what's the connection between powell and the european union you know. your correspondent at the bakery can stretch this line with the rules set by me to hear that. being recipes for success strategy that make a difference. baking bread on d w. i think that's actually more a question you should ask him for you do seem remarkably complacent about the fact that the most powerful country on the you said it wants you dead why do you think it's complacency the international criminal court set up to try the worst crimes on the planet has a new enemy in washington the trumpet ministration was accused of having no legitimacy and says it wants to die my guess this week here in the hague is chief

sujit always be president of the i.c.c. how can he defend the court against such powerful opposition. about suzy welcome to conflict zone thank you very much and welcome to the i.c.c. thank you the u.s. national security adviser john bolton has said he wants your court to die and he is happy to help bring about that demise do you realize what a serious blow that is to your work it is not a serious blow the call to small because one hundred and twenty three states parties to it too strongly supported this is the most powerful country in the world and we want them to be part of the cool they're not and they want to help them.

well. we will not cooperate with the i.c.c. he said we will provide no assistance to the i.c.c. we will not join the i.c.c. we will let the i.c.c. die only after all to all intents and purposes the i.c.c. is already dead to us now he said to you you want them to join this is the answer it couldn't be clearer could start the hand that is the answer from him the moment we are confident that. they will reconsider we are confident about confidence based on what many tell me tell. the sort of hostility had been shown in the past never to the six steps that lead to run another ministration came in even though they maintained in principle that they have difficulties with the i.c.c. and its jurisdictional reach they still did assist the court in very many wasting

looting referring the darfur situation to the court the united states government did move for time and in doing so he enjoyed dealing with them trying to get it straight sure nobody likes ones like them and when they voted in the security council to refer to the four situation to the i.c.c. they said they voted because they did not like the idea of impunity and for that reason that they refer notwithstanding there is a visions about the court this is not just a refusal to cooperate this is a threat to take punitive measures against anyone even daring to investigate the actions of americans on the court or their closest allies with a view to holding them accountable in an international court i.c.c. judges and prosecutors who investigate americans will be barred from entering the us and their funds in the us would be targeted i think that's actually a question. you should because think about what that means under rule seriously now

learning to take this serious you seem remarkably complacent about the fact that the most powerful country on the you saying it wants you dead why do you think is complacency it is not complacency what i am saying is leave that and we are getting them to reconsider their position and join the cotton club parade because this coolant was established for reasons that america can add about in the past plays america has been quite strong in the past about international criminal justice they were at the forefront of nuremberg proceedings they have hoped with the administration of international criminal justice along the way since terminals on time in the past you're talking to me about the past i'm talking to you about the present because if you're putting your head in the sun who you're not putting my head in the side what i'm saying here is that we need them to join us we the

reasons the court has created for which the court in its creation have not abated the idea is that there should be a place of accountability for those who commit genocide and those who commit crimes against humanity those who commit war crimes but reason those reasons have many imperative that is important to the united states as much as is the rest of the world and that is why this court was created you you keep repeating that the two weeks ago the u.s. secretary of state might pumpin to refer to a twenty seventeen request from the i.c.c. prosecutor to initiate an investigation into the situation in afghanistan that said poem pale could illegitimately target american personnel for prosecutions and sentencing in twenty eighteen the trumpet ministration warned there would be consequences if you went ahead with that request pompei understands that request is still pending is it still pending i don't know. i don't know that my answer to you

will change the world i already said but please address the specifics of what pompei i was throwing at you he says that is could illegitimately target american personnel for prosecutions and sentencing that twenty seven thousand requests from the i.c.c. prosecutor to investigate the situation in afghan i cannot comment on pending matter that is a matter now pending before the chamber of this court and we need to leave it at that are you going to challenge this incredibly hostile threat from the u.s. or bow down immediately and except it. will put it to use those sort of a mood of the language becomes a little difficult. other things that can happen between cow towing the media as you put it and or the other thing you said the point is now we. to consider that this court case important for the global interest for the interest of humanity they want you to change course the i.c.c.

