Original article (in Bosnian) was published on 16/03/2023
While reporting The New York Times’ coverage of the US refusal to provide evidence of Russian crimes in Ukraine to the International Criminal Court, Sputnik manipulatively attributed to this paper the claim that the Pentagon “sided with the Russian military”.
On March 9, 2023, an article was published on the Sputnik Serbia web portal with the title stating that the US Department of Defense, or the Pentagon, has sided with the Russian military since it refuses to help the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. The New York Times is cited as the source of this claim:
New York Times: The Pentagon sided with the Russian army – refuses to help the Hague Tribunal
The article refers to a text published a day earlier in The New York Times, in which, based on sources close to the military, it was stated that representatives of the US Department of Defense are blocking the delivery of evidence to the ICC about the crimes of the Russian army in Ukraine:
Representatives of the US Department of Defense are blocking the submission of information to the International Criminal Court in The Hague about alleged violations of law by the Russian army, writes the New York Times, citing sources in the military department.
It was explained that the refusal came from the fear of creating a precedent that would later open the possibility for criminal prosecution of members of the US military. The article reported that there is a debate within the administration of President Joe Biden about whether evidence should be submitted, even though in December of last year, the US Congress changed the previous legal restrictions on assistance to the ICC.
Articles with similar titles were also published by Novosti, IN4S, Cafe and Vesti-online.
In Sputnik’s article featuring a comment made by lawyer Branko Pavlovic, which was also published on March 9, 2023, the claim about The New York Times was repeated, which announced that the Pentagon was siding with the Russian military. In the title, it is formulated as “a fabrication of The New York Times”.
The “New York Times” fabrication about the Pentagon siding with Russians: Whole America is running away from international justice
The text of the “New York Times”, which states that the Pentagon is siding with the Russian army by refusing to cooperate with the International Criminal Court in The Hague, is a simple fabrication because the entire American state is running away from cooperation with that court, lawyer Branko Pavlovic told Sputnik.
What Pavlovic actually believes is fabricated in the New York Times article is the discrepancy between the wishes of the Biden administration and the plans of the military leadership in terms of helping the ICC. Pavlovic believes that there is unanimity in the USA when it comes to cooperation with that court – which is refused by the rule.
“It is about the fact that the USA does not recognize that court and then, of course, state authorities are afraid that by communicating with that court they would indirectly recognize its jurisdiction. The whole story in the ‘New York Times’ was fabricated, as if there is now some military elite there that is doing something on its own, and as if another part of the country would cooperate with that court. No, it would not cooperate”.
What are the facts?
There is no mention of the Pentagon siding with the Russian military in the article on the refusal of the US Department of Defense to send evidence to the Court in The Hague, published by The New York Times. Such wording was published in the title of the article on Sputnik on March 9 and in the article with Branko Pavlovic’s commentary, which was published on the same day.
In addition to the information about the refusal of the US Department of Defense to submit evidence to the International Criminal Court, the article of The New York Times from March 8, 2023, brings a detailed overview of the relationship between the United States of America with this court in The Hague.
The ICC is a court for prosecuting individuals responsible for four types of worst crimes of concern to the international community: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of aggression.
Unlike the ad hoc international criminal courts for war crimes in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, this court was conceived as a permanent court established by an international treaty called the Rome Statute. The court has jurisdiction over the aforementioned crimes if they were committed by a citizen of a country that ratified the Rome Statute or if the crime was committed on the territory of a country that ratified the statute. The crime must have occurred after July 1, 2022.
The United States of America, Russia and Ukraine are not among the 123 countries that have ratified it.
Some states refuse to ratify the Rome Statute and refuse to cooperate with the Court, usually using the argument of sovereignty – in this sense, the inalienable right of the state to prosecute crimes against humanity within the national criminal system. According to this argument, the ICC requires states to relinquish a segment of sovereignty. Sovereignty (as a guiding principle in international relations) and national criminal law on the one hand and the ICC, or international criminal law, on the other hand, according to this, figuratively speaking, are in conflict.
The fear of the possibility of American citizens being prosecuted before the Court in The Hague is the reason why the US has long kept the Court “at a distance”, according to The New York Times. Congress, in legislation passed in 1999 and 2002, limited the support and assistance the US government can provide to the Court.
Although Congress made an exception in December allowing the government to assist the ICC in “investigating and prosecuting foreign nationals in connection with the situation in Ukraine, including supporting victims and witnesses”, the NYT reports that the Pentagon has maintained that the US should not assist the Court in investigations against Russians in Ukraine since Russia has not ratified the Rome Statute.
Therefore, we assess the headline of the first Sputnik’s article in which The New York Times is cited as a source for the claim that the Pentagon “sided with the Russian army” as clickbait and manipulation of facts.
We evaluate this claim, repeated in another article, and the wording in which it is called a “fabrication” by The New York Times as a manipulation of facts.