Biden administration

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Why so many lobbyists are courting Senate Democrat Joe Manchin

      by

      An increasing large number of lobbyists and outside groups in America all have a similar target: Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia.And it’s understandable why. In a Senate where Democrats hold the slimmest of majorities a vote by Manchin, the most conservative Senate Democrat, can decide whether legislation is signed into law or left to meander in political purgatory in Congress.Manchin has also demonstrated a willingness to buck the majority of the party on priority proposals and key votes. He was one of the first senators to oppose Neera Tanden’s nomination to direct the Office of Management and Budget. He has vehemently resisted the idea of changes to the filibuster. He was also early out of the gate in opposing a minimum wage increase as part of Joe Biden’s $1.9tn stimulus bill.Many progressive Democrats see Manchin as a stubborn obstacle to their agenda. Others in the party afford him some slack. He’s managed to retain a Senate seat in West Virginia as the state has drifted away from electing Democrats and become more reliably Republican.But one thing is clear: Manchin is the Senate Democrat to lobby.The Service Employees International Union and Poor People’s Campaign met with him in February to try to move him on a $15 minimum wage. The liberal outside group Indivisible has been running radio ads in West Virginia, urging Manchin to support Washington DC becoming a state. According to lobbying disclosures Humanity Forward, a group aligned with Democratic mayoral candidate Andrew Yang, hired lobbyists to push the West Virginia senator on supporting “targeted installments of stimulus payments”.Earlier this month, The American Working Families Action Fund launched digital and TV advertising targeting Manchin and Senator Susan Collins of Maine on infrastructure.Manchin is one of the senators being targeted by a string of advocacy groups on voting rights. Part of a joint advocacy campaign by the End Citizens United political action committee, the Let America Vote Action Fund and the National Democratic Redistricting Fund to push key senators to support Democrats’ For the People Act.Conservative groups are also trying to push Manchin. The conservative advocacy group Americans for Prosperity is airing radio ads calling on Manchin not to shift his position on the filibuster or adding seats to the supreme court. Those ads on talk radio direct listeners to an AFP-backed site.Ken Cuccinelli, a former deputy secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, is leading a group called the American Principles Project alongside the Susan B Anthony List to reinforce a set of conservative Senate Democrats’ opposition to overhauling the filibuster. The partnership is called the Election Integrity Initiative. Manchin is one of those senators being targeted.“When Manchin says good things about it we engage with positive reinforcement in West Virginia,” Cuccinelli said in an interview. “We haven’t been doing attacking on it.”Cuccinelli said his initiative have had events at all Manchin’s offices. “As between trying to drag him down now or support a path he’s on that’s a positive path, we’ve chosen to support a positive path,” Cuccinelli added.All the activism and lobbying might suggest Manchin is particularly malleable to pressure. If anything Manchin has fueled frustration – especially among progressives – for how firm he’s been on some issues.Nick Rahall, a former member of Congress for West Virginia said Manchin is not immovable. Rahall said Manchin just “needs his space”.“He needs his room to maneuver and Biden’s willing to give it to him, [Senate majority leader] Chuck Schumer’s willing to give it to him,” Rahall said.Rahall added that Manchin can be convinced to change his mind. Rahall pointed to Manchin, in the end, voting for the Biden administration’s huge coronavirus relief bill. “He had concerns about it, he got an amendment accepted and he voted for it. He came down on Biden’s side after appearing initially – not totally against the bill but having concerns,” Rahall said. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on the Afghanistan withdrawal: an unwinnable war | Editorial

