Video Transcript / Subtitles:( AI generated. About AI subtitles » )

* AI ("Artificial Intelligence") subtitles on Tagalog.com are generated using "Whisper" by OpenAI (the same company that created ChatGPT and DallE2). Results and accuracy may vary.
* The subtitles do include errors occasionally and should only be used as a tool to help with your listening practice.
* You can request this website to create a transcript for a video if one doesn't already exist by clicking the "Request AI Subtitles" button below a video. Transcribing usually takes 30-40% of the length of a video to complete if there are no other videos in the queue. For example, a 21 minute video will take 7-8 minutes to transcribe.
* Running a super fast cloud GPU server to do these transcriptions does cost money. If you have the desire and financial ability, consider becoming a patron to support these video transcriptions, and the other tools and apps built by Tagalog.com

President ng ICC was also in the international news, chine-check natin yung mga kanyang statements.

So big deal talaga sa kanila yan.

Kung may nagsasabi na ito ang mga ito, wala silang audacity to take on big guys.

Remember, yung isang accusation lamang sa ICC is that they just go after leaders of African countries, weak countries, peripheral countries, oh well.

Now they have gone against no less than a supposed superpower.

Suppose that because, well, Russia's economy is barely among top ten in the world, and it's military, well, nakita natin how it's performing against Ukraine, so I'm not sure about the superpower argument.

Although, of course, they have the biggest stockpile of nuclear weapons next to the United States, so that kind of makes them a superpower, but more or less, in many other ways, medyo malabo.

Now, let's check the details of this report, mga kameta, para ma-appreciate natin yung nangyari, or yung relevance na nangyari, mga kameta. Let me just go to this.

Ayan talaga, e. Ayan talaga. Okay. So, the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant kahapon against Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Ang accusation lamang sa kanya is war crimes. Ito yung sinabi natin kanina, diba?

So, generally, what we're talking about here are mass atrocities, so war crimes, ethnic cleansing, first genocide, yung pinakagrabe, or isa sa mga pinakagrabe, katulad ng nangyari sa Rwanda, katulad ng ngyari sa South Sudan, and, of course, katulad ng nangyari ng World War II against the religious minority na inatake ng Nazi Germany, not to mention also against Polish and Slavic people during the Second World War.

So, its first warrant for Ukraine, or related sa Ukraine, the ICC called for Putin's arrest on suspicion of unlawful deportation of children and unlawful transfer of people from the territory of Ukraine to the Russian Federation.

Ayan sa Kremlin naman, the arrest warrant against Putin was outrageous but meaningless with respect to Russia. Let's discuss that a little bit more.

Ayan kay Dmitry Peskov, ang Kremlin spokesperson, ito yung parang hierarchy nila.

Russia found the very questions raised by the ICC's, quote, outrageous and unacceptable, but noted that Russia, like many other countries, did not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC anyway. So, very similar argument, Ruiz, used by sa mga katatay, diba?

Now, and accordingly, any decision of this kind are null and void for the Russian Federation from the point of view of the law. As if Putin now feared traveling to other countries that recognize the ICC and might, therefore, arrest him, sabi ni Peskov, I have nothing to add on this subject. That's all we want to say.

Yan ang interesting, guys. Kasi this is going to be the difficulty, mga kamay-kamay. This is going to be a difficulty. Okay, so now let's look at first geopolitical and then the legal aspect of this.

Now, before going that, let me also show why this is relevant to the Philippines because if you look at the case of the Philippines, the arguments are quite familiar, if not very similar.

Now, obviously, from a jurisdictional standpoint, you can look at the argument, for instance, of complementarity. The idea is that ang ICC po ay hindi pwede basta-basta pumasok. Pwede lang sila pumasok if there is an evidence to suggest that domestic or national judicial institutions are not doing their job in terms of upholding the basic human rights of the citizens being targeted.

Now, this could be due to war, this could be due to civil war, or this could be due to unwillingness of a relatively functioning state to undertake necessary investigations to get to the bottom of the matter.

So, complementarity means once it's determined that local or national institutions are incapable of or are unwilling to properly investigate mass atrocities, allegations, and charges, that's where papasok ang ICC.

