A Secret Accord With the Taliban: When and How the U.S. Would Leave Afghanistan


David E. Sanger, Eric Schmitt and Thomas Gibbons-Neff



American soldiers boarding a plane last year in Helmand Province, Afghanistan.Next Slide
Full screen 1/3 SLIDES © Jim Huylebroek for The New York Times

WASHINGTON — In a secure facility underneath the Capitol, members of Congress stopped by all last week to review two classified annexes to the Afghan peace accord with the Taliban that set the criteria for a critical element of the agreement: What constitutes enough “peace” for the United States to withdraw its forces?

The Taliban have read the annexes. Nonetheless, the Trump administration insists that the secret documents must remain secret, though officials have struggled to explain why to skeptical lawmakers.

Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, in congressional testimony, appeared unaware of — or seemed unwilling to discuss — the secret annexes just days before the agreement was signed. And lawmakers who have paid the most attention to the peace plan also openly express frustration with the lack of a mechanism for verifying compliance that they believe Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had promised.

At the core of the two documents, according to people familiar with their contents, is a timeline for what should happen over the next 18 months, what kinds of attacks are prohibited by both sides and, most important, how the United States will share information about its troop locations with the Taliban.

While it may sound odd that the American military is sharing troop locations with its enemy of 18 years, the goal is to give the Taliban information that would allow it to prevent attacks during the withdrawal. Mr. Pompeo described the annexes last week as “military implementation documents.”

That is part of it, but they appear to be much more.

Because the documents lay out the specific understandings between the United States and the Taliban — including what bases would remain open under Afghan control — the details are critical to judging whether the United States is making good on its promise to leave only if conditions allow, or whether it is just getting out.

The State Department has struggled to explain why the criteria for the terms, standards and thresholds for the American withdrawal could be known to the adversary but not to the American people or allies. In response to questions from The New York Times, the State Department issued a statement on Friday saying that the documents remained classified because “the movement of troops and operations against terrorists are sensitive matters.”

“We do not want, for example, ISIS to know those details,” the statement added, referring to Islamic State fighters in Afghanistan.

But another reason for the secrecy, according to several people familiar with the matter, is that the annexes leave the markers for peace remarkably vague, making it far from certain that the Taliban must convert into a counterterrorism force — as President Trump suggested a week ago — or that they are required to make complete peace with the elected government of President Ashraf Ghani of Afghanistan.

In fact, as written, they appear to give Mr. Trump, or his successor, enormous latitude to simply declare that the war is over and leave. But many of Mr. Trump’s aides suggest that American counterterrorism forces and a significant C.I.A. presence should remain in the country. How that will be resolved within the U.S. government, with the Taliban and with the Kabul government remains to be seen, and any resolution likely will prove difficult.

Many of the Republicans and Democrats who have taken the opportunity to review the documents say they are unimpressed.

Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the No. 3 House Republican and one of the sharpest critics of the accord, said before the agreement was signed last week, “Any deal that the United States would contemplate entering into with the Taliban should be made public in its entirety.”

After reading the pact, including the classified annexes, Ms. Cheney said that the deal failed to provide mechanisms to verify that the Taliban was keeping the promises that Mr. Pompeo had described at the signing. “My concerns still remain,” she said, declining to describe the contents.

Senator Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, said in an interview that the thresholds outlined in the annexes were “remarkably fuzzy” and that it was unclear how the United States would measure success.

Representative Tom Malinowski, a New Jersey Democrat who served as a senior State Department official in the Obama administration, posted a blistering message on Twitter last week about the annexes.

“Bottom line: the administration is telling a terrorist group the conditions (such as they are) of our withdrawal from Afghanistan, but not telling the American people,” he wrote. “This is wrong. And it serves no national security purpose.”

Lawmakers have voiced widespread unhappiness about Mr. Pompeo’s outreach on the subject. He called top members on the Senate and House committees dealing with foreign affairs last weekend to give them a cursory heads-up that the documents were coming to Congress, but lawmakers and their aides said they had not heard from him since.

Days before the agreement was signed, Mr. Esper and Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appeared to not know about — or seemed reluctant to discuss — the secret annexes.

