India’s Dual Standards on International Reports

Kanav N. Sahgal | 13 May 2024

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

The current regime has a dual attitude towards international reports on India.

The current regime has a dual attitude towards international reports on India, whereby they adopt and highlight reports that show things in a good light but criticise reports for being an interference in the internal matters of India if they point out the problematic human rights record.

—

Imagine a neighbour observing their friend’s garden. It is suffering from clear and visible signs of neglect and overgrowth. Since the neighbour lacks official authority to act, they must carefully advocate to their friend the need for proper care and maintenance without overstepping boundaries.

However, even a mild suggestion of intervention could be met with resistance if the friend, despite the tell-tale signs of disorder and disarray, believes there is nothing wrong.

This scenario describes the current relationship between the US government and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in India, in relation to their differing assessments of the 2023 Human Rights Practices report for India.

In line with its constitutional mandate under domestic law, the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labour in the US Department of State released its annual publication— the 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.

For all countries receiving US assistance and all United Nations member States, the reports examine, track and document the state of human rights. This includes 200 countries and territories around the world. India as well as other US allies— Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand are also part of this list.

For all countries receiving US assistance and all United Nations member States, the reports examine, track and document the state of human rights.

While none of the other allies publicly dismissed the report, two countries— India and Pakistan— were notable for their public outrage. Pakistan described the contents as “unfair”, based on “inaccurate information”, and “completely divorced from ground reality”.

India echoed these sentiments, although not concurrently.

However, neither country substantially addressed any of the issues raised in the report nor acknowledged any progress or commitment to human rights that would assuage the concerns identified in the report.

This, despite the fact that the data comes from credible sources within these countries, including government agencies. India and Pakistan, instead, led on with denial and refused to engage in any constructive dialogue.

Key findings of the human rights report for India

On the India report, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesperson, Randhir Jaiswal called it “deeply biased” and one that reflected a “poor understanding of India”. He further urged the public to attach no value to it since the BJP government was already doing the same.

But was it biased and indicative of a poor understanding of India? A closer analysis of the findings reveals quite the opposite.

Divided into six sections and spanning 80 pages, the report comprehensively addresses various human rights issues across different themes. The data originates from diverse sources, including media reports, government records and NGOs.

Notably, while some highlighted issues, such as reports of arbitrary police violence in Odisha or electoral violence during the West Bengal state elections, fall under the jurisdiction of non-BJP state governments, the majority are the responsibility of the BJP government.

These issues flagged in the report have not only been raised by opposition parties and civil society groups in the past but also by the Supreme Court on multiple occasions, thereby challenging the government’s notion that these issues are rooted in a poor understanding of India’s polity.

Moreover, the report not only underscores the BJP government’s shortcomings in protecting human rights but also underscores key legislative gaps. These are areas where the government lacks adequate laws or policies that could benefit vulnerable groups.

For instance, India currently lacks a robust law addressing the protection, assistance and return of refugees and asylum seekers. While Uniopn and state governments offered assistance and protection to refugees in 2023, a robust legal framework could significantly enhance their ability to support refugees in the long term. This framework should address critical areas such as long-term visas, residence permits, housing and employment opportunities.

India also lacks both a law for granting asylum or refugee status and a system for providing protection to refugees and asylum seekers. Although the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 aims to address some of these concerns, its constitutionality is pending before the Supreme Court of India and it has already been the subject of widespread criticism and condemnation for its exclusion of Muslims.

While none of the other allies publicly dismissed the report, two countries— India and Pakistan— were notable for their public outrage.

Moreover, the government has refused to pass laws to provide greater relief for certain other vulnerable communities. A notable example was the government’s refusal to recognise same-sex marriage.

Despite the Supreme Court ruling on October 17, 2023, that the power to recognise same-sex marriage lay with the legislature, opposition from the BJP makes it unlikely that same-sex couples will see their unions recognised anytime soon.

Similarly, the colonial ‘marital rape exception’ not only remains enforceable in our statute books, it has now taken on a new avatar in the new criminal codes set to come into effect on July 1, 2024.

