Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has said that Russian leader Vladimir Putin will not be arrested in Brazil if he attends the Group of 20 meeting in Rio de Janeiro next year.

Lula, speaking to the Firstpost news show at the sidelines of the G20 meeting in Delhi on Saturday, said Putin would be invited to next year’s event.

He added that he himself planned to attend a BRICS bloc of developing nations meeting due in Russia before the Rio meeting.

“I believe that Putin can go easily to Brazil,” Lula said. “What I can say to you is that if I’m president of Brazil, and he comes to Brazil, there’s no way he will be arrested.”

The statement comes after the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant against Putin in March, accusing him of the war crime of illegally deporting hundreds of children from Ukraine.

  • GCostanzaStepOnMe@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Arresting the leader of a sovereign nation amounts at least to a diplomatic crisis, and at worst to a declaration of war.

    And before George Bush is brought to trial I don’t think the West has much credibility in dealing with war criminals.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      We’d arrest him but he’d have to set foot in Germany, or at least Europe, first. The US are hardly going to extradite him, aren’t they.

      • jasory@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        No country would ever arrest Bush. The US has far too much invested in insuring qualified immunity for former heads of state. Imagine if every president knew that any country could either arrest or coerce extradition based solely on decisions made in office, nobody would run for office. There is an implicit guarantee that current presidents will retailate against states that imprison US citizens who act in an official capacity.

        Additionally there is no arrest warrant for Bush in Germany, or any country in Europe.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Germany claims universal jurisdiction for crimes against humanity as well as wars of aggression. The US can try as much as it wants to tell Germany “Bush is going to come please don’t arrest him”, the answer will be “Have a look at our laws it’s all laid out in very clear terms”. And, no, he’s not going to be recognised as a US diplomat, and therefore won’t be granted immunity.

          And of course there’s no arrest warrant he’s not in the country and if we’d send out an Interpol notice the US would go ballistic. Hence the simple understanding that he’s not going to come over for a visit.

          coerce extradition

          States generally decide who to extradite on their own terms. That is nothing new or unusual and Germany certainly isn’t in a position to complain the US won’t extradite a citizen given that we don’t extradite citizens as a matter of principle (unless it’s within the EU and certain conditions are met), but instead trial them over here.

      • GCostanzaStepOnMe@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No European country would arrest Putin, let alone a NATO country, and especially not Germany lol. They wouldn’t even allow him into the country in the first place.

        • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think they were talking about Bush. While I think Cheney deserves it more, was there ever an arrest warrant for either of them?

          • GCostanzaStepOnMe@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t think so, which is also one of the reasons anyone outside the western hemisphere can safely dismiss anything the ICC says. But also the US made it pretty clear it would not accept any international court ruling, and AFIK there even was a slight threat of violence when it was being discussed a decade ago.