German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 60/66,
pp. 7679-7680.
Frau President. Right honorable colleagues.
The motion put forward by the CDU ascribes to nothing less
that the enforcement of justice and cites nothing less than a judgement of the
Nuremberg process. This determined, courageous leap, here well attempted, however
clearly falls short, and even immediately in the second paragraph of the text
which meekly yields on what is here proposed.
Yes, put forward is a Russian war of sudden aggression according
to articles 1 and 3 of the corresponding definition of the United Nations. No
one disputes that and no one wants to sugar-coat that. Yet the so-called
security of world peace will now be assigned, according to article 24 of the UN
Charter, to the helplessly outdated construct of the Security Council in which
Russia possesses a right of veto. We all the more cannot proceed at the much too
late established International Criminal Court; since there, China and Russia
have, by definition with the U.S.A. as three similar veto powers, withdrawn
themselves from trouble. The U.S.A. would even be prepared to liberate its own
citizens from the Hague by means of a commando mission.
Thence now this apparent solution of a dilemma by a special
tribunal: What of its apparent value shall exactly, legally lead to where? The tribunal
for Yugoslavia was at the time validated by the Security Council and thereby found
itself entirely within the executive power [Vollzug]
of the UN Charter. That will plainly not work here, since Russia is against it.
Thus a court beneath the actual level of the UN, sustained by a pair of
intermediary powers? Certain actions can be internationally represented if that
is wanted, yet to completely ignore fundamental, real factors – that seldom
leads to success and always damages one’s own credibility.
Clearly, this special tribunal would initially not directly
and substantially affect us as do the economic sanctions. Yet wherefore then
have we in the West lauded and spread with gusto the principle of world law? Would
it not be much more honest to deliberate the elaboration of war crimes in the
Ukraine directly before national courts? Naturally in regards to both warring
parties. The cooperation problem then would not be pettier and, all the same,
not all perpetrators would be in custody.
One thing however is definitely presumptuous: To believe we
could, by means of a tribunal decision, direct the president of an atomic
power. The only two instances of who would be in a position to direct Putin are
the Russian oligarchs and the Russian people. Whether these consider doing that
is however their decision alone.
The presently proposed special tribunal would be a nice-looking
covering
Vice-president Aydan Özoğuz: Please come to a conclusion, Herr colleague.
without effective content, the proverbial Potemkin village. We
should not erect that. We should preferably leave that to others.
Many thanks.
[trans: tem]
