Elites Shuddered
- IVAN PREOBRAZHENSKY, DEUTSCHE WELLE
- 19.03.2023, 14:30
The signal from The Hague reached the real addressee.
The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is suspected of forcibly deporting children from the occupied territories of Ukraine. Similar accusations have also been made against Maria Lvova-Belova, the Russian Children’s Rights Commissioner. More importantly, which of the two arrest warrants issued in The Hague is historically more important?
Where've you been all this time?
If you have not been living on another planet or have not been trying your best to step aside from the surrounding reality, then it was hardly a surprise for you that the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a warrant for the arrest of the President of Russia. He had been working for this even before 2014: The Second Chechen War, with its crimes against humanity, also committed massacres of oppositionists inside Russia and murders organized by Russian special services outside of it, and many other crimes. But after the annexation of Crimea and the outbreak of war in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine, the question of when Putin will be tried has become a common one.
I am pretty sure that the decision of the Court in The Hague did not come as a surprise even to the Russian president. He waited for him and was afraid at the same time. He is probably thinking that this is a confirmation of his old suspicions about the desire of the West to get rid of him in any way. Russia has clearly been wary of such a decision since 2016, when it withdrew its signature to the Rome Statute establishing and recognizing the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
Thus, in the decision of the ICC, by and large, there is no sensation. Is it possible to call this warrant a signal to Chinese President Xi Jinping, who is coming to Moscow - he will have to shake hands with a man who has been formally charged with war crimes. Therefore, it is no less interesting to consider the details and consequences of the ICC decision, since many consider it to be secondary and not so important.
Is he the first president-kidnapping?
The English word kidnapper has long been interpreted broadly as kidnapping in general, but initially referred only to children. From this point of view, it fits perfectly with the charges against Vladimir Putin. He is the first head of state (the IIC have tried only four heads of state in its history and one of them was even acquitted finally), who is accused of such a form of crime against humanity as the mass deliberate abduction of children and their forced Russification.
The choice of this particular accusation from a whole range of crimes in which the Russian president is suspected is hardly accidental. This is not empty originality. Firstly, this corpus delicti gives the ICC the right to try Putin, even if Russia has ceased to recognize the jurisdiction of the Court in The Hague since 2016. Secondly, we live in a very imperfect world, where wars are constantly going on and various crimes are being committed. It's hard to shock modern people. But the abduction of children is exactly what is recognized as an absolutely unacceptable act.
Moreover, monstrous crimes have such a property that often the human mind refuses to believe in it, if it has not yet encountered something similar. Unfortunately, there have been similar crimes in the history of Europe. For example, during the civil war in Spain, the Francoists were seizing children from republican families and giving them to the 'trustworthy” parents, and the country is still rethinking the consequences of this fanaticism, even now.
So the Europeans can understand and realize what Putin did, and they will understand and support the decision of the Court. I believe that many Russian will most likely do the same. It is hardly a coincidence that Putin's entourage and his propagandists, outraged by the arrest warrant issued for him, try not to mention both the corpus delicti of which he is accused and Maria Lvova-Belova, who was also accused of kidnapping children. It's clear that they do not want to give the Russians a reason to think over once again what their country is doing now.
Is there life after Putin?
However, the reluctance to mention the arrest warrant for the Russian Children’s Rights Commissioner may also be due to simple psychological suppression. Linking her to Putin is very bad news for the ruling class of Russia.
It is easy to imagine what the Russian “elites” thought about it. And to be precise, I'm talking about those who hope to retain their capital and influence, having outlived Putin, no matter how the war unleashed by him ends. Not in words, but in deeds, they were provided with the understanding that it would not be possible to escape from personal responsibility. They, like Mrs Lvova-Belova, are accomplices. The only question is when the warrant will be issued for them. Unlike the president, they also do not have immunity from criminal prosecution under international law.
Even if Putin is replaced by someone else, the war will end, and relations with the West will normalize, their criminal cases will be terminated only "due to death." The actual question is their reaction. “Rally around the flag”, who is Putin for them? Will they run away from responsibility and flee the country before it's too late? Or will they decide to fight at least for their future well-being?
Ivan Preobrazhensky, Deutsche Welle