“Are you aware of any contemplation of any secret side deals with the Taliban?” Ms. Cheney asked on Feb. 26 during a House Armed Services Committee meeting.

“Nothing, nothing comes to mind right now that you’re mentioning,” Mr. Esper replied.

“You’re quoting things that I haven’t seen,” General Milley said.

The annexes predominantly revolve around a committee to facilitate communication between the two parties to ensure commitments are being adhered to, according to officials who have read them. No details have come to light about the composition of that committee.

They describe the parameters for when it would and would not be appropriate to use force, including commitments from the Taliban not to attack American forces during a withdrawal. Over all, the annexes make up no more than a few pages, often with just one to two sentences laying out each component. For example, the Taliban are not to conduct suicide attacks, and the Americans forgo drone strikes — portions of the agreements that thus far have held.

General Milley hinted in congressional testimony last week what scope and scale of attacks were not permitted under the agreement.

“There is no attacks in 34 provincial capitals, there is no attacks in Kabul, there is no high-profile attacks, there is no suicide bombers, there is no vehicle-borne suicide, no attack against the U.S. forces, no attack against coalition,” General Milley told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday, after reports that the Taliban had carried out attacks against Afghan security forces. “There is a whole laundry list of these things that aren’t happening.”

In its statement, the State Department said the secret annexes were consistent with the public agreement. “The arrangements include specific commitments by all parties to efforts to continue to reduce violence until a permanent and comprehensive cease-fire is agreed in intra-Afghan negotiations, while preserving the right of all parties to self-defense,” it said. The United States has “a robust monitoring and verification mechanism” to track and assess the behavior of the Taliban, it added.

But those who have seen the agreement said the specifics were so nebulous that they doubted the United States retained much leverage.

“The documents provided none of the assurances that I felt like we heard from Secretary Pompeo and others about a rigorous process that was going to make sure we hold the Taliban accountable for their end of the deal,” said Representative Andy Kim, Democrat of New Jersey, who served in Afghanistan as a civilian adviser to Gen. David H. Petraeus.

“I saw nothing in there that gives me any confidence” that those assurances are in place “beyond trusting the word of the Taliban,” he said. “This vague, thin package of documents is all we could actually get agreed to by the Taliban. I don’t really understand how we can say we have what we need to be able to commit to the troop level agreements that have been articulated.”

He added, “How can I meaningfully talk to my constituents about this when I’m not even allowed to share information with them that the Taliban already knows?

Mr. Murphy agreed, but noted, “That being said, I’m not sure we were ever going to get bright-line terms for the mechanisms by which the Taliban prevents extremist groups like Al Qaeda from ever returning to Afghanistan.”

“I think the terms were always going to be very difficult to put down into words,” he said.

Catie Edmondson contributed reporting.

US intel says Taliban won't honor agreement with US, even as Trump says they 'really want to make a deal'
Business Insider•March 6, 2020
  

Afghan Taliban fighters. AP Photo

Intelligence indicates the Taliban does not plan to comply with a peace deal it reached with the US, according to NBC News.

Three US officials familiar with the intelligence said the it was convincing, with one saying the Taliban has "no intention of abiding by their agreement."

The report comes nearly a week after President Donald Trump agreed to a partial-truce with the group.

Intelligence obtained by the US indicates the Taliban does not plan to comply with an agreement it signed with the US, according to an NBC News report published Friday.

Three US officials familiar with the intelligence reportedly said it was convincing, with one saying that the Taliban has "no intention of abiding by their agreement."

"We all hope they follow through with their side of the agreement, but we believe we know their true intentions," an official told NBC News.

The report comes nearly a week after President Donald Trump agreed to a partial truce with the group. The agreement was predicated on the lowering of violence throughout the country and the release of 1,000 Afghan security forces members held by the Taliban in exchange for 5,000 Taliban prisoners held by the Afghan government.

Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani said he would not agree to to the release of prisoners, which has thrown a wrench in the agreement. Violence throughout the country continued after the signing, despite cautious optimism expressed by Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

The US military launched its first airstrike in weeks against the Taliban early Wednesday, one day after President Donald Trump said he had a "good talk" with the group. A US military spokesperson said the attack was "defensive" and was launched to counter a Taliban assault against US-backed Afghan government forces in southern Helmand province.

