Huh, India passed up China? When did that happen?
But “a nuclear power” doesn’t tell the whole story: Delivery platforms matter. The US, Russia, and maybe one or two other nations can destroy any city on the planet in under an hour. India can destroy any city in Pakistan. And North Korea can destroy any city in North Korea.
Modi is a decent answer. I could also see him wield his power to extreme lengths. Like Trump he also has the religious power behind him.
Oh no. Cecil Adams.
Most definitely.
A couple of years ago: -
Countries with the largest population 2024 | Statista.
Presumably a legacy of China’s one child policy from a few decades ago.
I would put Netanyahu there. He is leading his country in a war that has - irrespective of what one personally thinks about it - stirred up a significant portion of global public opinion against it, and yet he manages to keep going. That indicates a fair amount of power, even though his country is, economically, not of significant size. The arrest warrant that has been issued against him will be more harmful to the court that issued it than to him.
Why would it do a nonzero amount of harm to the court?
Because it undermines political support for a court that is already struggling to get such support from national governments. Some countries (this does not include the US, but it does include Canada, Europe and most of Latin America) believe that it is a good thing to have an independent international court with universal (i.e., not dependent on the nationality of the defendant) jurisdiction over war crimes. These countries are strongly supportive of the ICC, which asserts for itself such jurisdiction. The arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant have made many such countries less inclined to support the ICC further. And if there’s one thing the ICC needs, it’s political support from national governments.
Jeff Bezos?
First, because it just gave Trump the perfect excuse to crush it.
But mainly, because it’s trying to overthrow the democratically elected government of a sovereign state for reasons that may or may not be political, and a lot of countries won’t like that at all. Don’t get me wrong: I hate Netanyahu and want him to die in prison - but in an Israeli prison, damn it, not a Dutch one. This is my country, and only we have the right to deal with our leaders. That’s more important than anything, to me.
Which is of course completely illogical, because people like Netanyahu are precisely why one would want such an international court. If their own nations’ court systems could handle them, then you wouldn’t need the international court. And anything that such a court does is guaranteed to be inherently political.
But of course, humans are frequently illogical.
Look, this is a complex issue that deserves its own thread. Let me just say this: Netanyahu will never be arrested for war crimes in Israel, even assuming he committed any; and Israel will no more be willing to ever turn in a government official or soldier over to an international court than the U.S. would. That’s a given. The only thing this ICC arrest order will do will be that Netanyahu will make sure that he is given absolute immunity before travelling to any other country, and every time he receives that - and he will - it’ll complete negate the ICC’s power in that country and in general. In other words, the ICC can talk the talk, but it can’t walk the walk, and now the world knows it.
The other thing this arrest warrant does is guarantee Netanyahu’s reelection. You stupid fuckers.
Netanyahu is merely the latest example of this wise point:
In and of himself he’s unexceptional. Just one more example in the long line of evil leaders of decent countries who mistakenly elect those kind of folks.
Doubtless trump will (or certainly should be) be indicted fairly soon after inauguration. As should all the evil leaders of all the countries that have evil leaders. Both the elected sorta and the sort who obtained power via less legit means.
The problem is the ICC doesn’t come equipped with an overwhelming military force to enforce its decisions.
The whole world is entering a nationalistic phase that may last another 100 years. One where “international” is a snear word, not a term of admiration. We’re all going to pay dearly before humanity regains its senses. I doubt I’ll live to see it.
All of which means that the ICC isn’t losing power, because it never actually had any power in the first place.
How could he be indicted? I thought sitting Presidents had criminal immunity, so the only way to go after them would be impeachment rather than indictment?
I agree that he’s an evil leader, just not for the reasons the ICC indicted him.
Israelis, in general, don’t see this as an indictment of Netanyahu and Gallant - they see it as an indictment of the Israeli army, and by implication, of the country as a whole. So of course they’ll never turn him in to the ICC; even those of us who hate him would fight to prevent that. Surprisingly, the electorate really doesn’t like it when a bunch of foreigners indict a democratically elected leader.
The sub-topic here is the ICC. They will indict or not on the basis of international law regardless of SCOTUS’ opinion on US presidential immunity under US law.
Understood and agreed.
I have no doubt much of the USA, and not merely the trump fans, would react similarly if/when trump gets indicted by ICC.
But the jurisdiction of the ICC is limited to genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression as offences under international law. Which of these would Trump have committed, and how?
We shall see. His next administration has not yet even begun.
Back in the bad old days, when the Soviet Union ran the Warsaw Pact, even though NATO’s GDP was three times that of the Warsaw Pact, the USSR had a much larger influence on world politics. These days :