Belarus to UN: Depoliticize Fight Against Crimes, Criticizes ICC

In a significant address at the United Nations, Belarus has issued a fervent call for the global body to refrain from politicizing the critical fight against crimes against humanity, simultaneously leveling sharp criticism against the International Criminal Court (ICC). This stance, articulated by Belarus’s Permanent Mission to the UN, underscores a deepening challenge to international judicial mechanisms by Minsk, particularly as its leader, Alexander Lukashenko, faces scrutiny from the very court it now lambastes.

During a session of the General Assembly’s legal committee dedicated to combating crimes against humanity, the Belarusian delegation reaffirmed its commitment to prosecuting such offenses under its national law and expressed willingness to continue cooperation in the field. However, this declaration was immediately followed by a stern admonition to the UN, highlighting perceived serious shortcomings in its approach. Minsk emphasized that any future interstate collaboration in this domain necessitates a “depoliticized, transparent approach that considers the interests of all states,” pointing to significant divergences among nations on core issues such as the definition of crimes against humanity, the application of universal jurisdiction, immunity for officials, and the interplay between future conventions and existing national laws.

At the heart of Belarus’s critique is the International Criminal Court itself, which Minsk regards as the most “politicized and biased” institution in the battle for human dignity. According to the Belarusian delegation, the ICC has repeatedly violated its own founding statute and universally recognized norms of international law, particularly regarding the immunities afforded to sovereign state officials. They accuse the court of unjustifiably expanding its jurisdiction and arbitrarily lowering the threshold for classifying acts as crimes against humanity, often disregarding criteria of widespread and systematic perpetration. Such politicization, Minsk argues, along with the crimes themselves, poses a potent threat to international peace and security.

This pointed criticism from Minsk is not without underlying context. The ICC has, on multiple occasions, received complaints against President Alexander Lukashenko. These submissions originated from various entities, including the Belarusian political opposition, human rights organizations, and the government of Lithuania. Opposition figures view Lithuania’s formal referral as particularly weighty, marking a precedent where a state party to the Rome Statute has brought a situation occurring, in part, within a non-state party’s territory to the ICC’s attention, potentially opening avenues for the prosecutor to investigate alleged crimes against humanity in Belarus.

The complaints lodged with the ICC, some dating back to September 2024, describe a grim picture following the widespread protests of 2020. They contend that the mass exodus of opposition supporters from Belarus amounted to a form of deportation, orchestrated through the creation of an atmosphere of fear and the pervasive use of “hate speech.” Furthermore, Belarusian authorities stand accused of persecuting exiled citizens abroad, employing what critics describe as “in absentia and politically motivated sentences” that fall short of international legal standards.

Despite the initial enthusiasm from the opposition regarding these submissions, there has been no public announcement or discernible action from the ICC. This silence, however, has not deterred Belarus from its broad critique, a stance that finds a curious parallel in recent international political history. Notably, in February of the current year, the ICC itself came under fire from former US President Donald Trump, who imposed financial sanctions on the court for its investigations into American personnel and allies, including Israel. In its condemnation of the ICC, Belarus, with President Lukashenko having previously styled himself as a “Trumpist,” appears to be mirroring a similar strategic playbook on the global stage.

Beyond its immediate grievances with the ICC, Belarusian authorities have recently begun articulating a broader vision for international relations, proposing what they view as more equitable approaches and assessment criteria for humanity. The Telegram channel of Belarus’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Glas MIDa,” recently published a post titled “Shaky West vs Stable Belarus: Two Different Paths.” The text posits that while “old” Europe struggles with its fragmented political systems, Belarus exemplifies a stable alternative. It argues that the Western model of democracy, long promoted as universal, is now failing systemically, leading to hardship for ordinary people. The post concludes that the root of the problem lies in Western democracy becoming a “choice without choice,” where real power rests not with voters but with the military-industrial lobby, and politicians merely serve to maintain the status quo and dominance. This narrative underscores Belarus’s ambition to position itself as a credible challenger to established Western norms and institutions, including those of international justice.