How the U.S. Has Empowered and Armed Neo-Nazis in Ukraine

BY MEDEA BENJAMIN - NICOLAS J. S. DAVIES

 MARCH 11, 2022
Facebook

TwitterReddiEmail

Photograph Source: Ivan Bandura – CC BY 2.0

Russian President Putin has claimed that he ordered the invasion of Ukraine to “denazify” its government, while Western officials, such as former U.S. Ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul, have called this pure propaganda, insisting, “There are no Nazis in Ukraine.”

In the context of the Russian invasion, the post-2014 Ukrainian government’s problematic relations with extreme right-wing groups and neo-Nazi parties has become an incendiary element on both sides of the propaganda war, with Russia exaggerating it as a pretext for war and the West trying to sweep it under the carpet.

The reality behind the propaganda is that the West and its Ukrainian allies have opportunistically exploited and empowered the extreme right in Ukraine, first to pull off the 2014 coup and then by redirecting it to fight separatists in Eastern Ukraine. And far from “denazifying” Ukraine, the Russian invasion is likely to further empower Ukrainian and international neo-Nazis, as it attracts fighters from around the world and provides them with weapons, military training and the combat experience that many of them are hungry for.

Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Svoboda Party and its founders Oleh Tyahnybok and Andriy Parubiy played leading roles in the U.S-backed coup in February 2014. Assistant Secretary Nuland and Ambassador Pyatt mentioned Tyahnybok as one of the leaders they were working with on their infamous leaked phone call before the coup, even as they tried to exclude him from an official position in the post-coup government.

As formerly peaceful protests in Kyiv gave way to pitched battles with police and violent, armed marches to try to break through police barricades and reach the Parliament building, Svoboda members and the newly-formed Right Sector militia, led by Dmytro Yarosh, battled police, spearheaded marches and raided a police armory for weapons. By mid-February 2014, these men with guns were the de facto leaders of the Maidan movement.

We will never know what kind of political transition peaceful protests alone would have led to in Ukraine or how different the new government would have been if a peaceful political process had been allowed to take its course, without interference by the United States or violent right-wing extremists.

But it was Yarosh who took to the stage in the Maidan and rejected the February 21, 2014 agreement negotiated by the French, German and Polish foreign ministers, under which Yanukovich and opposition political leaders agreed to hold new elections later that year. Instead, Yarosh and Right Sector refused to disarm and led the climactic march on Parliament that overthrew the government.

Since 1991, Ukrainian elections had swung back and forth between leaders like President Viktor Yanukovych, who was from Donetsk and had close ties with Russia, and Western-backed leaders like President Yushchenko, who was elected in 2005 after the “Orange Revolution” that followed a disputed election. Ukraine’s endemic corruption tainted every government, and rapid public disillusionment with whichever leader and party won power led to a see-saw between Western- and Russian-aligned factions.

In 2014, Nuland and the State Department got their favorite, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, installed as Prime Minister of the post-coup government. He lasted two years, until he, too, lost his job due to endless corruption scandals. Petro Poroshenko, the post-coup President, lasted a bit longer, until 2019, even after his personal tax evasion schemes were exposed in the 2016 Panama Papers and 2017 Paradise Papers.

When Yatsenyuk became Prime Minister, he rewarded Svoboda’s role in the coup with three cabinet positions, including Oleksander Sych as Deputy Prime Minister, and governorships of three of Ukraine’s 25 provinces. Svoboda’s Andriy Parubiy was appointed Chairman (or speaker) of Parliament, a post he held for the next 5 years. Tyahnybok ran for president in 2014, but only got 1.2% of the votes, and was not re-elected to Parliament.

Ukrainian voters turned their backs on the extreme-right in the 2014 post-coup elections, reducing Svoboda’s 10.4% share of the national vote in 2012 to 4.7%. Svoboda lost support in areas where it held control of local governments but had failed to live up to its promises, and its support was split now that it was no longer the only party running on explicitly anti-Russian slogans and rhetoric.

After the coup, Right Sector helped to consolidate the new order by attacking and breaking up anti-coup protests, in what their leader Yarosh described to Newsweek as a “war” to “cleanse the country” of pro-Russian protesters. This campaign climaxed on May 2nd with the massacre of 42 anti-coup protesters in a fiery inferno, after they took shelter from Right Sector attackers in the Trades Unions House in Odessa.

After anti-coup protests evolved into declarations of independence in Donetsk and Luhansk, the extreme right in Ukraine shifted gear to full-scale armed combat. The Ukrainian military had little enthusiasm for fighting its own people, so the government formed new National Guard units to do so.

Right Sector formed a battalion, and neo-Nazis also dominated the Azov Battalion, which was founded by Andriy Biletsky, an avowed white supremacist who claimed that Ukraine’s national purpose was to rid the country of Jews and other inferior races. It was the Azov battalion that led the post-coup government’s assault on the self-declared republics and retook the city of Mariupol from separatist forces.

The Minsk II agreement in 2015 ended the worst fighting and set up a buffer zone around the breakaway republics, but a low-intensity civil war continued. An estimated 14,000 people have been killed since 2014. Congressman Ro Khanna and progressive members of Congress tried for several years to end U.S. military aid to the Azov Battalion. They finally did so in the FY2018 Defense Appropriation Bill, but Azov reportedly continued to receive U.S. arms and training despite the ban.

In 2019, the Soufan Center, which tracks terrorist and extremist groups around the world, warned, “The Azov Battalion is emerging as a critical node in the transnational right-wing violent extremist network… (Its) aggressive approach to networking serves one of the Azov Battalion’s overarching objectives, to transform areas under its control in Ukraine into the primary hub for transnational white supremacy.”

The Soufan Center described how the Azov Battalion’s “aggressive networking” reaches around the world to recruit fighters and spread its white supremacist ideology. Foreign fighters who train and fight with the Azov Battalion then return to their own countries to apply what they have learned and recruit others.

Violent foreign extremists with links to Azov have included Brenton Tarrant, who massacred 51 worshippers at a mosque in Christchurch in New Zealand in 2019, and several members of the U.S. Rise Above Movement who were prosecuted for attacking counter-protestors at the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville in August 2017. Other Azov veterans have returned to Australia, Brazil, Germany, Italy, Norway, Sweden, the U.K. and other countries.

Despite Svoboda’s declining success in national elections, neo-Nazi and extreme nationalist groups, increasingly linked to the Azov Battalion, have maintained power on the street in Ukraine, and in local politics in the Ukrainian nationalist heartland around Lviv in Western Ukraine.