"We know that the road ahead will be difficult," Pompeo said Thursday. "We expected it. We were right. The upsurge in violence in parts of Afghanistan over the last couple days is unacceptable. In no uncertain terms violence must be reduced immediately for the peace process to move forward."

Separate Taliban sources in Pakistan said the agreement with the US was merely a way for them to rid US "occupiers" from Afghanistan and that they would eventually attack government forces in the country, according to NBC News.

"We will ask the Afghan leadership and other political factions that since the US has accepted us and recognized our position, it is time for you to accept us and give us the country peacefully," a Taliban member told NBC News.

On Thursday evening at a Fox News town hall, Trump said the Taliban "really want to make a deal."

"We've been there for 20 years," Trump said. "We could win that war very easily, but I don't feel like killing millions of people to do it."

"We want our people to come back home," he added.

Critics of the deal warned that it heavily favored the Taliban and that the US pulling out would be disastrous in the long run.

"Having led all US and NATO forces in Afghanistan from 2011-13, I have my own perspective on this agreement, which is grounded in practical, lived experience," retired Marine Corps Gen. John Allen, president of the Brookings Institution, wrote in a blog post for the think tank.

"As I've said publicly, the Taliban are untrustworthy; their doctrine is irreconcilable with modernity and the rights of women; and in practice, they're incapable of summoning the necessary internal controls and organizational discipline needed to implement a far-flung agreement like this," Allen added.

---30---

The crazy story of Purell and the coronavirus

Andy Serwer with Max Zahn, Yahoo Finance•March 7, 2020

The drag of the coronavirus on the global economy is massive. While the real tragedy is lives lost, the economic effect is a hugely significant secondary consideration. Businesses around the world are feeling serious pain. A recession might be in the offing.

And yet some companies are benefiting from the crisis. Not because they necessarily sought to but because they happen to have the right product or service. Zoom Video which provides conferencing that obviates the need for in-person meetings, is one. Clorox, which of course produces bleach, 409 and other cleaners, has seen its stock rise 13% year-to-date (while the market is down over 9%), is another.

And then there’s Purell, maker of the famous hand sanitizer—which must be selling like crazy, right? That’s probably the case as it’s sold out all over the place, yet we don’t really know because Purell is owned by a private company, GOJO Industries.

So what’s up with Purell and GOJO? We did some digging around and found out.

First, while the Akron, Ohio-based company says it’s ramping up production, it declined to tell us by how much, or how much Purell it sold last year. In fact GOJO wouldn’t answer any of our questions and instead sent us a Q and A prepared for media that it said we could attribute to GOJO spokesperson Samantha Williams. It reads: “...orders of the company’s products have increased very significantly. We stepped up production in January and are continuing to bring additional capacity online to meet this heightened demand should it continue...We have added shifts and have team members working overtime.”

I bet they are.

The communiqué also notes that GOJO employs about 2,500 people and manufactures Purell products at facilities in Wooster and Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, and France. (You have to wonder if these employees would be exempt from a work-from-home order.)

Bottles of Purell hand sanitizer sit on display. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

Next question, how effective is Purell against the coronavirus?

The company states that “Purell...kills 99.99% of most common germs that can make you sick.” Sounds impressive, but note the phrase, “most common germs.” Does that include COVID-19? No one really knows.

In fact, on January 17, just as the coronavirus was becoming a global news story, the FDA sent Purell a letter warning the company about statements in its FAQ sections of websites which suggested “that PURELL® Healthcare Advanced Hand Sanitizers are intended for reducing or preventing disease from the Ebola virus, norovirus, and influenza.” The FDA noted it had no evidence that Purell is effective against those diseases.

The FDA stated: “...we are not aware of evidence demonstrating that the PURELL® Healthcare Advanced Hand Sanitizer products as formulated and labeled are generally recognized by qualified experts as safe and effective for use under the conditions suggested, recommended, or prescribed in their labeling.”

Williams told FOX Business at the time the company immediately took action after receiving the letter and "have begun updating relevant website and other digital content as directed by the FDA."