This is despite promises from the BJP to ‘decolonise’ criminal laws. The government’s insistence to retain the ‘marital rape exception’ in the new Indian Penal Code even after multiple rounds of stakeholder consultations raises legitimate questions about their commitment to protecting married women’s rights.

Additionally, the report highlights other significant issues, including arbitrary arrests under the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the suppression of free speech and expression by civil society groups critical of the government, increased monitoring and regulation of foreign funding for non-governmental organisations (NGOs) through the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) and instances of militant groups targeting Muslims and Dalits involved in transporting or slaughtering cattle.

The BJP’s dismissal of these findings as ‘biased’ reflects the government’s own bias toward neglecting LGBTQ+ rights, upholding free speech, and enacting better laws to protect refugees of all nationalities and religions.

Dismissing the entire report in such a manner reveals arrogance, belligerence and stubbornness— traits that have become emblematic of the prevailing attitude within the BJP regarding international human rights reports.

Should the US lecture India on human rights?

The BJP’s reaction to the report is multifaceted. On one hand, they criticise the report’s content, questioning the accuracy or completeness of the information presented.

Additionally, they ostensibly object to the US, a country with its own human rights issues, taking on the role of lecturing others. Commentators have already pointed to the United States own limitations in protecting women’s reproductive rights, while simultaneously supporting a nation facing accusations of committing a plausible genocide by the International Court of Justice.

However, it is important to consider the bigger picture. While the BJP has the right to criticise the United States moral authority, this criticism should not overshadow the credible factual observations within the report.

On the India report, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesperson, Randhir Jaiswal called it “deeply biased” and one that reflected a “poor understanding of India”.

Furthermore, while the US may not have a moral authority to report on the Indian government’s human rights violations, it surely has a legal one.

In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1965 into law. Section 116(d) of the Act specifically mandates the US Secretary of State to submit annual reports on the human rights situation for two distinct categories of countries.

The first category comprises nations that receive assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act, while the second category includes all other United Nations member countries, irrespective of direct US aid. This practice of issuing human rights reports has persisted since 1977.

The state department, through its domestic and international staff, collects data and assesses human rights conditions in nearly 200 countries and territories globally. These reports serve a dual purpose: they are integral to US foreign policy and fulfill a legal obligation stipulated by Congress.

Moreover, the reports align with the principles delineated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an international agreement ratified by India and numerous other countries.

The way forward

When it comes to foreign reports on India’s progress, the BJP displays a terrible double standard. For instance, just a few days after the US human rights report was released, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) also released a report on India’s financial year 2024 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth forecast and predicted that the Indian economy would grow by 6.8 percent in the current fiscal year, with public investment driving the growth.

The BJP’s reaction to the report is multifaceted. On one hand, they criticise the report’s content, questioning the accuracy or completeness of the information presented.

The IMF also revised its growth forecast for India upward from its January projection of 6.5 percent to 6.8 percent. This was lauded by the BJP in its latest press release, along with other reports such as those by the Asian Development Bank, which has also revised its GDP growth forecast for India, raising it to 7 percent for the current fiscal year (2023–24) from its previous projection of 6.7 percent.

That other studies have found India’s growth to be uneven and in need of reform have been ignored, such as a 2023 Reuters poll of economists that found strong quarterly growth, but with a significant portion of consumption centered in urban areas, despite the fact that two-thirds of Indians live outside cities.

Focusing solely on positive portrayals of India, while dismissing critical reports, creates a distorted narrative. This approach overlooks the importance of constructive criticism, a key element in fostering collaborative dialogue with stakeholders, both domestic and international.

Furthermore, seeking external validation for India’s development is not a bad thing per se. However, this pursuit should not overshadow addressing very real internal human rights concerns. These concerns have been rightfully highlighted not only by Western human rights groups, but also by India’s own courts, activists and journalists. So to dismiss them altogether is, for the lack of a better term, ridiculous.

Just as the old proverb warns us that ‘the grass is always greener on the other side’, dismissing domestic criticism creates a blind spot, which in this case, is intentional. Acknowledging these issues, while remaining open to external perspectives, could allow India to address its shortcomings and pave the way for a better future for all its citizens.

