Khamenei.ir

Question: Is it possible to achieve justice for victims in international entities designed to investigate war crimes? Or are they merely a slogan or a symbolic gesture to serve other purposes?

A. Kadkhodaei: You raised a good question. The fundamental question is whether or not we can achieve international justice with the tools we have today in the international community. Various efforts have been made at the international level. If we look back to the not-so-distant past of the two World Wars, the Tokyo and Nuremberg trials were established and some actions were taken in response. Similarly, courts were set up and proceedings were conducted for the events of Rwanda and Sierra Leone. However, none of these have been able to achieve criminal justice or justice in an absolute sense.

In all these scenes, a vast number of innocent people were killed and various crimes were committed. About twenty or so years ago, the International Criminal Court (ICC) was established, and today around 124 countries are members of it. The Court's jurisdiction is limited, and its main basis is the signing of documents and the accession of states to its Statute. However, the Security Council can intervene in certain cases. Even countries that are not members are subject to ICC proceedings.

Now, consider the tragic events that occurred in Gaza and Lebanon. More than 44,000 people have been massacred in Gaza. What kind of response would be required to achieve justice? There may have been non-legal measures that could have prevented this crime, which I will discuss later. In this crime, Western countries — especially the United States — officially supported the Israeli regime, both in terms of arms and financial matters. Who should be held accountable, and how can we achieve justice in this regard? This is an important issue, and, God willing, I will elaborate more on it later.

Question: So, in your view, there isn't even a minimal capacity to uphold the rights of southern countries in this context, is that correct?

A. Kadkhodaei: Yes, the reality is that even the minimum standards are absent. When you look at the instances of war crimes and crimes against humanity, you see that a large number of innocent people including women and children have been massacred in Lebanon and Gaza. There is currently an initial arrest warrant, but what is the ultimate action that must be taken? Couldn’t we have prevented these atrocities? Some European countries openly supported the Zionist regime and provided them with weapons.

Question: They are members of the ICC.

A. Kadkhodaei: Yes, and they are also members of the ICC. Before we reached the judicial stage where the ICC would intervene, the Leader of the Islamic Revolution mentioned this matter on a couple of occasions. Couldn't we even prevent simple trade? We could have cut off trade relations. If the countries that claim to uphold justice and human rights had reduced their relations from the very beginning, they could have at least had some impact in preventing the continuation of these crimes. But this did not happen and all they did was offer support. Now that the ICC has issued an arrest warrant, some of these countries — despite being members of the ICC — have expressed caution about this matter, while others have stated that it is mandatory. However, what international tools exist to enforce even this minimal arrest warrant?

Question: You mean an enforcement mechanism?

A. Kadkhodaei: Well, it must be enforced. In the ICC, the enforcement of these rulings is the responsibility of the state concerned. The Zionist regime itself will naturally not enforce these rulings. What actions do other countries intend to take?

Question: Is the US a member of this Court as well?

A. Kadkhodaei: No, it isn’t.

Question: A question I have is how is it possible for some European countries to simultaneously be involved in political and military support for the Zionist regime, while also being members of this Court?

A. Kadkhodaei: This is the very issue that we have been protesting about for years in the context of double standards. On the one hand, you are obligated to take actions according to the Statute of which you are a member, but on the other hand, you clearly see the crimes that are taking place. In any case, the arrest warrant that was issued reflects the peak of international hatred and disgust. Various nations could no longer tolerate this level of crime. Didn't the governments see these crimes?

Weren’t they aware of what was taking place? It's unacceptable for a heavily armed regime to use even food and medicine as weapons of war and to prevent aid from reaching civilians. In some attacks, they wouldn’t even allow rescue teams to help the injured. Yet, no voice was raised from these countries, and no effective action was taken. Now that ceasefire and other issues are on the table, a minimal arrest warrant has been issued, and we'll have to see what the future holds.

Question: The Leader of the Islamic Revolution stated that arrests alone are not enough — Netanyahu and the criminal leaders must be executed.

A. Kadkhodaei: Even execution is truly too little for them. The atrocities committed are far too extensive. These crimes were committed openly, in full view of the media and government officials of various countries, yet not even a small measure has been taken in this area. Sometimes it's merely stated that the Zionist regime shouldn't continue these actions, but more effective measures could have been taken. All they needed to do was to cut off their weapons supply or block the financial resources of the regime.

As soon as a group or a nation tries to stand independently, sanctions and threats are imposed right away, yet no measures are taken against a regime that commits atrocities every day. Are you waiting for the ICC to issue a ruling before you announce your support? What is the future of that ruling? Will Israeli leaders actually face consequences? Can they compensate for the human and financial losses in Gaza and Lebanon — losses incurred for the crime of striving for self-determination?

The advisory opinion of the Court regarding the occupation of Palestinian territories by the Zionist regime loudly proclaims the illegitimacy of this regime. You have never been legitimate from the very beginning and have not even adhered to the resolutions of the United Nations or the resolutions from the 1940s or 1960s. Can it be said that you wish to defend yourselves? What are you defending? Stolen land? You have seized a territory by force and, under the guise of defense, you are committing mass killings. The use of unconventional weapons, such as 2,000-pound bombs on men and women who have no shelter is a crime. These are not conventional weapons that you are using against defenseless people. Attacks on schools and hospitals were also crimes that occurred before the eyes of the international community. In my opinion, the international community could have prevented these crimes from the very first days — not the first week or the first months — but, unfortunately, such actions were not taken.

Question: I would like to ask some questions regarding the ICC. In the past two decades, has there been a case where they actually took action and were able to achieve at least a minimal form of justice?

