Statement by Deputy Permanent Representative Maria Zabolotskaya at a UNSC Briefing on ICC Prosecutor’s Report on Libya
Mr. President,
First of all, let me voice our principled objection to letting the so-called Prosecutor of the so-called International Criminal Court to speak before the Council. First, Mr. Khan's reports provide false information to the Council regarding the real state of affairs, including within the Court itself. Secondly, the very Court proceeds (although sluggishly) with the investigation into Mr. Khan's suspected involvement in sexual harassment. As we have repeatedly stated, in such a situation, Mr. Khan's activities must be suspended and he cannot appear before the Council.
According to recent report by The Wall Street Journal, all this is not about some accident or miscommunication. This investigation is about repeated sexual harassment of his subordinate. The victim is reported to have been subject to sexual assaults over a period of months – in New York, Colombia, Congo, Chad, Paris and The Hague. The geography indicates that Mr. Khan practiced criminal behavior during his business trips.
Such disgraceful actions are incompatible with the ethical principles expected of an international official. In any organization claiming independence and authority, a person accused of such serious crimes would suspend their duties. Yet, Mr. Khan speaks before the Council without any scruples.
Mr. Khan has been under investigation for almost six months now, but the results are yet to be seen. Mr. Khan seems to be an untouchable figure who is allowed to act with impunity while simultaneously asserting that what he is doing is fighting that very impunity. And the ICC allows a person facing such accusations to speak before the Council time and again – this fact per se deprives that institution of the moral right to claim respect from the international community.
Moreover, the ICC itself siphons off from States parties nearly $200 million annually to fund its activities. Member States are well-advised to inquire what exactly those funds are being spent for in light of Mr. Khan’s frequent business trips where he did all those things that are now being investigated into. Whereas the huge investment by Europe in that institution may seem logical (since the ICC serves their interests), we do not understand why developing countries are bound to pay to advance hegemonic ambitions of a narrow group of Western States. Thus, proposals to allocate funds from the UN budget to the ICC sound absurd. Not a penny of the resources of our common organization will go to this “puppet tribunal”.
Mr. President,
If there is anything wherein ICC sets world standards, then it is in inefficiency. The number of final verdicts of this institution can be counted on fingers of one hand. A significant number of cases have simply “collapsed” at the investigation stage due to the poor evidence that is only premised on commissioned and clumsily concocted “fakes”. Dozens of defendants died before their cases were finalized. I would like to emphasize that these, to put it mildly, unimpressive results cost billions of dollars.
The ICC has rubber-stamped several dozen so-called arrest warrants, which are not being executed. What is particularly indicative here are double standards of European countries. When it comes to the leaders of unfavored States, Europeans express unconditional support for the ICC, ignoring the norms of customary international law on the immunities of senior officials and the relevant provisions of the Rome Statute. And those who refuse to comply with the ICC's illegal warrants and to violate international law, face obstruction from Europeans.
When it comes to protecting their own interests or political allies, the situation is exactly the other way round. For example, representatives of at least seven European States have explicitly declared that they are unable to execute the arrest warrant against the Israeli Prime Minister, citing the norms of international law regarding immunities. In other words, these norms and provisions of the Rome Statute are interpreted and applied selectively, depending on political expediency.
Thus, the activities of the ICC and its Western backers have nothing to do with fighting impunity. They serve as a tool for settling scores with political opponents, and the ICC's attack on the immunities of officials of countries that are not parties to the Rome Statute is in fact an attack on the fundamental principle of the sovereign equality of States.
At the same time, the immunities of representatives of the West and their allies remain inviolable, and any atrocities committed by their soldiers will be swept under the rug. Protecting its Western masters is the only task that the ICC has always performed with flying colors.
What authority of this pseudo-court can we speak about if even its co-founding country, which provided the platform for the adoption of the founding document in 1998, recently ignored the arrest warrant, evacuating the suspect to his homeland by Government plane? This is the best illustration of the double standards intrinsic to European States. For them, their own political and economic interests will always come first, and the ICC is just one of the tools for pursuing them.
Mr. President,
The ICC is using the Council's platform to “tout” its alleged accomplishments. Time and again, we have been informed that with regard to the Libyan file, the ICC has taken up a new line of investigation into alleged crimes against humanity affecting migrants and refugees. In theory, this avenue of work could make sense, but even on this issue the ICC is persistently acting according to pre-defined templates.
Thus, the flow of illegal immigration and the deaths of tens of thousands of people in the Mediterranean Sea and on other routes were the result of the West's actions to destroy Libya. Because of NATO aggression, hundreds of thousands of people who used to live in a stable and prosperous country were suddenly stripped of everything and plunged into a decade of nightmare, devastation and civil war. Many of them were forced to leave their homes in quest for a better lot. But how were they received by those responsible for the destruction of their country? At best, the European authorities did nothing about migrant boats in distress. At worst, they did everything to prevent migrants from landing on shore, having no concern whatsoever for their lives.
Do you think there is a chance that those really responsible for the destruction of Libya's statehood and the deaths of tens of thousands of migrants will receive due punishment? The chances are nil, because those in ICC who are in play now are real professionals in covering up for their masters. Thus, it is clear from Mr. Khan's report that the entire responsibility for crimes against migrants is to be pinned on two Eritrean nationals, and the ICC will then trumpet their success.
Instead of investigating into European states and the EU border agency Frontex, which European human rights activists accuse of crimes against humanity against migrants, the ICC opted for colluding with them. The Court's prosecutor's office became a member of the Joint Investigation Team established by Eurojust, which a community that gathers together the alleged perpetrators themselves.
The outcome is predictable. None of the representatives of the EU authorities will be punished for their crimes. It is nothing but geography-specific justice, which is administered by Europeans themselves and by institutions under their control, and the same criterion is used to determine the value of human life. What we see here are the worst examples of neo-colonial practices.
We have also drawn attention to the information contained in the report that the ICC is actively cooperating with other organizations and bodies, including the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL). In this regard, we would like to stress that the Mission has no mandate to assist the Court. We expect the new leadership of the Mission to cease contacts with the ICC and to be guided by the Secretary-General's position that the ICC and the UN are separate organizations. We will certainly follow up on this issue.
Mr. President,
More than fourteen years have elapsed since the UN Security Council referred the situation in Libya to the International Criminal Court in 2011. Over this time, the ICC has not only failed to make progress on the matter, but in fact it has demonstrated its institutional inaptitude. None of the accused on the “Libyan file” have been brought to justice: some have been killed, while others are in hiding or have been released.
The ICC's interference in Libyan political processes undermines sovereign efforts geared towards national reconciliation. The Court's actions have exacerbated internal tensions and conflicts creating new division lines and fueling mistrust between political forces. The ICC, which claims to be a universal mechanism, has in fact become a tool of the collective West to exert political pressure on “unfavored” countries. Its continued presence on the Libyan track only hinders a political settlement.
In this regard, we believe that the UN Security Council should withdraw the Libyan file as soon as possible, as well as the Darfur file from the ICC, so as not to hamper the advancement of the political process based on the consensus of all sound socio-political forces.
Thank you.