So does Purell do anything to prevent COVID-19? The active ingredient of Purell is really just 70% ethanol or ethyl alcohol. Experts generally agree that a solution containing in excess of 60% alcohol can be effective in some instances, like for wiping down a tray table on an airplane, and maybe as a hand sanitizer.

Actually, that distinction—surfaces versus hands—falls under the auspices of the EPA, in terms of the former, and the FDA for the latter, as the GOJO Q and A reflects. Check this out: “...under the EPA’s Emerging Pathogen guidance, our PURELL® Surface Spray can be used to kill COVID-19 on hard, non-porous surfaces when used in accordance with the directions and a 1-minute contact time.” But it goes on to say, “The FDA, which regulates hand sanitizer, and the EPA, which regulates surface disinfectants, have different rules. The EPA permits manufacturers to answer questions about efficacy against viruses.”

Tanya Crum, an assistant professor of biology at Benedictine University in Lisle, Illinois says that soap and water is always best, but that “if you’re somewhere where soap and water is not available, having hand sanitizer is great. I wouldn’t use it first, I would use it just in case or second.” Crum also says that “There’s varying effectiveness in terms of hand sanitizer killing viruses,” but that’s because COVID-19 is a virus with a capsid protein or what’s called a coat, it may be easier to kill with a hand sanitizer. Potentially good news there for Purell.
Purell’s humble beginnings

GOJO has an all-American backstory. The company was founded in 1946 by Goldie and Jerry Lippman (and is still controlled and run in part by family members). Goldie and Jerry worked in tire and aircraft factories in Ohio during World War II. They found they had a hard time washing tar and other greasy stuff off their hands after work, and so the couple worked with a chemist at Kent State to develop a hand cleaner. (The first product was “GoGo, Goldie's nickname, but another company had already used the name, so the founders came up with GOJO, with the "G" standing for Goldie and the "J" standing for Jerry,” according to company history.)

Later Jerry came up with the first-ever portion-control dispenser, for which he was granted a patent in 1952. The company proudly reports: “Every soap dispenser on the wall today, anywhere in the world, is a descendant of that first dispenser Jerry invented!” GOJO didn’t create Purell until 1988, but it has become the company's flagship product. Pfizer distributed Purell for a time in the 2000s, a business that was bought by Johnson & Johnson, but GOJO reacquired Purell from J&J in 2010. Smart move. Along the way somebody put Purell dispensers in nearly every elevator bank in nearly every office building in America.

Purell hand sanitizer dispenser at the first round of the Arnold Palmer Invitational Presented by MasterCard at the Bay Hill Club and Lodge on March 05, 2020 in Orlando, Florida. (Photo by Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images)

People certainly are crazy for Purell now. Stores are sold out. You can’t buy it online—well you can but for ridiculous prices. This week, U.S. Senator Edward Markey (D-Mass) sent a letter to Amazon demanding it take action to stop third-party sellers from price gouging Purell. Reuters reports that “a box of small Purell bottles that usually sells for $10 was listed online for $400, he said. One third-party seller listed a bottle for $600 on Wednesday afternoon. However, the Amazon brand of hand sanitizer was listed for $8.25 for a large bottle.”

GOJO disavows the gouging, saying (twice!) in its Q and A: “...we feel strongly that there is no place for price-gouging, especially during times of elevated public health concern.” Reuters reports that “Amazon called the price-gougers ‘bad actors.’ “There is no place for price gouging on Amazon,” a spokesman said in a statement. “We continue to actively monitor our store and remove offers that violate our policies.”

For most of us the coronavirus could turn out to be a nightmare. For Purell—not that the company wants it and not that its product is any sort of panacea—COVID-19 is already a dream come true.

Andy Serwer is editor-inchief of Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Twitter: @serwer.

---30---

Saudi cordons off Shiite-majority region over coronavirus
BIOPOLITICS; ETHNIC CLEANSING THROUGH QUARANTINE 

AFP•March 8, 2020

Mohammed Alabed Alali, Saudi Arabia's health ministry spokesman, addresses reporters in Riyadh as authorities cordoned off the eastern Qatif region in a bid to contain the fast-spreading coronavirus (AFP Photo/FAYEZ NURELDINE)

Riyadh (AFP) - Saudi authorities Sunday cordoned off the eastern region of Qatif, a centre of the kingdom's Shiite minority, in a bid to contain the fast-spreading coronavirus as the total number of cases rose to 11.