Now, alam natin itong kaso laban sa dating administration or top officials of the previous third administration dun sa ICC. This has been going on for, what, four or five years at least, diba? Magpupo five years na yata yan.

So, this has been going on for quite some time while the war in Ukraine has been pretty new. I mean, it's not pretty at all but it's quite new, diba? So, parang the other year lang yan.

Now, okay. First of all, let me just give some first impressions here na lang. So, one thing we have to keep in mind is, mga kameta, this says that ang ICC po hindi na takot to go after non-colored, I mean, essentially, this is a white man we're talking about.

You're a leader of a superpower or supposed superpower, at least a major country, right? So, in accusation, ICC is just a white man going after the colored people, African people, et cetera, well, now it's not really making as much sense, right? Because, you know, you can see it yourself, right?

The other thing is the accusation against ICC that it acts too slowly, that it lacks audacity, right? And sense of urgency. Well, the war in Ukraine is just over a year ago, nang start yun last year, February. So, within a year, a lot of cases were being filed, especially by the Ukrainian government.

And interestingly, Ukraine also is not part from such. Pag-usapan din natin yan. So, many cases have been coming. So, ICC is acting on that very, very expeditiously. So, the argument that they're too slow, this goes down. The argument that they're just targeting Africans or post-colonial leaders, well, this is coming down also because you're talking about, of course, a European white leader.

But, of course, it also raises certain other questions, mga kameta, diba? One of the questions it raises is, wait lang, bakit yung case of Philippines, that allegedly there have been tens of thousands, not thousands, but tens of thousands of ICC, bakit parang ang tagalong investigation process, while in the case of the Philippines, while in the case of Ukraine, wala pang one year, parang meron na tayong ganito?

Now, again, this goes back to the concept of complementarity, diba? Pinagsapan natin yan, mga kameta, because the Philippines is not in the midst of war with any other country, nor is it being invaded by another country.

So, that's why it gave the Philippines the chance to argue that, no, no, no, nagpa-function pa rin naman, and by the way, we're also willing. So, therefore, if you look at it, there were some Tonkin cases here and there being investigated, especially kay, of course, we're talking about at least one conviction during the Duterte administration.

So, the Philippine argument is that we have functioning state institutions and we're willing to, but that cannot apply to Ukraine, right, or in the case of Russia, because one is an invading country and another is being invaded. So, clearly, there's no argument to be made in terms of let the local courts to go after alleged criminals.

So, what, like Ukrainian courts going after Putin? That's not going to work, right? So, it's a different case. And, of course, we're talking about war crimes here, which is quite different from the allegations against the Duterte administration. I think it's crimes against humanity, diba yan?

Right, so, yun pa yung pinag-usapan natin dito. So, it's mass atrocity, similar to allegations against the former administration here, but it's a different case. You're also talking about war crimes here. You're talking about ongoing conflict. You're talking about Ukraine besieged and under invasion. You're talking about warrant arrest against a country which is invading the other country. So, the idea of waiting for local courts to do their job doesn't make sense here, diba?

And, urgency in a sense that, well, it's so easy to, I mean, the evidence is right in your face, right? So, easily, you can find the evidence in the case of Ukraine because the Ukrainian authorities are cooperating. International observers can go here. Was it the Bukha massacre? People can go in and investigate. It's there. There's no resistance from the Ukrainian authorities when it comes to looking for access to evidence, no?

Or, at least, if not gathering evidence per se, talking to witnesses, etc. So, that explains, perhaps, or that could be the argument vis-a-vis why bakit mabilis inaksyonan ng ICCN because I know the argument could be, wait lang, isn't that also kind of a double standard?

So, if, like, tens, twenty, thirty thousand, let's say, people in post-colonial world were killed or, you know, lost their lives under suspicious circumstances, that investigation can wait for four or five years. But this one, because two European countries are involved, or at least one, depending on how you count what's Europe, one Eurasian, one Eastern European, whatever, then ang bilis ng inaksyonan ng ICC.