After President Zelensky’s election in 2019, the extreme right threatened him with removal from office, or even death, if he negotiated with separatist leaders from Donbas and followed through on the Minsk Protocol. Zelensky had run for election as a “peace candidate,” but under threat from the right, he refused to even talk to Donbas leaders, whom he dismissed as terrorists.

During Trump’s presidency, the United States reversed Obama’s ban on weapons sales to Ukraine, and Zelensky’s aggressive rhetoric raised new fears in Donbas and Russia that he was building up Ukraine’s forces for a new offensive to retake Donetsk and Luhansk by force.

The civil war has combined with the government’s neoliberal economic policies to create fertile ground for the extreme right. The post-coup government imposed more of the same neoliberal “shock therapy” that was imposed throughout Eastern Europe in the 1990s. Ukraine received a $40 billion IMF bailout and, as part of the deal, privatized 342 state-owned enterprises; reduced public sector employment by 20%, along with salary and pension cuts; privatized healthcare, and disinvested in public education, closing 60% of its universities.

Coupled with Ukraine’s endemic corruption, these policies led to the profitable looting of state assets by the corrupt ruling class, and to falling living standards and austerity measures for everybody else. The post-coup government upheld Poland as its model, but the reality was closer to Yeltsin’s Russia in the 1990s. After a nearly 25% fall in GDP between 2012 and 2016, Ukraine is still the poorest country in Europe.

As elsewhere, the failures of neoliberalism have fueled the rise of right-wing extremism and racism, and now the war with Russia promises to provide thousands of alienated young men from around the world with military training and combat experience, which they can then take home to terrorize their own countries.

The Soufan Center has compared the Azov Battalion’s international networking strategy to that of Al Qaeda and ISIS. U.S. and NATO support for the Azov Battalion poses similar risks as their support for Al Qaeda-linked groups in Syria ten years ago. Those chickens quickly came home to roost when they spawned ISIS and turned decisively against their Western backers.

Right now, Ukrainians are united in their resistance to Russia’s invasion, but we should not be surprised when the U.S. alliance with neo-Nazi proxy forces in Ukraine, including the infusion of billions of dollars in sophisticated weapons, results in similarly violent and destructive blowback.

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and author of several books, including Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the US-Saudi Connection. Nicolas J. S. Davies is a writer for Consortium News and a researcher with CODEPINK, and the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq

OPINION

Wonking Out: Lies, Damned Lies and Gasoline Prices

By Paul Krugman
Opinion Columnist
March 11, 2022

Credit...Brandon Pavan for The New York Times

Let me offer two theories about recent events. You tell me which you find more credible.

Theory A: The reason President Biden has been sounding so forceful and effective lately is that the Disney Corporation has secretly replaced the real Biden with an animatronic robot.

Theory B: Biden’s socialist economic policies are the reason U.S. gasoline prices have shot up so much lately.

If forced to choose, I’d go for theory A. It’s ridiculous, of course, but it’s not quite as easy to refute, not quite as cynical an insult to voters’ intelligence, as theory B. But theory B is, of course, what Republicans are running with.

There are three things you need to know about gasoline prices. First, the price of crude oil — the stuff that comes out of the ground — is set in a global market, not country by country. Second, fluctuations in the price of gasoline, which is refined from crude, overwhelmingly reflect fluctuations in that global price. Third, U.S. policy has little effect on world oil prices, and virtually none at all in the short run — say, the 14 months that Biden has been in office.

About crude prices: A number of countries export oil: Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf producers, Venezuela, Norway, various others and, in normal times, Russia. Where they ship the oil depends on the price they can get. This more or less levels prices around the world: Any country with above-average prices will attract extra shipments, driving prices down; any country with below-average prices will see imports fall off, driving prices up.

As usual in economics, there are some pesky details: Not all crude oil is the same, and refineries in any one country may not be adapted to use oil from all sources. But these things only matter at the margin. There are two widely cited prices of oil — West Texas Intermediate, which reflects prices in, duh, Texas, and Brent, which reflects prices in Europe. And they move almost perfectly in tandem:

Crude equality.Credit...FRED


You can see the big recent run-up in both prices. This crude run-up has been reflected, pretty much one-for-one, in gasoline prices at the pump — everywhere. It’s true that average prices for gasoline differ a lot among countries, because taxes on consumers are much higher in Europe than they are in the United States. But short-run fluctuations are driven by the price of crude and are similar everywhere. Here’s what has happened in the United States:




Image

Pain at the pump.Credit...Gasbuddy.com


And here’s what has happened in Britain:

But stormy petrol too.Credit...RAC Foundation

So for those blaming Biden for rising prices here, I regret to inform you that he is not the prime minister of Britain, or the German chancellor, or …

So rising gas prices in America, then, are part of a global story that has nothing to do with the policies of the current administration. Still, can’t the United States have some impact on that global story? We are, after all, the world’s largest oil producer, accounting for about 20 percent of world output in 2020. Can’t America do something to reduce global oil prices?

Yes, in principle. Not so much in practice.

U.S. oil production did increase a lot after 2010 — a trend that, as it happens, began under the Obama administration and continued for part of Donald Trump’s term:

Remember the Obama oil boom?Credit...Energy Information Administration


But this had little to do with policy; it was all about new technology, specifically fracking. Oil production then slumped in 2020, not because of policy but because prices plunged during the pandemic. Now it’s coming back, again thanks to events rather than policy. It seems safe to say that nothing either Trump did or Biden did has had any appreciable effect on U.S. oil production, let alone U.S. gasoline prices.

Of course, that’s not what Republicans would have you believe. They want the public to give Trump credit for low prices in 2020, when demand for oil was low because Covid had the world economy on its back. They want voters to blame environmental concerns, which have blocked the Keystone XL pipeline and might block drilling on public land, for high prices at the pump right now — even though it will take years before these policy changes will have any effect, and that effect will be modest even then.

I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised. After all, we’re talking about a party that’s in denial about everything from climate change to vaccine effectiveness, so what’s a bit of economic nonsense thrown into the mix? But somehow I find myself shocked all the same. For you don’t need scientific understanding or even rudimentary statistical analysis to see that President Biden can’t possibly be responsible for high U.S. gasoline prices; all you need to do is spend five minutes looking at what’s happening in the rest of the world.

But will voters see through this latest Republican disinformation campaign? Will Democrats make an effective case for the truth? I wish I were more optimistic than I am.




