
Speaker 1: people who've carried out like extremely severe acts, and especially
Speaker 1: in cases where like a state is not able to
Speaker 1: carry out such prosecution. So for example, take the UK,
Speaker 1: so UK has in theory conducted investigations into allegations of
Speaker 1: war crimes in a Rock, conducted by its troops. That
Speaker 1: was I had so the Iraq Historic Allegations Team. It
Speaker 1: was pretty shambolic. It is extremely shambolic. It was a
Speaker 1: really bad investigation. The not just for the victims who
Speaker 1: basically no one really ever got justice from it, very
Speaker 1: very few people ever got justice from it, but also
Speaker 1: the people who are actually accused were sometimes like investigated
Speaker 1: multiple multiple times. But because the UK made some kind
Speaker 1: of effort to investigate it, even if it was absolute shambolic,
Speaker 1: it's unlikely that the ICC has ever actually going to
Speaker 1: investigate UK soldiers for war crimes in the Rock, because
Speaker 1: in theory that should be the UK carrying out their investigation,
Speaker 1: and in theory they have carried out their investigation. It's
Speaker 1: completely inadequate. But yeah, that's that's the justification. That's in
Speaker 1: incredibly interesting to me because it does seem like On
Speaker 1: one hand, I could see the logic, and this is
Speaker 1: part of why, like the US, the United States, my
Speaker 1: country's justification for why we are not a signatory is
Speaker 1: that the Constitution does not allow us to agree to
Speaker 1: have our citizens tried for crimes that they are being
Speaker 1: tried for in the United States by an international court.
Speaker 1: Something along those lines. And I can understand the idea that, like, well,
Speaker 1: national sovereignty, like, the only way we're going to get
Speaker 1: anyone to agree to let this thing exist in abide
Speaker 1: by any aspect of its rulings is if it does
Speaker 1: not overly interview with their national sovereignty and to including
Speaker 1: their ability to prosecute their own soldiers for war crimes.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, the state of affairs, as you've
Speaker 1: just related, the state of affairs is inadequate, right, Like
Speaker 1: that is, the system that has been developed is not
Speaker 1: adequate to trying or achieving justice in a case like
Speaker 1: the Iraq War in which there were a lot of
Speaker 1: crimes committed that people have not been punished for. And
Speaker 1: I I mean, obviously you have to kind of marry
Speaker 1: that to the fact that the attempt to do something
Speaker 1: at all in this way is extremely new, as we've said,
Speaker 1: like there are we have, like most of the people
Speaker 1: who work on my show are older than the ICC,
Speaker 1: and so that's that's still an achievement. I don't know,
Speaker 1: I'm wondering kind of like what you see is like
Speaker 1: the positive future for attempts to hold individuals and nations
Speaker 1: to account here, Like is that is it continuing to
Speaker 1: grind like this or do you see kind of a
Speaker 1: more positive opening coming forward as a result of particularly
Speaker 1: the attention that all of these these war crimes in
Speaker 1: Ukraine have gotten. I mean, I think it will continue
Speaker 1: to grind. When you look at the history of a
Speaker 1: trusties have taken place in conflict over the last you know,
Speaker 1: like twenty years, it's just absolutely huge. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: there's like a trusty upon a trustity upon a trusty,
Speaker 1: and the ICC can only investigate a tiny number of those.
Speaker 1: The reality is that only a tiny fraction of those
Speaker 1: atrocitees will ever actually be investigated in victims faced justice.
Speaker 1: That is the reality of the situation. The ICC does,
Speaker 1: you know, carry out investigations and does CARRYCT prosecutions, but
Speaker 1: again we're talking like the most grave crimes possible, and
Speaker 1: usually you know, really senior people who often are able
Speaker 1: to evade those kind of prosecutions. I think there's a
Speaker 1: better chance of some kind of justice at like a
Speaker 1: national level with universal jurisdiction. So recently, universe or jurisdiction
Speaker 1: was used in Germany to prosecute two Syrian officers who
Speaker 1: have basically carried out torture against Syrians during during the revolution,
Speaker 1: and those those two Syrian officers have basically fled to
Speaker 1: fled to Germany and related prosecuted that. And so it's
Speaker 1: not just the ICEC. It's all so universe jurisdiction is
Speaker 1: you know, trumbunals. There's other stuff there. But again, like
Speaker 1: this is only a tiny fraction of everything that gets investigated.