Now, as I said, you have to look at the circumstances here because we're talking about war crimes, we're talking about an ongoing conflict, you're talking about warrant arrest for the leader of an invading country, and clearly you're also talking about a case whereby the ICC or international investigators will not have much of a problem accessing the evidence because the Ukrainian authorities are providing whatever evidence is available,

and they're more than open to cooperate and to get international help to make sure na may hustisya na mangyarit dito. So, that most likely explains why, mga kameta, medyo mabilis inaksyonan nito ng ICC kumpara sa kaso ng Pilipinas.

Because, of course, for me, again, at the very beginning, parang ang bilis naman ito, pero bakit sa Pilipinas, ilang years na wala pa. But if you actually analyze the case, mga kameta, if you go deep into the case, and you understand the circumstances, then ma-appreciate mo why this supposed discrepancy.

So, it's not necessarily a double standard case. In fact, it's not. It's more a case of you have more access to the evidence and you have totally a war situation here, right? While the other case in the Philippines is kasi dinidribble ng government natin for quite some time because their argument is that bakit pa kaya pumasok? Wala naman gira. Hindi naman war crimes na pinag-usapan. You're talking about allegations of crime against our own people. So, wait for us. We are going to do our investigation.

So, ang debating ngayon, the back and forth ngayon, mga kameta, is whether the ICC can still exercise jurisdiction or should exercise jurisdiction or whether the Philippines is already doing its job.

So, ito yung latest argument na lumabas sa Pilipinas. Pag-usapan din natin yan. So, let me also quote yung ating officials because... Okay. Before that, obviously, our argument is because nag-withdraw na tayo.

Okay. Hindi. Tama lang yan. Let me show this and then pag-usapan natin yan because I have to show you what I'm talking about because the next argument we have to make. So, first is the broader geopolitical moral issue that we're going to talk about. We talked about. The other one is the jurisdictional issue.

So, few weeks ago, ito po yung argument ng gobyerno natin. Ang point nila, dapat back off ang ICC. So, yung prosecutors from the International Criminal Court are not welcome to investigate the Philippine soil ukol dun sa Duterte administration alleged crime against humanity as there is, quote, no mechanism that allows such a probe. For such a probe.

Ito ayon kay Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Ramulla. Ang Pilipinas, ayon kay Secretary Ramulla, has its own legal system that can address the country's problems and there's no justification for ICC to enter to investigate the killings linked to former President Duterte's so-called war on drugs.

So, this is the direct quotation from Secretary Ramulla. If the ICC insists on coming in, let me tell you this. There's no mechanism by which the ICC can come in because this was not contemplated in the drafting of the law of the treaty before we became a signatory for a few years from which we withdrew, right?

Ayon sa kanya, if they want to put into themselves or rather put into their own hands the judicial powers of this country, then they will be committing a violation of our legal system or by that matter, our sovereignty.

Ayon kay Ramulla, just a fair warning, do not monkey around with our legal system. There's no accepted mechanism so how they can come in, I see no way for them to enter the country.

So, ito yung argument ng kasalukuyan ng administration. Ramulla also said that the move of administration allied lawmakers to defend former President Duterte from the ICC investigation is natural.

Remember, si dating Pangulo Arroyo also came up with a number of people, I think more than a dozen lang ang nagsuporta sa kanya. So, dun sa back off ICC. The ICC is a political body in many ways. It is not just a body for justice but it's meant to forward a political agenda for many people.

Why do I say this? Because we are a country with a legal system that can function by itself and they want to take over some of our functions just to criticize the way we run our country before. That's not right. That's why we will not bow down to their political agenda. So, clearly the argument here is this is all political, right?

And of course, the other argument, mga kameta, is wala naman jurisdiction because nag-withdraw na tayo sa ICC. Well, this is where things get tricky because if you look at it, mga kameta, nag-withdraw na po ang Russia similar to the Philippines. In fact, a few years earlier, ang kanilang membership sa ICC and also Ukraine is not.

So, eto mga kameta. Pakita lang natin yan. So, actually if you look at it, similar to the Philippines, nag-withdraw din ng Russia from the ICC. This is when they were facing a lot of pressure after the invasion of Crimea.