Paul Krugman has been an Opinion columnist since 2000 and is also a distinguished professor at the City University of New York Graduate Center. He won the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on international trade and economic geography. @PaulKrugman

CROC LOVE

Adorable Photos Show Crocodiles Cuddling After Living Together for Decades

BY ROBYN WHITE ON 3/11/22 AT 4:23 AM EST

Two crocodiles who have lived together for decades have been pictured cuddling at a Florida zoo.

The pictures captured by Scott Brown––crocodile zip line manager at the St. Augustine Alligator Farm Zoological Park––show two saltwater crocodiles called Maximo and Sydney displaying what for them is a usual display of affection.

In the pictures, Maximo––a huge 50-year-old crocodile––can be seen with his arm around the smaller female croc. A spokesperson for the park told Newsweek that "these two are often seen snuggling and cuddling up to each other."

Maximo measures about 16 feet long and weighs 1,250 pounds, while Sydney is much smaller, measuring 9 feet and weighing 250 pounds. In the pictures, Sydney appears to be less than half the size of her companion.

Although much larger, Maximo is very gentle with Sydney.

SCOTT BROWN/ST. AUGUSTINE ALLIGATOR FARM ZOOLOGICAL PARK

The male crocodile is "very gentle" with Sydney even though he outweighs her by 1,000 pounds, the spokesperson said.

Maximo and Sydney used to live at a park in Cairns, Australia before they were moved to the St. Augustine Alligator Farm in 2003. As they were originally part of a breeding group, the two crocodiles have "produced many babies over the years," which staff affectionately refer to as "Minimos."

Despite being intimidating predators, crocodiles are sometimes observed displaying softer behavior. The ancient reptiles are highly intelligent, with sophisticated hunting techniques, and evidence suggests they are also capable of forming strong bonds with one another. A 2015 study found examples of crocodilians forming friendships with other individuals, sometimes playing by riding on each other's backs.

"In the wild, Saltwater crocodile males can control large stretches of territories, and often have multiple females in those territories that they breed with and keep other wandering males from entering these territories," the park spokesperson said. "During mating season, crocodilians may rub their snouts/heads over each other, blow bubbles underwater near each other, and generally be gentle to one another. It's not a rough affair, like with sharks or a quick affair, like with some birds or mammals."

READ MORE
Infamous Florida Alligator That Terrorized Paddleboarders Has Been Killed
Crocodile Catches Bat From Air by Leaping Out of Water in Amazing Video
Giant Crocodile-Like Creature That Lived in China 200 Years Ago Discovered

These mating moments can last "quite a while with crocodilians," with the ritual sometimes lasting over several hours. Crocodiles are not usually monogamous, however, and a clutch of eggs will often contain the genes from several different males.

"Maximo has his territory secured and safe, and he has his girl. Sydney has nothing to worry about because she has her large man to protect her and the territory," the spokesperson said.

St. Augustine Alligator Farm Zoological Park has 24 species of crocodilians, and a variety of other reptiles. Maximo and Sydney live in a lagoon at the Crocodile Crossing area of the park.

The staff often observe the crocs cuddling like this

JOHN BRUEGGEN/ST. AUGUSTINE ALLIGATOR FARM ZOOLOGICAL PARK

BUT CAN HE SAY 'FREE PALESTINE'

Irwin Cotler controversy renews anti-Semitism debate at University of Toronto
Jessica Mundie 


One of Canada’s most-admired human rights experts has found himself at the centre of controversy at the University of Toronto, accused of “anti-Palestinian racism” by some faculty at a school often criticized as having an anti-Semitism problem.

© Provided by National Post Cotler's speech on Jan. 26 prompted complaints from 45 University of Toronto faculty members who claim he “reinforced anti-Palestinian racism in a way that is consistent with a broader pattern of silencing and erasure of Palestinian voices.” In response to the complaints against Cotler, over 300 University of Toronto faculty members signed an open letter meant to “draw attention to the falsehoods, twisted logic and anti-Semitic rhetoric that are contained in the letter sent by other Faculty members.”

Irwin Cotler gave a speech Jan. 26 that was meant to reflect on International Holocaust Remembrance Day. The event, organized by the university’s Temerty Faculty of Medicine, was meant to discuss contemporary anti-Semitism. Cotler’s speech discussed systemic racism from a human rights perspective with a focus on addressing anti-Semitism through equality.

But his speech prompted complaints from 45 University of Toronto faculty members who claim he “reinforced anti-Palestinian racism in a way that is consistent with a broader pattern of silencing and erasure of Palestinian voices.” These faculty members have accused Cotler of suggesting that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic.

Cotler, who is Canada’s Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism , said he specifically said all criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic but rather singling out Israel as the single perpetrator of human rights violations is discriminatory.

“That is an absolute misrepresentation of what I have said over and over again,” said Cotler, who is renowned for his work as a human rights lawyer and Jewish community leader. He served as the minister of justice and attorney general of Canada under former Prime Minister Paul Martin. He currently serves as the international chair of the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights and is part of the Canadian delegation to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.

In response to the complaints against Cotler, over 300 University of Toronto faculty members signed an open letter meant to “draw attention to the falsehoods, twisted logic and anti-Semitic rhetoric that are contained in the letter sent by other Faculty members.”

This letter, published Mar. 7, was written by Doctors Against Racism and Anti-Semitism (DARA) and was addressed to the acting dean of the faculty of medicine, Patricia Houston.

David Kaplan, associate professor in the Department of Family & Community Medicine and Joint Centre for Bioethics at the University of Toronto, said this incident has come at a time when anti-Semitism on the University of Toronto campus has become a broader issue.

He mentioned a recent issue in which the student union at the university’s Scarborough campus banned kosher foods affiliated with Israel as part of their Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) policy as well as the Graduate Student Union using university funds to support their BDS initiative.

University President Meric Gertler addressed this issue in a statement last November, saying student organizations may take positions on controversial topics but must abide by university policy that states they “must conduct themselves in an open, accessible and democratic manner.” The university announced recently that it will be withholding $10,918 funds from the Graduate Student Union.

“We all have to be careful with our words as academic leaders,” said Kaplan. “Otherwise, the university will be indifferent to the wound of anti-Semitism.”

Frank Sommers, lecturer in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto and DARA board member who issued the letter on behalf of the organization, said they felt it was important to address the “misstatements” made by the 45 faculty members.