Speaker 1: And I've been reading of going through several different books
Speaker 1: about Joseph Mengela most recently and including some accounts from
Speaker 1: you know, Jewish doctors who are enslaved and who are
Speaker 1: forced to work at Auschwitz. And I've been thinking a
Speaker 1: lot about the the Nate, like the different kinds of
Speaker 1: war crimes. Right, you have a group of Australian or
Speaker 1: US or British soldiers in Afghanistan or Iraq who commit
Speaker 1: a massacre, kill a number of civilians, and that is
Speaker 1: a war crime. But there's also the kinds of war
Speaker 1: crime that is a war crime that is the result
Speaker 1: of individuals taking individual actions right as opposed to the
Speaker 1: actions of a state, and the actions that are a
Speaker 1: result of years worth of directed culture efforts, which I
Speaker 1: think is part a way to look at what the
Speaker 1: Russian state's attitude towards Ukrainians are and a lot of
Speaker 1: the crimes that have been committed over there, the denial
Speaker 1: of the existence of Ukrainians as a people is deeper
Speaker 1: and more complex than the kind of crime that a
Speaker 1: soldier might commit in a moment of passion, and fundamentally
Speaker 1: different from that. And it's one of those things. If
Speaker 1: you like, for example, to go back to Mangola, if
Speaker 1: you're trying to judge Mangola for his crimes, you have
Speaker 1: to judge the entire German medical establishment, which joined the
Speaker 1: Nazi Party in higher numbers than any other group in
Speaker 1: the country, and which was directly implicated in how Auschwitz
Speaker 1: functioned and why it worked the way it did. And
Speaker 1: there's realistically, like most of the doctors Mangola, there were
Speaker 1: attempts to punish him. Obviously he escaped, but the doctors
Speaker 1: who educated him, who taught him, who inculcated him in
Speaker 1: the attitudes that were directly responsible for the crimes that
Speaker 1: he committed, were never punished, And legally, I don't know
Speaker 1: how you would punish people for that. How do you
Speaker 1: hundh someone for promuligating ideas like the ideas that Ukrainians
Speaker 1: are not a people, which leads to a lot of
Speaker 1: the violence that you're seeing over there, Like, how do
Speaker 1: you like there's not realistically, in at least in my
Speaker 1: understanding of the law, a way to punish that. But
Speaker 1: it is a factor in these crimes. Yeah, the creation
Speaker 1: of a culture absolutely is and a key Like a
Speaker 1: really good example of this is the radio station Rwanda, Yes,
Speaker 1: who you know broadcast basically will effectively called to genocide.
Speaker 1: And I think they were actually ended up being prosecuted
Speaker 1: by the ICC, I think actually as well. I believe, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I believe there were at least attempts. Yeah, the International
Speaker 1: Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Yeah, I mean it's one thing
Speaker 1: when you're talking about like direct incitements to violence. It's
Speaker 1: another one you're talking about like kind of the stuff
Speaker 1: that Dugan is responsible for, which is absolutely a factor
Speaker 1: the kind of id the ideas that he was one
Speaker 1: of the people who has kind of promuligated under the
Speaker 1: direction of Putin and others in the Russian state are
Speaker 1: like a factor in the behavior that we've seen over there.
Speaker 1: But it also is harder to kind of qualify it
Speaker 1: as a direct call for war crimes in some cases,
Speaker 1: although some of the stuff Dugan has said, I think
Speaker 1: you could you could argue is certainly like a direct
Speaker 1: call to violence. Yeah, I mean, like yeah, where it's
Speaker 1: really difficult to kind of get that to raise up
Speaker 1: to the threshold of prosecution. It's really difficult thing to do,
Speaker 1: especially if you are external to the culture that is
Speaker 1: or to the organization that is creating that internal culture.
Speaker 1: And I'm like very familiar with this kind of stuff,
Speaker 1: having for those of you if you listened from one
Speaker 1: will be familiar. I was an army officer, so like
Speaker 1: quite a big part of my job was making sure
Speaker 1: that like the culture within my cartoon was a beneficial,
Speaker 1: good culture in which the blokes would knock go off
Speaker 1: and like murder people. And you read about stories like
Speaker 1: my Lie or there's a really good example for this
Speaker 1: book called Black Hearts. This American pluting in Iraq, and
Speaker 1: it's really clear where basically institutional culture has completely failed
Speaker 1: or has created a culture in which basically committing atrocities
Speaker 1: or murder is either you know, mildly ignored or actively encouraged.
