Wednesday, November 29, 2023

Swedish Left does U-turn on mass migration

Sweden has quickly shifted from being one of Europe's most ethnically homogenous nations to one of its most diverse, which has resulted in negative societal consequences, according to a report by the Social Democrats

Peter Caddle
28 November 2023


Sweden’s left-wing Social Democrats party has turned against open borders in a newly published report, warning that the levels of immigration into the country have led to a segregated society.

The document has been warmly welcomed by those on the Scandinavian nation’s Right, with one MEP for the populist Sweden Democrats saying it was “great” that the Left was U-turning on the position.

In the document titled The Emergence of Parallel Societies, the report’s authors describe how mass migration has led to a significant shift in Swedish society that has left many people in vulnerable situations.

“The biggest social change during the 21st Century in Sweden has been the change in demography due to immigration,” the report says.

It adds that the country has quickly shifted from being one of Europe’s most ethnically homogenous nations to one of its most diverse, which has resulted in negative societal consequences.

Segregation has been the main result of the influx of foreign arrivals, it says. The document describes what it calls the “ghettoisation” of many people of foreign descent in areas such as Rinkeby in Stockholm and the city of Malmö.

This has left many people of foreign backgrounds exposed to violent practices previously unseen in Sweden, such as female genital mutilation, the report claims.

Many also have a poor command of the Swedish language, further entrenching feelings of isolation and a lack of belonging, it says.

Speaking to the Swedish media regarding the report’s findings, the Social Democrats’ cultural policy spokesperson Lawen Redar admitted her party had got many things wrong on immigration while in power.

“I think we should be deeply self-critical,” she said, agreeing that the party had put too much pressure on certain poorer areas of the country through mass migration, leading to serious societal problems.

Redar insisted that the change in attitudes did not mean her party now aligned with the Sweden Democrats, which she had accused of being willing to break international law to curb immigration.

Such a slight does not seem to have bothered those within the Sweden Democrats, with Charlie Weimers MEP welcoming the shift in thinking.

“This is great news for Europe, one of the most pro-migration parties in Europe has finally come to their senses,” he told Brussels Signal, describing the party’s previous policies while in government as a “warning to politicians all around the world as what not to do”.

He added that he now expected his Social Democrats opponents to be “loyal” to the document and to consistently vote “in favour of limiting migration and for physical border barriers”.

Seemingly less enthusiastic about the change was the Social Democrats’ own press office. When asked, it said it did not want to comment on the report.

Danish Socialists have also supported restrictive migration policy.


'Citizens of the Reich': Raids and suspicion as German group grows

Agence France-Presse
November 29, 2023 

Peter Fitzek, 58, is the founder of the Koenigreich Deutschland (Kingdom of Germany), part of a movement known as the Reichsbuerger.© JENS SCHLUETER / AFP

On the outskirts of the eastern German town of Wittenberg, a corrugated iron gate painted with green leaves welcomes visitors to the "Koenigreich Deutschland" (Kingdom of Germany).

Those who step through the gate to the cluster of buildings on the other side are entering place that styles itself a country, complete with its own flag, laws, currency and ID cards.

The so-called Kingdom of Germany was founded by former chef and karate teacher Peter Fitzek, who anointed himself as "king" in 2012 in an elaborate ceremony complete with a crown and scepter.

Fitzek and his followers are part of a movement known as the Reichsbuerger (Citizens of the Reich), a loose grouping of in some cases violent extremists and conspiracy theorists who reject the legitimacy of the modern German republic.

Long dismissed as malcontents and oddballs, the Reichsbuerger have become increasingly radicalised and are considered a security threat by German authorities who launched their latest raid Wednesday on the Wittenberg site.

Fitzek, 58, ran unsuccessfully as a mayor and a member of the German parliament before deciding that founding the place was the only answer to the "mass manipulation" he saw in German society.

His territory has since grown to encompass several different sites across Germany and has more than 5,000 self-proclaimed citizens.

They tend to be people with a "pioneering spirit" who "want to make a positive change in this world", Fitzek told AFP in Wittenberg, the group's original base.

"We are open to all people who have their heart in the right place," he said, sitting on a salmon-colored sofa in the corner of a drab open-plan office.

Anti-vax

The Wittenberg complex comprises several office buildings, a carpentry workshop, a gift shop selling items made on site and a canteen that serves only vegan food.

About 30 people live and work on the site in a commune-style arrangement.

They are all non-smokers, non-drinkers and not vaccinated against Covid-19 -- the kingdom has its own health insurance system for which this is a prerequisite.

Peter Fitzek founded the Koenigreich Deutschland (Kingdom of Germany) in response to what he saw as "mass manipulation" in German society. 
© JENS SCHLUETER / AFP

As Fitzek strode around the Wittenberg site, pointing out everything from eco-friendly heating systems to a coin press machine for making "new German marks", he promoted his project glowingly.

But in the latest raid, investigators said Wednesday they targeted 10 sites belonging to the "kingdom" on suspicion that it was running "banking and insurance businesses without the necessary permits".

Despite authorities' suspicion, life at Wittenberg is attractive to its adherents.

Laina, 47, and Roland, 50, who did not want to give their last names, moved to Wittenberg from the Munich area last year with their three children now aged six, nine and 12.

"We had been unhappy with the situation we were in for a while," said Roland, who used to work in management for a TV shopping channel.

"Then the pandemic came, with all the restrictive measures, and we had a real feeling of unease."

For Laina, a graphic designer, the move was about achieving a better work-life balance and a healthier lifestyle.

"During my pregnancies, I really began to notice what was important for me and what I needed," she said.

The couple's children do not attend a private or public school -- something considered illegal in Germany.

But Laina said it is better for them to learn at their own pace.

'Real danger'

There were around 23,000 members of the Reichsbuerger movement in 2022, according to Germany's federal domestic intelligence agency -- up from 21,000 in 2021.

The number considered potentially violent also rose from 2,100 to 2,300.

While Reichsbuerger members subscribe to a similar ideology, the movement is made up of many disparate groups.

In November, German officials raided apartments nationwide over an alleged plot by a group of Reichsbuerger to spread conspiracy theories and "destabilize" the state through social media.

In December 2022, members of a group including an ex-MP and former soldiers were arrested over a plot to attack parliament, overthrow the government and install aristocrat and businessman Prince Heinrich XIII Reuss as head of state.

A cluster of buildings in the German town of Wittenberg make up the original base of the Koenigreich Deutschland (Kingdom of Germany). © JENS SCHLUETER / AFP


Another high-profile case saw a group of Reichsbuerger charged with plotting to kidnap health minister Karl Lauterbach in protest at Covid-19 restrictions.

Fitzek himself has had several run-ins with the law and has served time in prison for illegal insurance transactions, among other things.

Most recently, he was sentenced to eight months in jail in July for assault, though he has appealed the conviction and remains free until a final decision is made.

