CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M; NARCO STATE

Exclusive-U.S. preparing indictments against Salvadoran officials over alleged pact with gangs -sources


Chief of the Salvadoran Penal System and Vice Minister of Justice and Public Security Osiris Luna Meza speaks during the inauguration of the new cell area, in Ayutuxtepeque


Fri, December 10, 2021
By Sarah Kinosian, Drazen Jorgic and Matt Spetalnick

SAN SALVADOR (Reuters) - U.S. authorities are preparing criminal charges against El Salvador's deputy justice minister Osiris Luna and another senior official, accusing them of negotiating a secret truce with gangs, two sources said, amid rising tensions between Washington and President Nayib Bukele's government.

According to the sources, the indictments are being prepared by a Department of Justice (DOJ) taskforce against Luna and Carlos Marroquin, a close Bukele ally who heads a Salvadoran government social welfare agency.

The U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on Luna and Marroquin on Wednesday, accusing them of cutting a deal with the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) and Barrio 18 gangs, in which the gangs would reduce violence in El Salvador and provide political backing in return for money and easier prison conditions.

Bukele has repeatedly denied his government negotiated any truce and denounced the sanctions.

The two sources familiar with the matter told Reuters the DOJ was now preparing criminal charges against Luna and Marroquin.

Luna, a member of Bukele's cabinet who is also in charge of El Salvador's prison system, and Marroquin did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The DOJ declined to comment.

The investigation is being handled by the Joint Task Force Vulcan (JTFV), a DOJ unit set up in 2019 to coordinate efforts by U.S. law enforcement agencies to dismantle MS-13, which has made inroads in U.S. cities and prisons, both sources said. U.S. officials say the gangs have ordered murders on U.S. soil from inside prisons in El Salvador.

The U.S. government claims broad authority to prosecute for a wide range of crimes committed abroad, including for acts committed by or against American citizens.

The task force has indicted several MS-13 leaders on terrorism charges in the Eastern District of New York.

El Salvador classifies MS-13 as a terrorist organization and U.S. prosecutors have accused some of the group's leaders of terrorist acts.

While the timeline has not been finalized, the indictments are expected in coming months, said the sources, who sought anonymity as they are not authorized to publicly speak about the planned indictments. The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was involved in the probe, said one of the sources.

The FBI did not respond to requests for comment.

The two sources said the exact charges have not been finalized. The second source said they were likely to focus on corrupt practices and consorting with groups responsible for violent crimes.

Building on Wednesday's Treasury sanctions, the U.S. State Department on Thursday imposed a new set of penalties on Luna and Marroquin for "misappropriating public funds."

The sanctions and the indictments being drafted are likely to further strain relations between Bukele and Washington, where the Salvadoran leader is seen as an increasingly authoritarian figure.

Bukele on Thursday called the allegations "absurd."

"It's clear that the United States' government does not accept collaboration, friendship or alliances," said Bukele, a former mayor of the capital, San Salvador. "It's absolute submission or nothing."

URBAN CONTROL

U.S. authorities also discovered that the MS-13 gang had put out a hit on an FBI agent when they intercepted a small piece of paper, known as a "wila," that the gangs use to pass on coded messages to their members outside prisons. The agent fled El Salvador with his family, according to the first source.

Successive Salvadoran presidents have wrestled with how to curtail MS-13 and Barrio 18's control over urban areas, where violence and extortion have spurred waves of emigration to the United States.

Bukele was a staunch critic of a 2012 clandestine accord between the former government and gang leaders that collapsed two years later, resulting in a sharp increase in the country's murder rate and leading to the arrest of several government officials.

Rumors of a fresh accord swirled after the murder rate tumbled about 50% in the year after Bukele took office in June 2019.

Homicides dropped to 17 murders per 100,000 people in 2021, down from 51 in 2018, according to the National Police.

Bukele has credited the drop in homicides to his policies.

In September 2020, newspaper El Faro, citing internal government documents, reported that Luna and Marroquin offered better prison conditions to gang members in exchange for reduced homicide rates and electoral support for Bukele's party.

(Reporting by Sarah Kinosian in San Salvador, Drazen Jorgic in Mexico City and Matt Spetalnick in Washington; Additional reporting by Nelson Renteria in San Salvador; Editing by Daniel Flynn and Rosalba O'Brien)

El Salvador government accused of falsely claiming to crack down on gangs while giving backhanders


Simeon Tegel
Sat, December 11, 2021

President of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele - MARVIN RECINOS/AFP via Getty Images

El Salvador's president Nayib Bukele has been accused of falsely claiming to crack down on some of the world’s most violent street gangs while his government secretly gave them backhanders, including “mobile phones and prostitutes” for jailed gang leaders.

The accusation comes from the United States Treasury, which this week sanctioned two of Mr Bukele’s key allies for agreeing a “secret truce” with the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) and Barrio 18 gangs, whose rampant bloodshed has brought the Central American nation to its knees.

It activated the Magnitsky Act, used to target foreign officials involved in corruption and human rights abuses, against Osiris Luna, head of El Salvador’s prison system and deputy minister for public security, and Carlos Marroquin, who leads a welfare agency.

That means that any assets the pair have in the US will be frozen and US citizens will be barred from doing business with them. Luna was also accused of stealing government Covid-19 supplies.

Gang-related crimes are a big problem in El Salvador - 

MARVIN RECINOS/AFP via Getty Images

In a statement, Washington accused the pair of striking the clandestine deal with the violent criminals, in furtive meetings in El Salvador’s high security jails, to ensure that “incidents of gang violence and the number of confirmed homicides remained low. Over the course of these negotiations with Luna and Marroquin, gang leadership also agreed to provide political support to the Nuevas Ideas political party [of Bukele] in upcoming elections.”

The revelation comes as aides to Leftist former president Mauricio Funes are being tried for a similar pact with the gangs in 2012. Mr Bukele has tweeted that those functionaries are “worse than [trash]” and had “negotiated with the blood of our people.”

“This is very serious,” José Miguel Cruz, an El Salvadoran security expert at Florida International University, told The Telegraph. “The US is formally saying that the Bukele administration colluded with one of the most violent criminal organisations in the Western hemisphere to make security policy.”

Mr Bukele, 41, took office in 2019 after running as a populist independent promising to tackle corruption and crime with an iron fist.

Initially, his approach appeared wildly successful, with just 519 homicides in the nation of six million in the first five months of 2020, compared to 1,345 for the same period the previous year. But it now appears that the dramatic reduction was due to his government kowtowing to the criminals.

Mr Bukele responded furiously to the Biden administration’s allegations, tweeting: “How could they put out such an obvious lie without anyone questioning it? There are videos, yes, but of their friends doing that, not us.”

The news is hardly Mr Bukele’s first brush with controversy. He has previously sent soldiers into Congress, fired an attorney general who had launched corruption proceedings into his government, and made Bitcoin legal tender, taking a huge risk with the national economy.