Kanav N. Sahgal is Samvidhaan Fellowship Programme Manager at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy

Courtesy: The Leaflet

INDIA ELECTION

Delhi: Over 90% ‘Gen Z’ Sees Fake News Spike During Polls, 45% Share Unauthenticated Info, says Survey

Newsclick Report | 09 May 2024

About 80% of over 1,200 respondents claimed they had altered their opinions based on fake news, says a ‘Truth be Told’ survey.

New Delhi: A survey among over 1,200 Delhi youth found 90% of respondents witnessing a spike in fake news during elections, believing that it does influence voting patterns. More specifically, most of such fake news targets public figures, politicians and even religion, setting in motion misleading narratives that influence opinions.

The survey ‘Truth be Told’ was conducted via telephone and field visits by The 23 Watts, which terms itself as a “new age communication consulting firm,” according to a press statement. According to it, 66% of this category of youth said they depend on online surfing for news and information, with 80% of them getting caught in the web of deception.

The survey among youth, mainly Gen Z (born between 1997-2012), was done in an effort to “decode the prevalence” of fake news, and misinformation that has been proliferating social media platforms, more so during the ongoing general election campaign.

Among some of the alarming findings on the effect of misinformation, the survey said 80% of the respondents claimed they had altered their opinions based on fake news, with only 29% of individuals saying they authenticate information through fact-checking websites, and 45% admitting to have shared unauthenticated news that was later found to be fake.

“The report examines how the digitally native Gen-Z perceive, consume and navigate the complexities of misinformation,” said the statement, adding that it covered three broad areas: the influence of misinformation, the experience of coming across fake news, and the opinion of the youth about who is responsible for the fake news epidemic.

The survey also sheds light on the social media behaviour, mindsets, and information-sharing patterns, revealing the impact these factors have on their decision-making processes among youth below 25 years of age.

Among the other key findings of the survey, 62% youth said that fake news “not only misleads perceptions but also plays as a tool to mend and damage reputations.”

A vast majority of the respondents, 89%, felt the government needed to do more to prevent fake news, with 69% suggesting stricter policies.

Amid hectic election campaigns by all political parties during elections, nearly 66% of respondents said they depended on social media platforms for news, such as YouTube, etc.

“The core of our effort is to map and mine the minds of the loud and proud Gen Z to understand the lasting shift in news consumption and the spread of misinformation,” Tarundeep Singh, Chief Growth Officer, The 23 Watts, said.

“In an unprecedented year for elections, out of all the risks, fake news is one of the major threats that the youth of Delhi face today. The call for government action is loud, with 48%, demanding tighter policies, 16% appealing for education campaigns to navigate these rough seas and 15% advocating for national fact-checking as a solution” said external expert Vijay Ganesan, Former Director-Analytics & Data Strategy, Europe at Kantar, who was onboarded for the survey.

‘Inside Track’ of Putin-Xi Jinping Talks

M.K. Bhadrakumar | 21 May 2024

The big picture is that the West is not ready for a serious conversation.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov (C) addressing the Council for Foreign and Defence Policy, Moscow, May 18, 2024.

In international diplomacy, summit meetings stand apart from regular high-level meetings when they are held at key moments or important junctures to reinforce partnerships and/or launch major initiatives. 

The summit meeting at Beijing last Thursday between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin last falls into such a category, taking place at a momentous juncture when a great shift in the global power dynamic is happening and the breathtaking spectacle of history in the making playing out in real time. (Read my article in NewsClick titled Sino-Russian Entente Shifts Tectonic Plates of World Politics.)

The two statesmen spent an entire Thursday together after Putin’s presidential jet landed at the crack of dawn in Beijing. Extensive and very detailed discussions indeed took place. As Putin said later, this was a state visit which turned into a “working visit.” 

The “debriefing” on Saturday by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov for the foreign and security policy elite in Moscow at the annual plenary of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy — Russia’s equivalent of the Council of Foreign Relations headquartered in New York — soon after Putin’s entourage returned from China gives some invaluable glimpses into the ‘inside track’ of the closed-door discussions in Beijing. 