One of these concerns is Cotler’s use of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism . This definition has been criticized for conflating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism and being used to silence Palestinian voices.

The 45 faculty members claim the use of this definition undermined the work of the university’s Anti-Semitism Working Group which recommended that the “school should not adopt any of the definitions of anti-Semitism that have recently been proposed.” In Dec. 2021, the university announced it accepts all the recommendations of the Working Group including not adopting the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.

Cotler’s use of the IHRA definition “fell exactly within university policy,” claims the DARA letter. They also point out the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism has been adopted by many countries, including Canada which adopted it on June 25, 2021, as part of its anti-racism strategy.

Cotler, who played a role in the development of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, said it is a “working definition, based on the principle that to be able to combat anti-Semitism, you have to be able to recognize it, to identify it, and to define it.”

The 45 faculty members also claim that Cotler “repeatedly labeled legitimate criticism of Israel as examples of antisemitism.”

They give examples from the speech, including a list of United Nations (UN) resolutions that criticize Israel for its violations against Palestinians, condemnation of Israel for its actions against Palestinians in the declaration that resulted from the UN-sponsored World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance, and referring to Israel as an apartheid state.

“I specifically said that not only is criticism of Israel not anti-Semitic, but also that the IHRA definition itself specifically says that criticism of Israel, like any other state, is not anti-Semitic,” said Cotler.

The DARA letter claims that these accusations trivialized and demeaned “the torment and industrialized murder of Jews in the Holocaust” by saying a Holocaust Remembrance event reinforced anti-Palestinian racism. It also claims they perpetuated “an antisemitic tradition of accusing Jews who defend themselves as erasing the voices and suppressing the lives of others” by portraying Cotler as racist.

Raed Hawa, professor in the department of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, and one of the 45 faculty members, said in a statement that their letter was sent in confidence to Houston to raise serious concerns about anti-Palestinian racism.

“It is unclear how the letter reached others and is disappointing that those who raised concerns are facing intimidation through baseless and defamatory accusations,” said Hawa. “We wholeheartedly condemn antisemitism and racism of all forms.”

Cotler said he was not copied or included in the message sent to Houston which listed the complaints made against his speech.

“I would have thought as academics, rightfully concerned with speech, they would have copied me on their letter of complaint allowing me the right to respond,” he said.

In a statement, Houston said that discrimination and racism of any kind are not tolerated at the Temerty Faculty of Medicine. Physicians must speak out passionately about injustice, she said, however, this must be done with respect.

“As befits our commitment to academic freedom, we do not – and will not – censor or set preconditions upon what invited speakers may or may not say,” said Houston.

In response to the issues of racism, the faculty of medicine has appointed two senior advisors on anti-Semitism and Islamophobia to help facilitate respectful dialogue between faculty, staff, and students. It has also appointed a post-doctoral fellow whose research addresses anti-Semitism in health education and practice and is in the process of recruiting a post-doctoral fellow whose work will focus on Islamophobia.

Kaplan said he signed the DARA letter because he hopes to see the university support constructive conversations on these sorts of topics.

“I’d rather have open dialogue and not write letters back and forth,” he said. “I hope for a return to our pluralistic roots. To be able to have a place where all students, faculty, and employees feel they are safe, that they can freely express their ideas, and to be able to have a dialogue.”

FOLLOW THE MONEY
New clues emerge about the money that might have helped fund the Jan. 6 insurrection

March 11, 2022
CLAUDIA GRISALES

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), chair of the select committee investigating the January 6 attack, speaks during a business meeting on Capitol Hill on December 13, 2021. One part of the panel's probe focuses on money and the day's events

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Eight months into the investigation of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, the financial story is one of the most closely held parts of the probe. But the House select committee has shared some clues through its subpoenas and court filings.

The latest peek into questions around the money that might have helped fuel the attack is the Republican National Committee suing to thwart a subpoena from the committee.

The filing reveals that the Democratic-led panel quietly subpoenaed an RNC vendor, San Francisco-based Salesforce, last month.

After the suit became public, the committee quickly defended the effort, saying it was looking into a new push led by former President Trump asking for donations after he lost his 2020 bid for re-election.

"Ever since Watergate, one of the central adages in... congressional investigations of presidential wrongdoing has been follow the money," said Norm Eisen, a former House lawyer in Trump's first impeachment case. "The 1/6 committee investigation has been sweeping in all of its dimensions, and this is no exception."

The committee's Feb. 23 subpoena of Salesforce emphasized its interest in the company's hosting of Trump emails asking for new donations that included false claims of election fraud.

Ronna McDaniel, the GOP chairwoman, speaks during the Republican National Committee winter meeting Friday, Feb. 4, 2022, in Salt Lake City. The RNC has sued the House committee investigating Jan. 6 over a subpoena of Salesforce.

Rick Bowmer/AP

It's part of a central question the panel hopes to answer: Did Trump find new ways to keep the money coming in after his loss by shifting from a presidential campaign to a "Stop the Steal" effort?

Sponsor Message

"I think the level of grift that was involved with the Trump campaign and people close to the former president, how the January Six efforts were for many of them, this is what they were doing to make money," said California Democratic Rep. Pete Aguilar, a member of the Jan. 6 panel. "We are looking into that."

The committee's investigators are broken down into highly skilled teams with core areas of focus, including one that's on the money.

Aguilar says each team has been making "significant progress," with regular presentations to the full committee on its findings. Each has been charged with devising a strategy for depositions and hearings.

"The committee has not tipped its hand of everything they have," Eisen said. "They dedicated significant resources to the money trails. And I'm certain that in the hearings and in the final report, there's going to be much more evidence revealed."

This spring, the committee hopes to hold its first hearings illustrating the findings so far and issue an interim report by the summer with a final report this fall.
Questions of crimes committed

While it investigates, the panel is also documenting possible crimes.

Although it has no criminal jurisdiction, the committee can issue criminal referrals to the Justice Department, as it has done in cases of some witnesses who have refused to cooperate.

Last week, the committee detailed possible crimes Trump might have committed related to Jan. 6 in a recent court filing involving attorney John Eastman, who was advising Trump's Stop the Steal efforts.

Jan. 6 panel says it has evidence Trump broke laws in trying to overturn the election

Eastman is also fighting another subpoena in which the panel raised potential crimes that could tie into the financial probe as well: a conspiracy to defraud and common law fraud.

Eisen argues following the money is one of the classic ways of establishing the parameters of a broad conspiracy.