      by

      Britain’s former prime minister Harold Macmillan is said to have told colleagues that the first law of politics should be “never invade Afghanistan”. It was a lesson that imperial Britain had learned the hard way, following three separate casualty-strewn incursions in the 19th and 20th centuries. After 11 September 2001, when al-Qaida radicals, based in Afghanistan and protected by the Taliban government, successfully attacked New York and Washington, the lesson was quickly forgotten.Instead, the United States, backed by Britain and Nato, launched a retaliatory campaign to destroy al-Qaida and overthrow the Taliban. After spectacular initial success, marked by the unexpected collapse of Kabul and massive bombing of the al-Qaida presence in the eastern mountains, the military campaign became overcommitted and, in the end, even faced defeat. Western ambitions were long on idealised visions of the postwar order, but short on a grasp of regional realities and military capabilities. The Taliban regrouped and rearmed. Long attritional years of civil conflict followed. This week, almost 20 years in, Joe Biden has decided America has at last had enough of an unwon and unwinnable war. He is bringing the troops home. America’s allies, including Britain, will now follow the US through the exit door.In his televised address this week, Mr Biden announced that nearly 10,000 US and Nato troops – including 750 from the UK – will start pulling out within weeks. All of them will be gone in time for the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks later this year. The president’s words were a valediction over what, in the end and in spite of its achievements, has been a failed campaign. “We cannot continue the cycle of extending or expanding our military presence in Afghanistan, hoping to create ideal conditions for the withdrawal and expecting a different result,” the president said. He is surely right. Donald Trump had reached a similar conclusion from a different, more isolationist standpoint, although, unlike Mr Biden, without consulting his allies first. None of that will stop congressional Republicans denouncing Mr Biden’s decision as reckless.The US president’s announcement exposes some of the limits of 21st-century American power. It is true that, while the US has been engaged in Afghanistan, education has blossomed across much of the country, including for girls, who were largely excluded by the Taliban. Life expectancy, now at 65, has risen each year. But these gains remain fragile and their future is highly uncertain. When the Russian-backed Afghan regime collapsed in the early 1990s, the Taliban were able to take back control quickly. The same thing may happen after America’s departure 30 years later. Peace talks are continuing, but the Taliban will now have less reason to treat them seriously.Mr Biden’s decision marks the death of a particular kind of American hubris. New forms of warfare, increasingly technologically ambitious and involving fewer ground troops than in earlier wars such as Vietnam, were championed two decades ago by the former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld. They have not achieved the goals that he claimed. Winning this kind of war without major troop commitments has not worked. Afghan opinion has been more divided and is marked by greater hostility to the US than the simplistic western assumptions of 2001 ever allowed. Regional hostilities have not been overcome. American public opinion has also become increasingly hostile towards committing to the conflicts. The nation-building claims that were made about Afghanistan and, later, Iraq have been exposed as unachievable. A lot of this was predicted and predictable when the conflict was launched. But there is very little satisfaction to be drawn from seeing it come to pass amid continuing uncertainty and insecurity for so many Afghan men and women. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden names Erika Moritsugu as Asian American liaison amid rise in hate crime

      by

      The White House announced on Wednesday that Erika Moritsugu will serve as the administration’s Asian American and Pacific Islander senior liaison and deputy assistant to the president.The appointment is a part of multiple initiatives Joe Biden announced last month to address the dramatic increase in hate-related incidents against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPI).In a statement, the White House said that Moritsugu “will bring her experience and expertise to the Biden-Harris administration where she will be a vital voice to advance the president and administration’s priorities”.Following the shooting of eight people in Atlanta, six of whom were Asian American women, Biden announced he would establish a committee within the administration’s Covid-19 Health Equity Task Force to address racism against Asian Americans.He also said the Department of Health and Human Service will allocate $49.5m to support community services for AAPI domestic violence and sexual assault survivors and the National Science Foundation will dedicate $33m to study bias and xenophobia.Biden came under pressure from the Democratic senators Tammy Duckworth and Mazie Hirono, the sole Asian American members of the US Senate, who criticized the lack of AAPI representation in Biden’s cabinet and vowed to reject any non-diverse cabinet nominee until Biden came up with a plan to address AAPI representation in the White House.Both Duckworth and Hirono praised Moritsugu’s appointment on Wednesday.“I know first-hand that [the White House] will benefit from Erika’s counsel, policy expertise & strong relationship-building skills as he seeks to ensure AAPI leaders are president at the highest levels of government,” Duckworth wrote on Twitter. “I look forward to working with her to protect & empower the AAPI community.”Moritsugu currently serves as vice president of not-for-profit organization National Partnership for Women & Families and has held multiple roles on Capitol Hill, including general counsel to Duckworth and deputy legislative director for the late Democratic senator Daniel Akaka.Earlier on Wednesday, the Senate advanced on a bipartisan basis legislation, co-sponsored by Hirono, that addresses hate crimes against Asian Americans. The bill, called the Covid-19 Hate Crimes Act, would broaden the federal government’s capacity to respond and track hate crimes. The bill still has to go through a final vote in the Senate, which Democrats hope will take place by the end of the week. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Officer who shot Daunte Wright charged with manslaughter | First Thing