Latin America’s first millennial head-of-government, Mr Bukele initially had a warm relationship with then US President Donald Trump, even visiting him in the White House.

But relations with the Biden administration are frosty. Earlier this year USAid, Washington’s international aid agency, announced it would re-channel its funding in El Salvador, many of whose citizens attempt to flee the poverty and violence of their homeland by migrating illegally to the US, towards NGOs rather than the Bukele administration.

EXPLAINER: Gang negotiations sensitive topic in El Salvador


El Salvador's President Nayib Bukele speaks to the press at Mexico's National Palace after meeting with the President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador in Mexico City, March 12, 2019. The government of President Bukele secretly negotiated a truce with leaders of the country’s powerful street gangs, the U.S. Treasury announced Wednesday, Dec. 8, 2021, cutting to the heart of one of Bukele’s most highly touted successes in office: a plunge in the country’s murder rate. (AP Photo/Marco Ugarte, File)More

CHRISTOPHER SHERMAN
Thu, December 9, 2021

MEXICO CITY (AP) — Allegations from the United States government that President Nayib Bukele’s administration negotiated with El Salvador's powerful street gangs touched a sensitive topic. Previous administrations in El Salvador both from the left and right have done so and paid a political price. Prosecutions of some former officials are ongoing for past pacts. The U.S. Treasury said an investigation had revealed that officials with Bukele's government offered financial benefits to the gangs, as well as perks to their imprisoned leaders like prostitutes and cellphones, in exchange for lowering the homicide rate and political support in this year’s legislative elections. The U.S. government did not present evidence and Bukele has vehemently denied any deal with the gangs.

WHY ARE GANGS A SENSITIVE TOPIC IN EL SALVADOR?

The street gangs, which originated in the United States and took root in El Salvador when gang members were deported, are a force in Salvadoran society. They control neighborhoods and swaths of territory. There is no reliable figure on how many member the gangs have, but estimates are in the tens of thousands. They extort businesses, move drugs, murder, recruit children and restrict the free movement of people. Much of their leadership is imprisoned, but continues to run the criminal enterprises.


“The problem of the gangs is like a cancer,” said Carlos Carcach, the research coordinator at the Higher School of Economics and Business in San Salvador. “It is something so present in everything that occurs in the country that it is difficult, if not impossible, to eradicate it.”

IS NEGOTIATING DEALS WITH GANGS NEW IN EL SALVADOR?

No. Past governments have been accused of doing it for short-term political gain.

In 2012, officials with the government of then President Mauricio Funes negotiated “the truce” with the country's gangs that lowered the homicide rate, but has been blamed for allowing the gangs to strengthen and expand their territory. There were a variety of carrots offered to the gangs, including payments to members, but the most significant was moving imprisoned gang leaders from maximum security facilities to less secure prisons where they could continue running their criminal activities.

A number of former officials are being prosecuted for crimes related to that pact. Funes fled to Nicaragua where he received asylum. Bukele has been extremely critical of previous governments for making deals with the gangs.

The U.S. government’s allegations are not the first against Bukele’s government. Local news outlet El Faro reported last year that officials were secretly meeting with gang leaders to make a deal, which the president also denied at the time.

IF IT RESULTS IN FEWER MURDERS, WHY SHOULDN'T THE GOVERNMENT NEGOTIATE A TRUCE?

On the surface, the idea of the government making a deal with organized crime is distasteful. The government is responsible for citizens’ safety. At a deeper level, it’s an illustration of who really has power.

A drop in homicides is great, but must be accomplished with good public policies, security and effective investigations and prosecutions, said Leonor Arteaga, program director at the Due Process of Law Foundation, a regional rule of law organization based in Washington.

“What has happened is that the gangs are the ones imposing the conditions and the government the one that has accepted them,” she said. “Given that this reduction is in reality a pact, a negotiation, it’s the gangs who have control and who just as they’ve now reduced homicides, they could raise them again tomorrow.”

A problem is motivation, Arteaga said. “The government’s objective in entering these negotiations is not to obtain a benefit for the people ... but rather to obtain a political benefit,” she said.

WILL THIS HURT BUKELE'S POPULARITY?

Bukele is extremely popular. He rolled to victory over the traditional parties from the right and left in 2019 after corruption scandals largely discredited them. His New Ideas party romped to victory earlier this year in legislative elections that gave them control of the congress.

Bukele supporters laud him for the drop in murders, early acquisition of COVID-19 vaccines and government handouts of food and laptops for school children.

“I don’t see his popularity levels reducing dramatically,” Arteaga said. “The people are more interested in having some way to survive and get along to a certain point with the gangs.”

Benin opposition leader Madougou sentenced to 20 years in prison

Her crime: to have embodied a democratic alternative to the regime of Patrice Talon."


Sat., December 11, 2021



Benin opposition leader Reckya Madougou has been sentenced to 20 years in jail for terrorism by a special court in the capital Porto-Novo, following a brief trial that her lawyers condemned as a "political attack".

After more than 20 hours of hearings, Madougou was found guilty of "complicity in terrorist acts" by the Economic Crime and Terrorism Court, which on Tuesday sentenced another key opposition figure to 10 years.

Critics say the court, set up in 2016, has been used by President Patrice Talon's regime to crack down on the opposition and pushed Benin into authoritarianism.

Speaking before her prison sentence was announced, Madougou said: "This court has deliberately decided to penalise an innocent person."

"I have never been and I will never be a terrorist," the 47-year-old former justice minister added.

Madougou was one of several opposition leaders banned from running in an election in April in which Talon won a second term with 86 percent of the vote.

She was arrested in the economic capital Cotonou in March -- just weeks before the election -- accused of financing an operation to assassinate political figures to prevent the vote, in an alleged bid to "destabilise" the country.

"Tried at 6am, without witnesses, without documents, without evidence, Recky Madougou was sentenced to 20 years in prison by three accomplices of those in power," her France-based lawyer Antoine Vey tweeted after the sentencing.

"Her crime: to have embodied a democratic alternative to the regime of Patrice Talon."

Political attack

Vey had told the trial on Friday that "this procedure is nothing but a political attack".

"Even before her arrest, everything was orchestrated," Vey said a day after arriving from Paris.

He asked for the trial to be cancelled, before leaving the court and never returning -- Madougou's Benin-based lawyers stayed for the remainder.

On the stand at the trial, Madougou said that she had "no illusions" about its outcome.

"I offer myself to the democracy of my country, if my sacrifice can give your court back its independence," she said.

Judge flees the country over political pressure

Less than a week before the April election, a judge from the special court fled Benin denouncing political pressure to make rulings, in particular the case of Madougou's arrest.

Government officials dismiss claims of political interference and say Benin's judiciary is independent.

Benin has long been praised for its thriving multi-party democracy in a troubled region.

But critics say the state's democracy has been steadily eroded under Talon, a 63-year-old cotton magnate first elected in 2016.

