Iran-Israel: 'Preventive war and regime change are rarely met with success'
Did he want to avoid publicly endorsing the Pole's irony? Or did he not entirely understand the scathing quip, perhaps being unaware that The Hague is also home to the International Criminal Court (ICC)? The US is not a signatory to the Rome Statute that established the court, and the ICC arrest warrant against the Russian president for war crimes holds little weight for Washington – least of all for Trump, who maintains good relations with Vladimir Putin. For the Europeans, however, the ICC's warrant represented a significant moment in the war in Ukraine: It brought the law to act against a leader who recognizes only force.
The anecdote from Tallinn illustrates the expanding rift between Europe and the US over international law. As the pillars of multilateralism collapse one after another, the European Union still wants to believe that it can operate on the basis of the rule of law. It cites this principle constantly, especially when condemning Russian aggression in Ukraine.
A more recent precedent
How can one not be surprised, then, by the stance several European leaders – including French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz – have taken on Israel's attack on Iran? Legally, it is a paradoxical position. Justifying this offensive with Israel's right to self-defense runs counter to the right to self-defense as recognized by the United Nations Charter: Though Iran does, indeed, threaten Israel by seeking to develop nuclear weapons, it has not yet attacked it. While inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have observed that Iran's nuclear weapons program was advancing, they have not, however, determined that it has become a reality.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
France 24
4 hours ago
- France 24
Europe hopes for 'no surprises' as US weighs force withdrawals
Washington is currently conducting a review of its military deployments worldwide -- set to be unveiled in coming months -- and the expectation is it will lead to drawdowns in Europe. That prospect is fraying the nerves of US allies, especially as fears swirl that Russia could look to attack a NATO country within the next few years if the war in Ukraine dies down. However, the alliance is basking in Trump's newfound goodwill following its June summit in The Hague, and his officials are making encouraging noises that Europe will not be left in the lurch. "We've agreed to no surprises and no gaps in the strategic framework of Europe," said Matthew Whitaker, US ambassador to NATO, adding he expected the review to come out in "late summer, early fall". "I have daily conversations with our allies about the process," he said. While successive US governments have mulled scaling back in Europe to focus more on China, Trump has insisted more forcefully than his predecessors that the continent should handle its own defence. "There's every reason to expect a withdrawal from Europe," said Marta Mucznik from the International Crisis Group. "The question is not whether it's going to happen, but how fast." When Trump returned to office in January many felt he was about to blow a hole in the seven-decade-old alliance. But the vibe in NATO circles is now far more upbeat than those desperate days. "There's a sanguine mood, a lot of guesswork, but the early signals are quite positive," one senior European diplomat told AFP, talking as others on condition of anonymity. "Certainly no panic or doom and gloom." 'Inevitable' The Pentagon says there are nearly 85,000 US military personnel in Europe -- a number that has fluctuated between 75,000 and 105,000 since Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. "I think it is inevitable that they pull out some of their forces," a second European diplomat told AFP. "But I don't expect this to be like a dramatic overhaul. I think it's going to be gradual. I think it's going to be based on consultations." Trump's first target is likely to be the troops left over from a surge ordered by his predecessor Joe Biden after Moscow's tanks rolled into Ukraine. Officials say relocating the rump of that 20,000-strong deployment would not hurt NATO's deterrence too much -- but alarm bells would ring if Trump looked to cut too deep into personnel numbers or close key bases. The issue is not just troop numbers -- the US has capabilities such as air defences, long-range missiles and satellite surveillance that allies would struggle to replace in the short-term. "The kinds of defence investments by Europe that are being made coming out of The Hague summit may only be felt in real capability terms over many years," said Ian Lesser from the German Marshall Fund think tank. "So the question of timing really does matter." 'Inopportune moment' Washington's desire to pull back from Europe may be tempered by Trump now taking a tougher line with Russia -- and Moscow's reluctance to bow to his demands to end the Ukraine war. "It seems an inopportune moment to send signals of weakness and reductions in the American security presence in Europe," Lesser said. He also pointed to Trump's struggles during his first term to pull troops out of Germany -- the potential bill for relocating them along with political resistance in Washington scuppering the plan. While European diplomats are feeling more confident than before about the troop review, they admit nothing can be certain with the mercurial US president. Other issues such as Washington's trade negotiations with the EU could rock transatlantic ties in the meantime and upend the good vibes. "It seems positive for now," said a third European diplomat. "But what if we are all wrong and a force decrease will start in 2026. To be honest, there isn't much to go on at this stage." © 2025 AFP
LeMonde
a day ago
- LeMonde
'In Eastern Europe, it is often mainstream media that spreads false information and promotes illiberal ideas'