      by

      Good morning.The police officer who shot a 20-year-old black man dead during a traffic stop was charged with manslaughter yesterday, officials said, after days of unrest. Police said that Kimberly Potter, 48, meant to fire her stun gun at Daunte Wright during a traffic stop in the Minneapolis suburb of Brooklyn Center, but accidentally shot her handgun. Potter, who is white, has since resigned, as has her police chief.
      What sentence could she face? She has been charged with second-degree manslaughter, and a conviction carries a sentence of up to 10 years in prison. She was reportedly released from jail after posting bail.
      Who was Daunte Wright? Wright has been described as a doting father to his one-year-old son, with the “most beautiful smile”. Learn more about the individual behind the headlines.
      The killing triggered days of protests, with demonstrators in Brooklyn Centre alleging there had been a history of racial profiling by the local police. It comes amid existing tensions in Minneapolis during the murder trial of former police officer Derek Chauvin, over the death of George Floyd.
      A leading pathologist said Floyd was killed by his heart condition and drug use as he testified at Chauvin’s trial yesterday. Dr David Fowler, testifying for the defence, also suggested fumes from vehicle exhausts may have played a part in his death.
      Opinion: the trial won’t change US policing, writes Simon Balto, an assistant professor of African American history at the University of Iowa. He argues that while the trial is of “enormous importance” it would be a mistake to think that it alone could turn the tide.
      Biden is ending ‘the US’s longest war’Joe Biden yesterday announced that it was time “to end America’s longest war”, as he confirmed that all remaining US troops in Afghanistan would return home in the run-up to the 20th anniversary of 9/11.The president said that 2,500 US troops and 7,000 from Nato allies would begin leaving on 1 May. Minutes later, all Nato members released a joint statement confirming they would undertake an “orderly, coordinated and deliberate” removal of troops in tandem.
      We cannot continue the cycle of extending or expanding our military presence in Afghanistan, hoping to create ideal conditions for the withdrawal and expecting a different result,” Biden said, in a late afternoon speech at the White House.
      Democrats are trying to add more justices to the supreme courtDemocrats have unveiled a plan to add four justices to the US supreme court, taking the total number from nine to 13. The new bill will be presented by the senator Ed Markey and representatives Jerrold Nadler, Hank Johnson and Mondaire Jones at a news conference later today.
      What do progressives think? Progressives have long been pushing to expand the court after Trump’s three appointees tipped it firmly to the right, especially as the court is due to tackle issues of voting rights, reproductive rights and the environment.
      What do conservatives think? The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, said the idea of expanding the court was “a direct assault on our nation’s independent judiciary”. Given conservatives’ control of the supreme court, they are likely to oppose any expansion.
      Biden has not adopted a clear stance on supreme court expansion, but in the past has said he is “not a fan” of the idea. However, last week, he created a bipartisan commission to look at the history of the court and the possible impact of changing its size. As for this bill, it is so politically inflammatory that it is unlikely to be approved.
      Lawmakers are also advancing a bill to create a slavery reparations commission to examine slavery and discrimination since 1619 and recommend remedies. After impassioned debate, the House judiciary committee voted by 25-17 to advance the bill last night; the first time it has acted on the legislation. It will now be considered by the House and Senate, but seems unlikely to go further given Congress is so closely divided.
      The White House is to expel Russian diplomats for US cyber-attacksThe White House is expected to announce sanctions against Russia as early as today for interfering in US elections, alleged bounties on US soldiers in Afghanistan and masterminding cyber-attacks.
      What will the sanctions entail? About 10 Russian diplomats are expected to be expelled, and 30 entities are likely to be blacklisted. The White House may also ban US financial institutions from buying rouble bonds issued by Russia’s government.
      In other news …
      Capitol police were woefully unprepared for the 6 January insurrection, an internal report has found. The report described poor training and intelligence, riot shields that shattered on impact, and weapons that had expired. It comes in advance of a congressional hearing later today.
      The Johnson & Johnson coronavirus vaccine will be in limbo for longer after US health advisers told the White House they needed more evidence to decide if the vaccine could be linked to blood clotting, and how big the risk of administering the shot was.
      All US cars and trucks could be electric by 2035, amid rapid developments in technology and the cost of electric vehicle batteries, new research has found. At present, just 2% of all cars sold in the US are electric.
      Stat of the day: only 3% of the world’s ecosystems are intact, a study has suggestedJust 3% of the world’s land is ecologically intact – meaning it has a healthy population of all its original animals and an undisturbed habitat – a study has found. The rare spots that are undamaged by humans are predominantly in areas such as the Amazon and Congo tropical forests. Previous studies had suggested about 20 to 40% of land was intact.Don’t miss this: the equal rights amendment still faces an uphill battleThe fight to get the equal rights amendment enshrined into law has been going on for almost a century, and appears close an eventual victory. But with legal difficulties and a persistent lack of urgency from lawmakers, the amendment is not over the line yet.Last Thing: magic mushrooms could be just as effective as antidepressantsMagic mushrooms could be as effective as antidepressants for treating moderate to severe depressive disorders, according to a new study. One co-author of the study said the “results signal hope that we may be looking at a promising alternative treatment for depression”.Sign upSign up for the US morning briefingFirst Thing is delivered to thousands of inboxes every weekday. If youare not already signed up, subscribe now. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden to unveil Russia sanctions over SolarWinds hack and election meddling