According to Jochen Hollmann, head of the domestic intelligence agency in Saxony-Anhalt state, the Reichsbuerger pose a "real danger" to German society.
Far-right overlaps

Some have already resorted to violence and with the movement growing, "there is always a danger that... more will feel called upon to take action against the state order," Hollmann told AFP.

Many ordinary Germans are also concerned about the rise of the movement.

In the village of Halsbreucke, near Dresden, local residents have formed an association to oppose plans by Fitzek's "kingdom" to build an organic farm, in the hope of getting authorities to impose a right to refuse.

"It all sounds quite harmless at first," said Jana Pinka, 60, an engineer and local councillor. But it is the "context" of the plans that troubles her.

The Koenigreich Deutschland (Kingdom of Germany) has its own flag, laws, currency and identity documents. 
© JENS SCHLUETER / AFP

"We see both this rejection of the state, including Germany's borders, and the fact that people are seeking proximity to right-wing populist groups. That scares us a little," she said.

Only around eight percent of Reichsbuerger in Saxony-Anhalt are classified as right-wing extremists, according to Hollmann, though "there are certainly overlaps".
'Marginalized'

What they do tend to have in common is that they are from socially disadvantaged backgrounds, especially in the former East Germany.

"Many people (here) feel marginalized and that is of course always a breeding ground for extremist parties or structures," Pinka said.

"People look for a strong leader, which unfortunately we have already had bad experiences of in Germany. And that is something that all of us... need to think about."

Fitzek, meanwhile, is undeterred.

His ultimate aim is for his project to become so big that "the old order... simply dissolves peacefully," he said.

"And we would not regret this loss at all, because we would have a much, much better order," he said with a determined grin.

© 2023 AFP
My 1994 warning about Trumpism — and the complaints I got from the White House for it

Robert Reich
November 29, 2023

Photo by Library of Congress on Unsplash

On Saturday’s coffee klatch, I mentioned a speech I gave almost exactly 29 years ago that predicted Trumpism. The speech made headlines — and also made the White House furious. Many of you wanted to know more.

(You can catch the critical nine minutes a the end of this commentary or here).

As secretary of labor, I thought it important to explain why the Democrats had lost both the House and the Senate in the 1994 midterm elections. I attributed it to the fact that many Americans felt angry and frustrated about not getting ahead, and they took it out on Democrats who had been running Congress for many years.

I also felt it necessary to sound the alarm about the future:

“My friends, we are on the way to becoming a two-tiered society composed of a few winners and a larger group of Americans left behind, whose anger and disillusionment are easily manipulated. Once unbottled, mass resentment can poison the very fabric of society, the moral integrity of society, replacing ambition with envy, replacing tolerance with hate. Today the targets of that rage are immigrants and welfare mothers and government officials and gays, and an ill-defined counterculture. But as the middle class continues to erode, who will be the targets tomorrow?”

I was tragically prescient.

Speeches by Cabinet members were supposed to be approved in advance by the White House, but in this case I doubted the White House would approve my speech because it was so foreboding. So I sent to the White House a different speech — one that was anodyne and boring.

I thought I could get away with this because I doubted the media would pay much attention to my speech.

I was wrong. It made headlines.

Not surprisingly, I was ordered to the White House — where an ambush awaited me. Clinton’s chief of staff Leon Panetta, his economic adviser Bob Rubin, his political adviser George Stephanopoulos, and other top advisers told me in no uncertain terms that I had violated White House rules.


They accused me of not being a team player and barred me from making any further speeches.

I told them I didn’t work for them. I had been nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and they had no power over me. I’d be silenced only if the president directed me to be.

Well, that was the end of it. I knew Bill Clinton wouldn’t tell me to stop speaking my mind.


But his top advisers did have a point. Cabinet officers must be team players. Otherwise, the executive branch can’t function. In this instance, I wasn’t a team player.


A Warning from 1994 of a Two-Tiered Society | Robert Reich
youtu.be

I never regretted giving that speech.

Deutsche Bank saw Trump as a ticket to the 'wealthiest people on the planet': fraud trial

Sarah K. Burris
November 29, 2023 

(Trump Instagram


Top Deutsche Bank executive Rosemary Vrablic testified in court on Wednesday that she courted Donald Trump's business because of the wealth he is now found to have exaggerated on his financial statements.

MSNBC's Lisa Rubin reported from inside the courtroom where Trump is on trial for fraud that Deutsche Bank’s former managing director said she wanted to meet with Trump because he was such a “big-deal” client.

She also told colleagues that he should be pursued because, "Given the circles this family travels in, we expect to be introduced to the wealthiest people on the planet," ABC News reported.

Vrablic wrote to colleagues while courting Trump in the early 2010s, according to materials entered into evidence.

Trump was listed in a 2012 memo as a “top 5 relationship in terms of revenue” for the team. Given Trump's wealth and his willingness to loan cash, the bank was also pressing for Trump to move his personal finances and deposits over to Deutsche Bank.

After establishing the relationship, Ivanka Trump took over, becoming the primary contact Vrablic said she used.

"Your family is in the top 10 revenue-generating names of asset and wealth management now and he’s thrilled with how it’s grown," wrote Vrablic in an email to Ivanka, referencing Vrablic's boss.

The prosecution claims that much of Trump's wealth was exaggerated. In a summary judgment before the trial began the judge found him liable for fraud, making the ongoing trial in New York largely to determine damages.

In one email that Vrablic was asked to review, the executive said that “credit has given the green light” to Deutsche Bank issuing a "term sheet" detailing the Old Post Office loan repayment schedule. That property became Trump's Washington, D.C. hotel, which became a favorite of international leaders attempting to curry favor during his term as president.


Vrablic later testified that the bank declined to lend money to Trump for the Turnberry golf course project because Trump was about to become president. That would then bring greater scrutiny and more risk for the bank, and it was deemed not worth "greater exposure."

She didn't say what the project at Turnberry was, but Trump had bought the Scottish golf course in 2014, long before he was president.

It was late May 2016 when he ultimately won enough electoral votes to get the nomination for the Republican Party, NPR reported at the time.
Why members of Congress keep breaking financial laws over and over again

Raw Story
November 29, 2023 

Rep. George Santos (R- NY) leaves a meeting of the House Republican Conference in the U.S. Capitol on Nov. 7, 2023. Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/ZUMA Press/TNS

Throughout 2023, federal lawmakers kept introducing a steady stream of bills designed to stop congressional stock trading.

At the same time, their colleagues continued breaking existing financial disclosure and conflicts-of-interest laws.

Nothing has come of those bills yet, but Raw Story has identified at least 37 members of Congress this year who violated federal law by not properly disclosing their personal finances as required by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 and the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act of 2012.

"These laws matter in a large part for public trust and transparency," said Raw Story investigative reporter Alexandria Jacobson on "The Julie Mason Show" on SiriusXM's POTUS Politics channel Tuesday.

Jacobson's latest reporting found another 11 members of Congress, including embattled Rep. George Santos (R-NY), who all failed to properly file their annual financial disclosure reports on time.

