The president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva took place on Saturday 9th, another sign of agreement with Russia by saying that Wladimir Putin with an arrest warrant on his back issued since March by the Hague court for war crimes in Ukraine You will not be arrested if you come to Brazil. Next year the country will host the annual summit G20 and Russia is invited as a member country.
“What I can say is that if I am the president of Brazil and he goes to Brazil, there is no reason for his arrest,” he said in an interview with Indian broadcaster Firstpost.
“No one will disrespect Brazil, because trying to arrest him in Brazil is disrespect for Brazil,” Lula added.
Putin avoided going to the Brics summit in person in July this year. Photo: EFE / EFE
The exaggerated demonstration of sovereignty sounds like a bluff. The statements make no sense from either a legal or political perspective. Furthermore, a visit by the Russian leader to the country would do more harm than good in the current geopolitical context.
The International Criminal Court has neither police powers nor the ability to use force to force signatory states to the Rome Statute to comply with their arrest warrants. Nor is it in a position to disrespect any of its member states. The court only sends arrest warrants to those who, like Brazil, have agreed to join the court.
Continued after advertisement
This procedure is provided for in Article 59 of the Rome Statute, which regulates the functioning of the ICC. According to the text, the State party receiving a request for preventive detention will immediately take the necessary measures to comply with it. If this does not happen, the state party will be reported to the UN General Assembly and ultimately to the Security Council, which can take action against it.
Lula and Putin in 2010: Since then, Russia has increasingly antagonized the West. Photo: Portal / Portal
When Brazil signed the Rome Statute in 2002, it was left to define, through Congress, the law that would legally regulate international cooperation with the ICC. The problem is that the draft law, which provides for the legal route to compliance with the arrest warrants issued from The Hague, has been stuck in the chamber since 2013.
But without this bill, would it be up to Lula to decide? The answer is no.
In 2009, the ICC, through the Brazilian embassy in the Netherlands, sent a request to Brazil for the arrest of Sudanese dictator Omar Bashir for war crimes and genocide in Darfur, and the STF ruled on the issue.
The reporter of the case, Judge Rosa Weber, decided that it was up to a federal judge of first instance to decide on the matter, as the Supreme Court could not judge the case in the same way as extradition proceedings. According to Rosa, this would exceed the Court’s constitutional limits.
Continued after advertisement
In other words: The decision rests with a federal judge of first instance and not with the PT member.
Bashir was eventually overthrown in a coup and charged with other crimes committed in Sudan. The military that replaced him promised to turn him over to the ICC in 2021, but nothing has been done so far. However, his case is an example of how difficult it is to execute a warrant.
Only Latin America and Europe have a majority of ICC members. Countries such as the USA, Israel, Russia, Cuba and China are not part of the agreement.
Narendra Modi, Lula, Joe Biden and Rishi Sunak: Brazil has alliances with Western and emerging countries Photo: AP / AP
The arrest warrants in The Hague have more political than practical value. They aim to embarrass the leader suspected of war crimes and crimes against humanity in front of the international community, and also to put pressure on allies of these leaders to avoid complaints like those made by Lula in yesterday’s interview.
In July this year, in agreement with President Cyrill Ramaphosa, Putin withdrew from a trip to the BRICS summit in South Africa. Like Brazil, the African country is part of the Statute of Rome, and like Lula, Ramaphosa has a close relationship with the Russian leader.
Continued after advertisement
If he received Putin and went beyond the legal obligation to arrest him, Ramaphosa would face unnecessary headaches at a time when Pretoria, which is increasingly closer to Russia and China, does not want to burn bridges with Americans and Europeans.
The parallel between the South African case and Brazil is evident here. Both are BRICS members, neutral in the Ukraine conflict and supporters of some degree of diplomatic independence between West and East.
The question remains: What political gain does Brazil have from this? Lula scored a few points with the Kremlin, but that does little to help his ambition to position himself on the international stage as a negotiator for an end to the war.
Furthermore, Lula can pet Putin and criticize the dollar all he wants, but he knows he needs Washington and Brussels when it comes to the energy transition and climate change. If he wants funds for climate protection, such statements do not help. Lula also recognizes that the State Department’s quick response to his victory in November helped bring democratic normality to the country.
Receiving the Russian leader would also confirm to the rest of the world the notion that Putin has friends in Brasilia and that Brazilian neutrality in Ukraine is actually a proMoscow position.
It remains to be seen whether Putin himself will leave the comfort of the Kremlin to accept the invitation, and what benefits he would gain from doing so. After all, India is not a signatory to the Rome Statute and Vladimir chose to stay at home this year rather than go to the G20 summit.
As Mané Garrincha would say, we have to keep up with the Russians.
Continued after advertisement
*He is coeditor of International