OLDE FASHIONED CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M

SOUTH AFRICA

FNB sued for R1.2m over cash that vanished in health department scam

Dave Chambers

Cape Town bureau chief
11 December 2021 - 10:12

FNB tellers allowed cash withdrawals of R1.2m from a single account in two days.
Image: Sunday Times

First National Bank (FNB) faces a court fight after failing to sound the alarm when R1.2m in cash was withdrawn from a bank account in two days.

The money came from the health department, which handed it over for dozens of Leep machines, which are used to prevent cancer by removing abnormal cells from the cervix.

The company contracted to supply the machines in 2019, Bold T-Twin, asked a financier to pay its supplier, Vital Medical Supplies, but the cash quickly disappeared from Vital's FNB account and the machines were never delivered.

When it emerged that Vital did not exist, financier Penquin Airtime sued FNB for the R1,230,500 it lost, saying the withdrawals would not have been possible if the bank had complied with the Financial Intelligence Centre Act (Fica).

“Penquin’s case is that, had FNB properly maintained, monitored and conducted due diligence on the account, taken cognisance of the high volumes and unusual activity on that account as required by Fica ... the withdrawals would not have been made,” said Johannesburg high court acting judge Naseema Adam.

“In addition, Penquin avers that FNB’s employees were negligent in permitting repeated cash withdrawals to take place on the same day in circumstances in which ... they should not have done so.

Adam dismissed FNB's attempt to prevent Penquin's damages claim going ahead, saying the bank's preliminary arguments were without merit.

The alleged scam unfolded in November 2019 when the health department ordered Leep (loop electrosurgical excision procedure) machines from Bold T-Twin. The company ordered them from Vital and agreed to pay R253,000.

Five days later, the health department ordered 100 more Leep machines and Bold agreed to pay another R977,500 to Vital.

Penquin agreed to pay Vital for the machines, and Bold would refund the money when the health department paid its bill. Penquin transferred the money into an FNB account operated by an MM Hoosain, trading as Vital.

When the machines were not delivered, “Penquin discovered that Vital did not exist and that it had defrauded Bold”, said Adam's judgment on December 4.

“Penquin's bankers (Standard Bank) informed FNB of the fact that Vital had perpetrated a fraud against Bold.”

Before Penquin made the payments, Hoosain's account contained R50. “On November 23 2019, after the first payment of R253,000 had been made, R240,000 was withdrawn (in various tranches) from the Hoosain account in cash from FNB's tellers at two branches,” said Adam.

“On November 27 2019, after the second payment of R977,500 had been made, R940,000 was withdrawn (in various tranches) from FNB's tellers at various other branches.”

TimesLIVE

CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M

Angola: U.S. Sanctions Angolan Billionaire Isabel dos Santos for Corruption


Angop/ Divulgaçao
Isabel Dos Santos

9 DECEMBER 2021
International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (Washington, DC)

By Will Fitzgibbon

ICIJ’s 2020 Luanda Leaks investigation revealed how decades of inside deals turned dos Santos, the daughter of Angola’s longtime former ruler, into Africa’s richest woman.

The United States sanctioned Angolan billionaire Isabel dos Santos on Wednesday for her involvement in significant corruption, marking the first public U.S. response to years of accusations of wrongdoing.

Dos Santos’ business empire was the subject of Luanda Leaks, a global exposé published by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists in 2020.

U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken cited dos Santos, the daughter of Angola’s former longtime autocratic president, Jose Eduardo dos Santos, “for her involvement in significant corruption by misappropriating public funds for her personal benefit,” according to a press release.

Under the designation, which was released on International Anti-Corruption Day, dos Santos and her immediate family are now barred from entering the United States.


“These sanctions will give hope to many Angolans and preempt Angolan officials from using public funds for their own benefit while many still live in extreme poverty, without access to clean water, education and healthcare services,” said Florindo Chivucute, executive director of Washington D.C. based nonprofit, Friends of Angola, which has advocated for U.S. measures against the billionaire.

Dos Santos ran Angola’s state-owned oil company from 2016 to 2017. She has previously denied wrongdoing, labeling accusations against her a “witch hunt.

The State Department’s announcement comes almost two years after ICIJ and a team of 120 journalists from 36 countries revealed how two decades of corrupt deals helped turn dos Santos into Africa’s wealthiest woman while leaving Angola one of the world’s poorest countries.

The Luanda Leaks investigation was based on more than 715,000 documents that provide a window into the inner workings of dos Santos’ business empire. The Platform to Protect Whistleblowers in Africa, an organization based in Paris, France, obtained the files and shared them with ICIJ.

After the investigation, authorities in Angola, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal announced a suite of lawsuits and investigations into dos Santos and her companies, and many of her business ventures have been largely dismantled.

Dos Santos’ business dealings also featured in ICIJ’s FinCEN Files and Pandora Papers investigations. She is believed to currently be living in the United Arab Emirates.

Under today’s announcement, the State Department also imposed visa and entry bans on officials from Ukraine, Guatemala, El Salvador, Liberia, Nicaragua, Colombia and two other high-profile Angolans

Referring to a suite of measures announced today, Blinken said, “these complementary actions promote accountability for corrupt actors across the globe to disrupt and deter those who would seek to act with impunity, disregard international standards, and undermine democracy and rule of law.”

Will Fitzgibbon is senior reporter and Africa coordinator at the ICIJ.

Three experts on why democracies are facing growing threats globally

Dec 10, 2021 

NPR
By —Nick Schifrin
By —Layla Quran

Friday at the Summit for Democracy, President Joe Biden announced initiatives designed to bolster democracy around the world — from election integrity, to independent media and fighting corruption. But the president and democracy advocates admit global democracy is eroding, and authoritarianism is rising. Nick Schifrin reports.

Read the Full Transcript

Judy Woodruff:

Today, at a U.S.-led summit on democracy, President Biden announced initiatives designed to bolster democracy around the world, from election integrity, to independent media, to fighting corruption.

But the president and democracy advocates admit freedoms are eroding, and authoritarianism is rising.

Here's Nick Schifrin.


Nick Schifrin:

This week, President Biden hosted leaders from over 100 countries and territories for a virtual Summit For Democracy. The president called safeguarding rights and freedoms in the face of authoritarianism the defining challenge of our time.

Joe Biden, President of the United States: Government of the people, by the people, for the people can at times be fragile, but it also is inherently resilient. Will we allow the backwards slide of rights and democracy to continue unchecked?


Nick Schifrin:

As the president said, the state of democracy around the world is not good.

The nonprofit Freedom House has tracked 15 consecutive years of decline in political rights and civil liberties worldwide. and of 146 countries with more than two million residents, only 39 are fully free.

To discuss the summit and the decline of democracy worldwide, I'm joined by three experts.