"We find these violations happen on both sides of the aisle," Jacobson said, noting that of the 11 who didn't file on time, seven were Democrats and four were Republicans.

Santos, who is facing numerous criminal charges and expulsion from the U.S. House, 

One of the original authors of the STOCK Act, former Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) called out his former colleagues earlier this year for their "dog ate my homework excuses" for not following the laws and the lack of consequences enforced by congressional ethics committees.

"The House Ethics Committee certainly could act and enforce consequences for these violations of federal laws, but oftentimes, they don't. Either the fees get waived, or they just pay a nominal $200 fee for not being transparent and following the law," Jacobson said.

Other Raw Story reporting this year revealed a handful of members of congressional Armed Services Committees who owned defense contractor stock, such as Sens. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) and Tommy Tuberville (R-AL and Rep. Bill Keating (D-MA).

"It’s definitely a lot of labor, but we think it’s very important for the public to be able to know this information, and we’re happy to dig into that and share that," Jacobson said.

In October, Jacobson won first prize in the ION Awards contest for investigative journalism for her reporting on the personal finances of public officials.

Listen to the full interview

:

'Treacherous': Lawmaker slams Trump for saying he didn't vow to support the Constitution

Carl Gibson, AlterNet
November 28, 2023 

Donald Trump at the Elysee Palace. 
(Frederic Legrand - COMEO / Shutterstock.com)

In a November 27 legal filing submitted to the Colorado Supreme Court, attorneys representing former President Donald Trump made a unique argument in justifying that the US Constitution's insurrection clause doesn't apply to their client.

The clause, which is in Section Three of the 14th Amendment, states that "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." Trump's legal team argued that as president, their client is exempt from that language.

"The framers excluded the office of President from Section Three purposefully. Section Three does not apply, because the presidency is not an office 'under the United States,' and President Trump did not take an oath 'to support the Constitution of the United States,'" the filing read.

The video player is currently playing an ad. You can skip the ad in 5 sec with a mouse or keyboard

The filing also argues that the events of January 6, 2021 did not constitute an insurrection, even though Trump supporters attacked the US Capitol in an attempt to disrupt Congress' official certification of the 2020 presidential election in an hours-long riot that left several dead and hundreds more injured.

"Wow in a legal proceeding trump is now arguing he didn’t violate the 14th Amendment by inciting the Jan 6 insurrection because he 'never took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States,'" Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-New Jersey) tweeted. "This treacherous criminal is head of the republican party."

Trump did in fact take such an oath. The presidential oath of office — which all presidents take on Inauguration Day — explicitly mentions the Constitution.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," the oath reads.

The matter before the Colorado Supreme Court concerns an attempt to remove the former president from the 2024 ballot on the grounds that he is ineligible under the insurrection clause due to Trump's involvement in the January 6 riot. While a judge ruled in Trump's favor, that decision has been appealed by watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
Arizona alfalfa farmers clash with foreign firms over water use



By —Anita Snow, Associated Press
By —Thomas Machowicz, Associated Press
Nov 28, 2023 

WENDEN, Ariz. (AP) — A blanket of bright green alfalfa spreads across western Arizona’s McMullen Valley, ringed by rolling mountains and warmed by the hot desert sun.


Matthew Hancock’s family has used groundwater to grow forage crops here for more than six decades. They’re long accustomed to caprices of Mother Nature that can spoil an entire alfalfa cutting with a downpour or generate an especially big yield with a string of blistering days.

But concerns about future water supplies from the valley’s ancient aquifers, which hold groundwater supplies, are bubbling up in Wenden, a town of around 700 people where the Hancock family farms.

Some neighbors complain their backyard wells have dried up since the Emirati agribusiness Al Dahra began farming alfalfa here on about 3,000 acres (1,214 hectares) several years ago.

It is unknown how much water the Al Dahra operation uses, but Hancock estimates it needs 15,000 to 16,000 acre feet a year based on what his own alfalfa farm needs. He says he gets all the water he needs by drilling down hundreds of feet. An acre-foot of water is roughly enough to serve two to three U.S. households annually.

Hancock said he and neighbors with larger farms worry more that in the future state officials could take control of the groundwater they now use for agriculture and transfer it to Phoenix and other urban areas amid the worst Western drought in centuries.

“I worry about the local community farming in Arizona,” Hancock said, standing outside an open-sided barn stacked with hay bales.

READ MORE: Persistent drought and overdevelopment cause record low water levels for tens of millions

Concerns about the Earth’s groundwater supplies are front of mind in the lead-up to COP28, the annual United Nations climate summit opening this week in the Emirati city of Dubai. Gulf countries like the UAE are especially vulnerable to global warming, with high temperatures, arid climates, water scarcity and rising sea levels.

“Water shortages have driven companies to go where the water is,” said Robert Glennon, a water policy and law expert and professor emeritus at the University of Arizona.

Experts say tensions are inevitable as companies in climate-challenged countries like the United Arab Emirates increasingly look to faraway places like Arizona for the water and land to grow forage for livestock and commodities such as wheat for domestic use and export.

“As the impacts of climate change increase, we expect to see more droughts,” said Karim Elgendy, a climate change and sustainability specialist at Chatham House think tank in London. “This means more countries would look for alternative locations for food production.”

Without groundwater pumping regulations, rural Arizona is especially attractive, said Elgendy, who focuses on the Middle East and North Africa. International corporations have also turned to Ethiopia and other parts of Africa to develop enormous farming operations criticized as “land grabbing.”

La Paz County Supervisor Holly Irwin welcomes a recent crackdown by Arizona officials on unfettered groundwater pumping long allowed in rural areas, noting local concerns about dried up wells and subsidence that’s created ground fissures and flooding during heavy rains.

“You’re starting to see the effects of lack of regulation,” she said. “Number one, we don’t know how much water we have in these aquifers, and we don’t know how much is being pumped out.”

Irwin laments that foreign firms are “mining our natural resource to grow crops such as alfalfa … and they’re shipping it overseas back to their country where they’ve depleted their water source.”

Gary Saiter, board chairman and general manager of the Wenden Domestic Water Improvement District, said utility records showed the surface-to-water depth at its headquarters was a little over 100 feet (30 meters) in the 1950s, but it’s now now about 540 feet (160 meters).

READ MORE: Drought’s impact on Mississippi River causes disruptions in shipping and agriculture

Saiter said that over those years, food crops like cantaloupe have been replaced with forage like alfalfa, which is water intensive.

“I believe that the legislature in the state needs to step up and actually put some control, start measuring the water that the farms use,” Saiter said.

Gov. Katie Hobbs in October yanked the state’s land lease on another La Paz County alfalfa farm, one operated by Fondomonte Arizona, a subsidiary of Saudi dairy giant Almarai Co. The Democrat said the state would not renew three other Fondomonte leases next year, saying the company violated some lease terms.

Fondomonte denied that, and said it will appeal the decision to terminate its 640-acre (259-hectare) lease in Butler Valley. Arizona has less control over Al Dahra, which farms on land leased from a private North Carolina-based corporation.