"These are questions, they're allegations, they're not yet determined," Eisen notes. However, some examples of these questions are "were false representations made in order to fleece people of their funds? Was it wire fraud? Was it money laundering?"

The Eastman court filing could become a part of a much larger path forward if the committee potentially issues criminal referrals against Trump by the conclusion of its probe.

The White House in the background, President Donald Trump speaks at a rally in Washington, Jan. 6, 2021. The House committee investigating the attack on the U.S. Capitol is probing the funding for the rally and other events that preceded the deadly attack on Capitol Hill.Jacquelyn Martin/AP

But it's a complex matter.

Among the challenges: the committee will have to prove intent behind the efforts. And such a criminal referral could be laced with political landmines, putting pressure on the Justice Department's independent and impartial role.

Panel members have conceded there are pros and cons.

"Certainly, I think a referral from Congress gets the attention of the Department of Justice," said California Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff, another committee member and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who was the lead House manager in Trump's first impeachment. "At the same time, the Congress has to be careful not to play into any narrative that a prosecution — if the Justice Department were to bring one — is politically motivated in any way."

That political concern, Schiff argues, can be addressed through the panel's methodical approach to the probe, which while not criminal in nature. That can be accomplished by focusing on finding all the facts and remaining objective along the way, Schiff said.

Kimberly Guilfoyle speaks, Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington, at a rally in support of President Donald Trump called the "Save America Rally." The House committee investigating the U.S. Capitol insurrection has subpoenaed Kimberly Guilfoyle as it probes who funded the day's events.

Jacquelyn Martin/AP

More Jan. 6 money trails

In the coming days, the committee could unearth another rash of financial details with information from a newly subpoenaed witness.

Kimberly Guilfoyle, Donald Trump Jr.'s fiancée, is due to turn over documents to the panel today and testify next week. Last year, ProPublica reported Guilfoyle bragged in text messages that she helped raise $3 million for the Jan. 6 rally at the Ellipse, where she was one of the speakers.

Jan. 6 panel seeks phone records from Eric Trump and Kimberly Guilfoyle

It's a reminder that more than a year later, it's still not clear how much money was funneled to the Jan. 6 rally or events that preceded it, and who got paid along the way.

The panel has also shared in letters to certain subpoenaed witnesses that it's trying to track down appearance fees for that rally — that is, whether any of the speakers collected payment that day.

"If funds were raised for the Jan. 6 event by an organized group, then there might be an opportunity for us to know who it was and what was paid," Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, who chairs the House select committee.

Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., and Vice Chair Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., of the House panel investigating the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol insurrection, testify before the House Rules Committee at the Capitol in Washington, Dec. 14, 2021. The House panel investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection at the Capitol is looking into who funded the events that preceded the deadly attack.

J. Scott Applewhite/AP

The committee has also quietly sought banking records, including in the case of Taylor Budowich, a Trump spokesman who sued to keep his financial institution from complying with a subpoena.

"There's no doubt that there is a very big moneymaking operation component to this story," said Maryland Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin, another committee member who was the lead manager of the House team in Trump's second impeachment.

RNC votes to censure Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger over work with Jan. 6 panel

Anna Massoglia, an editorial and investigations manager for the nonpartisan, nonprofit group OpenSecrets, is also trying to track the money trail.

Massoglia says a combination of dark money groups, nonprofits and super PACs funded the rally before the attack, but not necessarily the insurrection. She says the committee will be key to filling in the many of the blanks that remain.

"There's those unknowns of the groups on social media that didn't have as much of an official role," she said. "But there is a lot of unknown about even these groups that are listed. There's a lot of money that is still unaccounted for."

OpenSecrets has identified at least nine groups that may have contributed to funding the rally, including Stop the Steal, Women for American First, Tea Party Patriots and Turning Point Action. Massoglia says tax returns due later this year could also shed more light on those who may have funneled or made money connected to that day.

OpenSecrets has also identified these groups with financial ties to the so-called "March to Save America":
Rule of Law Defense Fund - a 501(c)(4) nonprofit affiliated with the 527 Republican Attorneys General Association
Black Conservatives Fund - a hybrid PAC
Moms for America - a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
Peaceably Gather - a 501(c)(3) nonprofit supported by First Liberty Institute
Phyllis Schlafly Eagles - a 501(c)(3) nonprofit

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., listens as Rep. Elaine Luria, D-Va., speaks during a business meeting with the select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, on Capitol Hill on Dec. 13, 2021. The committee is looking into who funded the rally and other events preceding the deadly attack.

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Raskin says the financial story behind the attack remains a critical chapter to the overall story the committee hopes to tell the public later this year.

"There are powerful indications that have surfaced and every day that passes we get more testimony shedding light on what exactly was taking place," Raskin said. "We should not discount the financial motive and imperative in the events leading up to Jan. 6."

ALEC Is Driving Laws to Blacklist Companies That Boycott the Oil Industry

The American Legislative Exchange Council has drafted legislation modeled on efforts to block divestment from Israel.

By Chris McGreal
FEBRUARY 8, 2022

Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on January 31, 2022, in New York City. After a volatile week, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was down slightly in morning trading. (Spencer Platt / Getty Images)


This story originally appeared in The Guardian and is part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.

The influential right-wing lobby group the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is driving a surge in new state laws to block boycotts of the oil industry. The group’s strategy, which aims to protect large oil firms and other conservative-friendly industries, is modeled on legislation to punish divestment from Israel.

Since the beginning of the year, state legislatures in West Virginia, Oklahoma, and Indiana have introduced a version of a law drafted by ALEC, called the Energy Discrimination Elimination Act, to shield Big Oil from share selloffs and other measures intended to protest the fossil fuel industry’s role in the climate crisis. A dozen other states have publicly supported the intent of the legislation.

Texas has already begun compiling a list of companies to target for refusing to do business with the oil industry after the state passed a version of the law last year. Top of the list is the world’s largest asset manager, BlackRock.

The push to blacklist firms that boycott the oil industry follows a meeting in December between politicians and ALEC, a corporate-funded organization that writes legislation for Republican-controlled states to adopt and drive conservative causes.

At that meeting in San Diego, members of ALEC’S energy task force voted to promote the model legislation requiring banks and financial companies to sign a pledge to not boycott petroleum companies in order to obtain state contracts. The wording closely resembles that of laws drafted by ALEC and adopted in more than 30 states to block support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians.

Similar laws are also being promoted to protect the gun industry from boycotts.