Speaker 1: And yeah, that that culture is something that is really
Speaker 1: difficult to police because it really has to come from
Speaker 1: within the institution itself, you know, unless you just completely
Speaker 1: destroy the institution itself, which is also another option, which
Speaker 1: is what the Canadians did were the Airborne Regiment after
Speaker 1: some of their guys in Somalia like roasted some poor
Speaker 1: guy alive on a fire. Jesus, the Canadians basically just
Speaker 1: disbanded the entire Airborn regiment. They basically said, like, the
Speaker 1: culture in this regiment is not it's too far gone. Basically,
Speaker 1: we're going to disband this entire regiment, which is what
Speaker 1: they did. So you can do that too, but it's
Speaker 1: quite a difficult thing to do, kind of The last
Speaker 1: thing I wanted to go over is the most recent
Speaker 1: the response of the Russian state to these warrants. One
Speaker 1: of them has been they've announced that they are in
Speaker 1: carrying out an investigation into the ICC, which is it,
Speaker 1: you know, Um, I'm sure as meaningful as the sentence
Speaker 1: I just said. And I the other thing that they've
Speaker 1: done is sort of threatened to launch a hypersonic warhead
Speaker 1: at the Hague, which I mean, like, it's not he
Speaker 1: does have a lot of missiles, so it's you can't
Speaker 1: like completely disregard a threat from a nuclear armed nation
Speaker 1: to launch missiles at the Hague. But um, it's also
Speaker 1: just you know, threats like the are not completely and
Speaker 1: in fact, there's a provision in um what is it called.
Speaker 1: Let me let me double check on the name here.
Speaker 1: I'm so bad at remembering the names of laws. Um,
Speaker 1: the American service Members Protection Act that does theoretically allow
Speaker 1: the use of military force by the US if American
Speaker 1: citizens are extradited. Um, So like this is this is
Speaker 1: like a much cruder version of that like if you
Speaker 1: arrest us, will well will nuke they. But it does
Speaker 1: like it's one of those things we're laughing about it.
Speaker 1: But if you if you were to go back ten
Speaker 1: years and imagine that threat being leveled, like even by Putin,
Speaker 1: it would seem like farcical. Um, I guess it is farcical,
Speaker 1: but we're here. Yeah, it's it's It's completely insane, isn't it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, like how do you respond to that, Like right,
Speaker 1: like I'm gonna I'm gonna hypeersonic. They the Hague response,
Speaker 1: it's just like, yeah, it's mad. Like when if you
Speaker 1: go to the Hague, like the ICC, you know, you'll
Speaker 1: have like the security guards sat there with their little
Speaker 1: kind of nine mill pistol and they kind of buzzy
Speaker 1: through that kind of stuff, and like the idea of
Speaker 1: them kind of you know, trying to fight off like
Speaker 1: a delta force assault on the ICEC in the case
Speaker 1: where like in a reckon soldier there's like, oh, it's farcical.
Speaker 1: But then the idea that they could do anything, because
Speaker 1: like a hypersonic missile is like thirty seconds away from
Speaker 1: like obliterating the entire you gotta really, you gotta really
Speaker 1: lead them. I mean, I mean, the only kind of
Speaker 1: benefit I suppose is that like the ICEC is on
Speaker 1: the outskirts of the Hague, so they would irradiate actually
Speaker 1: quite a bit of a residential area and then a
Speaker 1: lot of sand dunes. Yeah yeah, yeah. I mean one
Speaker 1: of the app sides is that if Russia does nuke
Speaker 1: the Hague, we will have deeper concerns than what to
Speaker 1: do about international criminal law and the wake of that,
Speaker 1: including taking sufficient iodine pills, which I'm not by I
Speaker 1: mean people everyone gets is antsy about enough today. I
Speaker 1: don't think this is like a realistic threat. I don't
Speaker 1: think it's likely that the Russian State is going to
Speaker 1: nuke the ICC. Unfortunately. Part of why it's unlikely is
Speaker 1: that it's unlikely that Putin is going to face direct
Speaker 1: justice for his actions unless he is somehow overthrown right,
Speaker 1: like that is realistically the only case by which he
Speaker 1: winds up in front of the ICC is if he
Speaker 1: is forced out of power. Yeah. I mean like when
Speaker 1: I when this you know, news first broke, there were
Speaker 1: some people who are saying, hey, is this a big deal?