So, this is back in 2016. Russia said it's formally withdrawing signature from the founding statute of the International Criminal Court, the Rome Statute, a day after the court published a report classifying the Russian annexation of Crimea as an occupation. So, union context.

Back then, also three African countries who were full members of the ICC, South Africa, Burundi, and Gambia, also signaled their intention to pull out following complaints that ICC prosecutor focused excessively on the African continent. Ito yung sinabi natin noon, diba?

So, again, the argument that walang jurisdiction ng ICC or ICC hindi sila papasok dahil nag-withdraw na tayo, well, Russia has been out of the picture for quite some time and yet they went with this warrant of arrest. So, the precedence here is very, very important, mga kameta.

The other thing also to keep in mind here is also Ukraine. Well, Ukraine also, mga kameta, is not. So, this is what we pulled from the ICC, International Criminal Court's website. So, andiyan niyan.

So, Ukraine is not a state party to the Rome Statute, but it has twice exercised its prerogative to accept the court's jurisdiction over alleged crimes under the Rome Statute occurring in its territory pursuant to Article 12, Section 3 of the Statute.

So, the first declaration was filed or lodged back in November 21, 2013 to February 22, 2014. So, this is perhaps in relation to some of the major incidents that was happening there.

The second declaration extended this time period on an open-ended basis to encompass ongoing alleged crimes committed throughout the territory of Ukraine from February 20, 2014 onwards. So, clearly, the Russian element comes in, no?

So, on February 28, 2022, the ICC prosecutor announced he would seek authorization to open an investigation into the situation in Ukraine on the basis of the office's earlier conclusions arising from its preliminary examination similar to the Philippines and encompassing any new alleged crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the court.

So, eto po yung konteksto ng war in Ukraine and invasion of Ukraine. So, again, irarap-up din natin yan. Don't worry.

So, the jurisdictional issue here is also, or the jurisdictional precedence is also important because hindi membro ng Ukraine sa Rome Statute, nag-withdraw na po ang Russia sa Rome Statute. Hindi na sila signatory sa ICC since at least 2016, and yet this warrant of arrest came in.

So, the argument of the Philippines na nag-withdraw na tayo. So, wala na kayong dayo pakialam sa atin. Well, it kind of doesn't work anymore, right? So, the precedence has been already set here. That kind of argument is kind of flimsy right now, right?

And as I said, the ICC already in the past argued that kahit nag-withdraw ka na, mag-apply pa rin, right?

So, now, the thing though is, mga kameta, let us discuss this more, no?

Now, may mga nagsasabi dyan na suntok naman sa buwan yan, hindi mo naman ma-arrest si Putin. Of course, given na, I think there's no illusion that Putin will be arrested per se. Who's gonna arrest him, right?

So, I mean, he's the head of a nuclear power country. Sure, that's very important to keep in mind. I think no one is under any illusion.

But, people who stopped their analysis at that point, they don't know what they're talking about.

As I said, first of all, there is a jurisdictional precedence being set here. So, that has relevance for the case of the Philippines, right?

The idea that kahit hindi ka na-member ng ICC, pwede pa rin pumasok ng ICC.

Kahit hindi ba member ng ICC, yung kapila, yung victim country, pwede pa rin pumasok ng ICC, diba?

And that yung ICC hindi lang na-target ng African countries. Clearly, we're seeing a European country here being targeted.

Or Eurasian country, or whatever you wanna put it.

Now, where things get quite interesting, mga kameta, is this.

Remember, ito rin yung argument ng mga katatay sa arbitration award case.

Bakit? Mapupuntaan ba natin ang China? Makukulong ba natin siya?

You don't get what I'm saying. You don't get what geopolitics is all about.

First of all, when you talk about great powers, prestige, authority, and respect is very, very important for them.

It's a competitive field here. Russia is competing with China, with US, with Europe, with Japan.

Regionally, in places like the Middle East, it's competing with Turkey, it's competing with Saudi.

Now, it's competing also with China and United States, etc.

So, in that very competitive field, it really doesn't help if, first of all, you have a leader

who essentially is banned from much of the Western world, or the most developed countries in the world,

who recognize the authority of ICC.

So much for being a world power, if your leader is more or less persona non grata.