The legislation written by ALEC, which has a history of extreme denial of the climate crisis, claims that “American and European fossil energy producers…are among the most socially and environmentally responsible companies in the world.” It laments that “corporations are boycotting fossil energy companies by refusing to provide them with products or services,” and says that share selloffs by financial funds hurt investors.

“Banks are increasingly denying financing to creditworthy fossil energy companies solely for the purpose of decarbonizing their lending portfolios and marketing their environmental credentials,” the draft legislation says.

“This model bill proposes a strategy in which states use their collective economic purchasing power to counter the rise of politically motivated and discriminatory investing practices.”

The drive to pass the legislation follows the refusal of major financial firms to fund new oil and gas drilling in the Arctic. Banks and other financial institutions are also under pressure from environmental groups and customers to divest from fossil fuel companies. JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, and Goldman Sachs are among those firms to publicly commit to supporting the transition away from oil.

As with anti-BDS laws, any business with more than 10 employees would have to certify that it is not boycotting fossil fuel companies in order to do business with a state government. State funds, such as pensions, will usually be obliged to sell investments in corporations that refuse loans to the oil industry.

ALEC’s push comes after the Texas legislature passed a version of the law in June 2021.

That legislation was backed by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, an active member of ALEC that is funded in part by Koch Industries, which accused Wall Street firms of “colluding in a coordinated attack against Texas and our way of life” by denying capital to oil firms.

TPPF, which has several members also working inside ALEC and maintains close ties to Senator Ted Cruz and rightwing former Texas governor Rick Perry, then pushed for the law to be adopted by other states.

Jason Isaac, a former Texas state legislator who now heads TPPF’s initiative to defend the oil industry, sent a memo to participants in the ALEC meeting in San Diego in which he criticized “woke” banks and other financial institutions he accused of “colluding to deny lending and investment in fossil fuel companies.”

“The following model policy is based on anti-BDS legislation supported by ALEC regarding Israel and was recently passed in Texas to include discrimination against fossil fuels. Voting for this model policy, and encouraging more state legislatures to adopt it, will send a strong message that the states will fight back against woke capitalism,” the memo said, which was obtained by Alex Kotch of the Center for Media and Democracy.

In January, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick asked the state comptroller to put BlackRock, which manages an estimated $10 trillion worth of assets, at the top of its list of blacklisted companies because he said its pledge to work toward decarbonizing the energy sector “will destroy the oil and gas industry and destabilize the economy worldwide.”

Patrick accused BlackRock chairman and CEO Larry Fink and his executives of making reassuring statements in private, saying the company “was committed to Texas and Texas’s vast energy footprint,” but taking a different position in public by pledging to pressure energy firms to work toward net zero.

“Therefore, BlackRock is boycotting energy companies by basing investment decisions on whether a company pledges to meet BlackRock’s ‘net zero’ goals,” Patrick wrote.

BlackRock, which stands to lose about $20 billion in Texas public sector pension funds, in fact remains a significant shareholder in oil and gas companies through index funds.

“BlackRock does not boycott energy companies,” it said in a statement to The Guardian. “We do not pursue divestment from oil and gas companies as a policy. We expect to continue to be invested in these companies and will work with them as they drive the energy transition to maximize long-term value for our clients. Our primary concern with the law is the potential negative consequences it could have on current and future Texas pensioners.”

The anti-BDS legislation has faced legal challenges after residents of Dickinson, Tex., were required to sign pledges not to boycott Israel in order to receive hurricane damage relief and a teacher in Kansas was told she had to do the same to keep her job.

Several states were forced to amend anti-BDS laws to restrict it to larger companies after courts ruled that requiring individuals to sign pledges not to boycott Israel intruded on free speech rights.

Chris McGreal writes for Guardian US and is a former Guardian correspondent in Washington, Johannesburg, and Jerusalem. He is the author of American Overdose, The Opioid Tragedy in Three Acts.

The Case for Declaring a National Climate Emergency

Biden’s move to ban Russian oil imports shows he can act boldly when he wants to.

By Jean Su and Maya Golden-Krasner

President Joe Biden announces a ban on Russian oil imports in retaliation for its invasion of Ukraine. (Andrew Harnik / AP Photo)

Earlier this week, President Biden banned all oil and energy imports from Russia, punishing Vladimir Putin for his brutal war against Ukraine and building upon an earlier package of historic economic sanctions.

Biden’s actions are a steely acknowledgment that our reliance on Russian fossil fuels threatens both national and global security. They are also tangible evidence that Biden can act quickly and boldly to confront national emergencies when he chooses to.

One emergency that Biden must now act on with similar urgency is climate change. In fact, there is no greater emergency. As UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres put it, the climate crisis is drawing an “atlas of human suffering” around the world. Defusing this crisis will require major changes in how we get our energy—both in the United States and around the world. Global emissions of heat-trapping gases must be cut in half by 2030—and even faster in the US, as the largest historic climate polluter pays its fair share of climate debt—if humanity is to keep temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, which most experts agree will be essential to stave off the most catastrophic effects of climate change. And making those cuts will require phasing out oil, gas, and other fossil fuels as rapidly as possible.

The confluence of the climate emergency and Russia’s war in Ukraine make this moment an ideal opportunity for Biden to declare a national climate emergency. In fact, during a Tuesday morning speech announcing the import ban, Biden seemed to acknowledge that the two issues are intertwined. Russia’s disruptions, he said, “should motivate us to accelerate the transition to clean energy.”

Since the 1970s, Congress has granted the president various national defense powers that can be deployed during times of genuine emergency. A new legal report from our organization, the Center for Biological Diversity, details how Biden can use these powers to fight climate change—and, in the process, avoid the geopolitical vulnerabilities that come with an overreliance on fossil fuels.

The Defense Production Act, or DPA, is a wartime statute that permits a president to marshal domestic industries to manufacture critical materials needed for the national defense. Historically, it has been used to manufacture weapons for war, but Biden has also invoked the DPA for peaceful means of self-defense: to produce the vaccines and medical supplies needed to battle the coronavirus pandemic.

Now he has an important opportunity to use the act to combat climate change—by stimulating the production and deployment of renewable energy and storage, energy-efficiency technologies, and clean transportation and infrastructure.
CURRENT ISSUE

View our current issue


Subscribe today and Save up to $129.


