The founder of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Argentine Luis Moreno Ocampo (72 years old), also deputy prosecutor in the first trial (1985) against the Argentine dictatorship (1976-1983), publishes War or Justice(Espasa), a book where he analyzes current conflicts comparing them with others from the past. History, he says in an interview in Madrid, repeats itself, and diplomacy often stumbles over the same stone, but he is optimistic. The scenario is “so critical” that it can become an “opportunity for change,” to shift from the current model of war to that of justice.
Ask. To define how the International Criminal Court is integrated into the diplomatic scenario, he speaks of “a stone in a shoe”, that is, something that does not prevent us from continuing to walk. Both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have arrest warrants. What has to happen so that it is not just a nuisance and justice works as a deterrent method?
Answer. The International Criminal Court is a deterrent. Putin was furious after the arrest order because he knows he cannot travel to certain places, but political support is needed. United States Senator Lindsey Graham supports the investigation against Putin as a war criminal, but is opposed in the case of Netanyahu because politicians think in terms of friends and enemies and prosecutors, in terms of crime or non-crime. They are two different logics: war or justice.
Q. Last May, US President Joe Biden assured that he had warned Netanyahu not to make the same mistake as his country in Afghanistan, when they responded with a war to the 9/11 attacks, but you explain that the US continues supporting this war strategy against terrorism above justice and international law. Is it possible to go back to before 2001, when terrorism was a matter for police, judges and prosecutors?
R. Biden understands that the Afghanistan strategy was wrong, but does not present an alternative. Their generals basically agree with what Israel does. Sometimes they ask that the pumps be smaller, but they do not question the strategy. Bush established the war on terror model and Obama, who criticized it and won the Nobel Peace Prize, consolidated it. The United States likes war, especially when they put their weapons and others’ lives. The US uses war to manage conflicts, subsidizes its weapons production with billions of dollars and is not saddened by the deaths of Ukrainians or civilians in Gaza. We must help the US to change, but Europe, whose weakness astonishes me, fell into the trap in Ukraine and supports the war model. You have to seek agreements, knowing that they will not be perfect.
Q. What would be a just peace in Ukraine? What do you imagine in that agreement?
R.Obama negotiated with [el dictador sudanés] Al Bashir ignoring a genocide. Europe does not want to make an agreement with Putin, but it makes an agreement with the man who is massacring the Armenians. Negotiations must be made with Putin, and China can play an important role in that negotiation. The biggest problem is the occupation of the territory of Ukraine, we must ensure that it cannot continue. What does not make sense is that Finland is going to spend its educational budget on weapons or that there are green parties supporting the war. A new security concept must be negotiated that includes that no one can invade another country.
Q.What would guarantee, if Putin gets part of the territory in that agreement, that tomorrow he won’t want more?
R. Ukraine depends on foreign aid and must close an agreement because in a year it will be worse. The idea of winning over Russia with a war is absurd, although Russia has also become worn out and for that reason knows that if it has not been able to take Ukraine it cannot expand further. I am surprised that Europeans do not see this more clearly.
Q. He says that an American ambassador went to see him in The Hague to ask him to close an examination requested by the Palestinian National Authority. He claims that the United States invokes international laws, but avoids applying them. It has a law that even empowers the president to rescue personnel handed over to the International Criminal Court, which constitutes a veiled threat of invasion of The Hague.
R. The United States is an obstacle because it shares the principles, but not their application. It demands them in Ukraine, but does not apply them in Gaza. Israel handles the US, which has demonstrated its absolute impotence in this case, instead of allowing the International Criminal Court to help set limits. Netanyahu and Putin do similar things and what is needed is for non-American communities to help Americans think differently. Because the president of the United States influences politics much more than the president of your own country.
Q. He maintains contact with Palestinian and Israeli friends. Do they say different things to you now than they did a year ago?
R. Each one protects his group. I have Israeli friends who demonstrated against Netanyahu and who since the October 7 attacks fully support him. And Palestinian friends who complain that he says Hamas committed genocide.
Q.In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon to expel the Palestine Liberation Organization from there. More than 17,000 people died. Israel achieved its objective, but remember that, as a consequence of that intervention, an even more powerful terrorist group developed, Hezbollah, supported by Iran. He says in the book: “I am impressed by the inability to learn from the past.” Is it just a lack of learning or are there too many incentives to keep making mistakes? The war increased the popularity of Bush, Putin, Netanyahu…
R.War encourages terrorism. In Gaza it will not end it, it will multiply it. The problem is very serious and to solve it not only politicians, but also experts, have to intervene. What happens is that many of them are proposing war. In the US there is a lack of independent professors who propose cooperation. I spent six years at Harvard trying to open a debate with the other professors and I failed because it is an American university that believes that what matters is the interests of the United States.