is attacking america's rule of law it's not too late for the i.c.c. to change course and we urge that it do so immediately direct direct appeal from the u.s. secretary of state. well. as i say once again i cannot pass with that as i already told you there's a matter pending before the team but what do you want me to tell you to tell you all right the temper is going to drop at like one so tell me this does the court stand by its twenty sixteen report which said there was a reasonable basis to believe the u.s. military had committed torture at secret detention sites in afghanistan operated by the cia again how much your report again and matter pending before i try to do what i can tell you is being in the public domain it's come from your court where i can tell you is that let's understand the dearest premise of the court. it is that states have the primary responsibility to do. justice the court is only

a court of last resort is one state unable unwilling to do justice but the i.c.c. is entitled to intervene now that means that for some states the ones we call the states they call them as a mirror of conscience so they need to do justice so that justice does not become an orphan in the territory of sovereign national sovereignty i understand that your answer candiotti. you've asked a question and this is relevant to it and the second part of the cause to restriction those who are not able to do justice there are a lot of countries around the world where when these things flare up they cannot administer justice it is easier to do atrocity than to do justice we saw that in rwanda before the jury so i understand that right my question was does the court stand by its twenty sixteen point two percent there was

a reasonable basis to believe the u.s. military had committed torture secret tension so you mean that because what you mean would mean the court reporter you're talking about here our examination report sunday which are made public been given to the general assembly this is one of the entrances let me explain to you have our clock now i am a judge the chief judge of the quarter. so i speak to you from the perspective of the judiciary i cannot speak to you from the perspective of the office of the prosecutor that is not to say that if i don't answer any question in relation to the office of the prosecutor there is no answer but you're the president of the school the president talking to me the for its nuclear georgina roundings question list and i'm refusing to answer what's already been in the public may be what people to make of that you can characterize it anywhere you want the point is there when just one and ask the judge i speak from my judgement i cannot be making comments and some. you know that it's not in the within the remit because i

have to decide what you are talking about is not before me as a dutch ok so mr pompei was not going to get a reply from you to his appeal to change course is he he's not going to get he's going to get the same answer that i've got in this interview just no answer yeah it definitely shook the case yes ok it's not just america is it america is far from being the only country that that's refuses to deal with you in fact the most powerful and populist countries in the world have decided that your type of justice isn't for them i'm talking about china india pakistan russia that's three out of five permanent members of the security council with the power to block your investigations in countries that are not signed up to your court so was a question their veto is another serious block to work isn't it why is that a problem for me. it's for the court is right that's what i mean for the court if stage who should join the court haven't joined this is a big problem is that the most powerful unpopular states in the but there are one

hundred twenty three states let's not ignore those the one mistake people make often quite frankly is the ignored those who are in focus and those who are not in that's not fact to those who aren't these that all three of them have intent you know in weeks months or to come we must be able to respect the participation of a hundred and twenty three states parties who continue to have faith in the one hope the court let's not get all lost in the preferences of those who have not yet joined whom we hope will join at some point these two hundred twenty three countries do not and large vetoes in the they look permanent members of the security council they do it with a veto yes china it poses russia and the united states have a veto it is a factor of concern of course that. one of the winners cases come to the court

is where the security council refers it. attests to the court because we call them situations in west spectrum of countries that are not states parties of course when you have the possibility of somebody blocking that possibility of doing justice. where the court would naturally not reach by where of its membership it is a matter of concern it is a let's give you a concrete example you want to investigate the abuses suffered by the wreck injured people and me and mine that's that's already china has warned you off your claim of jurisdiction last year in the general assembly was based on an appropriate interpretation of the clickable legal concepts and might make the i.c.c. is work in the future more contentious undermining further its author already and credibility this is a certain. this is the kind of resistance you're facing among the permanent five members of the security council russia and similar criticisms accusing you of

subjectively interpret in what it called the standards of international law it doesn't matter if they're right or wrong does it it matters that they have the power and the veto to block you well again. no would right improve on the answer the answer i give you is that. hundred twenty three state faced in this court and we continue to work that just now we continue to watch those who have not joined to do so so that humanity all over the world will come under the umbrella you're watching is pulling on deaf ears well. if you actually asked yourself why it is that those states who have not joined haven't done so. either way that should be a question you may want to ask or reflect upon what it means we can write number appears a thesis on those we're not here to write a ph d.

