Statement of the Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, on her request to open an investigation of the Situation in the Philippines
Today, I announce that the preliminary examination into the situation in the Republic of the Philippines has concluded and that I have requested judicial authorisation to proceed with an investigation.
As I stated in December 2019, at the annual session of the Assembly of States Parties, before I end my term as Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, I intend to reach determinations on all situations that have been under preliminary examination during my tenure, as far as I am able to do so in accordance with my obligations under the Rome Statute. In that statement, I also indicated the high likelihood that several preliminary examinations would progress to the investigative stage.
The situation in the Philippines has been under preliminary examination since 8 February 2018. During that time, my Office has been busy analysing a large amount of publicly available information and information provided to us under article 15 of the Statute. On the basis of that work, I have determined that there is a reasonable basis to believe that the crime against humanity of murder has been committed on the territory of the Philippines between 1 July 2016 and 16 March 2019 in the context of the Government of Philippines “war on drugs” campaign.
The Office does not take a position on any government’s internal policies and initiatives intended to address the production, distribution and consumption of psychoactive substances within the parameters of the law and due process of law, and in the present case, it is duly acting strictly in accordance with its specific and clearly defined mandate and obligations under the Statute. Following a thorough preliminary examination process, the available information indicates that members of the Philippine National Police, and others acting in concert with them, have unlawfully killed between several thousand and tens of thousands of civilians during that time. My Office has also reviewed information related to allegations of torture and other inhumane acts, and related events as early as 1 November 2011, the beginning of the Court’s jurisdiction in the Philippines, all of which we believe require investigation.
Aware of the complex operational challenges that will be faced by the Office if an investigation is authorised by the Pre-Trial Chamber, we have also been taking a number of measures to collect and preserve evidence, in anticipation of a possible investigation. These steps have been taken within the scope of the statutory powers entrusted to the Prosecutor by the Rome Statute at the preliminary examination stage, and where appropriate, we have sought and obtained judicial authorisation to do so. Indeed, in recent years, Pre-Trial Chambers of the Court have increasingly stressed the importance of utilising the full range of powers that may be available to the Court prior to the initiation of an investigation to preserve evidence and protect persons who may be at risk. We have acted diligently in conformity with this judicial guidance.
Having reached this determination and implemented these measures, some of which were delayed by the onset of the global pandemic, on 12 April 2021, I notified the Presidency of my intention to file a request pursuant to article 15 of the Statute, which I proceeded to file on 24 May 2021. Today, I have filed a public redacted version of the request, in the interests of transparency and also to provide notice to the victims as foreseen in rule 50(1) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Court.
Although the withdrawal of the Philippines from the Rome Statute of the ICC took effect on 17 March 2019, as the Court has previously found in the context of the Burundi situation, the Court retains jurisdiction over crimes that are alleged to have occurred on the territory of that State during the period when it was a State Party to the Rome Statute. Moreover, these crimes are not subject to any statute of limitation.
My term as Prosecutor will end shortly. Any authorised investigation in the Philippines will fall to my able successor, Mr Karim Khan, to take forward. In this context, it is clear that how the Office, under his leadership, will set priorities concerning this investigation will need to take into account the operational challenges arising from the continuing pandemic, the severe limitations on the ICC’s available resources, and the Office’s current heavy work commitments. Indeed, these considerations have been a key component of the discussions I have had with my successor, respecting the transition and handover of the Office’s workload.
As I stated many times before, the Court today stands at a cross-roads in several concurrent situations, where the basis to proceed is legally and factually clear, but the operational means to do so are severely lacking. It is a situation that requires not only prioritization by the Office, which is constantly being undertaken, but also open and frank discussions with the Assembly of States Parties, and other stakeholders of the Rome Statute system, on the real resource needs of the Court that will allow it effectively to execute its statutory mandate.
There is a serious mismatch between situations where the Rome Statute demands action by the Prosecutor and the resources made available to the Office. As the end of my term approaches, I reiterate my call for a broader strategic and operational reflection on the needs of the institution, and what it is intended to achieve – in short, an honest reflection on our collective responsibility under the Rome Statute to advance the fight against impunity for atrocity crimes. The victims of these egregious crimes deserve nothing less.
ICC Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, publishes Policy on Cultural Heritage: “Cultural heritage is the repository of the human experience throughout the ages. To protect it, is to pay homage to the basic fabric of civilisation and civilizational practice.”
The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Mrs Fatou Bensouda, published the Policy on Cultural Heritage of the Office of the Prosecutor.
The urgent need to act decisively to protect cultural heritage in times of war and conflict has driven the effort to produce this Policy. Mindful that wilful attacks on cultural heritage are a pervasive feature of conflict, and drawing upon the Preamble of the Rome Statute, the Prosecutor recalled that “[a]ll peoples are united by common bonds, their cultures pieced together in a shared heritage […] and this delicate mosaic may be shattered at any time.”
