Nicaraguan lawyer and diplomat Carlos Argüello Gómez speaks to The Grayzone about his case against the German government for its facilitation of Israel’s genocide in the besieged Gaza Strip, its potentially historic implications, and its similarities to the successful case he argued for the ICJ in 1986 which brought massive penalties against the United States for its illegal dirty war on Nicaragua at the time.
A full transcript follows.
Max Blumenthal: Why did Nicaragua feel compelled to bring this case against Germany? And perhaps you can fill us in on the latest development?
Dr. Arguello: Yes, thank you. Well, naturally, the main state committing the crime is Israel. The main abettor of what is happening is the United States. But the next one is Germany.
In the first case, Israel, South Africa has brought a case against Israel, of genocide, and that case is pending. Israel has been ignoring so far the orders of the court. In the case of the main abettor, the United States, we don’t have any jurisdiction to bring the United States to the court.
The United States not only does it accept the jurisdiction, but even when it became part of the Genocide Convention, which was 40 years after the convention from 1948 — it wan’t until 1988, that they became a party, with a lot of reservations, saying that they couldn’t be taken to the court, and that it [was] only genocide according to a decision by a court in the United States — with a lot of reservations that make it impossible to go against the United States.
But Germany doesn’t have that type of reservation, and Germany is the second [largest] supplier of weapons to Israel. So our position was a question of principle, beginning with: that it was very important to sit down and to make countries clear that there is an international obligation to prevent these types of situations.
The Genocide Convention specifically says in its first article that all countries have the obligation to prevent and punish genocide. We have the obligation to prevent — that doesn’t mean that the genocide has to have been completed already, that it has to have been determined by a court that there has been genocide. You have the obligation to prevent [it].
So what we have stated in the court, and have proven, is that Germany has had all notice, beginning from the Secretary General of the United Nations from the ninth of October, saying that genocide was possibly being committed. Even the International Court said that genocide was being committed.
Now, you have to understand also that if genocide is being committed, obviously, international humanitarian law is being [violated]. If you are massacring a population, the difference is, if you aren’t massacring with the intention of destroying it completely, which is genocide, you are still violating international humanitarian law.
Now the problem — to divide the situation — is Israel only accepted jurisdiction on the basis of the Genocide Convention. So you can’t claim against Israel violations of international humanitarian law, only genocide. And so that was another of the points that I’ll get to.
But first, going back, the principle involved here is all states have responsibility to prevent these type of crimes, international crimes. The court had already given indication of this 20 years ago, in an opinion that the International Court had given on the construction of a wall in Israel. The Court itself had felt that all states had the obligation to prevent what was happening. All states had the obligation to enforce the humanitarian law conventions, but nobody paid attention.
Germany never paid any attention to what was happening. The court even said that the Palestinians had the right to self-determination in that case. Nobody paid attention. So now we come to when the most crucial genocide is being evidenced — because genocide has been committed for many years. It’s not a question of just the past few months. But it is absolutely in evidence, and the countries continue as if it wasn’t. As if the Genocide Convention and all the international laws had nothing to do with them.
So we thought that as a matter of principle, we had to bring before the court this question. Now, I wish to clarify, because I have been asked: ‘why Nicaragua?’ Well, with Nicaragua, we have a lot of experience in the court. We came to the court forty years ago against the United States, on a question of principle also. It was the principle of non intervention… of the state. In that we made a very important contribution to international law.
And since then we have been in the court many times. We have been in the court more than twice as many times as Germany. So it’s not that we are discovering the court in this situation. We have experience and that’s why, this experience, we wanted to put it to the benefit of the Palestinian people that are being massacred, at the very least, if not committing genocide against them.
Now, another situation, and this is on a personal level: after South Africa brought the case against Israel — and that was at the end of December last year — then in January, I was just listening to interviews, by very important commentators, very important lawyers. Everybody was saying, ‘Well, no, genocide is possible… it’s very difficult to prove that,’ and whatever.
So I think the whole understanding of people who were watching what was happening was: well, obviously, then nothing is happening. It’s very difficult to prove. I mean, that wasn’t the issue. Israel was massacring everybody. It was violating all international humanitarian law. The only thing was that only genocide could be brought against them directly.