Miriam Kornblith is senior director for Latin America and the Caribbean at the National Endowment For Democracy, a foundation promoting democratic institutions. Helen Kezie-Nwoha is an activist in Uganda and executive director of the Women's International Peace Centre, an organization that promotes women's rights in conflict settings. And Heather Conley is about to become the next president of German Marshall Fund, which focuses on transatlantic relations and the future of democracy, and was a State Department official on European affairs during the George W. Bush administration.

Welcome, all of you to the "NewsHour.

Miriam Kornblith, let me start with you.

President Biden said there's a global competition between democracy and autocracy. Which side is winning in Latin America?


Miriam Kornblith, National Endowment For Democracy:

Unfortunately, I have to say that I think autocracy is winning.

Unfortunately, this is a region of the world that, until recently, praised itself of having all the countries in the democratic field, except for Cuba, and that has been a 60-year, long-lasting dictatorship. However, nowadays, we have — in addition to Cuba, we have Nicaragua and Venezuela, and we have a significant slipping into authoritarian trends both on the right and on the left.

And what's really worrisome is these authoritarian trends are being promoted from within, elected officials, players, parties inside democratic systems that are pushing their own countries against the will of the people, in many cases, towards authoritarian regimes.


Nick Schifrin:

Helen Kezie-Nwoha, we have seen coups in Guinea, Mali, Chad, Sudan, the highest number of coups in afternoon in 40 years.

Each, of course, have their own local causes. But what's behind what Secretary-General Antonio Guterres recently called an epidemic of coups?


Helen Kezie-Nwoha, Women’s International Peace Centre:

The democratic process in Africa has been mired with a lot of corruption in electoral processes.

You will find politicians taking advantage of poverty, a large number of unemployed youths, buying votes during elections, making elections not credible. We have also seen increasingly marginalization of minority groups, ethnic groups.

We see also increasingly social and economic inequalities that have also led to agitations by people calling for changes in government. Once people are calling for changes, the army takes over. And when they took over, they also used elections itself to manipulate themselves into power, making it even worse for people.


Nick Schifrin:

Heather Conley, how are leaders in Hungary and Poland especially challenging democracy, weaponizing cultural values, and how are other leaders in Europe, frankly, taking their example?


Heather Conley, Former State Department Official:

Hungary, under the leadership of Prime Minister Viktor Orban, has really been a leader in establishing an illiberal handbook, so restricting constitutional capabilities for an opposition to be able to express themselves, reduce media freedoms, so any media voice has to be supportive of the government, is controlling the judicial branch, making sure that there can't be any meaningful investigation into a government.

Mr. Orban's handbook has now been adopted in Poland, increasingly in Slovenia. In part, it's to ensure the current government can maintain its political power and its base, and making sure that the opposition cannot do that.


Nick Schifrin:

So, let's talk a little bit in each region about how some local forces are fighting this.

Miriam Kornblith, let's start with you.

What do we see in terms of resistance in Latin America to these anti-democratic trends? How are people fighting back?


Miriam Kornblith:

There is a lot of fighting back against the authoritarian trends.

Even in the case of Cuba, for the first time in 60 years, people took to the streets. There's a very vibrant civil society in Latin America that is fighting back. They are looking for transparency, anti-corruption. They're looking for rule of law, for independent judiciary, for independent legislative branches. There are lots of courageous, innovative and very committed people fighting back.


Nick Schifrin:

Helen Kezie-Nwoha, you talked a lot about elections. Why is it important for the world to try and support African election infrastructure?


Helen Kezie-Nwoha:

Civil society organizations and others bodies are working very hard to ensure that electoral processes are more transparent, despite the militarized nature of states within Africa.

Although there's been a lot of works in terms of sensitizing the citizens on the rule of law on elections, you find that the environment itself is not conducive for civil society.


Nick Schifrin:

Heather Conley, we have seen major protests across Poland. Can something like that make a difference?


Heather Conley:

Absolutely.

So, you really are seeing a pretty significant social mobilization. But is it enough? You have governments that have all the tools. They control the media, they control the funding sources, and they are able to use their majorities to pass through new laws.

But I think we're seeing some real improvements. So we see this as well in the European Union withholding pandemic relief funds from both Poland and Hungary because of the democratic backsliding, may, in fact, have the greatest leverage, in addition to strong U.S. engagement.


Nick Schifrin:

And, finally, let's look at the Summit For Democracy itself.

And let me come back to you, Heather Conley. The Biden administration has been — criticizing for inviting some countries to the summit that they say are sliding back from democracy, Philippines and Egypt, for example.

Do you think the Biden administration held this summit in the correct way?


Heather Conley:

My recommendation would be, let's focus on the democratic activists, the freedom fighters that are working very hard within these countries to fight for a different future. Give them the tools, the mechanisms.

When you get into the countries and the geopolitics, it starts not making sense exactly. And it wasn't clear from the White House what exactly the criteria was for those that were — that joined the summit that did not have strong democratic credentials. Others that did have strong criminal democratic credentials were not allowed in. So it was an unnecessary distraction.


Nick Schifrin:

Helen Kezie-Nwoha, can a summit for democracy help fortify democracy?


Helen Kezie-Nwoha:

I don't know to what extent this conference is going to be able to fortify democracy.

We're talking about changing institutions of governance, changing institutions of elections. And we don't have those technical people in the room, although I believe it is a starting point to begin to discuss how democracy can be more transparent, more effective.


Nick Schifrin:

Miriam Kornblith, the administration says one of its goals is to promote democracy across Latin America.

It's also openly discussed how, in the words of Vice President Harris, U.S. democracy is not immune from threats, mentioning January 6.

What's the impact of American democratic flaws on its ability to spread democracy in the region?


Miriam Kornblith:

To those who oppose the U.S., raises their views and arguments, saying, well, that is not the kind of democracy that serves as a model.

But, on the other hand, I think it opens the opportunity for a more sincere and more direct conversation. Many people, governments in the region resented was this sense of superiority, like the feeling that a model was being imposed because the U.S. model was so perfect.

I think recognizing that the U.S. system has difficulties opens this possibility of addressing in a — say, I would say a more — maybe more sincere fashion.


Nick Schifrin:

Miriam Kornblith, Helen Kezie-Nwoha, and Heather Conley, thank you very much.


Helen Kezie-Nwoha:

Thank you, Nick.


Dec 09

WATCH: “Wrong direction”, Biden sounds alarm on global democracy at virtual summit

By —Nick Schifrin is the foreign affairs and defense correspondent for PBS NewsHour, based in Washington, D.C. He leads NewsHour's foreign reporting and has created week-long, in-depth series for NewsHour from China, Russia, Ukraine, Nigeria, Egypt, Kenya, Cuba, Mexico, and the Baltics. The PBS NewsHour series "Inside Putin's Russia" won a 2018 Peabody Award and the National Press Club's Edwin M. Hood Award for Diplomatic Correspondence. In November 2020, Schifrin received the American Academy of Diplomacy’s Arthur Ross Media Award for Distinguished Reporting and Analysis of Foreign Affairs.@nickschifrin

By —Layla Quran is a foreign affairs reporter and producer at the PBS NewsHour.