The Office successfully brought charges relating to cultural heritage in September 2015, in the case against Mr Al Mahdi, emanating from its investigations in the Situation in Mali. The accused was found guilty by the Judges of the ICC in September 2016. The Office equally brought relevant charges in the Al Hassan case. Both cases recognise the importance of investigating and prosecuting crimes against or affecting cultural heritage. Through this Policy, the Office commits to continuing to do so in all cases across situations under investigation where the evidence supports such charges in accordance with its mandate under the Statute.
The development of this Policy is in line with the Office’s Strategic Plan to pay particular attention to crimes against or affecting cultural heritage and the commitment to systematically investigate and prosecute such crimes. The Policy aims, among other objectives, to enhance clarity on the application of the legal framework, including for staff of the Office, through all stages of the Office’s activities.
It is the by-product of consultations with subject matter experts and a broad range of partners, in recognition of the Office’s resolve that “an effective strategy to address the destruction of cultural heritage requires a multi-faceted and collaborative approach.”
Round table consultations to initiate the drafting process took place with a group of eminent external experts, including from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (“UNESCO”), in 2017. Written consultations with States Parties, civil society representatives and others followed the issuance by the Office of a draft policy in March of this year, inviting comments for its independent consideration. During this process, the Office has enjoyed close collaboration with UNESCO, and benefited from the insights of, inter alia, States Parties, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Cultural Rights, the International Committee of the Red Cross, Blue Shield International, civil society, academics and academic institutions and other external partners.
‘’Cultural heritage constitutes a unique and important testimony of the culture and identities of peoples and the degradation and destruction of cultural heritage constitutes a great loss to those communities which are directly affected, as well as to the international community as a whole’’, said the Prosecutor. ‘’It is the repository of the human experience throughout the ages. To protect it, is to pay homage to the basic fabric of civilisation and civilizational practice.”
In welcoming the Policy, Director-General of UNESCO, Ms Audrey Azoulay stated that: “[t]he protection of cultural heritage under international law is an integral part of peace building and lasting peace. All efforts to strengthen the protection of cultural heritage, in line with the values of the United Nations and the UNESCO conventions, are important.”
As part of its commitment under the Policy, the Office will enhance its efforts to identify, support, and engage with initiatives addressing instances of crimes against or affecting cultural heritage. This includes by responding, where possible and in conformity with the Rome Statute, to requests for assistance from States to access information collected by the Office which might assist them in furtherance of their own investigations and prosecutions. It further includes participating, where appropriate, in coordinated efforts within the global network of investigative and prosecutorial bodies to address the scourge of such crimes.
In the picture Ambassador Lana Nusseibeh – Picture by UN.
Friday, 11 June 2021, New York City, USA: The 193 states strong UN General Assembly voted upon which five countries shall hold Security Council seats for a two-year term starting on 1 January 2022.
The United Arab Emirates, Albania and Brazil had their seats de facto guaranteed as they were the only candidates from their regions.
Ghana and Gabon are set to take over the two seats reserved for African states.
Brazil has served on the Security Council ten times, Gabon and Ghana three times each, and the UAE once, between 1986 and 1987. Albania has never served on the council.
The UAE’s candidacy was endorsed by the Arab League in 2012, and by the UN Group of Asia-Pacific nations in 2020.The UAE will replace Tunisia in the Asia-Pacific slot when the mandate begins on 1 January 2022.
Emirati Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Lana Nusseibeh said as per statement that the ‘Emirates would use its seat at the world’s top table to push for women’s rights, fight climate change and terrorism, and reduce tension in the region, including building bridges with Iran.’ The 15-nation council has 10 seats for temporary members but is dominated by its five permanent (P5) members, namely Russia, China, the US, Britain and France. They hold the veto power.
For council resolutions to be adopted, they must be approved by at least nine votes in favour and no vetoes from permanent members. India, Ireland, Kenya, Mexico and Norway are currently represented on the Council pro tempore.
Each year the General Assembly elects five non-permanent members (out of 10 in total) for a two-year term. In accordance with the General Assembly resolution 1991 (XVIII) of 17 December 1963, the 10 non-permanent seats are distributed on a regional basis as follows: five for African and Asian states; one for the Eastern European States; two for the Latin American and Caribbean States; and two for Western European and other states.
For further information Permanent Mission of the UAE to the UN: https://www.uaeun.org
During the summit of G7, which was held recently in Carbis Bay, England, leaders of seven wealthy countries formulated a speed breaker to impede the hyper moving Chinese BRI train in more over 138 countries in the world. Therefore, the Developing Nations of the glob could feel great mitigation as G7 leaders promised to pledge investment for building infrastructure in poorer countries in a bid to counter Chinese Belt and Road initiative.