Specifically, the DPA empowers the president to command private industry to manufacture what the country needs for the national defense. It unlocks funds specific to the DPA but can also leverage the $650 billion annual federal procurement budget to give manufacturers the investment security they need, including government contracts, loans, and grants. All of this could be used to jumpstart the nation’s green manufacturing base and create high quality, green jobs, rejuvenating a Covid-ailing economy.

The DPA also permits the president to allocate these technologies domestically where they’re needed most: in partnership with environmental justice communities that have borne the brunt of climate harms and a racist energy system, helping actualize the president’s environmental justice priorities.

The US could also export green technologies overseas to help other countries transition away from fossil fuels. Doing so would accomplish two things: diluting the geopolitical power of Russia and other petrostates and helping the US meet its legal obligations under the Paris Agreement to provide aid to vulnerable nations in the global South.

Beyond the DPA, Biden could also exercise additional executive powers provided by the National Emergencies Act, the International Emergency Economics Powers Act, and the US Trade Act, to limit not only the import of fossil fuels from countries like Russia, but also the export of those produced here in the United States. If Biden were, for instance, to ban just crude oil exports, he could cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to 165 million metric tons each year—the equivalent of shuttering 42 coal plants.

Prevailing political interests are sure to push him in the opposite direction. Biden must resist the inevitable pressure he will face to expand domestic oil production as a means of offsetting the energy disruptions caused by Russia’s invasion. Exploiting crises to push for more oil production has long been a favorite trick of the fossil fuel lobby, dating back to the time of the OPEC oil embargoes in the 1970s. But more drilling will neither deliver the energy security that fossil fuel companies claim it will nor allow for the rapid phaseout of fossil fuels needed to preserve a livable planet.

Instead of falling for this trap, Biden should direct federal agencies to stop approving new fossil fuel infrastructure projects, which are incompatible with maintaining a safe climate. And he should ratchet down oil and gas production by suspending the offshore drilling leases that the federal government provides to fossil fuel companies and halting extraction.

If Biden were to embrace such a plan and put the nation on a wartime footing to both resist Putin’s aggression and address the climate emergency, he would enjoy strong support from his own party. Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer, Senators Jeff Merkley and Bernie Sanders, and Representatives Earl Blumenauer and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are among the congressional leaders pushing the president to use powers provided by the National Emergencies Act to combat climate change. And more than 1,100 public interest organizations from all 50 states and territories have urged Biden to do the same.

These emergency powers are a tremendous opportunity for Biden to overcome the geopolitical threats, price volatility, and climate chaos that fossil fuels generate. The question isn’t whether Biden can take bold climate action—but whether he will.


Jean Su is the Energy Justice Program director and senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, based in Washington, D.C. With Maya Golden-Krasner, she is co-author of The Climate President’s Emergency Powers.

Maya Golden-Krasner

 is the deputy director and senior attorney of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity, based in Los Angeles, Calif. With Jean Su, she is co-author of The Climate President’s Emergency Powers.

A Special Tribunal for Putin

For many years, the international rule of law has been undermined not just by rogue dictators but also by the leading global powers. Against this ominous backdrop, Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine represents a new low – one that cannot be tolerated if there is to be peace in the twenty-first century.

Wiktor Szymanowicz/Future Publishing via Getty Images


Long Read

Mar 11, 2022 MURRAY HUNT

OXFORD – The international rule of law – the simple idea that relations between states should be governed by enforceable constraints – has come under increasing strain in recent years. Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, a clear violation of both the United Nations Charter and customary international law, is perhaps the clearest example of just how precarious the situation has become.

FREE TO READ
The Monetary Consequences of Vladimir Putin
BARRY EICHENGREEN anticipates changes in how and where some central banks hold their foreign-exchange reserves

But Russian President Vladimir Putin and his authoritarian peers are hardly the only ones who have been systematically undermining the international rule of law. The resurgence of populist nationalism around the world – espoused most prominently by former US President Donald Trump and his latter-day “America First” movement – also has steadily eroded the rules-based international order that emerged after World War II. But even before Trump, many countries were asserting the primacy of their laws and policies over international rules and multilateral cooperation.

As a result, a pandemic of parochialism has infected many mature democracies to varying degrees. Nor has it been confined to instances of states refusing to implement the judgments of international courts – as China did when it dismissed the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s ruling against its claims in the South China Sea; and as the United Kingdom did when it refused to comply with the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion ordering it to return the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean to Mauritius. Rather, these are symptoms of a new “variant of concern.”

Around the world, states are increasingly committing flagrant violations of international rules while still claiming to comply with them. And neither the United States nor the UK can claim fidelity to the post-war rules-based international order they played such a large role in constructing.

Last October, for example, when US President Joe Biden’s Senior Legal Adviser to the State Department, the highly respected international lawyer Harold Koh, left his post, he wrote a detailed objection to Biden’s continuation of Trump’s border policy. The Biden administration’s approach, Koh wrote, “continues to violate our legal obligation not to expel or return … individuals who fear persecution, death, or torture, especially migrants fleeing from Haiti.” He concluded that the policy was in breach of both the Convention against Torture and the Refugee Protocol.

Similarly, the UK House of Lords recently had to strike clauses from a Nationality and Borders Bill because they were manifestly in breach of the UN Refugee Convention, contrary to what Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government had claimed. A similar confrontation also looms over an attempt to reform the UK Human Rights Act. The Johnson government claims that its proposed changes would be compatible with the UK remaining a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, even though the proposals flagrantly authorize “push back” against rulings by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

This Humpty Dumpty approach to international law undermines the very rules-based system that both post-Brexit “Global Britain” and the Biden administration purport to promote abroad. If international law means whatever nation-states want it to mean, it is on the verge of becoming a dead letter.

RUSSIA’S WAR OF AGGRESSION

Russia’s shocking and barbaric war against Ukraine marks a new low in this dangerous global trend toward international law doublespeak. Claiming that the invasion is justified in international law, Putin has offered a series of mendacious rationales, ranging from the right to pre-emptive self-defense to the responsibility to protect ethnic Russians in Ukraine from “genocide” (a brazen falsehood that echoes Hitler’s own justification for invading Czechoslovakia in 1939).

In fact, as an overwhelming majority of UN General Assembly members recognized last week, the invasion lacks any legal justification and constitutes an act of “aggression” in violation of the UN Charter. Aggression, otherwise known as a crime against peace, is one of the most serious crimes in international criminal law, along with genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.


Our newest magazine, The Year Ahead 2022: Reckonings, is here. To receive your print copy, delivered wherever you are in the world, subscribe to PS for less than $9 a month.