So, that's something to keep in mind. The pariah status.

So, you cannot claim to be a superpower if you're treated like a giant North Korea, right?

Kind of a giant rogue state. That's an important thing to keep in mind.

So, it's strategic cost. If you have a leader who cannot go to many top countries,

top capitals in the world because there's a warrant of arrest,

then that really makes projection of power and diplomacy very difficult.

Because let's not forget, we're talking about a leader who was meeting Trump,

who was meeting Biden, for instance, in Switzerland, in Europe, etc.

Meeting Merkel, the former German Chancellor, over and over again.

All of that is not going to happen right now. It's very unlikely to happen, right?

So, what countries can he go to? Countries that are authoritarian, dictator, pariah states, rogue states, etc.

Others might already be a few, right? Because they're tight, so they don't want to do anything about anything, right?

So, that pariah status is important because it chips away at prestige and power.

Prestige and power. Prestige and power is very, very important. Why?

You see, countries spend billions of dollars on soft power or propaganda because prestige matters.

Because it's not just about money.

You see, why does China spend all of this money on all these initiatives and projects and all?

Because it wants to get respect. It wants authority. It wants to gain trust.

It wants to gain confidence. It wants to have prestige.

Prestige is very important. Hosting World Cup, Olympics, very, very expensive.

They do that because of prestige. Why would Qatar spend all this money? Prestige.

So, prestige is a big thing.

Because in a competitive world, if you want to have more allies, you want more countries to follow your example,

that's called soft power.

It's hard to have soft power if your top leaders have pariah status.

So, that's a big strategic cost.

But let's not also forget the moral argument.

Sometimes, regardless of the result, that's a consequentialist argument.

The intentionalist argument is that you have to do the right thing regardless of the result.

But what I'm saying is that even the result is significant here because you're talking about the potential pariah status.

Now, the other thing to keep in mind is that the Russian economy is not doing well.

It's definitely not collapsing.

The idea that the West could make Russia collapse, that's ridiculous.

It's not going to happen. Russia is a great country.

It's a powerful country in every sense of the word.

It has nuclear weapons.

So, you cannot underestimate Russia.

But Russia's growth potential, Russia's access to top technology, Russia's per capita income growth,

all of those things are not really in a good place.

And as Russia stagnates and has a hard time sending its leader to other countries,

has a hard time conducting trade with other countries, it can do.

But look at it, it's doing trade with India but they're selling their oil and gas super cheaply.

Oil, in this case, in the case of India.

China, both oil and gas.

But they have to sell it cheap.

So, that's what I'm saying.

People are just saying, it won't collapse or Russia won't collapse.

But that's an unrealistic target to begin with.

What you're looking at here are the strategic costs, the prior status, the diplomatic isolation.

The more diplomatic isolation, it also affects your ability to conduct trade and strategic agreements with other countries.

For instance, the Philippines was supposed to buy weapons systems, advanced weapons systems from Russia.

No more now. We don't want to do anything about it.

Because we don't want to get into the whole quagmire.

Indonesia was supposed to get Su-35 fighters.

They withdrew. They don't want to do anything about Russian weaponry, etc.

Who's coming in? India is coming in.

So, India is getting cheap oil from Russians who are desperate to sell it.

And by the way, to extract that oil, it's not free.

So, you have to spend a lot of money to extract oil and then you're selling it cheap.

So, your margins are going to be very, very thin.

And then with gas, you cannot just remove the pipelines from Europe and put it all the way to Asia.

It doesn't work that way.

It's far more complicated than that.

It takes years to build pipelines.

The demand in China is not going to completely cover what it needed for itself.

Plus, everything is going to be lost in Europe.

It doesn't work that way.

So, there are many, many costs here.

Strategic costs, economic costs, transactional costs.

Prestige costs.

All of these things.

And as I said, it also sets the precedence jurisdictionally that even if you're a leader of a powerful country,

if the ICC believes or the international court believes that there's sufficient evidence,

then they can go after you.

But anyways, that's what I was saying.

If you look at the Philippine Arbitration Award, for instance,

the Chinese, they're not using the term 9-line anymore as much.

Because they know.

It's a joke.