In 2014, President Xi Jinping, supreme leader of China instigated Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) for the Chinese desire to take up its “due place in the world”
For implementing BRI, China has allocated huge fund to build infrastructures such as railway, road, port, power- generation and telecommunication networks.
Moreover, China has invested in improving efficiency and security of the major sea ports along the Maritime Silk Road. According to the BRI blue print, China also wants to extract oil, gas and mineral resources from the Arctic and planned to promote Arctic travel.
In accordance with media sources, China has already invested $1 trillion in the BRI and several trillion is due to be invested over the next decade. Comparatively, the USA invested $13 billion in the Marshall Plan (which is roughly equivalent to $130 billion in today’s money) for reconstruction of Western Europe after the end of second-world war. Therefore, the BRI is the largest investment project in the history of the planet. So far, 138 countries of Asia, Europe, Africa and Latin America have signed moreover 170 agreements with China under the BRI framework. Hence, the Chinese economic giant, the third dragon of China has begun to roam on the world.
However, the BRI has been criticized for dominating subscriber’s economies through long-term control of infrastructures, natural resources and associated land assets. China may steer the BRI countries market, labor and exports by transferring the Chinese-owned production units to those countries. Besides, in the context of security measures, the Chinese liberation army could dominate all the geographical routes of the BRI area and could intervene in internal affairs of subscriber countries. Some analysts fear a “debt trap” of the BRI to loan subscriber countries and doubted the efficiency of Chinese banks.
Moreover, China financed low cost coal-fired thermal power plants in subscriber’s countries are emitting carbon into the air. Other low-cost products by BRI finance would increase environmental hazards in future. The BRI plan for Arctic could fracture the polar ice; furthermore, it could ruin the immemorial peace and sanctity of this solitary polar region.
President Xi Jinping is the most authoritative leader after Mao Zedong in the history of new China. Xi has held two other more powerful posts; the head of the Communist Party and commander-in-chief of the central military commission without terms limits. Xi Jinping has promoted vigorous growth of military might and geopolitical influence in accordance with his “Chinese Dream”. He is accelerating all efforts to gain the paramount role on the stage of the global chess board and subdue the USA’s dominance.
There has always been intense rivalry between the USA and China for different issues just as the South China Sea, cyber security, human rights, intellectual property rights and trade war. Like other gigantic projects, the BRI creates a global polarization and has attracted wide-spread criticism.
The mammoth project has been floated for implementing President Xi Jinping’s dreams rather than economic implication. Estimated investment range from $ 1trillion to $ 8 trillion is far from reality and unrealistic expectations. This far- fetched estimate is downplaying the BRI projects.
Many Chinese citizens expressed opinion that China has expensed a huge sum of money abroad and ignoring domestic demands. Even some projects particularly in Africa were over extended and not properly assessed for financial risks. The BRI projects need to address risk assessments in aspect of financial, environmental and social issues. Some critics termed the BRI projects as lacking in transparency and the deal terms are unfavorable for recipient countries. According to critics, the BRI is a ‘debt trap’ (31) for loan recipient countries. They fear that China could use the ‘debt trap’ for expanding its dominance and for gaining superiority over recipient countries. Even China can interfere in internal politics and can use the BRI projects as regime changing tools like the colonial period when western companies entered into different countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America to do business and end of the day, they became owners of those countries.
The fate of Hambantota port in Sri Lanka has exposed the new Chinese imperialistic attitude. Sri Lanka developed the Hambantota deep sea port with huge amount of debt from China under the BRI framework. This port failed to meet the expected feedback and became unable to adjust the loan interest. To ease the pressure of loan adjustment, Sri Lanka handed the port over to China in December 2017 with a controlling equity stake and a 99-year lease.
The example set a concern that the BRI could be a Trojan horse for China-led regional development while China could assert influence in control military and other institutions of the BRI subscribers.
Hence, fear spread, that the Chinese economic expansion could be turned into a political expansion.
In recent history, we have experience of the global alliance of military formation and branding as defense pact as like as Warsaw pact or NATO alliance. In past, these two military alliances did nothing for wellbeing of human but only demonstrated the panic all over the world. Weapon manufacturers & sellers were the sole beneficiaries of so called defense pacts. Colossal resources were involved for making destructive instruments instead of making hospitals, educational institutes, road and other infrastructure for human development.
Many economic forums have existed all over the world since the second -world war. Most of the alliances have been formed with same level of economy or inherited same culture or regional integrity. The BRI has more diversification -a wider arena for economic cooperation and a huge involvement of human resources.
Moreover, the BRI also inspires others to form similar gigantic economic forums for human wellbeing. Undoubtedly, `G-7 money to Developing Nations’ has been influenced by Chinese infrastructure investment policy as well as “debt diplomacy.”