In light of growing evidence of democratic backsliding and rising authoritarianism worldwide, digital media are increasingly seen as central drivers of these trends – both for their well-documented role in amplifying illiberal and radical right-wing politics, and for their known susceptibility to foreign manipulation. This perception is arguably reinforced by media coverage of some of the recent elections, from France to the United States to Romania, highlighting the importance of video platforms, influencers and podcasters for electoral mobilization, as well as raising alarms about Russian interference. However, if we step back from the narrow focus on electoral campaigns in countries with relatively pluralistic news markets, and take a look at the broader political information environment shaping citizens' opinions, we can often see that it is the mainstream media and domestic actors – rather than social media and hostile foreign powers – who assume the central role in the dissemination of false information, and in the promotion of illiberal attitudes. Our own research on the rise of illiberalism in Eastern Europe highlights many such examples, while at the same time showing that under certain conditions – namely, wherever the majority of the mainstream media market has been captured by illiberal political actors or their business allies – social media can act as channels of resistance against the forces of illiberalism. Major channels of propaganda In Eastern Europe, some of the most potent manifestations of the crucial role of mainstream media in the illiberal public sphere are currently observed in Hungary and Serbia. In Hungary, Viktor Orban's Fidesz party has effectively colonized the vast majority of the media market, and turned major media brands into channels of government propaganda, starting with the public service broadcaster MTVA. In Serbia, the key outlets upholding the illiberal regime of Aleksandar Vucic have been commercial TV stations such as Pink TV, TV Happy, TV Prva and TV92, as well as the main national tabloids such as Informer, Alo, Kurir and Srpski telegraf, all owned by Serbian companies with close ties with the ruling elites.
Local France
2 days ago
- Local France
France's top court annuls arrest warrant against Syria's Assad
The Court of Cassation ruled there were no exceptions to presidential immunity, even for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. But its presiding judge, Christophe Soulard, added that, as Assad was no longer president after an Islamist-led group toppled him in December, "new arrest warrants can have been, or can be, issued against him" and as such the investigation into the case could continue. Human rights advocates had hoped the court would rule that immunity did not apply because of the severity of the allegations, which would have set a major precedent in international law towards holding accused war criminals to account. They said that, in this regard, it was a missed opportunity. "This ruling represents a setback for the global fight against impunity for the most serious crimes under international law," said Mazen Darwish, the head of the Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression, a civil party to the case. French authorities issued the warrant against Assad in November 2023 over his alleged role in the chain of command for a sarin gas attack that killed more than 1,000 people, according to US intelligence, on August 4 and 5, 2013 in Adra and Douma outside Damascus. Assad is accused of complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity in the case. Syrian authorities at the time denied involvement and blamed rebels. Universal jurisdiction The French judiciary tackled the case under the principle of universal jurisdiction, whereby a court may prosecute individuals for serious crimes committed in other countries. An investigation -- based on testimonies of survivors and military defectors, as well as photos and video footage -- led to warrants for the arrest of Assad, his brother Maher who headed an elite army unit, and two generals. Advertisement Public prosecutors approved three of the warrants, but issued an appeal against the one targeting Assad, arguing he should have immunity as a head of state. The Paris Court of Appeal in June last year however upheld it, and prosecutors again appealed. But in December, Assad's circumstances changed. He and his family fled to Russia, according to Russian authorities, after Islamist-led fighters seized power from him. In January, French investigating magistrates issued a second arrest warrant against Assad for suspected complicity in war crimes for a bombing in the Syrian city of Deraa in 2017 that killed a French-Syrian civilian. 'Great victory' The Court of Cassation said Assad's so called "personal immunity", granted because of his office, meant he could not be targeted by arrest warrants until his ouster. But it ruled that "functional immunity", which is granted to people who perform certain functions of state, could be lifted in the case of accusations of severe crimes. Thus it upheld the French judiciary's indictment in another case against ex-governor of the Central Bank of Syria and former finance minister, Adib Mayaleh. Advertisement He has been accused of complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity over alleged funding of the Assad government during Syria's civil war. Mayaleh obtained French nationality in 1993, and goes by the name Andre Mayard on his French passport. Darwish, the Syrian lawyer, said that part of the court's ruling was however a "great victory". "It establishes the principle that no agent of a foreign state, regardless of the position they hold, can invoke their immunity when international crimes are at stake," he said. Syria's war has killed more than half a million people and displaced millions from their homes since its eruption in 2011 with the then-government's brutal crackdown on anti-Assad protests. Assad's fall on December 8, 2024 ended his family's five-decade rule.