The lockdown on Qatif, home to around 500,000 people, is the first action of its kind across the Gulf region that has confirmed more than 230 coronavirus cases -- most of them people returning from religious pilgrimages to Shiite-majority Iran.

"Given that all 11 recorded positive cases of the new coronavirus are from Qatif... it has been decided... to temporarily suspend entry and exit from Qatif," the interior ministry said in a statement carried by the official Saudi Press Agency.

Except for essential services such as pharmacies and gas stations, work will stop in all government and private institutions in Qatif, the statement added.

The lockdown, although the ministry said it was temporary, risks fuelling resentment in the flashpoint region whose residents have long accused the Sunni-dominated government of discrimination, a charge Riyadh denies.

Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province -- which includes Qatif -- has seen bouts of unrest since 2011 when protesters emboldened by the Arab Spring uprisings took to the streets.

Saudi Arabia has condemned arch-rival Iran for allowing its citizens entry without stamping their passports.

The Saudi government has reminded its nationals of a standing ban on travel to Iran, as the two countries are locked in a battle for regional supremacy.

Iran is home to key shrines and pilgrimage sites for Shiites, who make up between 10 and 15 percent of the kingdom's population of 32 million.

The lockdown comes after the kingdom suspended the "umrah" year-round pilgrimage over fears of the disease spreading to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina in western Saudi Arabia.

The unprecedented suspension of the umrah has raised uncertainty over the annual hajj pilgrimage, scheduled for the end of July.

The pilgrimages, a major source of revenue, could also be a source of contagion and the move mirrors a precautionary approach across the Gulf to cancel mass gatherings -- from concerts to sporting events.

Bahrain's Formula 1 Grand Prix scheduled for March 20-22 will be held without spectators, the organisers said Sunday, in the latest sporting event to be affected by measures to contain the disease.

Saudi Arabia is also grappling with a coronavirus-led slump in oil prices just as it seeks to raise funds to finance Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's ambitious economic transformation plan.

---30---

There Won't Be a Gay President in 2021. So What Does Buttigieg's Campaign Tell Us?

Jeremy W. Peters, The New York Times•March 8, 2020

Pete Buttigieg, left, and his husband Chasten Buttigieg wave to the crowd at a presidential primary campaign event in Arlington, Va., Feb. 23, 2020. (Pete Marovich/The New York Times)

It was the question that followed former Mayor Pete Buttigieg everywhere he went when he first announced his presidential campaign: Is the country really ready to send a gay man to the White House?

But soon, it seemed, the novelty wore off. Many saw that as a sign of progress: Part of the reason his campaign was such a big deal, they said, was that it wasn’t a big deal what his sexual orientation was.

Instead, other questions arose around Buttigieg’s prospects of winning. What does the mayor of the small Midwestern city of South Bend, Indiana, know about being president? Why isn’t he connecting in a more significant way with African American voters? Would he be able to unify the fractured Democratic Party? Some gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender activists, many of them young and nonwhite and far to the left of Buttigieg, started to ask whether he really represented their interests.

In certain progressive circles, in online commentary and in much of the national media, the history-making aspect of Buttigieg’s campaign often warranted only a passing and perfunctory mention. And the sprawling, diverse Democratic field featured plenty of other potential firsts, including six women, one of them African American; a Latino man; and two Jewish men.

But many, especially those who have fought for LGBT equality for decades and have seen society grow more tolerant but not entirely accepting, said that Buttigieg’s contribution to history will be misunderstood and diminished if the main takeaway is that the first openly gay man to have a serious shot at the presidency elicited a collective shrug from a country, as if the country had moved on from its homophobic past.

Roberta Kaplan — who argued the 2013 Supreme Court case that overturned a federal law limiting recognition of marriage to heterosexual couples, Windsor v. United States — said in a tweet last week shortly after Buttigieg ended his campaign that she was still in awe that he got as far as he did.

