The U.S. oligarchs, devoid of sanctions, show signs of impatience. What do they gain from a “war crimes” charge against their fellow men from other countries?
by Glauco D’Agostino
We like her, I admit. The former prosecutor of Tamil descent seemed the right personality to oppose Trump’s follies and, even earlier, in the primary, to prevent the oligarch Biden’s rise. Indeed, Tulsi Gabbard, the Democratic representative, whose utterances on American interest in the Russian Ukraine invasion, we have already mentioned in another article, aroused greater sympathy.
But we understand the embarrassment of gracious Harris while having to do the dirty work the oligarch in the White House assigned to her. Lovely Joe, yet, dawns more cautious than lovely Kamala. While Joe looks balanced and pacifist in rejecting Polish warplanes to Ukraine, poor Kamala has no task in Poland but to bet the “war crimes” card. It is the role play, you know, except that she makes the figure of the inconsistent player.
It seems Obama did not like it very much because, given the troubled waters Washington sails in the world game of powers, he, too, could end up in the crosshairs of various international criminal courts. Not to mention that, on the domestic ground, someone could charge him of violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as the instigator of the slaughter of two American citizens (the Saudi-born Samir ibn Zafar Khan and the Yemeni-born Imām Anwar al -Awlaki) without “a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury” as the Constitution orders. The previous considerations do not aim to give a negative judgment on Obama. It is not the theme. One must concede the achievement of at least two apparent goals of his foreign policy (see my 2016 analysis) by gaping to two U.S. historical opponent countries, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Cuba. And yet, as the Los Angeles Times reminds us, even though it is not Tehrān-inspired, “He launched airstrikes or military raids in at least seven countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan.” In short, a Nobel Peace Prize not quite a pacifist, even if, under zealous Harris’ methodology, one must verify the chance of “war crimes” in air attacks or military raids. Perhaps, this is not the case, as the U.S. launched 95% of military operations after WWII.
It seems tension is high in Washington, and in the Administration, there is no unanimity. System creaks. The oligarchs, devoid of sanctions, show signs of impatience. What do they gain from a “war crimes” charge against their fellow men from other countries? And politicians, either Democrats or Republicans, fear they could end up in the clutches of some “crazy” international judge (viable for magistrates, not just Putin), given the human rights violations since Guantánamo. By the way, Guantánamo is still there, even though none know under what jurisdiction.
Do allege “war crimes” in Ukraine so outraging Harris erase the infamies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Harris and the Administration would have dull difficulties if Democrat Truman, lacking an impossible sentence nowadays, meets a historic “damnatio memoriae”. History interests us more than courts. Who invokes courts must have a cloudless conscience also on a diplomatic level. Which International Tribunal does former Attorney Harris want to appeal? Neither the United States, when invoking convictions, nor Russia in a case under investigation, ratified the treaty that established the International Criminal Court. We wonder why!
Beware of calling for justice in the courts! Typically, the winners in a war set up an International Military Tribunal to carry out their vendettas. You have to know how to do it. And in Nuremberg, the Allied Russians were there, but among the inquisitors!