Glennon, the Arizona water policy expert, said he worked with a consulting group that advised Saudi Arabia more than a decade ago to import hay and other crops rather than drain its aquifers. He said Arizona also must protect its groundwater.

“I do think we need sensible regulation,” said Glennon. “I don’t want farms to go out of business, but I don’t want them to drain the aquifers, either.”

Seeking crops for domestic use and export, Al Dahra farms wheat and barley in Romania, operates a flour mill in Bulgaria, and owns milking cows in Serbia. It runs a rice mill in Pakistan and grows grapes in Namibia and citrus in Egypt. It serves markets worldwide.

The company is controlled by the state-owned firm ADQ, an Abu Dhabi-based investment and holding company. Its chairman is the country’s powerful, behind-the-scenes national security adviser Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, a brother of ruler Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

The company did not respond to numerous emails and voicemails sent to its UAE offices and its subsidiary Al Dahra ACX in the U.S. seeking comment about its Arizona operation.

But on its website, Al Dahra acknowledges the challenges of climate change, noting “the continuing decrease in cultivable land and diminishing water resources available for farming.” The firm says it considers water and food security at ”the core of its strategy” and uses drip irrigation to optimize water use.

Foreign and out-of-state U.S. farms are not banned from farming in Arizona, nor from selling their goods worldwide. U.S. farmers commonly export hay and other forage crops to countries including Saudi Arabia and China.

WATCH: Despite owning rights to Colorado River, tribes largely cut off from accessing water

In Arizona’s Cochise County that relies on groundwater, residents worry that the mega-dairy operated there by Riverview LLP of Minnesota could deplete their water supplies. The company did not respond to a request for comment about its water use.

“The problem is not who is doing it, but that we are allowing it to be done,” said Kathleen Ferris, a senior research fellow at the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University. “We need to pass laws giving more control over groundwater uses in these unregulated areas.”

A former director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources, Ferris helped draw up the state’s 1980 Groundwater Management Act that protects aquifers in urban areas like Phoenix but not in rural agricultural areas.

Many people mistakenly believe groundwater is a personal property right, Ferris said, noting that the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled there’s only a property right to water once it has been pumped.

In Arizona, rural resistance to limits on pumping remains strong and efforts to create rules have gone nowhere in the Legislature. The Arizona Farm Bureau has pushed back at narratives that portray foreign agribusiness firms like Al Dahra as groundwater pirates.

The state is “the wild West” when it comes to groundwater, said Kathryn Sorensen, research director at the Kyl Center. “Whoever has the biggest well and pumps the most groundwater wins.”

“Arizona is blessed to have a very large and productive groundwater,” she added. “But just like an oil field, if you pump it out at a significant rate, then you deplete the water and it’s gone.”

Associated Press writer Jon Gambrell in Dubai contributed to this report.

Born in the flames of resolutions: The history and underlying causes of the Arab-Israeli conflict


3 November 2023

LONG READ

Exactly 106 years ago, on November 2, 1917, the world witnessed the Balfour Declaration—an iconic, albeit concise, open letter. In this historic document, Arthur Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary, de facto pledged Palestine to the Jewish people. What ensued was a century-old saga, where the Arab-Israeli conflict commenced as a territorial dispute between two nations vying for a small piece of the British Empire. However, the origins of this conflict delve far deeper, tracing their roots to ancient history and biblical narratives. Amidst this complex tapestry of events, even figures like the Bolsheviks, Joseph Goebbels, and Richard the Lionheart found their place, each playing a role in a conflict that remains unresolved to this very day.


CONTENT

The sacred city


How it all began


The redrawing of the world


Zion calling


The roots of terror


The war of independence

The sacred city

In December 1917, just eleven months before the conclusion of World War I, British forces made their entry into Jerusalem, a city deserted by the Ottomans. Within the city's walls, hunger and desolation reigned, and the soldiers bore the fatigue of a grueling, months-long Palestinian campaign. Although fresh battles loomed on the horizon, news of the capture of this hallowed city resonated in London as one of the most momentous triumphs in the entire war.

Prime Minister Lloyd George bestowed this victory with the title of a “Christmas gift to the British people.” Across the empire, the chimes of church bells reverberated, and newspapers, accustomed to offering mere glimpses of front-line updates, now featured inspiring illustrations. In these depictions, General Edmund Allenby, the commander of British forces in the Middle East, was portrayed receiving a divine blessing from none other than Richard the Lionheart, a medieval king whose life's mission was the conquest of the Holy Land, but who never succeeded in subduing Jerusalem.

The extraordinary significance attached to what might seem like an ordinary military victory can be ascribed to the fact that during the years of World War I, Britain was undergoing a spiritual renaissance. The unprecedented devastation had stirred a collective sense of anticipation about the impending end of the world, prompting people to seek solace in religion, particularly within the Protestant faith, which held official status in the empire. The return of Jerusalem to the dominion of a Christian monarch was embraced by the faithful as a testament to the inevitability of triumph and the righteousness of their cause.





British Artillery during the Battle for Jerusalem, 1917


It seemed that the sacred city, along with all of historical Palestine, would become yet another shining gem in the crown of the British Empire. However, there was a catch: the British had already promised to hand over Palestine to a completely different group of people, who also laid claim to it. What's more, they made this promise twice to different parties.

The first to whom the British agreed to grant the Holy Land was Sherif (ruler) of Mecca, Hussein, in 1916. At that time, Mecca was firmly under the Ottoman Empire's rule, and the Sherif remained subject to the Sultan's authority. However, Hussein held the belief that, as a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad, he possessed a far stronger entitlement to governance over the Arab territories than the Turks. In exchange for his assistance in the war against the Ottoman Empire, the British were willing to acknowledge Hussein's sovereignty, as well as that of his dynasty—the Hashemites. This dynasty was named after their legendary founder, Hashim, who was the great-grandfather of the Prophet Muhammad. In a confidential correspondence with the Sherif, the British undertook to formally recognize him as the ruler of all Arab lands “from Egypt to Persia.” This recognition excluded territories that had already been under the dominion of the British Empire or its protectorates before the outbreak of World War I.

In a confidential correspondence with the Sherif, the British undertook to formally recognize him as the ruler of all Arab lands “from Egypt to Persia”


As His Majesty's officials engaged in correspondence with the Sherif of Mecca, striving to ignite an Arab uprising deep within the Ottoman Empire, another group within the British government pondered how to win the support of an increasingly influential community of religious Zionists. The Zionist movement, with its core goal of establishing an independent Jewish state, extended beyond the Jewish community. Notably, it drew fervent interest from a contingent of Christians, particularly those of a literalist Protestant persuasion who adhered to a strict interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. These Christian supporters found resonance in the notion that the Holy Land should be returned to the Jews, as the Bible itself ordained.
How it all began

The Jews had been dispossessed of their homeland at the advent of a new era, subsequent to a series of ill-fated uprisings against the Roman Empire. Since that time, they had been scattered across the globe, Israel had ceased to exist, and had been rechristened Palestine by the Romans. Over the centuries, various kingdoms and empires had taken their turns in ruling the Holy Land. In the 7th century, Arab conquerors arrived, introducing Islam to the region. Subsequently, crusaders attempted to seize control, with limited success. About four centuries prior to World War I, the Ottoman Empire came to hold sway over Palestine. Yet, their dominion, too, had its twilight.