thesis we can do that says let's stay with the facts and what you were set up to do which is to try is the most serious crimes of the planet and that is very important we should know lou signed and i find the veto that the three members that i mentioned permanent members of the security council have will keep you for instance from any serious prospect of trying any syrian officials that might be responsible for the mass killing and torture that has taken place that it's their veto that has prevented what human rights watch called a path to justice for syria's victims the fact is most care will not allow any referral of syrian leaders to your court under any circumstances we can that's a big gap we will need it is it is a very important there's no question about that but i staked vetoes a situation that should ordinarily be brought to court so that humanity is protected. by the two of the mandate of the i.c.c.

it is a serious problem but it is one that all of that protections including the use of mr sebastian would need to get them to reconsider because this is about humanity it is not about the i.c.c. everyone keeps focusing i.c.c. i.c.c. we need to look beyond wind i.c.c. was created there were six million. jews killed because of their faith. during the second world war we eight hundred thousand people when the genocide in the night and night i only know what i see see you keep going back and i'm staying in the present i'm talking about the relatives of the four hundred thousand victims of the assad regime who have absolutely zero chance of getting the kind of justice that you would wish to deliver for them i'll just really not be a kindness to tell them that finally passed but i can do what i'm doing now using

your program to them to reconsider. that position and joining. because the protection humanity under the rule watch this well that is what we hope to see happen we live in a world that despite your honorable intentions we live in a world where the spots to get away with pretty much everything and we're hoping that that changes that is why this court was brought into play and there's an irony the reason to think that that has actually changed there's an irony here is that if you kill one person with luck you'll be arrested be tried and you're convicted you order the death of four hundred thousand people and we all know who we're talking about here and you get invited to peace talks just as i have not invited anybody no you haven't you haven't so why don't you but syrian officials have and that's the reality of today isn't it that's the america we will have more international law great a body of international law more courts more experts more judges but that's the

reality one person you get tried you kill four hundred thousand you get invited to peace talks that's hardly justices in the us i think you and i might be able to an extant. speaking loudly where the issue is even commented on but one can see where you're coming from but i would say that it is a matter that past all of us you'll be to the actions like. those concerned in these decisions to store up the reach of isis's jurisdiction to reconsider their position you told the general assembly last year that the mere existence of this court serves as an obstacle to those wishing to commit crimes against humanity if that were true we would have seen the use of chemical weapons in syria along with the torture and extrajudicial killings the continuing slaughter

in yemen the killings in south sudan the targeted executions in the slums of venezuela and the massive loss of life in your own home country nigeria. you can't offer the kind of protection and you can offer the obstacles that you claim a little less for let's back up to first of all the reality doesn't match your rhetoric does it know i can tell you things i can tell you that yes this court has been an obstacle. to the conscience of those who would ordinarily be in ways they would not be here if we didn't have the schools well nothing you haven't even seen this is done not in venezuela not in syria when i cannot comment on some of those issues as a matter of you read the news when i can read you read the news you see what's happened i read the news but then again some can i tell you something because

a week this is what i said judge i cannot comment on the propositions you toss made contact can speak in general terms about the need for everyone to remember why the court was here the reason why i cannot comment on what you say this case any of those. cases come up at the i.c.c. . it be a problem for me not much chance is that he's not sure that there's not much chance we have to keep hoping that you cannot fail to notice a human being it's not his will and the states men and women who make these decisions will reconsider their position so that everybody can subscribe to the i.c.c. laws and there are some not for reconsidering their positions you have the withdrawal of existing signatories to the road treaty like the philippines and burundi and i ask you whether you can blame them because the big prize refused to collaborate with you why should the spores and we just recently had the malaysian join us don't

forget this you have that what about the withdrawal of the philippines and burundi where there are clear cases to answer why not clear cases of human rights violations what what what what do you expect me to say to think that it is more than they make the decision to draw for reasons that reasons we q. and i. can discuss it in other circumstances but that's not for the i.c.c. . it's not ice he says it's a major. deal work isn't it. because not only are you having countries withdrawing you having others that are flouting their commitments to the coup or the philippines and burundi the dimensions with drew because they say that i.c.c. was investigating cases in relation to that now why is that a problem for the i.c.c. in the moral sense that you're trying to apply because i.c.c.