After the Arbitration Award came out.

They don't read it anymore.

They don't understand international politics.

It's the Philippine Arbitration Award which is being invoked by the U.S.

and other powers who are conducting freedom of navigation operations.

Directly challenging China's claims in the area.

That's why the Europeans are coming in more comfortable with it.

That's why the Japanese and Indians are coming in.

They're feeling more comfortable with it.

Even the Koreans had something there.

Although they didn't want to pick a direct fight with China because of the North Korea angle.

So on and so forth.

And it will be very difficult later on for China to invoke UNCLOS

to support its own interests in other parts of the world like Arctic, etc.

Because what happened in the arbitration case in the Philippines is going to boom around.

So that's what I'm saying.

International politics is not about total collapse or total victory.

It's all about these gray areas of strategic costs and strategic gains.

So clearly Russia is not going to collapse.

Clearly Putin is not going to be arrested soon.

I don't think ever.

It's very unlikely.

But.

Look at all of this cost that is imposed.

Look at all of this isolation.

You see there was a lot of discussion about China brokering the Saudi-Iranian deal.

And how the US was absent from the picture.

I would say, well obviously, one is the enemy of the US.

So they won't really be the mediator.

But a country like Russia could have been the mediator.

Instead of China.

Because Russia has been a big player in the Middle East for quite some time.

Since the Tsarist era.

But they're not because they're more and more isolated.

They're operating from a position of weakness.

That's a very, very important thing.

So yeah, sure.

Russia and China are going to buy from Russia.

China and India are going to buy from Russia.

But they're going to buy it as cheap as possible.

Very cheap.

So a lot of foregone revenues there.

A lot of countries don't want to do any arms deals with Russia anymore.

Including Indonesia.

Including the Philippines.

Again, you can see.

Putin will not be able to go to a lot of countries.

To project power.

A lot of Western countries.

They don't want to do anything about it.

And then of course, Western countries.

The major capitalists in this world.

London, Paris, Washington, D.C.

All of those will be off-limits.

So these are strategic costs.

Right?

And these are important.

These are important things to keep in mind.

Because again, at the end of the day.

There is no illusion whatsoever.

About whatever warrants arise.

Will be implemented anytime soon.

Right?

So.

You set the jurisdictional precedence.

And you increase the strategic costs.

So this looks like.

The intention and the consequences.

Of what we're seeing right now.

And as I said, this also has repercussions for the Philippines.

Because all those arguments on.

We're no longer included in the Rome Statutes.

Therefore this and that.

All of those arguments right now.

Are, you could argue.

Are far more questionable and flimsy.

And some would even say they should be thrown out of the window.

Alright.

So this is the response of the DOJB.

Of the Marcos Administration.

I know of course what are the arguments going to be.

Etc.

Let's see.

Let's see where this is going to go.

But for me, this is big.

This is big.

And the relevance of this is going to come out more and more and more.

In the coming weeks and coming months.

As we see reactions.

Counter reactions.

And all the chain of events.

And chain of.

Or this dialectics.

Of the rest of the world.

Let's see where this is going.

Now President Xi Jinping is also going to be in Russia.

I think in the coming days.

Let's also see how that's going to go.

So clearly now with Putin not being able to visit many top capitals.

He's going to meet Xi Jinping as a junior partner.

So again of course China will visit them.

Russia, India will visit them.

Sure.

But now we know who's the junior partner.

Who's the senior partner.

For a long time Russia was a senior partner.

When it dealt with its allied country.

Central Asian leaders.

Were treating Putin when he visited them.

For Eurasia.

Or Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting etc.

Again this is about prestige.

This is about power.

This is about being able to conduct diplomacy.

This is about respect and authority.

And all of that.

Those are things that very much matter in international.

In international arena.

Especially if you're a superpower.

Or claim to be still a superpower.

Alright.

Thank you very much for that.

Let me.

Thank you to all of our viewers.

Again we're trying to be as objective as possible.

So we showed all of the evidence.

We'll post the articles.

Everything relevant to our discussion here.

So thank you very much.

I can't.

My internet is slow here.

Alright.

Thank you very much guys.

I'll get back to you.