Cape Town – International Relations and Cooperation Minister Naledi Pandor has defended South Africa’s decision to invite Russian President Vladimir, who faces a warrant for his arrest by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
She was responding to ANC MP Desmond Lawrence Moela’s question about whether, by inviting Russian President Vladimir Putin to the BRICS summit in South Africa, the government condoned Putin’s alleged human rights abuses and disregard for international law.
As a member of the ICC, South Africa is obliged to effect the warrant of arrest.
In her written response, Pandor said the invitation to Putin to attend the BRICS summit was issued before the ICC warrant of arrest.
She maintained South Africa’s non-aligned stance in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. She also said with regards to the merits of the charges that underpin the warrant, those would either be confirmed or repudiated through a thorough investigation and judicial process if there were any.
“Notwithstanding this, South Africa does not support or condone breaches of the laws of war as outlined in the Rome Statute and the Geneva Conventions.
“While we do not think that it is ever wise to use force, even if such use is legal under International Law, when war does occur, then all combatants must respect and abide by the laws of war, including related humanitarian laws.
“We, therefore, do not support or condone the breaches of these laws by any party to the conflict in Ukraine or any war or conflict anywhere in the world,” Pandor said.
Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni told the media two weeks ago that no decision has been taken on whether the BRICS summit will be moved to another country.
Legal practitioner and ICC listed counsel Michael Donen, SC, said South Africa’s failure to arrest and surrender former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir to the ICC despite an existing warrant was held to be unlawful.
“In my view, the same would hold true in the case of the ICC warrant for Putin.
Furthermore, international customary law is part of South African law, according to our Constitution, unless a South African statute holds the opposite. But our Implementation Act reinforces International Customary law. Since the trial of the Nazi High Command at Nuremberg in 1945, international customary law has held that heads of state cannot raise head of state immunity against the crimes of aggression, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The warrant for Putin seems to cover the second two. So he should have no immunity.”
He said the politics of international law is trickier than the law itself.
“Bear in mind that President George Bush of the USA and Prime Minister Blair of the UK directed the invasion of Iraq in 2003 contrary to the provisions of the UN Charter. Their conduct was identical to the conduct of the Nazi High Command when they directed the invasions of Poland and Norway. No ICC warrants were ever issued for their arrest. Nobody has sought to arrest and try them for waging aggressive war as a matter of national policy. The Nazis were hanged for this. Blair’s Attorney General warned him before the invasion in a top-secret memo that he would be liable for arrest if he ordered the invasion.
‘’But Bush and Blair are still scot-free. International law lies at the vanishing point of law, and the international law of war is where it vanishes,” he said.