 

Global democracy summit: Is Biden pushing a US worldview?

US President Joe Biden is hosting a two-day summit on democracy, attended virtually by delegates the world over. Conspicuous by their absence from the guest list are Russia and China. The former accuses Biden of a "Cold War mentality", while the latter dismisses the event as a "joke" reflecting nothing more than sinister imperialism. But what stands to be achieved by such an event? Mark Owen's panel discusses the merits of the Summit for Democracy.

Produced by Imen Mellaz, Charles Wente and Antonia Kerrigan.

 

China Brands US Democracy ‘Weapon of Mass Destruction’

Saturday 11 December 2021 

Islam Times - China branded US democracy a “weapon of mass destruction” on Saturday, following the US-organized Summit for Democracy.China was left out of the two-day virtual summit — along with countries including Russia and Hungary — and responded by accusing US President Joe Biden of stoking Cold War-era ideological divides.

“‘Democracy’ has long become a ‘weapon of mass destruction’ used by the US to interfere in other countries,” a foreign ministry spokesperson said in an online statement, which also accused the US of having instigated ‘color revolutions overseas, AFP reported.

The ministry also said the summit was organized by the US to “draw lines of ideological prejudice, instrumentalist and weaponize democracy… (And) incite division and confrontation.”

Instead, Beijing vowed to “resolutely resist and oppose all kinds of pseudo-democracies”.

While the US has repeatedly denied there will be another Cold War with China, tensions between the world’s two largest economies have spiraled in recent years over issues including trade and technological competition, rights and Taiwan.

FROM THE LEFT

The Guardian view on the US pursuit of Julian Assange: set him free

The attempt to extradite the WikiLeaks founder is an assault on the press freedom that the Biden administration promises to promote

Supporters of Julian Assange gather outside the high court in London on Friday. Photograph: Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

Editorial
Fri 10 Dec 2021

Opening his Summit for Democracy this week, Joe Biden urged his guests to “stand up for the values that unite us”, including a free press. The US president boasted of his new initiative for democratic renewal, including measures to support an unfettered and independent media: “It’s the bedrock of democracy. It’s how the public stay informed and how governments are held accountable. And around the world, press freedom is under threat.”

Yet the US government itself is endangering the ability of the media to bring to light uncomfortable truths and expose official crimes and cover-ups. On Friday, the high court ruled that Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, where he could face up to 175 years in prison. The decision is not only a blow for his family and friends, who fear he would not survive imprisonment in the US. It is also a blow for all those who wish to protect the freedom of the press.

The judgment overturns January’s decision by a district court that the WikiLeaks founder could not be extradited because of the substantial risk that he would kill himself, given his mental health and the conditions he would face. The US subsequently put forward a package of reassurances in its attempt to overturn that ruling, which the high court judges accepted. But the US has reserved the right to put him in a maximum security facility or to subject him to special administrative measures – which can include prolonged solitary confinement – based on his conduct. His team will appeal, and the legal process is likely to drag on for years.

The focus has shifted to the heart of the matter. Regardless of Mr Assange’s wellbeing, the US should not be demanding his extradition, and the UK should not be granting it. He is charged under the Espionage Act, including with publishing classified material. The case against the 49-year-old relates to hundreds of thousands of leaked documents about the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, as well as diplomatic cables, which were made public by WikiLeaks working with the Guardian and other media organisations. They revealed horrifying abuses by the US and other governments which would not otherwise have come to light.

As Agnès Callamard, secretary general of Amnesty International, has noted: “Virtually no one responsible for alleged US war crimes committed in the course of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars has been held accountable, let alone prosecuted, and yet a publisher who exposed such crimes is potentially facing a lifetime in jail.”

No public interest defence is permissible under the Espionage Act. Campaigners in the US have warned that its use is a direct assault on the first amendment. And publishers outside it are equally at risk if Mr Assange is extradited; the charges relate to acts which took place when he was not in the country.

The US has this week proclaimed itself the beacon of democracy in an increasingly authoritarian world. If Mr Biden is serious about protecting the ability of the media to hold governments accountable, he should begin by dropping the charges brought against Mr Assange.

FROM THE LEFT

Relentless U.S. bores down on Julian Assange, with help from British

Joh Pilger
11th December 2021




In a blow to journalism and free speech, the U.S. has won its appeal against the decision not to extradite Julian Assange. John Pilger reports.

Sartre's words should echo in all our minds following the grotesque decision of Britain's High Court to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to the United States where he faces "a living death". This is his punishment for the crime of authentic, accurate, courageous, vital journalism.

Miscarriage of justice is an inadequate term in these circumstances. It took the bewigged courtiers of Britain's ancien regime just nine minutes on Friday to uphold an American appeal against a District Court judge's acceptance in January of a cataract of evidence that hell on Earth awaited Assange across the Atlantic: a hell in which, it was expertly predicted, he would find a way to take his own life.

Volumes of witness by people of distinction, who examined and studied Julian and diagnosed his autism and his Asperger's Syndrome and revealed that he had already come within an ace of killing himself at Belmarsh Prison, Britain's very own hell, were ignored.

Last throw of the dice for Julian Assange

Regardless of the court battle to prevent his extradition to the U.S., there appears to be little hope for Julian Assange - the Americans are relentless

The recent confession of a crucial FBI informant and prosecution stooge, a fraudster and serial liar, that he had fabricated his evidence against Julian was ignored. The revelation that the Spanish-run security firm at the Ecuadorean embassy in London, where Julian had been granted political refuge, was a CIA front that spied on Julian's lawyers and doctors and confidants (myself included) - that, too, was ignored.

The recent journalistic disclosure, repeated graphically by defence counsel before the High Court in October, that the CIA had planned to murder Julian in London - even that was ignored.

Each of these "matters", as lawyers like to say, was enough on its own for a judge upholding the law to throw out the disgraceful case mounted against Assange by a corrupt U.S. Department of Justice and their hired guns in Britain. Julian's state of mind, bellowed James Lewis, QC, America's man at the Old Bailey last year, was no more than "malingering" - an archaic Victorian term used to deny the very existence of mental illness.

To Lewis, almost every defence witness, including those who described from the depth of their experience and knowledge the barbaric American prison system, was to be interrupted, abused, discredited. Sitting behind him, passing him notes, was his American conductor: young, short-haired, clearly an Ivy League man on the rise.

In their nine minutes of dismissal of the fate of journalist Assange, two of the most senior judges in Britain, including the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett (a lifelong buddy of Sir Alan Duncan, Boris Johnson's former Foreign Minister who arranged the brutal police kidnapping of Assange from the Ecuadorean embassy) referred to not one of a litany of truths aired at previous hearings in the District Court.

JOHN PILGER: Justice for Assange is justice for all

The injustice brought against WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange is an affront to not only truth in journalism but human rights for all.

