World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Right, but even when people like netanjahu are charged by the ICC, the wealthy European members states fail to enforce their convictions.
I think that's kinda europe patting themselves on the back for "solving" an issue they often caused in the first place. I don't think putting retired African war criminals on trial is very meaningful when that war criminal was empowered by European colonialism in the first place.
Eh..... I think that's highly reductive. If I made the same claims about about the systemic racism in American policing would you be defending the American justice system?
Would you interpret that the American justice system is giving justice to POC when they arrest POC because they are the most victimized segment of our society? That ignores the systemic nature of how the victimization occurred in the first place.
At the end of the day, it's not really a justice system if certain segments of society are immune from penalties being applied to only the disadvantaged participants. At some point it's just a tool utilized to negate the competition from practicing the same crimes that others have utilized to achieve their position on the global scale.
That has not happened yet. It may happen, but let’s not accuse them of things they haven’t done yet.
It was still them committing the war crimes. Let’s not pretend that Africans are somehow infantile children who are not responsible for their own actions. And the European involvement in those cases is usually also far more removed than that accussation makes it seem.
The sorry excuse for a justice system that the US has is for many reasons a whole different can of worms. To make it short: The issues with white people getting away with shit more often than black people (and I’m not convinced that that is as much a problem if we are talking about homicides, a handful of very high profile cases not withstanding the general trend) doesn’t mean that the solution is to let black people get away with first degree murder. The issue is that white people can get away with shit, not that black people can’t!
That is a completely different situation. A better analog would be if the federal police investigated murders happening in predominantly black communities more often than murders in predominantly white communities, pointing out that they are more common and that the local police forces seem to put more efforts into it in the later cases, making outside intervention less necessary. And yeah, if that was what was happening, it would indeed not be racist but completely justified.
The problem is that that is not what is happening in the US, but it is kinda what is happening within the countries that ratified the Rome statute.
They are not immune though: The justice system is fully prepared to treat them like everyone else, the problem is that sometimes it doesn’t have jurisdiction (when something happens between non-member countries) or where you have to be concerned about whether corrupt cops are willing to let the criminal go despite an arrest warrant.
Yes, a lot of the west can be very hypocritical and the US is often absolutely awful, but it is really important to still look at who is on the other side and not to get blinded by accusations of hypocrisy, which is really just another form of whataboutism that in this case is even more inappropriate than in most others.
Frances foreign minister has already claimed that he's immune from prosecution....
Lol, great choice of language there...... I would like to point out those are your words, not mine.
Also, weren't you the one claiming that the "desk" perpetrators should be the ones executed. I guess that sentiment ends conveniently with the warlord and not the people who enable them?
I'm not claiming they don't hold blame, I'm just saying that the governments whom caused the material conditions for a a warlord to rise to power hold that same responsibility. In a lot of cases these warlords are sponsored by Western nations trying to destabilize governments that politically align against them.
Weird, it's almost like the ICC only prosecutes the crimes of people that oppose western geopolitical agenda. Curious.
I beg to differ. It's a very similar asymmetrical hierarchical structure that allows people in power to enforce rules on people who don't have power, for engaging in the same crimes as the people in power.
"Black people were six times more likely to be arrested for homicide in 2020 than white people. " "According to the FBI, 55.9% of homicide offenders were African-American, 41.1% were white, and 3% were of other races."
Sure.......not a big problem.
I never made that claim, I just said that it's not really a justice system if one race is allowed to do crimes and other races are not.
Why? Because it's damaging to your argument?
I think a better analog would be that the government came up with a an entire new justice system that only investigated crimes committed by black people..... While local police continue ignoring the crimes committed by white people.
White savior moment.......
Lol, sure. I'm sure the foreign minister of France is sticking their necks out for a genocider from Kenya...
Please, name one white person who the ICC has put in jail. Hell, name 1 white person who the ICC has prosecuted before 2020. At the end of the day the ICC is a political body of countries whom have geopolitical agenda, and are willing to turn a blind eye when it suits them.
My friend, I'm not saying that warlords shouldn't be prosecuted. I'm just pointing out that the ICC is not a non biased judicial system, at least not to the point where id trust them with the ability to prescribe capital punishment.
Pointing out hypocrisy is not a whataboutism. I never once validated crimes of anyone's crimes because other crimes occurred that were not policed. My original rebuttal still stands true, the ICC isn't non biased enough to prescribe death warrants.
Which is disgusting, but we will see what happens when it actually happens and in any case the fault of France, not of the ICC.
What makes you think that? If you want to hear me say that Kissinger should have been sentenced to be burned at the stakes, I have zero reservations to give you that.
Please name reasonably recent examples, preferably ones where it is not the US doing it. You can talk about a lot of meddling, but it is really not a common thing of the current west supporting warlords against even remotely legit governments. And the goal is usually very much not destabilization, even if that may be the effect. When we are talking about criminal law, intention matters.