Both European Jews and Christian Zionists regarded the onset of World War I with tempered enthusiasm, perceiving it as yet another episode in the imperial redrawing of boundaries. In London, however, there was a concerted effort to convince the Zionists of the necessity of supporting the British military with financial, intellectual, and human resources. To accomplish this, the Zionists had to be convinced that the war was aligned with their interests, that the empire's triumph would also signify a victory for their faith. It was crucial to instill in both Jews and Christians the belief that the war wasn't a pursuit of territorial gain, but rather a struggle for the future of humanity and the salvation of human souls. Hence, the second promise of ceding Palestine was conceived, this time not to the Arabs but to the Jews.

It was crucial to instill in both Jews and Christians the belief that the war wasn't a pursuit of territorial gain, but rather a struggle for the future of humanity and the salvation of human souls


This promise was named the Balfour Declaration, essentially a short open letter addressed to one of the most influential British Jews, Lord Lionel Rothschild. In this letter, Arthur Balfour, who served as the British Foreign Secretary during World War I, conveyed the Empire's understanding of the Zionist movement and its readiness to facilitate the creation of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine.







Most likely, through such promises, the British aimed not only to align themselves with British Zionists but also to enlist the support of Jews in the Middle East, persuade Americans of the religious legitimacy of their entry into the war, and send a signal to Russian Jews, including members of the new Bolshevik government, about the inopportuneness of withdrawing from the war on the eve of the long-awaited rebirth of the Jewish state.

It is worth acknowledging that World War I could have been won even without the support of Arab tribes and wavering Zionists. The funds allocated by London to the forces led by self-proclaimed Arab King Hussein, totaling more than 11 million pound Sterling (equivalent to roughly a billion dollars in today's prices), enabled them to gain control only over a small and strategically insignificant desert region of the Ottoman Empire. Bolshevik Russia did eventually exit the war, and by the time of the Declaration's publication, the Americans not only entered the war but were already engaged on the European Western Front.

Nonetheless, in 1916 and 1917, victory remained far from certain. In the heart of London, apprehensions loomed that their Muslim subjects might revolt and form an alliance with the Ottoman Sultan, who also bore the mantle of the Caliph, the esteemed religious leader of the Islamic world. The British watched with concern as the United States, typically reticent to abandon its isolationist stance, reluctantly embraced the idea of entering the war. Fearing that the Americans might never commit to the conflict, the British, in turn, found themselves making promises that verged on the unattainable.

“We have given so many conflicting pledges that I do not understand whether we shall ever get out of this chaos without breaking our word,” lamented General Henry Wilson, head of the Imperial General Staff, in 1919, after the war had ended.
The redrawing of the world

Sir Wilson's somber premonitions proved to be true; the British found themselves unable to extricate from the convolution they had created, despite their earnest efforts. For instance, they left Hussein without the promised Near Eastern kingdom on the pretext that he had only been promised Arab lands, and after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, it suddenly became apparent that the Middle East was inhabited not only by Arabs but also by representatives of other nations. Moreover, the originals of the secret correspondence, in which these promises were made, mysteriously disappeared—lost in the archives, destroyed, or perhaps, as some officials insinuated, they never existed, and the cunning Hussein had fabricated the entire story.

As a kind of “consolation prize,” the aging Sherif was granted control over the Hijaz, a territory in the Arabian Peninsula that housed the sacred cities of Mecca and Medina. He had already ruled the Hijaz as the Sherif and later as the self-proclaimed monarch of all Arabs. In 1924, Hussein abdicated the throne in favor of his son Ali, but Ali's reign lasted only a few months. He lost to his competitors from the House of Saud, was stripped of his kingdom, and died in exile. Another of Hussein's sons, Faisal, managed to become the king, first of Syria and then of Iraq, where he founded an unpopular ruling dynasty that came to an end in 1953 along with the overthrow of the first king, Faisal II, the grandson of the initial Faisal. Only Hussein's son Abdullah succeeded in establishing a dynasty that still governs Jordan.

In truth, initially, all these thrones were largely symbolic, as for a long time, real control over the Middle East was exercised by the victors of the First World War, primarily Britain and France.

Formally, the former Ottoman territories were not incorporated into European empires but were assigned to them in the 1920s as so-called “mandate” territories. The precursor to the modern United Nations, the League of Nations, delegated the right to govern the fragments of defeated empires—the mandate—to the victorious states. In the early 20th century, openly racist ideas about African and Asian peoples as incapable of effective self-governance still prevailed in global politics.

It was envisaged that established democracies would assist them in the process of nation-building, maintaining political and economic control over these populations, as well as maintaining military presence in the territories of the new states. League of Nations' mandates were so indefinite and nebulous, and the durations of their applicability so obscure—until such time as these nations were deemed ready to assume responsibility for their own states—that, de facto, they transformed the mandate territories into colonies of European states, although de jure, as already mentioned, they did not incorporate them into their empires.

League of Nations' mandates de facto transformed the mandate territories into colonies of European states

Zion calling

One of the mandate territories that fell into British hands was Palestine. This land was inhabited by local Arabs, both Muslims and Christians, and Jews, of whom very few were born there, but their numbers were growing daily, largely due to London's promise to hand over these lands to create a “national homeland.” Though the term “national homeland” does not equate to the concept of a “sovereign state,” and the Balfour Declaration did not delineate clear boundaries for the future Jewish Palestine, the European and American Jews who flocked to the Middle East aspired to build their state precisely on those lands mentioned in the Bible as belonging to the Israelites.

It didn't take long for conflicts to erupt between the Arabs and the new Jewish arrivals. Foreign Jews seemed strange and dangerous interlopers to the Arabs. They accused them of taking advantage of the post-war devastation and poverty by buying land from impoverished local farmers for a pittance. Furthermore, they were reluctant to employ Arabs, preferring to hire fellow immigrant co-religionists, which exacerbated Arab impoverishment and marginalization.

Jews received substantial support from abroad – religious organizations, including Christian ones, provided funds, lobbied for their interests in Europe and the United States. However, local Arabs had nowhere to turn for assistance. Their kinsmen and co-religionists were divided among several new states, each beset with its own problems, and they lacked the money and international influence to help those living in Palestine. In the late 1920s, anti-Jewish riots erupted in Jerusalem and some other cities where Arabs and Jews lived in close proximity. At that time, it was not yet a full-scale uprising, but rather a series of rather bloody scattered attacks on Jews. However, the onset of a full-fledged Arab revolt was imminent.
The roots of terror

The military wing of the Hamas organization is known as the “Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades.” The most common type of rocket launched by these brigades into Israel is also called the Qassam rocket. Several educational institutions in Gaza bear the name of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, a Syrian preacher who was one of the first to attempt to organize armed resistance against the European powers that divided the Middle East among themselves. After suffering defeat in his native Syria at the hands of the French, who controlled the region under a mandate from the League of Nations, in the early 1930s, he moved to neighboring Palestine and began organizing an armed underground.