These were truths that had struggled to be heard in a lower court presided over by a weirdly hostile judge, Vanessa Baraitser. Her insulting behaviour towards a clearly stricken Assange, struggling through a fog of prison-dispensed medication to remember his name, is unforgettable.

What was truly shocking on Friday was that the High Court Judges - Lord Burnett and Lord Justice Timothy Holroyde, who read out their words - showed no hesitation in sending Julian to his death, living or otherwise. They offered no mitigation, no suggestion that they had agonised over legalities or even basic morality.

Their ruling in favour, if not on behalf of the United States, is based squarely on transparently fraudulent "assurances" scrabbled together by the Biden Administration when it looked in January like justice might prevail.

These "assurances" are that once in American custody, Assange will not be subject to the Orwellian SAMs - Special Administrative Measures - which would make him an un-person; that he will not be imprisoned at ADX Florence, a prison in Colorado long condemned by jurists and human rights groups as illegal: "a pit of punishment and disappearance"; that he can be transferred to an Australian prison to finish his sentence there.

The absurdity lies in what the Judges omitted to say. In offering its "assurances", the U.S. reserves the right not to guarantee anything should Assange do something that displeases his gaolers. In other words, as Amnesty International has pointed out, it reserves the right to break any promise.

Assange appeal day two: The CIA and empty assurances

On day two of Julian Assange's extradition appeal hearing, the defence covered the plot by the CIA to silence the WikiLeaks publisher.

There are abundant examples of the U.S. doing just that. As investigative journalist Richard Medhurst revealed last month, David Mendoza Herrarte was extradited from Spain to the U.S. on the "promise" that he would serve his sentence in Spain. The Spanish courts regarded this as a binding condition.

Medhurst wrote:

The High Court Judges - who were aware of the Mendoza case and of Washington's habitual duplicity - describe the "assurances" not to be beastly to Julian Assange as a "solemn undertaking offered by one government to another". This article would stretch into infinity if I listed the times the rapacious United States has broken "solemn undertakings" to governments, such as treaties that are summarily torn up and civil wars that are fuelled. It is the way Washington has ruled the world, and before it Britain - the way of imperial power, as history teaches us.

It is this institutional lying and duplicity that Julian Assange brought into the open and in so doing performed perhaps the greatest public service of any journalist in modern times.

EXCLUSIVE: Europe says 'No' to Assange extradition

Three European MPs discuss the relation between the Julian Assange hearing and the destiny of similar media freedom cases.

Julian himself has been a prisoner of lying governments for more than a decade now. During these long years, I have sat in many courts as the United States has sought to manipulate the law to silence him and WikiLeaks.

This reached a bizarre moment when, in the tiny Ecuadorean embassy, he and I were forced to flatten ourselves against a wall, each with a notepad in which we conversed, taking care to shield what we had written to each other from the ubiquitous spy cameras - installed, as we now know, by a proxy of the CIA, the world's most enduring criminal organisation.

This brings me to the quotation at the top of this article: 'Let us look at ourselves, if we can bear to, and see what is becoming of us.'

Jean-Paul Sartre wrote this in his preface to Frantz Fanon's 'The Wretched of the Earth', the classic study of how colonised and seduced and coerced and, yes, craven peoples do the bidding of the powerful.

Who among us is prepared to stand up rather than remain mere bystanders to an epic travesty such as the judicial kidnapping of Julian Assange? What is at stake is both a courageous man's life and, if we remain silent, the conquest of our intellects and sense of right and wrong: indeed our very humanity.

John Pilger is an award-winning journalist, filmmaker, and author. Read his full biography on his website here, and follow him on Twitter: @JohnPilger. This article is distributed in partnership with Globetrotter.

Source: Globetrotter via Independent Australia

Scott Morrison urged to end ‘lunacy’ and push UK and US for Julian Assange’s release

Independent MP Andrew Wilkie says UK a ‘lackey’ of US and journalism is not a crime

The Australian prime minister, Scott Morrison, has been urged to advocate for the release of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Photograph: Bianca de Marchi/AAP

Lane Sainty and AAP
Sat 11 Dec 2021 

Australian parliamentarians have demanded the prime minister, Scott Morrison, intervene in the case of Julian Assange, an Australian citizen, after the United States won a crucial appeal in its fight to extradite the WikiLeaks founder on espionage charges.

“The prime minister must get Assange home,” the Australian Greens leader, Adam Bandt, told Guardian Australia on Saturday.

“An Australian citizen is being prosecuted for publishing details of war crimes, yet our government sits on its hands and does nothing.”

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Photograph: Daniel Leal-Olivas/AFP/Getty Images

The independent MP Andrew Wilkie called on Morrison to “end this lunacy” and demand the US and UK release Assange.

Assange, 50, is wanted in the US over an alleged conspiracy to obtain and disclose classified information following WikiLeaks’ publication of hundreds of thousands of leaked documents relating to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

In January a UK court ruled Assange should not be sent to the US, citing a real and “oppressive” risk of suicide, but, after a two-day appeal hearing, the high court on Friday sided with the US.

The senior judges concluded the risk of suicide was mitigated by assurances from American authorities that Assange would not being held in highly restrictive prison conditions if extradited.

Assange’s lawyers have said they intend to challenge the ruling with another appeal, this time in the UK’s supreme court.

Bandt described the ruling as a “critical moment in the fight against suppression of press freedom”.

“Assange’s persecution and our government’s inaction are chilling, and should worry everyone who cares about a free press or thinks that governments should protect their citizens,” he said.

Wilkie said Assange should be looking forward to spending Christmas with his sons and fiancee.

“But instead he’s facing a 175-year jail sentence and the very real possibility of living out his final days behind bars,” the independent MP said. “Journalism is not a crime.

“Again the United Kingdom proves it’s a lackey of the United States and that Australia is delighted to go along for the ride.”

Greens senator Janet Rice also criticised the decision and said: “Foreign Minister Marise Payne must urgently speak to the US and tell them to drop these absurd charges and end Assange’s torture.”

Morrison previously made disparaging comments about the actor and Assange supporter Pamela Anderson when she appeared appeared on 60 Minutes Australia in 2018 to urge Morrison to “defend your friend, get Julian his passport back and take him back to Australia and be proud of him, and throw him a parade when he gets home”.

The ruling that Assange can be extradited to the US has also drawn ire from the United Nations’ special rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, who sharply criticised the verdict.

“This is a shortcoming for the British judiciary,” Melzer told the DPA news agency on Friday.

“You can think what you want about Assange but he is not in a condition to be extradited,” he said, referring to a “politically motivated verdict”.

Assange has been held in the UK’s Belmarsh prison since 2019 after he was carried out of the Ecuadorian embassy by police and arrested for breaching his bail conditions.


Julian Assange can be extradited to US to face espionage charges, court rules

He had entered the building in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden to face sex offence allegations, which he has always denied and which were eventually dropped.