is doing its work and people choose to withdraw and then that's a problem for the i.c.c. i can see it but you're doing your work i would be because i.c.c. was precisely doing its why some people didn't like it that they made this unfortunate decision we regret in twenty sixteen the group of former world leaders known as the elders called for the urgent reform of the i.c.c. required it said to improve its overall performance and effectiveness in delivering justice for all in a timely manner such reforms they said would lead to the enhance credibility of the court there have been no reforms since twenty sixteen reforms. it depends on what we mean. by be the past to tell you that as a human institution this court yes those knees of erotic review of that manner of doing one to two to do battle like we do in our life like every

other site institutional company would do that is taken for granted but in advance of what people are talking about the rather some reforms that are more difficult to achieve because of you need to amend the rooms tattooed some that's a more difficult proposition but closer to home judges will want to keep on reviewing how we do the one to improve how. we do things there have been some serious missteps doesn't help when you have there. with all of the former every coast president laurent gbagbo for instance earlier this year this was seen as a stunning defeat wasn't it for what was the first prosecution of a former head of state amnesty international coded a crushing disappointment to victims of post election violence in the country do you share that disappointment i do not share the counter rising of the stunning

defeat i do. understand the concern of those who speak on behalf of the victims i could see. they would be disappointed by such results but understanding oh i think with the victims. one can say they should not lead us to taking short cuts to the washoe county you need better prosecutions going to the judge to not toughest one of your colleagues said the prosecutor had failed to submit sufficient evidence to demonstrate the responsibility of mr gbagbo as well as his former youth minister i can satisfy the burden of proof this is a prosecution failure isn't it i cannot comment on that because i mean the appeals court will be of this court and that kids might come of the appeal and because of the time certainly cannot comment on it because what i want to see that i was

saying is that. you know it's not just like with all the police procedures i mean it's perfect in the court is it that there's too much of in the high that everything is possible to have everything is imperfect and you have a string of losses there in a string of reverse and you listen to me please along the way there's all kinds of continuum that we must take into account now judge i must tell you that i do not regard acquittal that's a stunning defeat citing kind of fun you know victims will be disappointed. but we have other ways of trying to attend to the victims for instance the something we call the trust fund for victims by the way. to donate that's not just this message that's not just us to donate to the trust fund for something else that's not just them systems program takes the race. conviction am i right or wrong in

thinking that a prosecutor's job is to bring to court he will pull case based on solid evidence that will stand up in court and that hasn't been hurting the last meal is questions and he did not want to be easy if he seems to be written out that is simply what we can write appears if he says now you know have you where you can give me a much simpler answer than that i cannot give you a bad simple answer some things are not susceptible to simplistic answers you sense an excuse is not it is not an excuse the fact of the matter is this if you focused on accountability and we need to focus on the room started promised counter ability to people he did not promise that every case that comes to court must result in a conviction that do you know. we are not here running for your cause i think it can. be the holy of the soul of the inquisition even.

right did not convict everybody or when failed to stand and fortunately we're running out of temp you know that we're running out of child the only managed to get three percent of went through the. city thank you very much for being all complex thank you.

quadriga the international talk show for journalists discuss the topic of the week as nato mohsin seventieth anniversary we are school fugitives some of the trail lines have been dangerous trying to come to the many small germany's role in the international security and defense arena last some more coming up in the country to

join us. quadriga ninety minutes on d w. if you ever have to cover of a murder the best way is to make up packs of. raring to. never read a book like this one i. missed the bus treats. come to the new duramax new true channel. line of stories. with exclusive. the must see concerning fourth.

place to be curious minds. do it yourself networkers. so subscribe it don't miss out. on eccentric inventions. to. really know their stuff. make herbs with the good morning and shift. their part in chat rooms issuance from around the world. groups every week on t.w. . i'm secure in the they were not hard and in the end this is a me you are not allowed to stay here anymore we will send you back. are you familiar with this. with the smugglers what alliances. what's your story.

and what numbers of women especially in victims of violence. take part and send us your story we are trying always to understand this new culture. not a visitor not a guest you want to become a citizen. in for migrants your platform for reliable information. german chancellor angela merkel has been in dublin for braggs it talks with her irish counterpart leo varadkar this comes nine days before britain could leave the european union with a deal which would in danger that open border between the republic of ireland and e.u. member and northern ireland which is part of the united kingdom. a proud member of

the board until last month said if you're down russia's phone that the kind of place truly was injured but were not able.