His fighters, united under The Black Hand organization, attacked Jewish settlements and British patrols, burned orchards, and detonated administrative buildings, aiming to halt Jewish immigration to Palestine and end the British mandate. In response to the actions of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam's followers, the Jews established their underground fighting organization called the Irgun. Later, alongside other Jewish self-defense units that emerged in the early days of the British mandate, such as Haganah, the Irgun would become the foundation of the armed forces of the independent state of Israel. However, at that time, it was a genuine insurgent group.




Irgun poster calling for settlers to break through to Palestine


Arab and Jewish underground fighters clashed with each other and also opposed the British presence, which both Arabs and Jews viewed as a prolonged occupation.

In a 1935 skirmish with the British, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam was killed, but this didn't halt Arab uprisings; it actually triggered new revolts that eventually evolved into a pan-Arab uprising in Palestine. This uprising spanned from 1936 to 1939 and aimed to halt Jewish immigration and abandon plans to create a Jewish “national homeland” in Palestine. The British managed to suppress the revolt through a combination of force and concessions.

In the midst of military operations and intimidation campaigns, approximately five thousand Arabs lost their lives, and several thousand were imprisoned or forced to flee across the border. This represented the punitive measures faced by Palestinian Arabs. The positive side was the introduction of a series of restrictions on Jews known as the “White Paper.”

Under pressure from protestors, the British agreed to ban the sale of Arab land to Jews and pledged to establish both Arab and Jewish states in Palestine within ten years, by 1949. Additionally, they, for the first time during the mandate, limited Jewish immigration. The number of Jews who had the right to officially settle in Palestine was capped at 25,000 people in 1939 and 20,000 people in the following four years.

The British pledged to establish both Arab and Jewish states in Palestine


The Jews, many of whom had assisted the British in suppressing the Arab revolt, perceived the publication of the White Paper as a betrayal of the commitments made to them in the Balfour Declaration. Moreover, as Europe became increasingly dangerous for Jews due to the rise of the Nazis, the revocation of their legal opportunity to escape such peril was seen as a grave injustice. In retaliation for the White Paper, the Irgun carried out executions of several British officers, but the outbreak of the Second World War temporarily reconciled the empire with Jewish underground groups. Many Irgun and Haganah fighters joined the British or allied forces and fought in Syria and Lebanon against the Vichy French.

In turn, influential Arab families placed their bets on the Germans as the main adversaries of the British. The Nazis, long before the war, portrayed themselves in their propaganda aimed at the Middle East as natural allies of the Arabs in the fight against “Jewish-British imperialism.” The German racial laws did not apply to Arabs, and the Bureau of Anti-Semitic Actions (Antisemitische Aktion) in Joseph Goebbels' Ministry of Propaganda was renamed the Bureau of Anti-Jewish Actions (Antijüdische Aktion) to avoid angering Arab allies, who also belonged to Semitic peoples.

All of these actions shared similar objectives with the promises the British made to the Sharif of Mecca during World War I: to foment unrest and, ideally, provoke a full-scale uprising behind enemy lines. However, the German efforts proved to be even less effective. Even the most pro-German Arabs were unwilling to confront the still-powerful British Empire. There was no Arab uprising in the British rear. Nonetheless, a Jewish uprising did occur.

In 1944, Jewish underground fighters resumed their war against the British. This occurred after the true scale of the Holocaust in Europe became apparent, and after London, already aware of the fate of Jews in Nazi-occupied territories, had failed to abandon the White Paper. The Irgun did not hesitate to use terrorist tactics, with the climax being the 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, where British administrative offices were located. The attack resulted in 91 deaths.




The bombing of the King David on July 22, 1946


Simultaneously with the escalating military pressure, diplomatic efforts gained momentum. In 1945, U.S. President Harry Truman openly proclaimed his moral obligation to safeguard the Jewish people, who had endured significant suffering during World War II. This was a clear indication that the outdated mandate system needed to be brought to a close. Furthermore, within Britain itself, a growing number of people were questioning the necessity of maintaining distant overseas territories that were becoming increasingly complex and precarious.

The contours of the collapse of the once-mighty empire were already taking shape, with the Middle East serving as the most prominent stage for these developments. Before London departed from the Holy Land, in keeping with their promise, they formulated several plans for its division between Jews and Arabs. One of these proposals even suggested the relocation of all Palestinian Arabs to Jordan, which was also under British administration as per the League of Nations mandate.

One of the British proposals even suggested the relocation of all Palestinian Arabs to Jordan


None of these plans gained immediate support from either Arabs or Jews. Therefore, London deemed it best to transfer the task of planning the division of Palestine to the successor of the League of Nations – the United Nations. In 1947, the organization presented its plan, which allotted approximately 55% of the territory of the mandate Palestine to the Jewish state and 45% to the Arab state. Jerusalem was designated to come under the governance of an international administration accountable to the UN. The Arabs once again opposed this proposal.

Their representatives insisted that there was no need for the creation of a Jewish state, as the Jews who had immigrated to Palestine had their homelands – the countries from which they had emigrated – and they should return to them. The Arabs even threatened war against the Jews, which did not earn them sympathy, considering that World War II had ended not too long ago, and memories of the Holocaust were still fresh. Nevertheless, the war did eventually commence.
The war of independence

The path to this war unfolded gradually. In September 1947, the British administration made it known that they intended to withdraw from Palestine, leaving the fate of its inhabitants in their own hands. Just two months later, the United Nations endorsed a plan to partition the Holy Land into Arab and Jewish states. Following this decision, armed confrontations erupted in various regions of Palestine, as Arabs and Jews vied for control of cities, villages, and even individual farms. The British seldom intervened in these clashes, as they were hurriedly preparing for their departure, a task that had to be completed by May 14, 1948—a date chosen by London as the conclusion of their mandate.

As the final British ships with their soldiers remained anchored in the ports of Palestinian cities, awaiting the order to sail away, the Jewish population declared the establishment of their state—the rebirth of Israel. In response, the Arab neighbors of this newly formed state dispatched their troops to Palestine. Arab leaders believed that this intervention would be swift and victorious. They expected the armies of Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and Lebanon to simply take over from the departing British, prevent the formation of a Jewish state, disarm the Israelis, and transfer authority to local Arabs.




An Israeli officer raises the national flag for the first time on June 8, 1948


But everything didn't go as the Arab kings and generals had anticipated. Their armies fought without coordinating their actions, planning was practically absent, and supplying the troops became difficult because insufficient reserves of weapons, fuel, and provisions had been made by the command. Even the advantage of Arab armies in heavy equipment quickly evaporated. Jewish organizations in Europe and the United States managed to organize the purchase and delivery of artillery, armored vehicles, and even aircraft for the newly established Jewish state from Czechoslovakia, Italy, France, and several other countries.