      by

      The US is set to announce new sanctions against Russia as soon as Thursday in retaliation for Moscow’s elections interference, alleged bounties on US soldiers in Afghanistan, and cyber-espionage campaigns such as the SolarWinds hack, according to reports in US and international media.Ten Russian diplomatic officials are to be expelled from the US and up to 30 entities will be blacklisted, officials said, in the largest sanctions action against Russia of Joe Biden’s presidency.Additionally, the White House may issue an executive order barring US financial institutions from purchasing rouble bonds issued by Russia’s government, targeting the country’s sovereign debt and its broader economy. That could begin as soon as June, according to some reports.Q&AWhat was the SolarWinds hack?ShowIn early 2020, malicious code was sneaked into updates to a popular piece of software called Orion, made in the US by the company SolarWinds, which monitors the computer networks of businesses and governments for outages.That malware gave hackers remote access to an organisation’s networks so they could steal information. Among the most high-profile users of the software were US government departments including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the state department, and the justice department.Described by the Microsoft president, Brad Smith, as “the largest and most sophisticated attack the world has ever seen”, US intelligence agencies have accused Russia of launching the attack.SolarWinds, of Austin, Texas, provides network monitoring and other technical services to hundreds of thousands of organisations around the world, including most Fortune 500 companies and government agencies in North America, Europe, Asia and the Middle East.Its compromised product, Orion, is a centralised monitoring tool that looks for problems in an organisation’s computer network, which means that breaking in gave the attackers a “God view” of those networks.Neither SolarWinds nor US cybersecurity authorities have publicly identified which organisations were breached. Just because a company or agency uses SolarWinds as a vendor does not necessarily mean it was vulnerable to the hack.Kari Paul and Martin BelamUnnamed officials told the New York Times the new sanctions were meant to cut deeper than previous attempts to punish Moscow for its attacks on US institutions and allies. Some Russian officials have laughed off being added to the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctions lists, comparing it to being elevated to an elite club. The threat of the ban on purchasing Russian debt has already depressed prices on the rouble and rouble-denominated OFZ treasury bonds.The sanctions will add tension to an already strained relationship between Russia and the US. Since last month, Moscow has been engaged in the largest troop buildup on its border with Ukraine since the 2014 annexation of Crimea, provoking fears of an invasion. Biden called Vladimir Putin on Tuesday to urge him to de-escalate tensions with Ukraine and proposed a summit in a third country. The Kremlin gave a frosty account of the telephone call, and did not say whether Putin had agreed to the meeting.Earlier this year, Biden had agreed with a reporter when asked if Putin was “a killer”. Those remarks were replayed widely on Russian television. Putin responded by wryly wishing Biden “good health”, which was seen as a nod to Biden’s age.The US president’s tough approach differs considerably from that of the Trump administration, which largely sought to avoid confronting Russia over a CIA assessment that Moscow had offered and paid bounties for foreign fighters to kill US troops in Afghanistan. Trump said he doubted the evidence behind the reports.He similarly sided with Putin over an FBI assessment that Russia had interfered in the 2016 elections during a summit in Helsinki two years later.The planned sanctions were said to be retaliation for Russian interference in the 2020 elections, during which US intelligence agencies concluded that the Kremlin had backed Trump over Biden.Sign up for the Guardian’s First Thing newsletterThe sanctions would also be a response to a massive and sophisticated cybersecurity breach against SolarWinds Corp that affected software used by US government agencies. The US has blamed Russia for the attack.Peskov this week said that “the hostility and unpredictability of America’s actions force us in general to be prepared for the worst scenarios”. More