At the most obvious level, Lavrov hit hard in his speech at the US and its NATO Allies with exceptional bluntness that their agenda to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia militarily and otherwise — to “decolonise’’ or “dismember” Russia, et al — is pure fantasy and it will be resolutely countered. Lavrov predicted that the escalation in Western weapon supplies to Ukraine only highlights the ground reality that “the acute phase of the military-political confrontation with the West” will continue in “full swing”. 

The Western thought processes are veering round dangerously to “the contours of the formation of a European military alliance with a nuclear component,” Lavrov said. In particular, France and Germany are still struggling with the demons in their attics — the crushing defeat France suffered at the hands of the Russian army in the Napoleonic war and the destruction of Hitler’s Wehrmacht by the Red Army. 

The big picture is that the West is not ready for a serious conversation. Lavrov lamented that “they have made a choice in favour of a showdown on the battlefield. We are ready for this. And always.” That Lavrov spoke in such exceptionally tough tone suggests that Moscow is supremely confident of Beijing’s support in the crucial phase of the Ukraine war going forward. This is the first thing. 

The current Russian offensive in the Kharkov Region took off when only six days were left for Putin’s forthcoming visit to China. Moscow gave the clearest signal possible that this is Russia’s existential war which it will fight no matter what it takes. Beijing understands fully the highest stakes involved.  

In Lavrov’s words, “Russia will defend its interests in the Ukrainian, Western and European directions. And this, by and large, is understood in the world by almost all foreign colleagues with whom we have to communicate.” 

In his speech, Lavrov acknowledged that the stance of the Chinese leadership is a matter of great satisfaction for the Kremlin. As he put it, “Just the day before, President Vladimir Putin visited China. This is his first foreign visit since his re-election. Negotiations with Chinese President Xi Jinping and meetings with other representatives of the Chinese leadership have confirmed that our comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation surpass the traditional interstate alliances of the previous era in quality and continue to play a key role in maintaining international security and balanced global development.” This is the second thing. 

The salience of Lavrov’s speech, however, lies in certain momentous remarks he made regarding the future trajectory of the Russia-China entente as such. In measured language, Lavrov declared that Russia has an open mind on “building a real alliance with China.” 

“This topic can and should be discussed specifically. We [Russian foreign and security policy elites] can and should have a special conversation on this topic. We are ready to debate and discuss the ideas expressed in publications and aimed at building a real alliance with the PRC,” he told the elite audience.

Indeed, this is a hugely consequential statement against the backdrop of the gathering storms in the US-Russia-China triangle, with Russia in the middle of a bitterly-fought proxy war with the US and Beijing bracing for the inevitability of a confrontation with Washington in Asia-Pacific. 

Lavrov, the consummate diplomat, ensured that his explosive idea of a “real alliance” had a soft landing. He said, “The assessment given by our leaders says that the relationship is so close and friendly that it surpasses the classic alliances of the past in quality. It fully reflects the essence of the ties that exist between Russia and China and are being strengthened in almost all areas.” 

Indeed, the very fact that Lavrov aired such views openly is important, signalling coordination between Moscow and Beijing. In some form or the other, the topic figured in the discussions in Beijing just the previous day between Putin and Xi.  

Of course, never in their history have Russia and China been so deeply entwined. But for the Sino-Russian entente to assume the form of “a real alliance,” conditions are steadily developing in the Asia-Pacific. Lavrov noted meaningfully that “Our actions in Chinese and other non-Western areas arouse the undisguised anger of the former hegemon [read the US] and his satellites.”

He argued that even as the US is on overdrive “to set up as many countries as possible against Russia and then take further hostile steps,” Moscow will “work methodically and consistently to build new international balances, mechanisms, and instruments that meet the interests of Russia and its partners and the realities of a multipolar world.” 

With an eye on China, Lavrov pointed out that the NATO is actively making a bid for its leading role in the Asia-Pacific region. The NATO doctrine now speaks of the “indivisibility of security in the Euro-Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific region. Blocks are being introduced into it — the incarnation of the same NATO. More and more numerous attempts. “Threes”, “fours”, AUKUS and much more are created.” 

