President Biden has called Russian President Vladimir Putin a “war criminal,” although US officials have not yet made that decision. During his trip to Europe last month, he ostensibly urged regime change with a spontaneous line at the end of a speech in Warsaw, and later clarified that he was expressing “moral outrage” instead of articulating American policy. Later on Tuesday, the president once again deviated from his prepared remarks, calling Russia’s atrocities in Ukraine “genocide”, despite the fact that senior US officials said last week that they had not yet seen any evidence of actions that meet this definition, and although a legal review has taken place the issue has not been completed. Biden’s sharp comment marked the latest example of the tension between his often emotional response to Putin’s brutal war and the international implications of a president’s speeches. Throughout his political career, Biden has cultivated a reputation for honesty without script, a trait that allies praise as humanists but ridicule opponents as unruly. “It strikes me that if he is terrified and moved by what he sees, like all of us, he does not say it in good language,” said Harold Ko, who served as a legal adviser to the State Department during the Obama administration. “She says what she thinks she is. “I prefer more politicians to be more honest than to be smarter in their words.” However, in the midst of Europe’s largest land war since World War II, Biden’s tendency to deviate from official US 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 an “escalation of rhetoric” could hamper efforts to “stop this war and rebuild peace”. White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki asked questions Wednesday about how allies are expected to know when Biden is expressing US policy and when he is simply expressing his personal views. He described Biden’s comment on the genocide as evidence of his honesty. “When the president ran, he promised the American people that he would shoot them in the shoulder, and he would tell them directly,” he said. “Yesterday’s comments, not once but twice, about war crimes, reflect just that. “I do not think anyone is confused with the atrocities we see on the ground, the atrocities we see on the ground.” He added, “The president was talking about what we all see, what feels clear as day.” But this reaction contrasts with the State Department’s painstaking process of reaching a genocide decision, which, among other things, requires clear evidence that the perpetrators intended to wipe out a group in whole or in part. Last month, for example, Foreign Minister Antony Blinken said the massacre of Rohingya by the Burmese army was genocide. Blinken described how the department had combed detailed reports from a number of independent sources. “Given the seriousness of this decision, it was also important for this government to conduct its own analysis of the facts and the law,” Blinken said. He added, “Percentages, numbers, patterns, intent: these are extremely important in achieving the definition of genocide.” Biden, however, did not appear to be relying on any of them. “The president called it as if he saw it, and he does it,” Psaki said. A genocide designation by the US government does not automatically trigger a specific action. But it could put pressure on the United States to intervene before it is ready, diplomats say, and could force the defendant to take a more provocative stance. Beyond that, they add, a rigorous process ensures that the heavy term is not used loosely. State Department officials said Wednesday that they are not declaring genocide in Ukraine now. Instead, they assist in the global effort to document evidence of alleged war crimes to determine whether this “legal limit [of genocide] is satisfied “, said the representative of the department Ned Price. The process of declaring genocide is painful and can take months, Koh said, adding that the State Department must work with intelligence services in the United States and abroad to determine if war crimes were committed “in order to destroy the Ukrainian people.” The organization will eventually draw up a lengthy report that will conclude with different levels of confidence if genocide has occurred. “The intent is difficult to prove because you need some kind of smoking weapon – a memo or an instruction or an unsorted phone call that says something like ‘Kill them all,’” Koh said. He added that Biden “has every right to say as a matter of personal conviction that he believes Putin has this intention, but I think that is different from saying that the United States has the evidence to prove this. From reasonable doubt. a court. “ The United Nations defines genocide as the attempt to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, racial, religious or ethnic group. Russia has carried out a violent assassination campaign across Ukraine, and investigators have uncovered evidence of pre-death torture, beheadings and mutilations, and deliberate cremation of corpses in cities such as Butsa. Human rights activists say the widespread genocide investigation should not involve wider efforts to hold Russia accountable. “There has to be a responsibility for mass atrocities,” said Adam Keith, director of accountability at Human Rights First. “Genocide is a type of mass atrocity and the Genocide Convention has complex patterns. “It’s hard to prove.” Since World War II, the United States has made only eight official statements of genocide, including the ruling that the killings of Armenians by Turkey during World War I met the conditions. In a reflection of the instability of the label, Turkish leaders have spent decades trying to avoid applying it to the events of the century. One question is whether Biden’s heartfelt statement could influence the formal process. “Once the president of the United States says it’s like genocide, it puts a lot of pressure on the State Department, and lawyers in particular, to come to the same conclusion,” said John B. Bellinger, III. who served as the State Department’s legal adviser to the George W. Bush administration. He added: “I do not think the president was out of line. It certainly preceded the official State Department process, but this is not the first time this has happened. “ Biden first referred to Russia’s war in Ukraine as genocide on Tuesday afternoon at a rally in Menlo, Iowa, as he attacked 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 whether a dictator declares war and commits genocide half a world away,” he said. White House officials were taken aback as they did not expect Biden to make such an important statement during a speech on ethanol in Iowa. But as officials flooded in with investigations by journalists, Biden and his aides decided to make it clear that he intended to comment and that it reflected his personal beliefs. Before boarding Air Force One back in Washington, Biden told reporters he “will let lawyers decide internationally whether he meets the conditions or not.” But he said: “It certainly seems so to me.” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky immediately praised Biden’s remark, writing on Twitter: “Saying things by name is necessary to resist evil.” On Wednesday, Psaki vigorously defended Biden’s comments – and their timing. “He is the president of the United States and the leader of the free world and he is allowed to make his views known whenever he wants,” Psaki said.