G7 plan, known as the Build Back Better World (B3W) initiative worth $40 trillion will provide a transparent infrastructure partnership to help Developing Nations by 2035.
But, G-7 move for Developing Nations is expected to be included environmental hazards free policy, ensuring low interest rate and, of course, less intervention in subscriber’s internal politics. Otherwise, Developing Nations will be deprived from actual economic benefit from G-7 money and to be used as pawn of the gigantic world players.
About the author:
Sazzad Haider, Photographer Habib Raza.
Sazzad Haideris a writer and filmmaker living in Bangladesh. Editor & Publisher of The Diplomatic Journal.
The Women’s Ambassadors Group is an informal group of women Ambassadors accredited to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, (based in the Netherlands) but also includes women ambassador accredited to the Kingdom of the Netherlands based in Brussels.
This network aims to facilitate communication and create a support web for all Women Ambassadors to the Netherlands. Through periodic meetings and discussions, the group aims to gain an insight into Dutch politics and more broadly female leadership and gender equality political and private sector.
H.E. Ms Adia Sakiqi, Coordinator of the Women’s Ambassadors Group, Ambassador of Albania.
This group is chaired by rotation according the UN regional group division. Ambassador of Albania, H.E. Ms. Adia Sakiqi took over the chairmanship on 1 October 2020 from Ambassador of Yemen H.E. Ms Sahar Ghanem, in her previous capacity as Chair of Women Ambassadors to the Netherlands.
Under the presidency of Albania (October 2020- September 2021) there have been a variety of innovative and refreshing meetings and online events. Although, the period of the presidency has overlapped with the global pandemic, the presidency has not been marred by a lack of communication and exchange. Instead, the variety of guest speakers and subsequent discussions have led to an inspiring, informative and enjoyable atmosphere.
Guest Speakers:
7 December 2020 – Mr. Peter Omtzigt – Member of the House of Representatives of the Netherlands. It was an open and frank discussion on the role of the MP and the Dutch parliament in decision-making processes in the Netherlands. Very informative exchange on topics related to the upcoming election, and the future government formation. Women ambassadors were very grateful to Mr. Omtzigt for finding the time for such an interesting session.
Mr. Paul Huijts – Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
14 January 2021 – Mr. Paul Huijts – Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. “Diplomacy During Covid-19” as well as gender equality within a multi-lateral setting. Women ambassadors exchanged best practices how the pandemic management is addressed in different parts of the world. WA thanked the Secretary general for the hospitality which the host country provides for diplomatic corps.
H.E. Ms. Rawan Sulaiman, Head of the Palestinian Mission in The Netherlands.
24 February 2021 – Mr Rob de Wijk Director for the Hague Center for Strategic Studies. The Director of HCSS is well known for his
5 March 2021: Countess Van Zuylen van Nijevelt – Mistress of the Robes of the Dutch Royal Household provided the Women Ambassadors with a presentation of the objectives and her duties within the Royal Household. Women Ambassadors are very grateful for her friendship and the solid relations that Mistress of the Robes of the Dutch Royal Household built with all ambassadors accredited to the Netherlands.
16 2021: Ms Sabra Bano – Gender Concerns International gave an useful presentation in view of the upcoming Dutch parliamentary elections regarding women participation and gender parity, not only addressing the 17 March parliamentary elections but also discussing GCI activity worldwide.
H.E. Frances Lanitou, Ambassador of Cyprus, H.E. Ms Irene Kasyanyu, Ambassador of Tanzania, H.E. Ms Lisa Helfland, Ambassador of Canada and H.E. Lynsay Walker, Ambassador of New Zealand. The Women’s Ambassadors Group.
19th May: Ms. Caroline Holtgrefe (President of SER Topvrouwen.nl) and Marguerite Soeteman Reijnen (Chairperson of Top Vrouwen.nl, Chairperson of RvB Aon Holdings and Chairperson of RvA) – Discussion were focused on leadership and equality and on the presence of gender diversity in the private sector. What can we learn for the thriving private sector? Soeteman Reijnen provided Women ambassadors with a very dynamic presentation followed by reading tips from research studies implemented by renown private companies. It was refreshing to confer on the role women play in the private sector and how it can and should be increased in the private sector, but also in the in the public sector.
It is worth mentioning that thanks to the initiative of UK Ambassador H.E. Ms. Joanna Roper and President of Topvrouwen.nl., Ms. Caroline Holtgrefe, on the occasion of Women’s Day on 8 March, Women Ambassadors to NL officially became part of Topvrowen.nl network. We are very glad to be part of such a powerful and empowering grid of highly qualified and professional leaders.