Labor’s foreign affairs spokeswoman, Penny Wong, said: “We respect the UK court’s decision and note this will not signal the end of this legal fight with the matter to be referred back to the lower court, and whatever the result there the matter [is] likely to go to the supreme court.

“However, Labor believes this has now dragged on for too long and has pressed the Morrison government to do what it can encourage the US government to bring this matter to a close.

“Labor expects the Australian government to provide appropriate consular support to Mr Assange, as is his right as an Australian citizen.”

FROM THE RIGHT

Why Britain should not extradite Julian Assange

Mary Dejevsky

THE SPECTATOR
10 December 2021

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange (Getty images)

Julian Assange is facing extradition after the high court ruled there is no legal impediment to him facing espionage charges in the United States. The decision would seem to justify the fears that the WikiLeaks founder and his supporters have long harboured: that the UK has essentially served as a holding pen until such time as a legal mechanism could be found to enable his dispatch to the US.

Assange has always believed that the US would not stop until it had exacted retribution. His former lawyer and now fiancee, Stella Morris, said after the latest ruling that they would appeal, if possible, to the UK Supreme Court. The extradition case now returns to Westminster Magistrates’ Court where it began. It remains to be seen if there will be further opportunities to appeal.

Whether or not you support Assange, however – and he is certainly a figure who attracts strong opinions for and against – there are compelling reasons why his extradition would be a travesty, not just of justice, but of the 'values' the UK repeatedly claims it represents.
The notoriously lop-sided nature of the UK-US extradition agreement makes it easier for the UK to grant US requests than the other way round

The case presented on behalf of Assange, which has now been rejected, rested on his mental state and the risk that he might take his life if subject to the special regime of a US top security prison. The narrowness of this case proved its weakness. And the judge found for the US, having secured assurances that he would not face any special regime while in a US prison and would be able to serve any sentence in his native Australia.

The first qualm would have to be how far those US undertakings can be trusted. Once Assange was transferred to US jurisdiction, he would be beyond any protection those UK court undertakings could give. It is not hard to imagine circumstances where they could be breached.

A second relates to the US justice system itself. Once a defendant is in the system, it is common practice for US prosecutors to threaten the defendant with a mammoth sentence in the effort to obtain a guilty plea – a plea bargain – they can notch up as a success. Unsurprisingly, this can lead to miscarriages of justice, especially where – as in Assange’s case – there are likely to be elements of emotion and vengeance that commonly attach to what would be presented as treachery.

Which leads to a third, and perhaps the most compelling, reason why Assange’s extradition should be resisted. The US initially applied for Assange’s extradition from the UK on the far less serious charge of computer misuse. Part of the point here might be that courts will often not extradite people on espionage charges, which they may regard as political. Assange and his lawyers always saw the lesser charge as a ploy to get him to the US, after which the charges could be augmented or changed at will.

It was only after time ran out on Sweden’s attempts to extradite Assange that the US upped its charge-sheet to add 17 charges of espionage. But the argument is as valid now as it was when the US did not include it in its initial application. The secrets that WikiLeaks placed in the public domain are highly political. They serve to discredit sections of the US military and US diplomacy. Does that make their release a crime? Should the UK be protecting the secrets of the US, major ally or not?

As presented, the espionage charges seem flimsy. It is hard to see how a US court could make them stick. The precedent consistently cited here is that of the so-called Pentagon Papers, published by the Washington Post and the New York Times in 1971. The Post, which could have been bankrupted or closed, after its publisher, Katharine Graham, took the decision to 'publish and be damned', was vindicated in what has been seen as a landmark ruling that protects a free press.

According to this, someone who divulges secrets they are contracted to keep has committed a crime, but anyone who subsequently publishes it or facilitates its publication has not, if its release can be judged to be in the public interest. This crucial distinction is one that endures to this day on both sides of the Atlantic. This is a vital protection for investigative journalists everywhere. If either the receipt or the publication of secret information in itself becomes a crime, the balance will have shifted significantly in the favour of the powers that be and against people’s right to know – and the journalist’s right, even obligation, to tell them.

These are all factors that should count against the UK extraditing Julian Assange to the US – and why, in the end, the UK Supreme Court, might rule against it, if the case were to get that far. But the notoriously lop-sided nature of the UK-US extradition agreement makes it easier for the UK to grant US requests than the other way round. There is also, of course, the equally lop-sided political and diplomatic relationship between the two countries, where refusing extradition to Assange could be seen as a tantamount to a hostile act. The auguries do not look good.

WRITTEN BY

Mary Dejevsky is a writer, broadcaster, and former foreign correspondent in Moscow, Paris and Washington.

Julian Assange and the deep flaw in our extradition laws

Andrew Tettenborn

THE SPECTATOR
11 December 2021, 

Julian Assange in a police van, 2019 (photo: Getty)

You could almost hear the rejoicing in Whitehall on Friday morning when the High Court cleared the way for Julian Assange to be extradited to the US, rejecting a plea that he was too mentally frail. The man has, after all, been a thorn in the administration’s side for 11 years: 18 months contesting his rendition to Sweden, followed by seven embarrassing years holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy, and then two-and-a-half years in Belmarsh fighting extradition to the US on espionage charges.

But there is one disquieting feature. The offences he is charged with in the US are not ordinary charges of criminality, like the accusations he faced in Sweden, but are essentially state crimes: in this case espionage and the betrayal of US state secrets. Should we be giving our aid to other countries to enforce such laws?

When a regular system of extradition was introduced in Britain in 1870, it was regarded as axiomatic that the answer to this question had to be ‘No’. However willing we might be to cooperate with other countries in the suppression of ordinary crime, when it came to the dirty work of prosecuting subversion and state offences in their own back yard we refused to lift a finger to aid them. Not only did the 1870 law give the Home Secretary a final veto over any extradition; it positively forbade extradition for any offence ‘of a political character’.

Should we be giving our aid to other countries enforcing state crimes?

Two factors put an end to this humane regime. One was that it could help terrorists, as quickly became apparent after 1870. In 1890, for example, there was the cause célèbre of Angelo Castioni. A political activist, 1871 Paris commune veteran and upmarket Chelsea sculptor (he reputedly helped carve Princess Louise’s statue of Queen Victoria in Kensington Gardens), he showed his radicalism when on a visit to his native Switzerland he shot dead in cold blood a politician opposed to his ideas. After he returned to London, his extradition had to be refused.

The other factor was the EU a century later. That organisation’s European Arrest Warrant regime in 1989 demanded an entirely judicialised, almost rubber-stamp procedure which certainly precluded any inconvenient political offence exceptions.