The conflict drew to a close in July 1949 as Arab armies, one after the other, withdrew from Palestine, hampered by resource shortages and a waning desire to continue hostilities. Israel not only emerged victorious but as an unequivocal triumphant force. It extended its control over nearly 80% of the former Mandatory Palestine territory, including a portion of Jerusalem where international administration never came to fruition.

Israel not only emerged victorious but as an unequivocal triumphant force


What was a victory for the Israelis turned into a catastrophe for their Arab neighbors. This is officially referred to as “Nakba” in Arabic, signifying the war and its aftermath for Palestinians. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs were forced to leave their homes. Some did so out of fear of perishing in the crossfire, while others were driven by concerns of retribution from the Israelis for assisting Arab armies. However, many were expelled by Israeli forces. The new state's army was not willing to leave disloyal people in their rear and resorted to forced relocations.

Jews also faced expulsion from their homes, but not in Israel; it was the Jews living in Arab countries who experienced this. Following their defeat by Israel in the Middle East, a wave of anti-Jewish violence and discriminatory laws spread across these Arab lands. There were cases of beatings and lynchings. This ultimately led to a mass exodus of Jews from Arab countries to Israel. They brought with them bitter memories of displacement, which they passed down to their children and grandchildren.

Palestinians also harbor bitter memories. Many of them have lived in refugee camps for generations and cannot forgive the Israelis for taking away their homes. These memories, this inherited distrust passed down from generation to generation, make it impossible for the two peoples to reconcile once and for all. Too many Palestinians are not ready to accept that the Jews will permanently remain on the land they claim as their own. And too many Israelis are unwilling to give those Palestinians who haven't accepted the status quo the opportunity to establish their own state, where anti-Jewish sentiments will always find popularity and support.


Revolutionaries without borders: How exiled opposition brought change to their countries


20 November 2023

With only four months remaining until the presidential elections in Russia, in many other nations, this period would typically mark the peak of the political campaign. However, the relocation of Russian activists and journalists beyond the borders of their homeland, coupled with the definitive extinguishing of political life within the country, is once again sparking discussions about the opposition's capability to take action from abroad. The Insider has delved into global experiences and unearthed numerous examples from various regions worldwide, illustrating instances where opposition movements, operating from foreign soil, achieved remarkably impressive successes.


RU

CONTENT



Chile


Argentina


South Africa


Arab Spring


Anti-War Movements


What can opposition do in exile?


Avoiding Decline


At various points in the past, the Russian opposition found itself in exile, during which it harbored little conviction about playing a pivotal role in the revolution. In Switzerland, in January 1917, just a month before the decisive battles, Lenin articulated a somewhat skeptical perspective, stating, «We, the older generation, may not witness the conclusive battles of this impending revolution.» Meanwhile, his comrade Trotsky favored Vienna, where he spent his time at the Central café immersed in chess matches. There exists a historical anecdote involving Austrian politician Count Heinrich Clam-Martinic, who, when asked about the prospect of revolution in Russia, wittily responded, «Who will orchestrate this revolution? Perhaps Mr. Bronstein from the Central café?»

However surprising the events of 1917 might have been, it must be acknowledged that Russian revolutionaries in exile had not been idle. They published and disseminated propaganda, organized cells within the country, worked on programs, and when the opportune moment arrived, they were ready for it. Global experience shows that this is more of a rule than an exception: revolutions often occur in countries where censorship prohibits political activities, and leaders have to act from abroad.

Chile

Engaging in communication with supporters and conducting propaganda from abroad poses significant challenges, yet the opponents of Pinochet in Chile navigated this difficulty with notable effectiveness. The Solidarity Movement, dedicated to combating dictatorship, orchestrated a multi-year campaign that encompassed reaching out to Chileans through calls and letters from overseas. These efforts were aimed at enlightening them about the atrocities committed by the new regime. The junta members asserted that substantial sums, amounting to millions of dollars monthly, were allocated to the destruction of these letters. Moreover, they insisted that recipients promptly turn over such correspondence to the authorities.

In addition to dispatching letters and making calls, representatives of the Movement mobilized financial support for resistance efforts within the country and actively lobbied in the U.S. and other nations. In the United States, they found allies within the anti-war movement, dedicated to ending the Vietnam War, and the civil rights movement. Through the collaborative endeavors of the Chilean opposition, they successfully persuaded the U.S. to exert pressure on the Chilean government, urging a relaxation of censorship and repression leading up to the 1988 referendum on extending Pinochet's powers. The U.S. also earmarked funds to bolster the opposition within Chile, ensuring effective oversight of the voting process. Consequently, 56% of Chileans cast their votes against Pinochet's rule, marking the conclusion of the dictatorship.

Argentina

Juan Perón, the Argentine president ousted by the military in 1955, maintained communication with his supporters and union leaders, influencing the country's politics even though his party was banned, and he found himself in exile—first in Venezuela and later in Spain. In 1958, his supporters in the army attempted a coup but were exposed and executed.

Throughout his exile, Perón regularly advised his supporters on how to vote, significantly impacting election outcomes. When faced with the threat of a military uprising in 1973, the junta was forced to hold presidential elections. The candidate endorsed by Perón, Hector Jose Campora, won, but he resigned after a month, paving the way for new elections to allow Perón to be elected.

South Africa

The African National Congress (ANC), fighting against apartheid in South Africa, initially lost supporters after its ban and Nelson Mandela's arrest in the early 1960s. Initially operating from distant Tanzania and Zambia, by the mid-70s, as the Portuguese colonial empire collapsed and left-leaning governments took power in its former colonies Angola and Mozambique, they allowed the ANC to establish training bases closer to South Africa's borders. Additionally, the ANC could build schools, hospitals, farms, and factories on their territory, where exiles from South Africa worked.

This coincided with the intensification of apartheid within South Africa: the conflict between whites and non-whites escalated, prompting more of the latter to leave the country and join the ANC. From the 1970s, the ANC resumed terrorist activities in South Africa, and in response, South Africa conducted raids on ANC bases in Mozambique, causing the country to slide into chaos and increasing international isolation. Concurrently, the ANC continued its international public campaign, drawing attention to the apartheid system in South Africa and the imprisonment of its leader. Ultimately, this led to the fall of the apartheid regime and the ANC's ascension to power with Mandela at the helm.

Arab Spring

The Arab Spring refers to a series of uprisings that swept through much of the Arab world in the early 2010s. Diasporas played an active role in these uprisings. Firstly, they influenced public opinion in their host countries by publishing photos of protests and evidence of regime crimes, engaging with local authorities to garner support for the protesters. For instance, the Libyan British Business Council played a significant role in gaining recognition for the legitimacy of the Transitional National Council of Libya from Britain and other European countries. Secondly, they provided various forms of aid back home, from financial assistance to medicines and satellite phones. Some even returned to participate in the protests personally. Alongside their financial contributions, they brought knowledge acquired during their time in the West, which proved crucial during the post-revolutionary reconstruction. However, in the long run, the revolutions in Arab countries did not lead to significant successes in building democracy and the rule of law.