So the fact of bringing this case against Germany, which includes not only genocide, but also its obligations, German obligations, to also help prevent the violation of international humanitarian law. All that is on the table with Germany. Against Israel, only the genocide. Against Germany, we have all international law, humanitarian law also on the table. So I mean, that aspect is also very important.
Part of the reason, right, but obviously, Germany will try to avoid [it] and say that, as they said in the court, that we can continue in this case without the presence of Israel. But independently of what is happening, each country in the world, all countries in the world, have the obligation to prevent [genocide]. It’s an independent obligation.
So, I mean, this is more or less where we are. And hopefully, the court will order. There are no third states, I’m sorry, there are no other parties, but Germany and Nicaragua involved in this. There is no reason why the court can not simply order that Germany cease supplying weapons to Israel, which is what we hope will happen.
Wyatt Reed: So the Germans are offering kind of a novel legal defense here. The legal director for the German Foreign Office, Tania von Uslar-Gleichen, said recently that, “Our history is the reason why Israel security has been at the core of German foreign policy.” So the point here seems to be that given that Germany carried out the Holocaust, it’s now compelled to do whatever it takes to defend the so-called ‘Jewish state,’ and apparently, including even facilitating the mass extermination of Palestinians. Is that an accurate reading of the German position here? And if it is, how do you expect that to hold up in court? Are you optimistic about the outcome here?
Dr. Arguello: Well, frankly, in court… Let me make two comments on that. Even before the Germans spoke — when we presented our case on Monday, the Germans responded on Tuesday — we’d already made the distinction. We told them, because I think Germany has always been saying that it is their raison d’etre that they have: the defense of Israel.
So one of the things we told them on Monday is that we understand and that it is a praisable situation, a very laudable situation, that they feel responsible for the Holocaust, and the barbarities that were committed in the Second World War against the Jewish people. But a distinction should be made, Israel is not the Jewish people. What they’re helping is a state that is committing genocide.
That’s one point and a very important distinction. But in the long run, what they are doing is, they are going against the Jewish people, because Israel is causing enormous prejudice to the Jewish [court], the world around. It’s incredible. Frankly, I don’t know how we can understand that position of Germany. If they’re really worried about what they did, or what happened, of their ancestors or the Nazis, or whatever we want to call them. Well, I think the first thing should be, their heart should tell them that they should be helping the Palestinians in this situation. I mean, those are the guys that are suffering. I mean, Israel is not suffering. If they want to really have compassion, or they feel compassion to those that are suffering, Israel is not suffering. Israel is a superpower.
Max: Ambassador Arguello, you mentioned earlier the case that you brought at the International Court of Justice or that the Nicaraguan government brought back in 1984. In 1986, you received a favorable ruling from the ICJ. And this was a case against the United States for its violation of international law, through the CIA’s backing of the Contra death squads, as well as its mining of Nicaragua’s Harbor. The US did not abide by the decision. It simply sat on its hands and waited until its preferred candidate, Violeta Chamorro, won in 1990, and proceeded to withdraw the case. Do you see any similarities between that case and the case you’re bringing now against Germany for its participation in Israel’s genocide against the Palestinian people? And how do you expect the ICJ or the international community to enforce a decision in the current case, given the brazen attitude of Israel in the United States towards international law?
Dr. Arguello: Well, that’s a very important consideration, and thank you for the comment on the historical background. Yes, I mean, the case we brought against the United States has certain similarities. Some we pointed out during our intervention — the most obvious is that one of the main things we’re requesting [from] the court right at the beginning, was that the United States should cease its supply of weapons in support to the Contra forces that were fighting the government of Nicaragua. And they were, in this case, they were created and supplied entirely by the United States.
Obviously, the State of Israel wasn’t created and doesn’t depend entirely on Germany, but Germany is also supplying weapons and maintaining politically, diplomatically, giving all the efforts in helping possible to Israel. So what we are asking the court, in a certain sense, and we repeated that, was exactly what we were asking against [the] United States forty years ago: to cease this assistance to Israel, in the same way that you will cease the assistance to the illegal forces fighting Nicaragua.