A. Kadkhodaei: Yes, there have been other arrest warrants issued. Some of these warrants have not been enforced due to specific circumstances. However, some arrest warrants have been implemented. For example, the data I encountered — although I have not verified it — shows that approximately twenty individuals are imprisoned under ICC warrants. The maximum sentence imposed is life imprisonment, and due to European and Western principles the death penalty is not an option. The majority of these individuals come from third-world, developing countries.

Question: You mean there is no one from first-world, developed countries?

A. Kadkhodaei: No, there isn’t.

Question: Aside from the International Criminal Court (ICC), I would like to know if there is an agreement among countries and communities regarding a concept like war crimes.

A. Kadkhodaei: As you are aware, before the establishment of the Statute of the Court, these concepts were quite vague and opinions on them varied widely. What exactly constitutes a war crime, what defines a crime against humanity, and what constitutes aggression in international law? Efforts were made to establish international documents in this area. The Statute introduced these concepts as criminal offenses without addressing the existing disputes. Determining the specific examples of these criminal offenses mainly lies with the Court and its judges. In some cases, judges may determine that the act in question is not a crime against humanity, but rather just a war crime.

Question: Principles based on their own philosophy.

A. Kadkhodaei: Yes, based on the Statute and the procedures that existed, that is, expert assessments, case reviews, and similar matters.

Question: Aside from these international structures, if the Islamic Republic of Iran and other countries that have no hope of realizing their rights wish to pursue such accusations and crimes, what paths would you, as a legal expert, suggest to at least have this matter opened as a case in international forums?

A. Kadkhodaei: Part of my response may be non-legal. Within the framework of legal principles and international law, we need the will and consent of states. In the United Nations, a single permanent member of the Security Council can veto a resolution. For example, in the International Atomic Energy Agency, a resolution was passed against us, where the Board of Governors and powerful countries hold sway. International bodies are influenced by great powers, and their jurisdictions are limited. Even the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has a limited scope of proceedings and methods. We cannot expect the international community to have matured to the point where it can act justly and fairly in these matters.
Developing countries must find themselves and make this demand on the international stage. The creation of international and collaborative institutions can be effective. When more countries enter this field and global public opinion demands it, the global community will certainly move toward addressing these demands. Of course, a specific timeline cannot be determined, but we must head in this direction.

Take the FATF, for example. The FATF is a set of standards that major countries have devised for monetary and banking relations, but, in practice, these standards are imposed on all countries. This means that while governments may sign on, this signature is not provided with full consent.

We should be able to change such a situation. I’ll give another example in this regard. Even when major countries become disillusioned with these institutions, they form new ones. For instance, the G7 or Group of Seven is not an international institution like the United Nations or the International Criminal Court; rather, it is more of a gathering. However, these groups have become determinants of the global economy.

So, why can't this be done in other areas by developing countries? We have seen some initiatives, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS, which have made inroads in the economic sphere. However, these efforts are very few and minimal. These endeavors need to be broader and more organized. One cannot achieve the goal I mentioned merely by holding political summits. These countries must have a more significant presence and impact on the international stage to effectively influence international relations. Ultimately, the demands of developing countries must also be realized.

Question: We have a number of Islamic countries, such as the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. To what extent can these countries influence each other to converge on this path?

A. Kadkhodaei: Unfortunately, due to political issues and the lack of a unified will, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation has not been able to achieve significant successes. Even in the economic arenas that are outlined in its charter, do the member countries adhere to those conditions? Aside from the political statements issued from time to time, they have not engaged in any significant activities. Member countries mainly act based on their individual capacities.

We also have organizations like ECO, and the most important are the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS. These organizations should be more active in various fields. In the Western world, organizations have been formed since the 1940s, where primarily large governments are involved, such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. However, on the other hand, we do not see effective institutions representing developing countries that can have an impact. The European Union was established in the late 1950s and is recognized as a major player in the world. Developing countries should learn from these experiences and work with a unified voice to pursue the demands of their people

Question: If we were to evaluate recent events using the same standards and criteria that were applied to World War II, what would the outcome be?

A. Kadkhodaei: Life imprisonment.

Question: Does that mean the regime is guilty?

A. Kadkhodaei: Yes, there is a conviction. The crimes were so heinous and extensive that institutions could not ignore them.

Question: Isn’t this necessarily a legal ruling?

A. Kadkhodaei: No, this arrest warrant itself is the result of the international community's hatred and disgust. The crimes were so immense and heinous that the international community could not remain silent. Of course, the actions being undertaken will be minimal, but they reflect the deep wounds inflicted on the international community. Perhaps there is hope that in the coming decades, an international maturity will emerge which will follow up these crimes, but under the current circumstances, we have no option but to cope with these minimums.

Question: Do you believe this arrest warrant is a safety valve for global public opinion?

A. Kadkhodaei: In a way, yes. The international community cannot remain silent for so long. This is the strongest response we can expect. If you ask me what else could be done, I must say that for now, there is nothing more we can do through international bodies. However, governments can take more practical actions. When human rights are discussed, Western governments who claim to champion this issue can do better. Double standards are unacceptable. Crimes are committed in some places and no action is taken, while in other places resolutions are passed under false pretenses. This is the nature of the international community today. It operates in a dualistic space and prevents the realization of justice and fairness.

Question: Suppose Netanyahu goes to France. If France chooses to ignore the international arrest warrant, what actions will be taken?

A. Kadkhodaei: If France fails to take action, there's nothing anyone can do. It's up to each member state to enforce these rulings. If France declares that it has doubts about this ruling, no one can force it. Just as one European country, apparently Hungary, has declared that not only does it not accept this ruling — despite being a member of the Statute — but it will even invite Netanyahu. This is why the tools of international law are not decisive and effective. They are often lenient and dependent on the interests of states.

 

(The views expressed in this interview are interviewee’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Khamenei.ir.)