Lavrov concluded that “it is impossible not to think about how we should structure our work on the topic of security in these conditions.” He sensitised the audience that the time may have come to combine “the Eurasian ‘sprouts’ of a new architecture [EAEU, BRI, CIS, CSTO, SCO, etc], a new configuration with some kind of “common umbrella.” 

Lavrov assessed that such an effort will be entirely in sync with Xi Jinping’s “concept of ensuring global security based on the logic of indivisibility of security, when no country should ensure its security at the expense of infringing on the security of others.”     

Lavrov disclosed that Xi Jinping’s concept on global security was indeed discussed during Putin’s visit to China both at delegation level as well as in a restricted narrow format, and during the one-on-one conversation between the two leaders. He summed up that “We see a great reason for the practical promotion of the idea of ensuring global security to begin with the formation of the foundations of Eurasian security.”

Lavrov made these profound remarks publicly on the eve of his working visit to Astana to take part in the Foreign Ministers Meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. China is assuming the SCO Chair later this year. Lavrov continued the discussions on this complex issue with his Chinese counterpart, Foreign Minister Wang Yi, whom he met earlier today in Astana. The Russian readout is here.

Sino-Russian Entente Shifts Tectonic Plates of World Politics

M.K. Bhadrakumar | 20 May 2024

• 
  
• 
  

The Entente permits both Russia and China to strike the middle ground between entrapment and deterrence.

Chinese President Xi Jinping (L) received Russian President Vladimir Putin at the square outside the east gate of the Great Hall of the People before the welcome ceremony and talks, Beijing, May 16, 2024

The state visit by Russian President Vladimir Putin to China underscored that the two superpowers’ choice of entente-type alignment has gained traction. It falls short of explicit military obligations of support and yet will not entirely rule out military support either. By embracing a form of strategic ambiguity, it provides them the optimal means to address the common threat they face from the United States via the prism of collective action while preserving the autonomy for independent action to pursue specific interests. 

The epochal significance of the talks in Beijing lies in that the bedrock of strategic understanding accruing steadily to the modelling effort of the Russia-China entente has evolved into a more effective alignment choice than a formal alliance to balance against the US’ dual containment strategy. 

The Entente permits both Russia and China to strike the middle ground between entrapment and deterrence. At the same time, the strategic ambiguity inherent in these two seemingly self-contradictory goals of an entente is expected to be a key component of its success as an alignment strategy.

The Russian state news agency, Tass, reported from Beijing on Thursday that “the central topic is expected to be the Ukraine crisis and the informal tea party and a dinner in the restricted format between Xi and Putin would be “the most important part of the Beijing talks” where the two presidents would hold “substantial talks on Ukraine.” 

In his media statement following the talks, Xi Jinping made clear the guiding principle. He said, “The idea of friendship has become deeply ingrained in our mindsets… We also demonstrate mutual and resolute support on matters dealing with the core interests of both parties and address each other’s current concerns. This is the main pillar of the Russia-China comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation for a new era.” 

Xi added, “China and Russia believe that the Ukraine crisis must be resolved by political means… This approach aims to shape a new balanced, effective and sustainable security architecture.”

Putin responded that Moscow positively evaluates the Chinese plan. He told Xinhua news agency in an interview that Beijing is well aware of the root causes and global geopolitical significance of this conflict. And the ideas and proposals recorded in the document testify to the “sincere desire of our Chinese friends to help stabilise the situation,” Putin said.

The mutual trust and confidence is such that the current Russian offensive in Kharkov began on May 10, just six days before Putin’s trip to China. Beijing knows it is a defining moment in the war — Moscow is only 3-4 minutes away in a missile strike if NATO gains access to the city. 

Notably, the joint statement issued after Putin’s visit affirms that for “a sustainable settlement of the Ukrainian crisis, it is necessary to eliminate its root causes.” Going beyond the vexed issue of NATO expansion, the 7,000-word document for the first time attacked the demolition of monuments to the Red Army in Ukraine and across Europe and the rehabilitation of fascism.   