And the ICC is kinda doing the opposite. Really not comparable, as I said.
Fair, but again: I’m not super interested in the US, because we already know that it is a shithole country.
But that’s the thing:
That’s an unfair standard, considering that the ICC has so far sentenced 8 (EIGHT!) people from 2 (TWO) case-groups to prison, both of which concerned civil wars in Africa.
First of all excluding all the white people that they charged since then in three case groups (Georgia, Russia, Israel) is something that you would have justify.
And who should they have prosecuted? Blair obviously (and they did infect investigate it!), but other than that I don’t see many obvious candidates that are very clearly missing over whom the court has jursidiction. The thing is: Since the Iraq-war most European countries neither had large civil wars, nor did they really participate in other wars that were not UN-sanctioned.
The fact of the matter is that they are doing more in Africa simply because Africa has a lot of civil wars that involve a significant amount of particularly illegal forms of warfare such as child-soldiers. So yes, there are more war-crimes in unstable regions.
I guess that is why it went against most of those countries and prosecuted Netanjahu?
Like: It’s actually pretty clear at this point that they are acting increasingly as an independent and neutral instance.
But you can’t argue that based on what other countries are saying whom they are going to extradite. The ICC is independent, that’s the whole point!
Who should then prosecute those crimes that are otherwise not accessible to prosecution? The ICC only gets active if there is no serious attempt at prosecution in the country itself!
Like any international body, the ICC is only as legitimate as it's member states willingness to participate.
"Let’s not pretend that Africans are somehow infantile children who are not responsible for their own actions." Mainly that..... But it's kinda besides the point, as you aren't responsible for who gets prosecuted by the ICC.
"NATO powers such as the United Kingdom and the United States support the Saudi Arabian–led intervention in Yemen primarily through arms sales and technical assistance.[396] France had also made recent military sales to Saudi Arabia"
"The tribunal requested a thorough investigation as some of the evidence indicated "possible acts of genocide".[28] Its panel found Sri Lanka guilty of genocide at its 7–10 December 2013 hearings in Berman, Germany. It also found that the US and UK were guilty of complicity."
" 2008 report by the Rwandan government-sponsored Mucyo Commission accused the French government of knowing of preparations for the genocide and helping to train Hutu militia members."
"Since the war began, both regional and international powers have been actively involved in the conflict. A number of reports have been made alleging that China, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates were all providing military support for the Ethiopian government via the sale of weaponized drones."
"October 2023, political analyst Lena Obermaier argued that Germany is complicit in Israel's war crimes against Gaza.[6"
"On 12 December 2023, Human Rights Watch said that selling weapons to Israel could make the UK complicit in war crimes. "
"In March, OXFAM released a statement detailing its intention, alongside several other NGOs,[p] to sue Denmark to prevent arms sales to Israel, warning that by selling arms Denmark is "complicit in violations of international humanitarian law ... and a plausible genocide".
Lol, the ICC isn't run by economically advanced states? They haven't primarily prosecuted people in poor states?
People in those rich states never participated in war crimes?
And how many POC were prosecuted vs white people?
Sure, western Europeans historically haven't viewed serbs as "white". We already talked about Israel.
Again, how many people have been prosecuted that are white?
Ahh yes, the UN is immune from unethical wars......
And why exactly does Africa have a lot of civil wars......? Hmmm......maybe the hundreds of years of western colonialism and interventionist actions on the continent might have something to do with it?
Only to have it's own member states ignore the court they belong to?
So long as they don't prosecute anyone from the G7.... Sure.
Lol, I've said this several times. I don't inherently think the ICC itself is evil or anything, I just don't think they're really effective at doing anything unless it fits within the geopolitical will of its wealthiest member states. The problem is systemic in nature, and no matter what anyone in the ICC believes no international body is truly independent.
Selling weapons to parties engaged in a conflict, to an extent even if they are used for warcrimes is not among the list of crimes that the ICC has jurisdiction for. You can argue that it should be on the list and I’d be inclined to agree with you, but the entire point of a court like this is that it REALLY has to do things by the book to maintain its acceptance.
Not really, it’s actually quite diverse!
Define white… They are prosecuting 6 Russians, 3 Israelis, 3 Georgians, 3 Palestinians and 1 person from Myanmar of 65 people total, the remainder being from a variety of African countries.
Okay, you can of course say that no one prosecuted is white, by setting the standards for being white arbitrarily high. If you demand someone whose ancestors for the last 10 generations have lived in a Norwegian Fjord, then yes, none of them are white. Let me guess, you are from the US? Because this really isn’t a European perspective, the entire distinction between white and non-white matters a lot less here. And not even because there is necessarily less racism, but because the racism that is around isn’t really about whiteness.
Not necessarily, but it has done reasonably well with regards to what it sanctioned and is the relevant body who decides on the legality of wars. Which is what matters here, not whether or not you or me agree with every individual decision.