H.E. Dr Hissa Al Otaiba, Ambassador of the UAE.H.E. MS. Laura Dupuy Lasserre, Ambassador of Uruguay.
It can be said that the previous year has been one marked by stress and apprehension regarding the pandemic. However, within the confines of the group it has been a year of energizing exchange and learning. The year has seen a host of inspiring speakers and well as several farewells to female ambassadors who have left the Netherlands, such as the Ambassadors of Thailand, Brazil, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Romania, and Chile.
New women Ambassadors are: North Macedonia, El Salvador, Peru, Cyprus, Lichtenstein, Monaco (during 2020-2021).
H.E. Ms Päivi Marjaana Kaukoranta, Ambassador of Finland, the Ambassador of Albania and H.E. Ms Aiga Liepina, Ambassador of Latvia.
Upcoming activities:
Training on Negotiations offered at Clingendael Diplomatic Academy for Women Ambassadors to NL. (September 2021)
Meeting with Mariette Hamer – President of SER (September 2021)
The White House has prepared for President Joe Biden‘s first international trip since he was elected the 47th President of the United States. He started his first visit in Europe, where the welcoming climate seems, for many reasons, more positive than that to his predecessor, former President Donald Trump, but also more challenging, despite rising expectations. Anyway, this agenda will be not only busy, but also heated, like a geopolitical clash of Summits in Europe. It began with the G-7 Summit, continues on June 11-13 in the United Kingdom, then with the NATO Summit in Belgium, on June 14, and culminates and come to the end with the high-stake meeting with the Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Russia is not attending either the G-7 or NATO meetings. It was suspended from, in 2014, what was then the G-8 in response to its annexation of Crimea, and similarly, NATO suspended all cooperation with Russia for its ‘aggressive actions’ in Ukraine.
The first high-level meeting between the US President and the Russian President, which will take place on June 16 in Geneva, was confirmed simultaneously by both, the White House and the Kremlin. They issued brief statements, without demonstrating a high expectation of this event, somewhat unexpected, due to the strained relations between these two nuclear powers.
“…The leaders will discuss the full range of pressing issues, as we seek to restore predictability and stability to the U.S.-Russia relationship,” said the White House in a brief statement or the organization of this summit.
Just weeks after being elected President (February 4th), Biden stated in his address to State Department officials, called ‘America is back’ that he would have a very different manner to Russia than his predecessor, Trump.
‘We intend to discuss the state and prospects of further development of Russian-American relations, problems of strategic stability, as well as topical issues on the international agenda, including interaction in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic and the settlement of regional conflicts’, simultaneously said officially the Kremlin.
The context of the visit
It will be Biden’s first meeting with Putin since taking office but not the very first one between them, including that of 2011, which is remembered for exchanging not at all friendly jokes between them.
This summit comes almost three years after Putin’s meeting with Trump (and the only one between them) and today’s U.S. officials claim that the Russian President’s meeting with Biden will have to be different from the one in July 2018, during which Trump appeared on Putin’s side and openly denied US revelation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Russia, as the ‘biggest threat’ to U.S. security and its alliances, and former President Trump’s cozy relationship with Putin, were one of Biden’s battle horse weapons during Biden campaign for the White House, no further than last November.
Last month, the U.S. administration announced that 10 Russian diplomats were expelled and dozens of Russian companies and individuals were sanctioned in response to allegations in the SolarWinds hack and Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election.
The relations between the two powers are more turbulent than ever. The interviews of the two leaders in recent months, accompanied by accusations against each other, have strained even more these relations, consequence of which, for the first time in 20 years, Russia recalled on Moscow the Russian ambassador to Washington.
However, the today major global issues and the deep-seated disputes which call, of course, for immediate solutions between the U.S. and Russia, and not only, forced these two leaders to throw back the past of not very friendly relations and of bitter media darts between them, until a few weeks ago.
‘...We don’t only meet with people only when we agree. It’s important to meet with leaders when we have a range of disagreements, as we do with the Russian leaders’, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said, thus responding to the critics of the organization of this important summit.
Possible talking points
The agenda has not been made public yet but, according to occasional statements by the White House and the Kremlin, a number of acute issues, which can change radically overnight, will be raised for discussion during this important summit.
White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan and his Russian counterpart Nikolai Patrushev are in charge of preparing the agenda, the pillars and spirit of which were based at the May 19 meeting of the U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. The readiness to put on the table all the possible issues for discussion, regardless of whether or not an agreement is reached, was publicly expressed.
‘I made it clear to President Putin, in a manner, very different from my predecessor, that the days of the United States rolling over in the face of Russia’s aggressive actions — interfering with our election, cyber-attacks, poisoning its citizens — are over’, said Biden, who on April 13th had his first telephone conversation with Putin, called ‘a tense first exchange’ by some comments and diplomatic corridors.
