The Supreme International Crime: Joseph Biden And Rank Hypocrisy

It was the truth.

And it was cynical, rank hypocrisy.

The message from US President Joseph Biden on the eve of the 24 February Russian invasion of Ukraine was: international law must be respected.

In announcing sanctions against Russia for declaring independent republics in Ukraine, Mr Biden said.

“This is a flagrant violation of international law and demands a firm response from the international community…And now, political provocation in recognising, in sovereign Ukrainian territory, so-called independent republics in clear violation, again, of international law….There is no justification.”

The following day, Russia invaded Ukraine.

The US President’s reaction was predictable and absolutely correct. Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin had launched, “…a totally unjustifiable war on Ukraine”. It was a “premeditated attack” that Mr Putin “had been planning for months.”

Moreover, this action was based on “…outlandish and baseless (Russian) claims that Ukraine…was prepared to use chemical weapons, that Ukraine committed a genocide—without any evidence.”

The Russian Federation President, according to the United States President, was “the aggressor. He was guilty of “…choosing a war without a cause.”

“[W]hen a major nuclear power attacks and invades another country …the world is going to respond.”

Clearly, President Putin and the others who planned and initiated this horror are now war criminals.

Equally clearly, President Biden is highly qualified to hold forth on premeditated attacks and totally unjustifiable wars of aggression, launched by a major nuclear power, based on outlandish and baseless claims.

Nineteen years ago he helped start one.

As Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Joseph Biden played a crucial role in enabling the 19 March 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, aka “Operation Iraqi Freedom”.

Five months earlier, on 10 October 2002, Senator Biden held forth in Congress on the use of armed force to invade another country. The occasion was the debate on Senate Joint Resolution 45—a joint resolution to authorise the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Mr Biden led the argument in favour of the resolution:

“For two decades, Saddam Hussein has relentlessly pursued weapons of mass destruction. There is a broad agreement that he retains chemical and biological weapons, the means to manufacture those weapons and modified Scud missiles, and that he is actively seeking a nuclear capability…

“Ultimately, either those weapons must be dislodged from Iraq, or Saddam must be dislodged from power.”

The Chair continued with some wishful thinking: “Attacking Iraq could and probably will go smoothly. We have the finest fighting force in the world. Our defence budget exceeds that of the next 15 countries combined….

“As a leading expert in the Middle East, Mr. Fouad Ajami told the committee there is a strong likelihood the Iraqis will welcome us as liberators.”

Interestingly, during a 10,000 word speech in support of President Bush’s plans to start a war, Senator Biden used the phrase “international law” only once.

On the other hand, Democratic New Jersey Senator Jon Corzine referred to the preemptive war advocated by the President as, “a dangerous and reckless new development in American foreign policy.”

In retrospect, his words seem prescient:

“Many countries have adversaries who they believe present continuing threats, maybe even imminent threats, to their security. If we establish a precedent of preemption, how in the future can we criticize Russia for attacking Georgia…or oppose a Chinese invasion of Taiwan in the court of world public opinion?”

Six days later, on 16 October, the House and Senate voted on the Bill: House Joint Resolution 114—Authorisation for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

The Bill passed the Senate. 77 Senators, including Senator Biden, voted for the Bill. 23 were against.

The Bill passed the House 296 – 133.

President Bush was now authorised to use military force against Iraq. Five months later, he gave the order.

On 19 March 2003, the US-led “Coalition of the Willing” invaded Iraq. The people of Iraq did not welcome the invaders as liberators. Instead, a long, brutal war and occupation began. Estimates of eventual resulting Iraqi deaths range from 288,000 to half a million.

The invasion displaced approximately 1 in 25 Iraqis from their homes (about 1 million refugees).

The 2003 American invasion and the 2022 Russian invasion were each clear violations of international law. They were acts of aggression—a crime first defined by the charter of International Military Tribunal (IMT) after World War II at the first Nuremberg trial.

The IMT comprised four judges: one each from the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and France.

This trial of German defendants opened in October 1945 and lasted nearly a year. The IMT delivered their judgment on 1 October 1946, condemning aggressive war.

Twelve of the 24 defendants were sentenced to death. Fifteen days later, on 16 October 1946, 10 German war criminals were hung. This included four of five who had been sentenced to death for crimes including aggression. The fifth, Hermann Göring, committed suicide the night before.

Others were sentenced either to life imprisonment or to ten to twenty years in prison. Three were acquitted.

From the judgment: “War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent States alone, but affect the whole world.

“To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

Joseph Biden and all those who enabled and justified the 2003 US invasion of Iraq and now condemn the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine bring to mind the words of the U.S. chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson:

“Our position is that whatever grievances a nation may have, however objectionable it finds the status quo, aggressive warfare is an illegal means for settling these grievances or for altering these conditions.”

And, for those who may have difficulty visualizing American leaders as defendants in an international criminal trial, Justice Jackson’s words again:

“(T)he ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible to law.

“And let me make clear that while this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn, aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment….

“This trial represents mankind’s desperate effort to apply the discipline of the law to statesmen who have used their powers of state to attack the foundations of the world’s peace and to commit aggression against the rights of their neighbours.”

© Scoop Media