Yes, but most of those colonialists are no longer available to be judged and since the events predate the Rome statute wouldn’t be accessible to it anyways. History can explain things, but it doesn’t justify or excuse things. At the end of the day, there are more warcrimes in Africa than in Europe, East-Asia and the Americas today.
So far they haven’t and there have also definitely be some that made it clear that they will comply with the rules, as well as some that tried to avoid giving clear statements.
They don’t have jurisdiction for the US and for the other 6 there is no clear precedent. I would expect most of them to comply, though it is unlikely to come up because most of them would likely prosecute their criminals themselves if it reached the point where the ICC would look.
But that is no longer an argument about whether it would deserve the right to execute people.
It has definitely started to show some attitude with Israel. that’s more than most other institutions can say of themselves.
Yeah..... That kinda highlights my whole argument doesn't it? The ICC isn't independent enough to go after the arms dealers who make genocide possible in the first place. Like I said, it's bound by the governments in its member states. Sure you can go after the guy who uses the weapons I sold to do horrendous crimes, but you can't go after the people who knowingly sold them the tools of genocide. Convenient.
Just because the judges are from a wide range of countries doesn't mean there isn't a bias input from wealthier nations. Most cases put forward to be prosecuted by the ICC are done by NGO, most of which operate out of wealthier member states.
"The ICC has been accused of bias and as being a tool of Western imperialism, only punishing leaders from small, weak states while ignoring crimes committed by richer and more powerful states.[315][316][317][318] This sentiment has been expressed particularly by African leaders due to an alleged disproportionate focus of the Court on Africa, while it claims to have a global mandate. Until January 2016, all nine situations which the ICC had been investigating were in African countries."
It's a stupid human construct that changes over time to suit "white" people's needs. However, in this case I would say its fair to assume white means ethnicities hailing from western Europe. Historically serbs aren't really considered white by western Europeans, but that kinda depends on your level of racism. I'm not really an expert as I am not of European descent, and my people never felt the urge to measure people's skulls for pseudo science.
So, maybe some of the Russians are white depending on if they're ethnically serb, Scandinavian, or turkic. So even if we're counting all the Russians as "white", it still means that over 90% of all people issued warrants from the court are POC. Not a good look.
Lol, okay so we're giving racism the benefit of doubt? How about we go off of something more solid, like historical context?
". Ante Starčević, the leader of the Party of Rights between 1851 and 1896, believed Croats should confront their neighbors, including Serbs.[10] He wrote, for example, that Serbs were an "unclean race" and with the co-founder of his party, Eugen Kvaternik, denied the existence of Serbs or Slovenes in Croatia, seeing their political consciousness as a threat."
"In the 1920s, Italian fascists accused Serbs of having "atavistic impulses" and they claimed that the Yugoslavs were conspiring together on behalf of "Grand Orient masonry and its funds". One antisemitic claim was that Serbs were part of a "social-democratic, masonic Jewish internationalist plot".[40] Benito Mussolini viewed not just the Serbs but the whole "Slavic race" as inferior and barbaric."
"Serbs as well as other Slavs (mainly Poles and Russians) as well as non-Slavic peoples (such as Jews and Roma) were not considered Aryans by Nazi Germany. Instead, they were considered subhuman, inferior races (Untermenschen) and foreign races and as a result, they were not considered part of the Aryan master race.[48][49] Serbs, along with the Poles, were at the bottom of the Slavic "racial hierarchy"
"According to Vojislav Koštunica and British commentator Mary Dejevky, in the summer of 1995 the French president, Jacques Chirac created controversy when he commented on the Bosnian War, he reportedly called Serbs "a nation of robbers and terrorists".[93][94"
"During the war in Croatia, French writer Alain Finkielkraut insinuated that Serbs were inherently evil, comparing Serb actions to the Nazis during World War II.[95]"
Ahh, yes please explain racism to me white European. I as a Korean person living in the west must not understand the intricate scientific system of your forefathers. Shall we pull out your grandpa's skull measuring calipers and charts to explain how racism in Europe excludes whiteness as a concept?
I've lived in Europe before, and this is just a fucking lie white Europeans tell themselves as if ore their fellow countryman throw bananas at black football players. Get bent.
Legality does not dictate morality. The afghan war is very modern history, the Iraq war is very modern history, hell even the Vietnam war was modern. You are just ignoring or excluding examples that don't suit your bias.
The coup belt that started in 2020 is a direct result of competing European colonialism in modern Africa between Turkey, Russia, and France.
Wanna make a bet?
Unless it's something like supplying weapons to commit genocides...... That's conveniently not illegal.
How? My original assertion is that a requirement of capital punishment is a non biased court. Establishing that the court is innately biased sure seems like a cohesive argument.
I mean, it is kinda worrying that the first people who can pass as "white" being prosecuted by the court are serbs and Jews. It's not like those have a history of ethnic persecution in Europe.