However, the statement of the White House means that the topics that can be discussed are acute, hot, the solution of which requires effort, attention, determination, responsibility, wisdom and the spirit of compromise, for the good and interests of both countries and the worldwide.
Therefore, when President Joe Biden will meet his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin on June 16, it will be one of the most watched summits of this year.
‘… They discussed a number of regional and global issues, including the intent of the United States and Russia to pursue a strategic stability dialogue on a range of arms control and emerging security issues building on the extension of the “New START Treaty”. President Biden made it clear that the United States will act firmly in defense of its national interests in response to such Russia’s actions as cyber intrusions and election interference. President Biden emphasized the United States’ unwavering commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The President voiced our concerns over the sudden Russian military build-up in occupied Crimea and on Ukraine’s borders, and called on Russia to de-escalate tensions. President Biden reaffirmed his intention to restore a stable and predictable relationship with Russia, in line with U.S. interests, and proposed a summit meeting in a third country in the coming months, to discuss the full range of issues facing the United States and Russia’, the White House said in a statement on April 13th.
In 2014, Russia unliterally annexed Crimea, an important peninsula in the Black Sea that is home to a Russian navy base, resulting in international condemnation and sanctions. Despite this, Russia maintained its position by warning the United States against sending warships to the Black Sea urging U.S. forces to stay away ‘for their own good’.
U.S. Intelligence Agencies have concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election and that the country was behind recent cyber-attacks (last year) on U.S. companies and software systems.
The White House officially announced that last year Russian spies sabotaged a tiny piece of computer code buried in a popular piece of software called ‘Solar Winds’, which spread to 18.000 government and private computer networks. The hackers accessed the digital files of the U.S. departments of Justice, State, Treasury, Energy, Commerce and were able to pry into top-level communications, court documents and nuclear information.
The Biden administration announced sanctions in March against several senior Russian middle-ranking officials, along with more than a dozen other businesses and entities, even for the nearly fatal attack of the Russian Opposition Leader, Alexey Navalny with the nerve agent Novichok and his prisoning, in August 2020. According to the U.K. government, the Russian Secret Service used the same nerve agent for the poisoning of former Soviet spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in the British city of Salisbury, in 2018.
Suspicions have been publicly raised that Russian agents were offering bounties to Taliban to attack U.S. troops in Afghanistan, which are in the process of returning home, and President Biden has a high sensitivity for the safety and lives of American troops.
Russia has consistently denied all these allegations, so it looks like it will not be an easy summit. The numerous issues on which these two powers have been debated and clashed with each other for a long time are part of not only bilateral concern, but also of global concern.
The result of the successful cooperation between these two countries, taking mutually coordinated measures in the fight against Covid-19 pandemic and the devastating economic, health and social consequences, as well as the substantial debate on climate change, are welcomed by the entire international community. Despite the complexity of the issues and extremely controversial attitudes, areas of cooperation such as the battle against Covid-19, climate change, setting ‘the rules of the game’ for cyber espionage, and minimizing the destabilizing of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, offer hope and opportunity for agreement and cooperation.
What will most likely be discussed in this summit, will be the controversial issue of the construction of the Nord Stream 2, which caused a conflict up to proposals for sanctions against Germany, one of the most important American allies in Europe. Senior U.S. officials insist that the pipeline threatens European energy security, heightens Russia’s influence and poses risks to Ukraine and Poland in bypassing both countries.
On the other hand, German Chancellor Angela Merkel welcomed the news of the summit commenting: ‘Diplomacy has a chance only if you speak to each other’.
Why Geneva?
It is no coincidence that this particular place was chosen for this important summit. President Biden has proposed the summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin to take place in a third country, so that the two can discuss ‘a full range of issues’. Geneva, this rich and very quiet city, on the shores of the lake of Geneva, offers stunning views of the Mont-Blanc peak, the highest peak in Western Europe, is an intriguing background for the summit.
Geneva is an important center of institutions and multinational international organizations, and the heart of Swiss neutrality.
This city became the main crossroad of diplomacy and intrigue in the post-Cold War years during the Cold War, and the crossroad where Soviet dominated Eastern bloc diplomacy met freely with the Western Capitalism of the American style.
Especially on November 19-20, 1985, Geneva made history when U.S. President Ronald Reagan first met with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, a summit which was considered very important for breaking the ice between East and West and fostering more friendly relations between the two leaders throughout their presidential term.
Recently, this finding of the Biden administration seeks to revitalize the city’s reputation as a center of international diplomacy, distancing itself from the Trump administration, which mainly avoided its globalist institutions like the World Trade Organization and the World Health Organization, organizations in which the Biden administration has seriously re-engaged.