Now, of course, the United States didn’t comply. The United States, in my experience, even before we came before the court — and I don’t want to go lengthy discussion on that, [but] in my opinion, the United States has never respected international law. Any treaty with the United States, any third country that thinks that they are ‘armor’ against anything because they have a treaty, that treaty will only be respected as long as it’s in the interest of the United States. The United States does not respect international law, unless it’s in its benefit.
They want to go: ‘The United States has accepted the jurisdiction of the court.’ But when it became against them, that was it. They didn’t comply, said goodbye to the court. Israel, obviously, is following the example of the United States. Not the example — it’s covered by the same forces of the United States. Israel is the local bully in that area, but it has the big brother bully behind it. So they feel completely armored against anything. But we have the feeling — and… perhaps we’re wrong, I don’t know — But I don’t think that Germany will have the same attitude with a judgment of the court.
I think the United States, obviously, any order of the court, they simply ignore it. And not only the government, but probably even the media, all the traditional media in the United States would probably also ignore it. But I think in Germany, it would be different. I think a judgment by the court order in Germany to stop is going to have a lot of effect. And apart from that, world opinion at this moment, I think, has been mobilized. In that respect, perhaps even these cases before the court are also helping this mobilization. But people, even in German, there’s a lot, currently, of people that are also very, very worried and very ashamed of what’s happening. So I think, I think it will be very difficult. And that’s why I’m hopeful that if the court orders it, it will be an effective order. It’s not going to be ignored completely.
Wyatt: So in recent months after South Africa brought its case against Israel, we saw some attempts in the United States government, specifically the Congress, to pursue some kind of bilateral relations review, effectively implying the threat of sanctions or decreased economic trade activity with South Africa — kind of an implicit threat. So I’m wondering whether Israel has tried to interfere with this case, or whether the US itself has attempted to retaliate beyond the sanctions that it’s already imposing and plans to impose on Nicaragua?
Dr. Arguello: Well, I am not aware at this moment of any particular additional sanctions, or additional positions against Nicaragua. I mean, the United States has been already doing — with different governments — has been doing everything possible to destroy the government of Nicaragua. So it’s nothing, it’s nothing new. They attempted a coup d’etat when Mr. Bolton was in charge of these operations in 2018. We have been sanctioned constantly. So I mean, if that happens, it’s going to happen. I mean, I don’t know what more they can do against us.
We have our moral obligation we feel. As I said at the beginning, I mean, what can we contribute to the Palestinian people? Among the few things we can do — we can’t give them money because we’re not a rich country, we can’t give them weapons. How can we help them? And one of the few things that we have is experience, and we have something, which is the International Court. So when this case began, we said let’s go wholeheartedly here. And I received instructions from my bosses that we should go immediately, and do everything possible. That’s what we’re trying, that’s what we try to do.
Max: And then just on the theme of your moral obligation: the Sandinista municipality in Managua has renamed a street ‘Pista Gaza,’ a major thoroughfare in Managua. The Sandinista party has a traditional affiliation or solidarity with the Palestine Liberation Organization, how does this case fit into the ethos of the Sandinista front and its support for oppressed people and working people around the world?
Dr. Arguello: We had, I mean, right from the beginning, from the birth of the Sandinista party or movement, even before the triumph of the revolution, there’s always been enormous sympathy from both ways — from the Palestinians toward our cause, and from, obviously, our cause to them. And what is happening to Palestine is something that has hurt us enormously, and we have been feeling it for a very long time. When, some years ago, there was this convoy of help that was going from Turkey to Israel, which was intervened, and there was an attack from Israel to stop it, we broke relations with Israel completely. We initiated relations with Israel just a few years ago again, in the hope that things would try to be normal.
But the reality is that Israel has been acting this way. This is among the more blatant – obviously, it’s something that now is indisputable, it’s being watched by even children all over the world. Everybody in the world knows what’s happening. And everybody now sympathizes.