As a PS subscriber, you’ll also enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of premium long-form content, Say More contributor interviews, The Big Picture topical collections, and the full PS archive.

In addition to unleashing terrible suffering – with thousands already dead and more than two million Ukrainian refugees having fled – Russia’s aggression highlights the world’s dependence on the international rule of law for peace, security, and prosperity. It is a wake-up call for states everywhere: neglect the erosion of the international rule of law at your peril.

When states commit such grave breaches, our commitment to the international rule of law – memorably described by former UK Senior Law Lord Tom Bingham as “the domestic rule of law writ large” – requires that there be effective institutional machinery to hold accountable those responsible, and to provide justice for those who have suffered.

This machinery is much more developed now than it was during World War II, thanks in part to the UK’s influence in constructing the post-war rules-based international order. States or individuals can now bring Russia before the ECHR in Strasbourg, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague can investigate, prosecute, and punish actions amounting to genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity. In fact, both processes have already begun.

MIND THE LEGAL GAP

These institutions represent major improvements to the rule-of-law machinery that existed in the first half of the twentieth century. But there is still a significant gap, because no entity currently can investigate, prosecute, and punish the international crime of aggression against Ukraine. The recent expansion of the ICC’s jurisdiction to cover the crime of aggression does not extend to Russia’s actions on Ukrainian territory, because neither country is a party to the ICC statute.

The very existence of this gap could be seen as proof of the current system’s dysfunction. What kind of legal system recognizes certain wrongs as serious crimes but does not provide the institutional means for investigating, prosecuting, or punishing them?

Some might argue that this gap is irrelevant, because existing institutions could still hold Putin and his generals accountable for other offenses, such as violations of human rights, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. But it does matter, because the machinery to punish the crime of aggression would be more effective than those other channels in holding Putin’s inner circle accountable.

Aggression is a crime committed by leaders who plan, initiate, or have the power to influence or shape an overall policy of aggression. It applies to the top ranks, rather than to middle- or lower-ranking officials, and it is generally easier to prove than individual responsibility for specific acts amounting to war crimes or crimes against humanity. Moreover, it also would allow for those who have been complicit in aggression – for example, by providing material support to facilitate it – to be held responsible.

As such, the process of ensuring legal accountability is correspondingly swifter. In the short run, the threat of being brought to justice might encourage those who are systemically sustaining the war of aggression to begin to distance themselves from the regime. And in the long run, knowledge of this risk will act as a deterrent to future enablers of aggression.

THE CASE FOR A SPECIAL TRIBUNAL

Given these potential outcomes, there is a growing chorus calling for the gap in the international rule-of-law machinery to be filled with a special tribunal to punish the crime of aggression against Ukraine. This body would complement, rather than compete with, the ICC, because it would have authority to act only where the ICC lacks prosecutorial power.

One such proposal, which has the Ukrainian government’s support, encourages states to form a coalition of the willing with Ukraine to create a special tribunal. Another proposal envisions a tribunal being established under the UN’s auspices, on the recommendation of the General Assembly. Notably, The Elders – a private organization of prominent former government and international leaders – has endorsed calls for a criminal tribunal to be established, though they have not specified how it should come into being.

Any of these proposals would fill the current institutional gap by enabling the victim state to ensure that aggression on its territory does not go unpunished. The modalities by which a special criminal tribunal is established are of secondary importance. What matters is that there is now a powerful movement to uphold the international rule of law by ensuring that there is no impunity for aggression. Russia’s aggression has thus created the conditions for reversing the disturbing trend of recent years.

What will it take to ensure that this historic opportunity is not missed? Rebuilding the international rule of law will require more than merely reasserting the supremacy of international rules over national laws and policies. For a restored system to endure, its reconstruction must account for the reasons why it was eroded in the first place.

One of those reasons is reflected in criticism of the proposals for a special tribunal. Some legal scholars argue that a special tribunal is a bad idea because it sends the message that international criminal justice is ultimately selective. According to this critique, the international rule of law would be subverted, rather than strengthened, by the hypocrisy and double standards involved in singling out Russian aggression when other states’ equally grave acts of aggression have gone unpunished.

This is a powerful critique that proponents of a special tribunal cannot simply dismiss. Nationalist attacks on international norms, institutions, and court rulings have found ready audiences among some electorates partly because there is a growing perception that the international rule of law is a Western imperial construct. Powerful states invoke international law when it suits their interests and conveniently overlook it when it does not.

As I have recently argued elsewhere, rebuilding the international rule of law requires that this critique be fully acknowledged. It is important that proposals invoking the rule of law be seen as manifestations of an inclusive and equitable multilateral system, not as mechanisms imposed solely by the Western powers that designed the post-war international order. But it is one thing to recognize the problem of selectivity; it is quite another thing to argue against the creation of a special tribunal on these grounds. That path leads to a counsel of despair, turning the perfect into the enemy of the good.

A CHANCE TO REBUILD

A special tribunal to punish Russia’s crime of aggression against Ukraine would be a pragmatic way to start rebuilding our global institutions, in keeping with what former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown advocates in his recent book, Seven Ways to Change the World. Brown’s proposed strategy is grounded in universal values, but it would build the case for international cooperation issue by issue. Support for reform must be won, not demanded. States must show leadership and build coalitions of the responsible, persuading both governments and electorates that there are advantages in pooling national sovereignty.

Today’s proposals for a special tribunal are not about creating and imposing new international norms on the rest of the world. Aggression is a long-recognized international crime. The case that must be made now is for developing the institutional machinery to enable punishment of that crime. Russia’s aggression has summoned into being an extraordinary global consensus that there can be no impunity for such grave acts of aggression in the twenty-first century.

The ball is now in the court of those who aspire to global leadership on this issue, not least the UK, the US, and many European countries. The international rule of law faces existential threats around the world. But by developing the institutional machinery needed to uphold this powerful ideal, governments can demonstrate that their commitment to it is more than merely rhetorical. They have an opportunity to step back from rule-of-law doublespeak, to renew their commitments to abide by obligations they have voluntarily adopted, and to uphold the universally recognized norms of customary international law.

It is in everyone’s interest that international rules be consistently enforced. Rebuilding the international rule of law will take intelligent leadership and patient work, and that work must begin now.



MURRAY HUNT
Murray Hunt, Director of the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, is Visiting Professor of Human Rights Law at the University of Oxford and a co-editor of Parliaments and Human Rights: Redressing the Democratic Deficit (Bloomsbury, 2015).