Substitute while the actions of the article are loading
President Biden has called Russian President Vladimir Putin a “war criminal,” although US officials have not made that legal decision. During a trip to Europe last month, he ostensibly called for regime change in an advertising line at the end of a speech in Warsaw, then said he was expressing “moral outrage” rather than articulating US policy.
Then on Tuesday, the president again deviated from his prepared remarks, describing Russia’s atrocities in Ukraine as “genocide”, although senior US officials said last week that they had not yet seen evidence of action against that definition, despite that a legal review of the matter has not been completed.
Biden’s extraordinary commentary noted the latest example of the tension between his often emotional response to Putin’s brutal war and the international consequences of the president’s remarks. During his political career, Biden cultivated a reputation for unsigned frankness, a trait that the Allies praised as humanizing but opponents mocked as undisciplined.
“I’m impressed by the fact that if he’s horrified and excited by what he’s witnessing, as we all are, he doesn’t describe it in good language,” said Harold Co., who was a legal adviser at the State Department during the administration. of Obama. “He says what he thinks he is. I prefer politicians to be more outspoken than smarter in their words.”
But in the midst of Europe’s biggest land war since World War II, Biden’s tendency to deviate from US official policy has the potential to complicate efforts to end the conflict and confuse allies and partners, some diplomats say.
Asked about Biden’s comment, French President Emmanuel Macron warned on Wednesday that “escalating rhetoric” could hamper efforts to “stop this war and restore peace.”
White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki faced questions Wednesday about how allies are expected to know when Biden is expressing US policy and when he is simply expressing his personal views. She presented Biden’s remark about the genocide as proof of his honesty.
“When the president ran, he promised the American people that he would shoot them in the shoulder and tell them straight,” she said. “Yesterday’s comments, not once but twice, on war crimes are a clear reflection of that. I don’t think anyone is confused by the atrocities we see on earth, about the horrors we see on earth. “
She added: “The president was talking about what we all see, what he feels is clear as day.”
But that response runs counter to the State Department’s diligent process of reaching a genocide solution, which requires, among other things, clear documentation that the perpetrators intended to destroy a group in whole or in part. Last month, for example, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken announced that the killing of the Rohingya by the Burmese military was genocide.
Blinken described how the department read detailed reports from a number of independent sources.
“Given the gravity of this decision, it was also important for this administration to conduct its own analysis of the facts and the law,” Blinken said. He added: “Percentages, numbers, models, intentions: they are extremely important in order to define genocide.”
However, Biden does not seem to rely on any of them. “The president called him what he saw, and he does,” Psaki said.
The designation of genocide by the US government does not automatically trigger any concrete action. But that could increase pressure on the United States to intervene before they are ready, diplomats say, and could force defendants to take a more challenging stance. In addition, they add, a rigorous process ensures that the harsh term is not used freely.
State Department officials said Wednesday that they are not announcing genocide in Ukraine. Rather, they are helping global efforts to document evidence of alleged war crimes to see if this “legal threshold” [of genocide] it’s done, “said department spokesman Ned Price.
The process of declaring genocide is difficult and could take months, Ko said, adding that the State Department must work with intelligence agencies in the United States and abroad to determine whether war crimes were committed “with the intent to exterminate the Ukrainian people.” as a whole. “The Agency will eventually produce a long report in which it will conclude with varying degrees of certainty whether genocide has taken place.
“The intent is hard to prove because you need a smoking gun – a note or a directive or an unclassified phone call that says something like ‘Kill them all,'” Koch said. He added that Biden had “every right to say as a matter of personal conviction that he believes Putin has this intention, but I think this is different from saying that the United States has evidence that it could prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt in court. “
The United Nations defines genocide as an attempt to destroy, in part or in whole, an ethnic, racial, religious or national group. Russia has waged a brutal murder campaign across Ukraine, and investigators have uncovered evidence of torture before death, beheading and dismemberment, and the deliberate burning of corpses in cities like Bucha.
Human rights activists say an expanded investigation into the genocide should not lead to a wider effort to hold Russia accountable.
“There must be responsibility for the mass atrocities,” said Adam Keith, director of accountability at Human Rights First. “Genocide is a kind of mass atrocity, and the Genocide Convention has complex standards. It’s hard to prove. “
After World War II, the United States made only eight official declarations of genocide, including a determination that the killing of Armenians by Turkey during World War I was qualified. Reflecting the instability of the label, Turkish leaders have spent decades trying to avoid applying it to centuries-old events.
One question is whether Biden’s sincere statement could affect the formal process.
“After the President of the United States said that this seemed like genocide to him, it put a lot of pressure on the State Department and lawyers in particular to reach the same conclusion,” said John B. Bellinger, III, who was a legal adviser to The State Department in the George W. Bush administration.
He added: “I don’t think the president was off base. It is certainly ahead of the official State Department process, but this is not the first time.
Biden first called the Russian war in Ukraine genocide Tuesday afternoon at an event in Menlo, Iowa, while criticizing Putin’s invasion of Ukraine for its impact on rising prices. “Your family budget, your ability to fill your tank – none of this should depend on a dictator declaring war and committing genocide halfway around us,” he said.
White House officials were caught unprepared because they did not expect Biden to make such an important statement during a speech on ethanol in Iowa. But as officials were flooded with inquiries from reporters, Biden and his aides decided he would make it clear that he intended to make the comment and that it reflected his personal convictions.
Before boarding Air Force One back in Washington, Biden told reporters that he would “leave it to lawyers to decide internationally whether he meets the requirements or not.” But he said, “I certainly think so.”
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky immediately praised Biden’s remark, writing on Twitter: “Calling things by their names is essential to opposing evil.”
On Wednesday, Psaki vigorously defended Biden’s comments – and their time.
“He is the president of the United States and the leader of the free world, and he is allowed to express his views whenever he wants,” Psaki said.
Add Comment