Perhaps 50, 60 years ago, there was less common knowledge of everything that was happening. The media was more controlled by certain groups of states. But now, I think that the sympathy that we originally felt with the Palestinian people, since way back, is now something that is shared with a lot of humanity. So that’s also a hope, a hope we have.
Max: And I guess my last question would be a more general question about international law. It’s clear that the rules based order that the Biden administration in Washington preaches has suffered an enormous blow to its credibility, through the Biden administration’s support for Israel’s assault on Gaza and all the violations that we’ve seen. But we’ve also seen institutions, multilateral institutions, like the United Nations Security Council, or the World Court, the ICJ be unable to enforce decisions like the acceptance of the South African case or calls for a ceasefire. So what are your thoughts on the future of international law and these institutions born out of the kind of post World War Two order and their ability to enforce it in the face of these brazen, unilateral — and still very powerful — forces like Israel in the United States? Is there really a future for international law?
Dr. Arguello: If you permit me, I mean, I remember, I have made this comment many times in my career. 40 years ago, when we began, or 38 years ago, with the judgment of the court, the case against the United States — when the United States had already said goodbye to the court and that it wasn’t going to pay any attention to what was happening. That question was always coming up. I mean, what can you do? And what can the court do? I mean, ‘you’ve been wasting your time, coming to the court, the court doesn’t have nuclear weapons to force the United States to obey.’
There was an expression that I took from a French tourist that was, many years ago, wondering: what can you do if a big power doesn’t compile? The only thing left is the mobilization of shame. And if we break that down, this mobilization of shame, even in the United States, the amount of people now informed of what’s happening is increasing. And, Mr. Biden, politicians like him, have no real principles or no real belief in international law. But they believe in their posts. And if people in the United States are changing their opinion, they’re being informed and this shame is mobilizing them, then eventually they will have to mobilize the immovable objects like Mr. Biden. So that’s, that’s the hope with this. Perhaps being too idealistic, but it’s the only weapon we have.
Max: Okay, well, Ambassador, is there anything you wanted to add or touch on? Before we go?
Dr. Arguello: Well, just to thank both of you, your program. I think we’ve more or less covered [everything]. Obviously, we could talk for hours and hours about different things but I think we basically touched base on the main points.
Max: I guess I do have one more question. I guess I have one more question, something I’ve been thinking about, and we’ve been covering a lot at The Grayzone. But when you first brought your case against the United States, at the ICJ, the world was in a different place. The Cold War was still taking place. But now we see the emergence of the Global South and a kind of multipolar order. We see the rise of BRICS, China and Russia are beginning to ally themselves. And Nicaragua is forming new alliances as well. To what extent does this case and the South African case represent the Global South asserting its power in a new way against a declining global hegemony?
Dr. Arguello: Well, I think there must be, there’s an element of that, obviously. In the case of Nicaragua, since we began 40 years ago, as you said, during the height of the Cold War, that wasn’t the main reason for our doing it. Although, I don’t want to be very presumptuous on this, but perhaps that case, at least in the International Court, was the beginning of, let’s say, a movement, that has been followed up and that we are in 40 years later, still continuing. In that respect, that’s what I have told some people in Nicaragua that I feel, even forty years later, that again, we are simply continuing. And, unfortunately, to cite a Nicaraguan poet, he was supposedly a Nicaraguan Patriot in the 1850s against an American, North American invader, taking over the country. He killed one of the soldiers, throwing a rock. So this Nicaraguan poet, 100 years later in the 1930s, wrote a poem that ended something like saying, you know: ‘Andrés, 100 years later, throw the rock. The enemy is still the same.’ Now, forty years later, I feel that I still have the rock in my hand, and the enemy is still the same. Anyway, we still have the rock and we still have the energy, and we have to go on.
Wyatt: David continues the fight against Goliath.
Max: Ambassador Carlos Arguello Gomez, thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with us. And thank you for your contribution to humanity.
Dr. Arguello: Oh, thank you. Thank you for having me on your program and your contribution to humanity. I told you, I have enjoyed many of your programs and will continue to do so. Ok, thank you very much.
Max: Thank you, and we’ll be following up after the decision.