The importance of the Summit
Given the recent tensions, the far-flung attitudes of the parties and the general skeptical bilateral climate, there is little confidence that the summit can achieve stunning results.
But trying to restore dialogue and communication in order to achieve ‘predictability and stability’ in relations with Russia is an ambitious and bold goal of the Biden administration.
Even if no significant progress is made in agreeing on the hot issues that can be discussed, both parties will legitimately claim that they have attempted in good faith, efforts to improve relations between them and consequently establish a different climate in international relations.
This meeting will give an important message in the general conflict situation, will contribute to de-escalate the tensions through the establishment of open lines of communication between Washington and Moscow on important global security issues of interest to Russia and the United States, especially in the debate over the control of nuclear weapons.
Nevertheless, everyone agrees that: surprising or long-awaited, this summit will be the most globally attended diplomatic event.
Ambassador Arben Cici has a long diplomatic carrier; he isresearcher and analyst in the field of international relations especially the issues of the region, author of books and many articles published in Albania and abroad. He is teaching at the University of Tirana and at the Mediterranean University as chair of international relations and diplomacy. He is diplomatic advisor to the President of the Republic of Albania.
The King of the Netherlands and H.E. Mr. Jean Omer Beriziky, Ambassador of the Republic of Madagascar.
On 07 October 2020, H.E. Mr. Jean Omer Beriziky, Ambassador of the Republic of Madagascar presented his Letters of Credence to His Majesty King Willem Alexander of the Netherlands, accrediting him as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
The Ambassador of the Republic of Madagascar, H.E. Mr. Jean Omer Beriziky,
The official ceremony took place at the Nordeinde Palace in The Hague, followed by a private meeting, during which the relations between the two countries as well as various topics of common interest were discussed.
Ambassador of the Republic of Madagascar
Ambassador Beriziky expressed to His Majesty the King of the Netherlands the commitment of the Malagasy government and the Malagasy diplomatic mission to continue to strive for the strengthening of the already excellent relations between the two countries for the mutual interests of both nations.
Statement by Serge Brammertz, Chief Prosecutor of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals on the occasion of Mladić Appeals Judgement The Hague, 8 June 2021 – Following the issuance of the appeal judgment in the case of Prosecutor vs. Ratko Mladić, Serge Brammertz, Chief Prosecutor of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, gave the following statement to the press:
Today, Ratko Mladić, Commander of the Main Staff of the Bosnian Serb Army, was by final judgment convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for his crimes.
The Appeals Chamber rejected appeals filed by the defence and upheld the key findings of the Trial Chamber.
Mladić was found guilty for commanding violent ethnic cleansing campaigns across Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1992 to 1995. He was further convicted for commanding a campaign of crimes against the civilian population during the Siege of Sarajevo. He was also convicted for using the forces under his command to commit genocide against the Bosnian Muslim population of Srebrenica. Finally, he was convicted for taking UN peacekeepers hostage and using them as human shields.
The time has come to accept the truth.
Mladić ranks among the most notorious war criminals in modern history. He intentionally used his military command to attack, kill, torture, rape and expel innocent civilians for no reason other than their ethnicity and religion. He inflamed ethnic hatred and lied to those he purported to defend in order to justify his crimes. Given the power of life or death over thousands of innocent men and boys in Srebrenica, he ordered their total elimination and committed genocide.
Mladić should be condemned by all responsible officials in the former Yugoslavia and around the world. His name should be consigned to the list of history’s most depraved and barbarous figures.
This is not a judgment against the Serbian people, who Mladić and his supporters have manipulated for decades. Mladić’s guilt is his, and his alone.
With the conclusion of this case, the victims and survivors should be in the forefront of our thoughts.
The appeal judgment confirms again what they suffered. And it confirms the courage of the witnesses who came forward and told the truth.
On behalf of my Office, I would like to recognize the victims and survivors who never gave up on their quest for justice. We extend our deepest appreciation to them, because without them we would not have been able to do our work. We hope that today’s judgment provides them some measure of solace and a feeling that, despite all the harms they suffered and how long they waited, justice is possible.
I would also like to express our gratitude to the diplomatic community and the media, who supported our work for more than two decades. You played a critical role in ensuring that Mladić was finally held accountable for his crimes.
Ultimately, today’s judgment should also remind us of the justice that still needs to be achieved. Throughout the former Yugoslavia, thousands of war crimes suspects from all sides remain to be investigated and prosecuted.
National prosecutors and judges now have the responsibility to continue this work, and my Office pledges to provide them with our full support. Together we can ensure that all victims of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia are able to see those who wronged them answer for their crimes.
Ireland provides support to the work of the OPCW’s missions and contingency operations in the Syrian Arab Republic
THE HAGUE, Netherlands–8 June 2021–The Government of Ireland is contributing €100,000 toward supporting the activities of the Trust Fund for Syria Missions at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).