Speaker 1: Little like will never you know people mc justice and like, yeah,
Speaker 1: he might. He probably won't, but on the off chance,
Speaker 1: it's always good to have that there. You know, I
Speaker 1: went Slobodamnosovich, Uh, you know step down was president president
Speaker 1: of Serbia. You know there was I think there was
Speaker 1: a a which meant that he couldn't actually be extracted
Speaker 1: to the ICC. So everyone said the same thing, you know,
Speaker 1: he's never going to face justice, and then he ended
Speaker 1: up at the ICCA. And if there is some kind
Speaker 1: of cool or something, you know, not now, maybe in
Speaker 1: the year's time, two years time, fifteen years time. You know,
Speaker 1: Putin is a very valuable bargaining chip, and being able
Speaker 1: to send him to the Hague would be an extremely
Speaker 1: powerful message of hey, guys, we're entering a new era.
Speaker 1: Like the Russian state doesn't want to be associated with
Speaker 1: what happened under Putin's rule. He go have mister Putin
Speaker 1: put him on trial, and you know, he becomes like
Speaker 1: quite an important bargaining chip, and so yeah, the chance
Speaker 1: of it happening is like pretty small, but it's still there.
Speaker 1: It's still worth doing this. And that's I think where
Speaker 1: I land is. I've just been again reading about. In
Speaker 1: this winter of nineteen forty four was a rebellion in
Speaker 1: Auschwitz by a number of members of the Sonder Commando,
Speaker 1: which was a group of prisoners who were tasked with
Speaker 1: the actual like job of making the camp function. And
Speaker 1: these guys rebelled, They blew up a bunch of stuff,
Speaker 1: and the whole attempt, this whole like attack that cost
Speaker 1: hundreds of them their lives, was in the hope that
Speaker 1: one of them would get out and tell the story
Speaker 1: of what had been happening inside. And when you think
Speaker 1: about it that way, what historically, and not just going
Speaker 1: back to the Holocaust, but the entire long history of
Speaker 1: war like human war crimes which go back as far
Speaker 1: as war. The desire of victims to have someone be
Speaker 1: aware of what has happened to them, I think makes
Speaker 1: this a positive move in the middle of an incredibly
Speaker 1: dark chapter in human history and an incredibly awful war.
Speaker 1: The fact that this is happening at all, as flawed,
Speaker 1: as imperfect as the whole and it's you know, people
Speaker 1: keep bringing up things like the inequities of of the
Speaker 1: prosecution of like the United States and Israel for a
Speaker 1: number of different acts of their states and militaries. But like,
Speaker 1: even given all that, the fact that this is happening
Speaker 1: at all is I think meaningful. I do think it matters.
Speaker 1: It's definitely a meaningful like it's very much like a
Speaker 1: statement of intent from the ICC, and especially from the
Speaker 1: new prosecutor, the ICC cream con who came in last year,
Speaker 1: and he's kind of like, as far as I can tell,
Speaker 1: come in and shaking a few cages and it's a
Speaker 1: very clear statement of intent from both himself and from
Speaker 1: the court as well. Yeah, well, I think that's as
Speaker 1: good a note as any to end on, Nick, Do
Speaker 1: you want to direct anybody towards um place they can
Speaker 1: can donate or something they can or a place they
Speaker 1: can go to read up more on this series other
Speaker 1: issues of international criminal justice. I mean, yeah, I'd direct
Speaker 1: people to to Bellencato coom, which is who I work
Speaker 1: for my twitters and non school Waters eighty nine. I
Speaker 1: don't really go onto it that much anymore. Something happened there,
Speaker 1: I don't know. You may, yeah, but I past occasion
Speaker 1: every so often, But yeah, felling out the com would
Speaker 1: be you wor'd recommend that's where like our work is anyway. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: Nick Waters, thank you so much for coming on, for
Speaker 1: lending your expertise here. That's going to do it for
Speaker 1: us here. It could happen here. Sorry for using the
Speaker 1: word here so many times. Have a lovely day, everybody.
Speaker 1: It could happen here. As a production of cool Zone Media.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts from cool Zone Media, visit our website
Speaker 1: cool Zonemedia dot com, or check us out on the
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app. Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts,
Speaker 1: you can find sources for It could happen here, Updated
Speaker 1: monthly at cool zonemedia dot com slash sources. Thanks for listening,