Anti-War Movements

The objective of political opposition in exile may not only be a change of power but also an end to war. Remembering this is particularly relevant in Russia, given the Bolsheviks' popularity due to their consistent and staunch anti-war stance during World War I. This position resonated widely in war-weary Russia, where the army was literally disintegrating on the front lines, helping the Bolsheviks seize control of the soldiers' and workers' soviets established after the February Revolution—a viable alternative power center compared to the waning popularity of the State Duma and the Provisional Government. However, the Russian example is not the only one. Consider the experience of American draft dodgers and Vietnam War deserters. More than a hundred thousand Americans left the country during that time, with many continuing to engage in anti-war activities in host countries. They published anti-war newspapers that later circulated in the U.S., including on military bases. In Paris, American deserters joined French anti-war groups and published the newspaper ACT. In Canada, American refugees formed the American Deserters Committee (ADC) with offices in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. It provided hostels for new arrivals and published the ADC Times newspaper. The participation of Vietnam War veterans in the movement against the «senseless» war legitimized it in the eyes of American patriots. The voices of soldiers and officers who fought for their country had a significant impact on changing public opinion and ultimately ending the war.

What can opposition do in exile?

When exile and the struggle against the regime drags on and on, the connection with the homeland gradually weakens, and those who have left integrate into new societies, losing interest in the struggle back home. One of the main challenges for opposition abroad becomes maintaining its activities and preserving oppositional organizations. One way for them to replenish and renew their ranks is through recruiting students from their home country abroad or the influx of new exiles. This was precisely how Ayatollah Khomeini, exiled from Iran in 1964, gained supporters. During his stay in Turkey, Iraq, and later in France, he managed to establish contacts with student organizations in Europe and the USA, as he continued his teaching activities. Not all students supported the idea of establishing an Islamic state in Iran, but they saw in Khomeini a leader in the struggle against the Shah, and thus, they helped him connect with Western press, NGOs, and governments, drawing attention to human rights violations by the regime. Returning students assisted in spreading Khomeini's ideas in Iran, contributing significantly to the victory of the Islamic revolution in 1979. Their subsequent disillusionment awaited them, but that's a completely different story.

The exiled opposition can provide material and legal support to its supporters abroad. For instance, the Tibetan government in exile issues passports («green books») to Tibetans residing outside China-controlled Tibet. These documents are partially recognized in India, where a significant portion (85 out of 128 thousand people) of the diaspora resides. These documents can serve as a basis for obtaining refugee status in some countries, such as Canada. In exchange for possessing this document, held by 90% of Tibetan diaspora members, the government collects an annual «voluntary tax.» Only holders of the «green book» can vote in elections held in Indian settlements where Tibetans live, receive benefits, and work in the Tibetan government in exile, located in the Indian town of Dharamsala in the foothills of the Himalayas.

Since the majority of Tibetan refugees, around a thousand people annually arriving from China to India, predominantly settle among their compatriots, their government can regularly conduct elections in such communities if their size exceeds 160 individuals. Officially, the Tibetan government in exile aims not for Tibet's independence (a desire of a significant part of the diaspora) but for preserving culture and religion. This objective is closely tied to India's requirements, which seeks to avoid conflict with China. Nonetheless, the Tibetan government supported partisans within Tibet for an extended period. Furthermore, it provides scholarships to Tibetans, manages its schools and hospitals in India, and engages in interactions with host countries.

The Belarusian diaspora also conducts active political activities abroad. The office of the elected president Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya assists Belarusians who found themselves in exile after the 2020 protests, providing humanitarian, psychological, and legal aid. Some of these efforts are directed towards activities in the West, ranging from political lobbying to organizing conferences and developing a strategy for Belarus's transition to democracy. However, it is inaccurate to say that the diaspora merely focuses on its own affairs. It leads the dissemination of samizdat in Belarus, organizes hacking attacks (Belarusian Cyber Partisans regularly conduct cyberattacks on and hacks government websites), and even participates in military operations. As part of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, they join in the military operations of the Kalinowski Regiment, consisting of Belarusian volunteers who believe that defeating the Putin army is the first step to liberate Belarus.

Avoiding Decline

Certainly, not every instance of emigration proves successful. The Russian diaspora, departing the homeland following the ascent of the Bolsheviks to power, never witnessed the long-awaited liberation of the country. Russia is not unique in this regard; another compelling example is the Chinese democratic movement abroad, emerging in the 1980s as China commenced its global opening and dispatched students to foreign shores. This movement reached its zenith in the early 1990s, spurred by the suppression of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, which prompted a wave of students and intellectuals to flee the country.

Initially, political emigrants successfully garnered sustained attention from the United Nations regarding human rights violations within their home country through public campaigns. This advocacy nudged the nation toward modest political adjustments in exchange for maintaining a favorable trade environment, a necessity for China at that time. However, with the rise of the Chinese economy, trading partners increasingly turned a blind eye to human rights abuses. Notably, even Taiwan, China's primary ideological adversary, ceased funding the Chinese opposition. The enthusiasm of new Chinese migrants for supporting overseas opposition also waned as many of them built careers closely tied to China.

The primary weakness of the Chinese overseas opposition lay in its fragmentation and heterogeneity, hindering effective coordination of its efforts. Coincidentally, Russian White emigrants faced similar challenges, dividing into republicans and monarchists, with the latter further split among supporters of two different branches of the Romanov dynasty. However, determining whether this division is the cause of weakness or if weakness and the absence of a shared mission lead to factionalization remains a nuanced question.

The contemporary Chinese opposition abroad is gradually regaining strength. On one hand, this is fueled by escalating tensions between China and the U.S. On the other hand, it is a result of cooperation with other Chinese opposition movements: Tibetans, Uighurs, Hong Kongers, Taiwanese, as well as the banned religious movement Falun Gong. Since 2005, they have been holding an annual joint conference dedicated to China's policies and its relations with minorities and neighbors. Cooperation has enabled these groups to amplify each other's voices through joint protests and the sharing of resources and established connections.

Furthermore, the efforts of Chinese political emigrants over the past 30 years to build their own institutions are starting to bear fruit. They have established NGOs engaged in lobbying, organizations assisting persecuted Chinese immigrants in settling in new places, entities combating Chinese media propaganda, online educational platforms providing education in jurisprudence, human rights, international relations, fundraising, political science, and more. Additionally, there is the Institute for Democratic Transition in China, developing projects for democratic reforms in the country and ways to influence their implementation.

It's reasonable to recognize that, at present, these endeavors exert minimal influence on China. Nonetheless, the lessons from the Russian Revolution remind us not to lose hope prematurely; occasionally, it's merely a matter of being able to wait for the right moment.