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in World Politics

      The US Needs to Uncancel the ICC

      by

      When the loony right gathered at the Conservative Political Action Conference back in February, the theme of the Trump-heavy gathering was “America Uncanceled.” Speaker after speaker railed against “political correctness” in American culture, from “woke mobs” to “censorship” in the mainstream news media. Incredibly, they tried to transform so-called cancel culture into the single greatest problem facing a United States still reeling from COVID-19 and its economic sucker punch. And yet, time and again, it has been the loony right that has been so eager to hit the delete button.

      These supposed defenders of everyone’s right to voice opinions attempted to cancel an entire presidential election because it failed to produce their preferred result. They’ve spent decades trying to cancel voting rights (not to mention a wide variety of other rights). They’ve directed huge amounts of time and money to canceling social benefits for the least fortunate Americans. Throughout history, they’ve mounted campaigns to cancel specific individuals from Colin Kaepernick and Representative Ilhan Omar to the black lists of the McCarthy era. They’re also not above canceling entire groups of people, from the transgender community all the way back to the original sin of this country, namely the mass cancelation of Native Americans.

      Then there’s foreign policy. The Trump administration never met an international agreement or institution — the Paris climate accord, the Iran nuclear deal, the World Health Organization — that it didn’t want to cover with “cancel” stamps.

      One institution that has elicited particular ire from the far right has been the International Criminal Court (ICC). On April 2, the Biden administration took a step toward mending the rift between the United States and the ICC. It didn’t go far enough.

      Blocking the International Criminal Court

      In 2000, the Clinton administration signed the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court, which has focused on bringing to international justice the perpetrators of war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity and (beginning in 2017) crimes of aggression. In 2002, the Bush administration effectively unsigned the agreement and Congress pushed to shield all US military personnel from ICC prosecution. Although the Obama administration cooperated with the court, it was still worried about possible investigations into the US “war on terrorism.”

      Ambivalence turned to outright hostility during the Trump years. National Security Adviser John Bolton made it his special mission to attack the ICC as “ineffective, unaccountable, and indeed, outright dangerous.” Among Bolton’s many spurious arguments about the court, he claimed that the body constitutes an assault on US sovereignty and the Constitution in particular, a favorite hobbyhorse of the loony right. But the “supremacy clause” of the US Constitution (Article VI, clause 2) already establishes the primacy of federal law over treaty obligations. So, can someone please get those supposed legal scholars to actually read the pocket constitutions they carry around so reverently?

      Bolton’s off-base analysis came with a threat. “We will respond against the ICC and its personnel to the extent permitted by U.S. law,” he warned. “We will ban its judges and prosecutors from entering the United States. We will sanction their funds in the U.S. financial system, and, we will prosecute them in the U.S. criminal system. We will do the same for any company or state that assists an ICC investigation of Americans.”

      In 2020, the Trump administration began to implement Bolton’s attack plan by imposing sanctions against ICC officials. Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and senior prosecution official Phakiso Mochochoko were placed under travel restrictions and an asset freeze because they were investigating possible US war crimes in Afghanistan. This blacklisting of ICC investigators sent a chilling signal that the United States would attempt, much like a rogue authoritarian country, to obstruct justice at an international level.

      An equally vexing issue involves a war crimes investigation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Although the ICC investigators looked at atrocities committed by Israelis and Palestinians, both Israel and the US condemned the investigation, arguing that Israel isn’t an ICC member and so the international body lacks jurisdiction. The United States has made the same argument about the investigation into the conduct of American soldiers in Afghanistan, since the US is not a party to the ICC.