The UK could have accommodated these factors quite easily, by restricting the summary EU procedure to EU states and limiting political offences to genuine state offences not involving terrorism like Castioni’s. Unfortunately, in a fit of illiberalism (and, one suspects, a certain amount of Europhilia) Douglas Hurd’s Home Office chose instead largely to assimilate its global extradition regime to the new European one. With the exception of a few states known to be inhumane, such as China and Iran, excluded from the scheme, all offences carrying a year or more in prison became extradition offences. The political offence exception went, as did the Home Secretary’s discretion. Extradition could be refused essentially only on human rights grounds, where political, racial or religious persecution was proved likely, or where someone had been formally granted refugee status under international law.

This has proved unfortunate, for a number of reasons.

First, whatever the need for international cooperation against terrorism, murder and fraud, this applies much less, if at all, to sedition and anti-state espionage. One might even say that one of the benefits of a system of nation states lies precisely in the limitation of state jurisdiction in such cases: a state is welcome to enforce its laws against subversion in its own territory, but has no legitimate reason to expect other states to help it do so. Put bluntly, however special our relationship with the US is, there is no reason we should necessarily help it enforce its espionage laws by returning Assange to be tried there. This is especially true since the acts alleged against Assange took place outside the US, and indeed the proceedings against him are controversial even there, having been attacked by (for example) the First Amendment Coalition as a threat to free speech.

Secondly, while it is true that one benefit of the political offence exception when it existed was that it helped prevent fugitives being returned to states likely to mistreat them – think the infamous King Bomba of the Two Sicilies in the nineteenth century, or in the twentieth century the Iron Curtain regimes – it was certainly not the only advantage of the exemption. It also provided a good informal system of protection for dissidents, who were essentially told that, whatever else might happen, they were protected against extradition. You may not agree with Julian Assange: you may regard Wikileaks as a thoroughly irresponsible outfit. But that is no reason to return him to the US, and certainly no reason to require him to return there without the Home Secretary having the power to stop it. (If you need evidence on this latter point, bear in mind that the United Kingdom earlier this year would have been bound to return a Catalan dissident then working at St Andrews University to Spain for punishment for sedition. She escaped rendition, but only because she skipped the country just in time.)

Nineteenth-century London life was much enriched by the discreet presence of European and other dissidents such as Louis Kossuth from Hungary, Giuseppe Mazzini from Italy and the anarchist Alexander Herzen from Russia. Why not replicate this today, not by formally granting legal residence rights (the international refugee system being as it is seriously open to abuse) but in a more limited way? For people like Julian Assange, the decent thing is to say not only that he can stay here as long as he behaves reasonably, but also that even if we do eject him we will never send him back to a country that wishes to punish him for a state crime.

WRITTEN BY 

Andrew Tettenborn is a writer and professor of law.

Farmers plan to turn 'House on Wheels' built at Ghazipur protest site into heritage home

As farmers began to vacate the borders of Delhi after suspending their year-long sit-in protest, a “House on Wheels” they built at the Ghazipur site has been kept intact to keep the memories of their struggle alive for future generations.

© Provided by The Statesman Farmers plan to turn 'House on Wheels' built at Ghazipur protest site into heritage home

The house now stationed at Ghazipur on the border of the national capital with Uttar Pradesh captures the perseverance of the farmers who had camped on the outskirts on Delhi from November 2020 braving the chilly winter, rains and the bristling summer.

For many farmers, the tractors they arrived in at the protest sites doubled up as temporary homes while others erected tents using tarpaulin and bamboo or just simply threw down mattresses on the ground and slept in the open, braving the elements.

Speaking to ANI, Guddu Pradhan a farmer who hails from Bulandshahr said, “A lot of tents that we had built initially were washed away in the storms. So the farmers of Bulandshahr thought of making such a home that would be permanent as the duration of the protest was not known, it could have lasted for five to 10 years. So all the farmers collected money and made this ‘House on Wheels’. We want to make it into a heritage centre as a mark of our struggle for future generations to see.”

Talking about the house, the farmer said that the house was constructed at a cost of Rs 4.5 lakh. It stands on wheels, making it easy for it to be shifted from one place to another

Materials used in the construction of the house includes a mix of bricks, cement, iron, plywood and straw for the roofing. Inside, the two-room structure has all basic amenities including a refrigerator, air conditioners, television etc. Farmers during their protest used to take turns to sleep or just recharge themselves before heading out to join others.

“This house is 30 foot long and measures 10 foot in breadth. It was built at an expense of nearly Rs 4.5 lakh. We want future generations to remember this protest,” he said.

Another farmer Captain Bishan Sirohi said the farmers will not hesitate to resume their protest if the government reneges on its promises.

“The government should do its job and not stand against the farmers. If it does, it will be finished and such protests will be carried on,” he said.

He also said that during the protest, many farmers had lost their lives.

“The government is arrogant because of which the matter got extended for so long. The government had to pay the price and so did we. More than 700 farmers have lost their lives, which is now recorded in history,” he said.

The farmer said they would be returning home with memories of newly forged friendships and brotherhood.

“It is the brotherhood that we are taking back. Earlier we were split into castes, but during the protest all of us sat together and had our meals, we fought together for the same cause, i.e. for farmers. The farmers have become revolutionary and with the experience, we got in the past one year, we are ready to fight everywhere there is a need,” he said.

Farmers had been protesting against the farm laws on various borders of Delhi since November 26, 2020.

On December 9, the Samyukta Kissan Morcha the umbrella body under which the farmers had banded together announced the suspension of their year-long agitation after they received a letter from the Central government, with promises of forming a committee on Minimum Support Price (MSP) and immediate withdrawal of cases against them immediately.

The farmers will hold a review meeting on January 15. “If the government does not fulfil its promises, we could resume our agitation,” the SKM had said in its statement.

On November 19, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that the Centre will bring necessary bills in the Winter Session of Parliament to repeal the farm laws.

Farmers vacate Delhi borders after ending year-long anti-farm laws protests

After farmers suspended their agitation against the three farm laws, they have started vacating Delhi borders where they have been stationed for more than a year

IANS | New Delhi Last Updated at December 11, 2021

Photo: ANI

After farmers suspended their agitation against the three farm laws, they have started vacating Delhi borders where they have been stationed for more than a year. They have dismantled their settlements, removed tarpaulins, tied bales of clothes and now are in the process of returning home.

The farmers will take out victory march to celebrate their success of repeal of the farm laws.

At the spot, farmers can be seen removing bamboo sticks used for erecting and tying tarpaulins and loading them in tractors. They hugged each other and bade good bye.

The Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM) decided to suspend their agitation after the government repealed the contentious laws and assured them to fulfill their rest of the demands.

Some elderly farmers were seen cleaning the place where they had set up tents. The roads are also being cleared of things to make it look like what it was before the agitation.

Hundreds of tractors are queued up at Delhi borders to take the farmers back home.

Before leaving, the farmers at Singhu border offered prayers and organised langar as well.

The farmers have decided to leave in a phased manner to avoid traffic snarls.

In a day or two, all roads will be cleared, and within a few days, they will be put through for traffic.

On December 13, farmer leaders will visit the Golden temple at Amritsar to offer prayers.

--IANS

msk/svn/skp/