Beijing senses that Russia has gained the upper hand in the war. Indeed, if the NATO were to suffer defeat in Ukraine, it would have profound consequences for the transatlantic system and the US’ inclination to risk yet another confrontation in the Asia-Pacific. (Interestingly, Taiwan’s outgoing foreign minister, Joseph Wu, said in an interview with Associated Press that Putin’s visit to China testified to Russia and China “helping each other expand their territorial reach”.)  

China is mindful of the fault lines in the Euro-Atlantic alliance and is purposively developing close relationships with parts of continental Europe. This was the leitmotif of Xi’s recent tour of France, Serbia and Hungary, as evident from the nervous reaction in Washington and London.  

China hopes to buy as much time as possible to keep the flashpoint in Taiwan at bay. China has no illusions that its confrontation with the US is strategic in nature and at its core lies Washington’s aim to control access to the world’s resources and markets and impose the global standards in the fourth industrial revolution. 

Unlike Russia, China carries no baggage in its relations with Europe. And European priorities do not lie in getting entangled in a US-China confrontation, either. European elites are not considering any new policy yet but this is likely to change after the elections to the European Parliament (June 6-8) as they are pushed to find a compromise with Russia stemming out of the rising economic costs associated with defence spending, deepening concern about the prospect of a direct conflict with Russia amidst the growing realisation that Russia cannot be defeated, and an awakening of public opinion that European spending on Ukraine in effect is financing the US military-industrial complex. 

China expects all this to have a salutary effect on international security in the near term. The bottom line is that China has high stakes in a harmonious relationship with Europe, which is a crucial economic partner, second only to ASEAN.

As a Russian pundit wrote last week, “China sincerely believes that economics play a central role in world politics. Despite its ancient roots, Chinese foreign policy culture is also a product of Marxist thinking, in which the economic base is vital in relation to the political superstructure.” 

Simply put, Beijing is counting that the deepening of its economic ties with the EU is the surest way to encourage the leading European powers to rein in the US’ adventurist, unilateral interventionist strategies in world politics. 

The dialectics at work in the Sino-Russian entente cannot be properly understood if the Western narratives keep counting the trees but only to miss the big picture of the lumber timber woodland. By the way, one factor in the successful “de-dollarisation” of the Russian-Chinese payment system is that the US has lost its wherewithal to monitor the traffic across that vast 4,209.3 km border and is increasingly kept guessing what’s going on. 

Time is on Russia and China’s side. The gravitas in their alliance is already infectious, as far-flung countries in the global south flock to them. A strong Russian presence along west Africa’s Atlantic coast is now only a matter of time. The intensifying foreign policy coordination between Moscow and Beijing means that they are moving in tandem while also pursuing independent foreign policies and allowing space for them to leverage specific interests. 

Xi stated in his media statement that China and Russia are committed to strategic coordination as an underpinning of relations, and steer global governance in the right direction. On this part, Putin highlighted that the two big powers have maintained close coordination on the international stage and are jointly committed to promoting the establishment of a more democratic multipolar world order. 

The symbolic component of Putin’s visit to China, being his first trip after the inauguration, is of great importance. The Chinese read all these signs perfectly and fully appreciate that Putin is sending a message to the world about his priorities and the strength of his personal ties with Xi. 

The joint statement, which signifies a deepening of the strategic relationship, mentions plans to step up military ties and how defence sector cooperation between the two nations has improved regional and global security. 

Most important, it singled out the United States for criticism. The joint statement says, “The United States still thinks in terms of the Cold War and is guided by the logic of bloc confrontation, putting the security of ‘narrow groups’ above regional security and stability, which creates a security threat for all countries in the region. The US must abandon this behaviour.”

The joint statement also “condemn(ed) the initiatives on confiscation of assets and property of foreign states and emphasise(d) the right of such states to apply retaliation measures in accordance with international legal norms” — a clear reference to Western moves to redirect profits from frozen Russian assets or the assets themselves, to help Ukraine. China is on guard, as evident from its steady downsizing of holdings of US Treasury bonds and addition of more and more gold to its reserves than it had in nearly 50 years.  

MK Bhadrakumar is a former diplomat. He was India’s Ambassador to Uzbekistan and Turkey. The views are personal.