      But the ICC’s jurisdiction is quite clear: it extends to crimes “committed by a State Party national, or in the territory of a State Party, or in a State that has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court.” Palestine, an ICC member since 2015, requested the investigation. And Afghanistan is also an ICC member.

      Biden’s Response

      Earlier this month, US President Joe Biden lifted the Trump administration’s sanctions. European allies, in particular, were enthusiastic about this additional sign that the United States is rejoining the international community. “This important step underlines the US’s commitment to the international rules-based system,” said EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell.

      But the Biden administration’s move comes with an important caveat. In his statement on the lifting of the sanctions, Secretary of State Antony Blinken noted that “we continue to disagree strongly with the ICC’s actions relating to the Afghan and Palestinian situations. We maintain our longstanding objection to the Court’s efforts to assert jurisdiction over personnel of non-States Parties such as the United States and Israel.”

      When it comes to the ICC, then, a disturbing bipartisan consensus has emerged on its supposed encroachment upon US sovereignty. It’s OK for the ICC to prosecute the actions of countries in the Global South, but hand’s off the big boys, a status the United States generously extends to Israel. In the Senate, Ben Cardin and Rob Portman put out a letter last month criticizing the ICC’s investigation in Palestine, which attracted the support of 55 of their colleagues (down from 67 for a similar letter last year).

      Together with Israel, the US continues to abide by an exceptionalism when it comes to international law that it shares with several dozen states, including quite a few that the United States generally doesn’t like to be associated with, such as North Korea, Myanmar, Russia, China, Egypt, Belarus and Nicaragua.

      Of course, it hasn’t just been Bolton and a few outlaw states that have criticized the ICC. African countries in particular have accused the institution of bias. The Court has indeed opened investigations in a disproportionate number of African states: the Democratic Republic of Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, the Central African Republic, Sudan, Kenya, Libya and Uganda. Preliminary investigations also took place in Gabon, Guinea and Nigeria and were slated to start in Burundi. All of the 46 individuals facing charges before the court are African.

      In response to this perceived bias, the African Union, in 2017, called for a mass withdrawal of its members from the ICC. Burundi left the court that year, the first country in the world to do so (other countries, like the US and Russia, “withdrew” but hadn’t actually ratified the treaty in the first place). Two other countries that seemed on the verge of withdrawal, South Africa and Gambia, ultimately changed their minds.

      Bias or Backbone?

      The ICC was supposed to put an end to the era of imperial justice by which the winners determine who is guilty of war crimes, a bias that pervaded the Nuremberg trials. It has appointed judges and investigators from the Global South: Fatou Bensouda is Gambian, for instance, while Phakiso Mochochoko is from Lesotho. Still, the preponderance of investigations in Africa should give pause. The ICC has obviously had some difficulty making a transition to this new era. But let’s point out some obvious counter-arguments.

      First, the ICC doesn’t have an anti-African bias. It discriminates against African dictators and warlords. If anything, the court has a pro-African bias by standing up for the victims of violence in Africa. Other continents should be so lucky to have the ICC looking out for them. Second, the ICC has more recently begun to challenge major powers, including Russia for its actions in Georgia and Ukraine. It has also investigated the actions of Israel and the United States. These moves come with considerable risks, as the Trump sanctions painfully revealed. Third, the ICC has considerable jurisdictional restrictions. It can’t investigate crimes against humanity in North Korea since the latter isn’t a member. The same applies to China and its actions in Xinjiang.

      Instead of complaining about the ICC’s blind spots and shortcomings, the United States should get on board and put pressure on other countries to do likewise. Americans can’t pretend to support the rule of law, to loudly promote it around the world, and then turn around and say: Oh, well, it doesn’t apply to us. If the American justice system can prosecute perpetrators in blue like Derek Chauvin, the US can permit an international justice system to prosecute perpetrators in khaki who have killed civilians on a larger scale.

      So, Biden deserves praise for reversing the Trump administration’s brazen and embarrassing attack on the ICC. But that doesn’t constitute actual support for international law. It’s time for the United States to uncancel the International Criminal Court.

      *[This article was originally published by FPIF.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More