Q. He claims that Hamas knew that Israel was going to react the way it did and that it was seeking exactly that, to delegitimize them. In this spiral of violence, he cites very similar statements by Hamas terrorists and Israeli authorities denying the distinction between civilians and targets.
R. Because, with more or less subtle arguments, both Hamas and Israel see the people as enemies. Israel falls into the trap of terrorism because it overreacts with a strategy of war, not justice, and drops a bomb on a refugee camp. But it’s not a mistake. It is a political decision: eliminate the Palestinians. And Biden has not managed to stop it even one millimeter.
Q.Why is Donald Trump Netanyahu’s favorite candidate?
R.Trump and [Elon] Musk are entrepreneurs, they do transactions, business, not politics. He lobbyJewry in the US is very powerful and Trump uses it to accuse Biden of not supporting Israel. I don’t know what Trump is going to do, but his difference with the Democrats in this case is more inside the United States than outside.
Q. He says: “As Saddam Hussein’s case showed, during wars allies are not questioned and in the 21st century those allies can be individuals like Elon Musk.” What interests Trump about Musk and vice versa? Are social networks weapons of mass communication?
R.Musk has million-dollar contracts with defense. It is part of the US defense strategy and also of the communication strategy, because Twitter, now called X, was purchased and uses the platform for Trump. In April 2024, the United States passed a security law that included weapons for Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and the ownership of TikTok. Social networks manage the algorithms, that is, what you see, and there is no context there. The idea of extremists driving the discussion is ridiculous. Communication between opposing groups must be improved.
Q.Remember that Tinder, seeing that the fact that women rejected 98% of the proposals demoralized male users, invented an algorithm that filtered negative responses and proposed developing an application for peace following that model. Isn’t that what diplomacy is: trying to combine interests without hurting sensitivities?
R. Yes, but the problem is that the model is applied by independent states, national actors. The model of the International Criminal Court mobilizes the State in another way. Silicon Valley is investing in war, not peace. The United States could have led that cooperation. Europe can help. Let software companies also work for that, to create a tinder of peace.
Q. Despite the gloomy international outlook, he argues that there is an opportunity to accelerate change and focus on justice. He compares it to the abolition of slavery in England, when British slave owners who had opposed the measure became unexpected promoters of change to prevent their French competitors from using slaves on their cotton plantations and getting better prices. Can Putin, Netanyahu, Hamas… be part of the process of change like the British slavers?
R. People say it is impossible, but after 50 years, Spain ended ETA; the world abolished slavery; Colonialism was the history of humanity and it also ended. Changes are possible. The problem is that the leaders of the Western world are not setting the ideals. And of course there are economic incentives, as energy dependence has shown, but we are investing much more in war than in peace. The last great investment in peace was the International Criminal Court.
Q. The war in Gaza has distracted forces, support and attention. Do you think that will go further?
R. Each conflict hides the previous one. Syria hid Darfur. Ukraine hid Syria. Now the conflict in Lebanon hides Gaza. And if he goes to war with Iran, he will hide everyone else. The focus is always limited. In Armenia and Venezuela there are no terrorist groups, but the repression in both countries is a fight for civilization.
Q. The crisis in Venezuela has generated a lot of controversy in Spain. The PP accused the Government of participating in a coup d’état and José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero of being an accomplice of Nicolás Maduro. How do you value this mediation by the former Spanish president?
R. I don’t know why it’s seen as a left-wing or right-wing issue. It is a rights issue. Venezuela has become a dictatorial government, Maduro has staged a coup to stay in power. Zapatero, any mediator, must assume that it is a new time in which there is an illegitimate government. The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has not hesitated to prosecute Putin and Netanyahu and will not tremble with Maduro. But justice alone is not enough. Lack of political support.
Q. He explains in the book that the strategy of combating terrorism with war caused the displacement of millions of people and that when some of them arrived in Europe they were perceived as a threat, which favored the rise of the extreme right and xenophobic discourses. The Muslim population is the main victim of terrorism, but it is not perceived that way. What do you think it is due to?
R. Europe has a kind of very strong ideological dependence on the US and political leaders often work in the short term, to survive without foreseeing the consequences. These massive displacements caused by an erroneous strategy caused Europe to become less hospitable and many stopped distinguishing between victims and perpetrators, so that the victims of Islamic terrorism became suspected of being Islamic terrorists. A world that sees friends and enemies is a world at war with people, a world of tribes.
Q.What scenario do you see in a year in Gaza, Israel and Ukraine?
R. There is the possibility that Israel will bomb Iran and that there will be an escalation of war. Azerbaijan receives weapons from Israel and uses them against Armenia. If Israel bombs Iran, Azerbaijan will invade Armenia. There is a domino effect that we do not perceive because there is a lack of authorities who think globally. I believe that there must be an agreement in Ukraine. We need the leadership of medium and small countries to move towards the model of justice, abandoning that of war. The transformation has to be case by case.