The Fund supports the Organisation’s missions and contingency operations specifically related to the Syrian Arab Republic. Ireland’s contribution aims to assist in full elimination of the Syrian Chemical Weapons Programme and clarification of facts related to the alleged use of chemical weapons, in accordance with the Chemical Weapons Convention and relevant decisions of the policy-making organs of the OPCW.
The voluntary contribution was formalised on 7 June by the Permanent Representative of Ireland to the OPCW, H.E. Ambassador Kevin Kelly, and OPCW Director-General, H.E. Mr Fernando Arias, at the Organisation’s headquarters in The Hague.
Ambassador Kelly remarked: “Ireland is pleased to make this voluntary contribution to the OPCW Trust Fund for Syria. This contribution serves to demonstrate Ireland’s unwavering support for the Organisation’s efforts towards eliminating the menace of chemical weapons in Syria. Through this contribution, Ireland seeks to follow up our repeated calls for accountability for Syrian victims with practical assistance towards the delivery of that goal.”
H.E. Mr. Fernando Arias, Director General OPCW and H.E. Mr. Kevin Erik, Ambassador of Ireland.
The Director-General noted: “I am grateful to the Government of Ireland for its assistance in maintaining OPCW’s critical mission in Syria. The international community has a shared responsibility to bring to light all facts related to the existence and use of chemical weapons in that country.”
Ireland has been an active member of the OPCW since the Chemical Weapons Convention entered into force in 1997.
As the implementing body for the Chemical Weapons Convention, the OPCW, with its 193 Member States, oversees the global endeavour to permanently eliminate chemical weapons. Since the Convention’s entry into force in 1997, it is the most successful disarmament treaty eliminating an entire class of weapons of mass destruction.
Over 98% of all declared chemical weapon stockpiles have been destroyed under OPCW verification. For its extensive efforts in eliminating chemical weapons, the OPCW received the 2013 Nobel Peace Prize.
Arusha, The Hague, 9 June 2021 – The President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (Mechanism), Judge Carmel Agius, yesterday presented the Mechanism’s eighteenth progress report to the United Nations Security Council by video-teleconference from The Hague.
President Agius opened his address by informing the Security Council that, in its Judgement pronounced just a few hours earlier, the Appeals Chamber of the Mechanism had affirmed Mr. Ratko Mladić’s convictions and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on him by a Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Reflecting on the broader impact of the Judgement, the President underscored: “The issuance of the final Judgement sends a strong message to victims of atrocities committed in the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere, that perpetrators of such heinous crimes will ultimately be brought to justice, regardless of their position or how powerful and untouchable they consider themselves to be.” He invited Members of the Council to read the Judgement, which is publicly available on the Mechanism’s website.
In relation to other cases before the Mechanism, President Agius confirmed that judgements in both the Stanišić & Simatović retrial and the Nzabonimpa et al. contempt trial are also expected to be delivered by the end of June 2021. In the case against Mr. Félicien Kabuga, a Status Conference was held on 1 June and a pre-trial work plan was recently announced.
Turning to the Mechanism’s responsibilities in the area of enforcement, the President conveyed deep appreciation for the invaluable contribution of the 15 United Nations Member States in Africa and Europe that are currently enforcing the sentence of one or more convicted persons. He expressed sincere hope that additional States will step forward and enter into enforcement agreements with the United Nations for the same purpose.
Further with respect to Member States’ cooperation, President Agius reiterated that the Mechanism depends on the international community’s assistance to resolve the longstanding situation of the acquitted and released persons in Arusha. Emphasising the fundamental importance of resettling these individuals, the President noted that the Security Council’s continued leadership, and the cooperation and support of Member States, are essential in tackling this situation once and for all.
President Agius then drew the Council’s attention to his letter of 11 May 2021 informing Member States of the Republic of Serbia’s continued failure to comply with its international obligations to arrest and surrender Mr. Petar Jojić and Ms. Vjerica Radeta to the Mechanism. He noted that over six years have passed since the ICTY first requested Serbia to execute arrest warrants in relation to these accused persons, and that this is the third time that Serbia’s failure to cooperate has been reported to the Security Council. Finally, President Agius emphasised that “Serbia’s inactionnot only undermines the effective administration of justice before the Mechanism, but also defies the international community by challenging the Security Council’s authority and the United Nations Charter.”
In concluding, President Agius paid tribute to the Council and the international community at large, whose support he considers to be the “backbone of the Mechanism’s success”. After thanking the Mechanism’s Host States, its enforcement States and all Security Council Members for their unwavering support and admirable commitment, the President encouraged others “to follow suit so that the Mechanism lives up to its potential and that international criminal justice delivers on its promise”.