Courtesy: Indian Punchline

    

 

Argentine Social Movements Denounce Illegal Raids by Government

Peoples Dispatch | 16 May 2024

• 
  
• 
  

In the early hours of the morning on May 13, the Argentine police raided the homes of leaders of the Worker’s Pole, the Front of Organizations in Struggle (FOL), Barrios de Pie, and the Evita Movement. According to the organizations, federal police officers participated in the violent raids, the cell phones of the leaders were also seized, and 27 free soup kitchens run by the movement organizations were also raided.

In a press conference in front of the National Congress on the same day, progressive movements came together to denounce the raids and repression they have faced under the far-right government of Javier Milei. Organizations present at the conference included FOL, the Worker’s Pole, Barrios de Pie, Union of Workers of the Popular Economy (UTEP), Coordinating Committee for Social Change, and Territorial Liberation Movement (MTL).

Also present were national and city deputies of the Left Unity Front such as Christian Castillo and Romina del Plá, Celeste Fierro and Juan Carlos Giordano and Hugo “Cachorro” Godoy of the Autonomous Argentinean Workers’ Central (CTA Autónoma), among others.

At the press conference, the lawyers of the organizations denounced the illegal searches, which were carried out at night, forbidden under Argentine law. They also pointed out that there were “threats, intimidating acts, raids without witnesses,” with state forces “taking things they were not supposed to take.”

The raid took place as part of a case being investigated by the Federal Justice around alleged extortion by social movement leaders and activists of social plan beneficiaries to participate in demonstrations against the measures of the current government of Javier Milei.

The evidence to this claim was provided by the Minister of Security, Patricia Bullrich, who alleges that the Ministry received 900 anonymous complaints through a telephone line. However, after a revision by the Federal Prosecutor’s Office, only 45 remained of the 900, and of these, only seven people agreed to testify. This “evidence” gave the basis to the raid on the organizations, the tapping of phone lines of different leaders, and the seizure of their devices, granted by the Federal Chamber of Buenos Aires following an initial denial by federal Judge Julián Ercolini.

The social organizations warn that such raids are intended to intimidate the movements so that they do not continue with their work.

“It was a totally excessive operation, with unidentified cars, with intelligence agents, where they made a show of recording and filming us. Clearly, they had no evidence, they came to raid us to see what was going on, and their main objective was to show us the power they have, to show us that they are coming to intimidate us, that what they want is for the social organizations to not continue doing what we do: organizing ourselves, fighting, carrying out our community network spaces, our productive spaces, our work spaces. And they are not going to defeat us,” expressed Charly Fernandez of FOL. The court order also calls for the arrest of leaders.

Fernández, who himself was targeted in a raid on his own home, as were several of his colleagues, pointed out that “If they touch one of us, they touch us all. And we are going to give our lives for everything we have built and for those children in the neighborhoods.”

“We were raided, different social organizations, many activists in our private homes, in our organizations’ premises, in our work spaces, in our community kitchens,” Fernández said. “In the case of my family, they broke our door, they threw me to the floor, they pointed guns at us, all during the night, when my children were sleeping. They were looking for electronic devices, cell phones and computers.”

According to Fernández, “the arguments put forward by the raid [are] basically that the crime was to be part of an organization, because it appeared that we were giving vouchers to those of us who have been part of cooperatives and civil associations for more than 20 years.” These organizations “have promoted productive enterprises, services and work for the most disadvantaged sectors of our working class.”

Eduardo Beliboni, from the Worker’s Pole, pointed out that “the picketers’ movement has been fighting against the Government since December 20. They have initiated a case based on those mobilizations. Almost all the raids were illegal.”

He also denounced that “the central office of the Worker’s Pole was raided and the first thing the police did was to turn off the security cameras.”

The organizations affirmed that they stand united in rejecting and condemning this attack by the national government, supported by the big media companies. They allege that the raids and the case against them seek to sweep away the organizations and facilitate the advance of drug trafficking groups in the neighborhoods. The organizations warn that if they disappear their place will be taken by drug traffickers.

Courtesy: Peoples Dispatch