If you had asked her seven years ago whether an openly gay candidate could credibly run for president in 2020, she wrote on Twitter, “I would have said you were nuts.” In an interview a few days later, Kaplan said she was still just as struck by Buttigieg’s success. But just as surprising, she said, is “that there’s a failure to understand history — and a very recent history.”

“On the one hand, people overassume acceptance and equality. And on the other hand, there is no question the LGBTQ movement has achieved equality at a speed that probably no other modern movement has,” Kaplan added. “And those things kind of have to live in tension.”

Buttigieg felt that tension constantly during his campaign, existing in between what were essentially two realities. One was the reality of certain progressive activists, rival Democrats, social media and many of the reporters who covered him, which was focused on why he shouldn’t or couldn’t win the nomination, his supporters said.

“The too-isms always followed him,” said Tom Sheridan, a consultant in Washington who has worked with Congress to expand legal protections for people with AIDS and disabilities. “He was too young, too straight-acting, too boring, too inexperienced because he was mayor of a city that was too small.”

To many who felt a sense of empowerment from his campaign, though, those misgivings felt disconnected from their reality.

Buttigieg described the gratitude and optimism he often encountered when he was traveling the country and acknowledged it was so powerful it took him aback at first. “Even I thought, ‘OK, maybe this is not all that much of an event,’” he said in an interview last year.

Strangers would approach him and try to convey how much it meant to see someone so public and so prominent talk about his experience as an LGBT person. One was just 9, a boy in Denver who told Buttigieg at a rally a few days before he dropped out of the race, “I want to be brave like you,” and asked, “Would you help me tell the world I’m gay, too?”

Sometimes they were much older, like the flight attendant who was so overcome with emotion when he encountered Buttigieg at an airport that he was unable to speak. “He just made eye contact and came to the point of tears,” Buttigieg recalled, “and then walked off not knowing what else to do.”

Even in 2020, part of the paradox of running a successful campaign as an openly gay man meant that his orientation could not define him to voters who might not fully accept it. He understood this and ran his campaign in a way that always sought equilibrium. The protective armor against his sexual orientation seemed in many ways to be his resume. He was “Mayor Pete” the Rhodes Scholar, Navy veteran, pianist and technocrat conversant in eight languages.

In this sense, he too is responsible for the way his sexual orientation was downplayed.

But the backlash he faced from fellow Democrats and liberal activists limited his ability to control his campaign’s narrative — a reality of presidential politics that is hardly unique to him. Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s early days as a candidate, for instance, were dominated not by questions over her proposed wealth tax or other policy initiatives she wanted to discuss but over her claims of Native American heritage.

Buttigieg had to answer tough criticism from African American residents of South Bend who said they felt marginalized and neglected. And as he acknowledged, his explanations weren’t always sufficient.

These criticisms made him seem like a poor fit for a generation of younger liberals who are deeply concerned about issues of racial justice and inequality. Progressives said they felt he didn’t speak for them; they sometimes heckled him at his events.

Many of his defenders said the media and other Democrats focused too aggressively on his inability to attract more support from black voters, a problem other candidates like Warren and Sen. Amy Klobuchar faced.

“Why was Pete singled out for a problem that other candidates were having?” said Joel Benenson, a Democratic strategist and pollster who worked for the Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigns and whose firm consulted for Buttigieg.

Benenson pointed out that even after Buttigieg came in first in the delegate count in the Iowa caucuses and a close second place to Sanders in New Hampshire, large percentages of the country still did not know much about him, making judgments about his inability to attract entire demographics premature.

After Iowa, he was viewed more favorably than unfavorably in a poll of registered voters nationwide by Quinnipiac University. (This was not true for Warren and Sanders, the poll found.) But almost one-third of those surveyed said they had not heard enough about him to form an opinion.

“This guy, a mayor of a city of 100,000 people, was coming in first and second. And he’s not even nationally known,” Benenson added, which is an achievement he said was also glossed over.

Buttigieg’s supporters also argued that skeptics placed an unfair focus on how he would perform in South Carolina, turning a small, conservative and highly religious state into a definitive proxy for his support among African American voters nationwide. They also pointed to some statewide polling that indicated voters there would find it difficult to vote for an LGBT presidential candidate.

“We have a long ways to go in the South and with the church,” said the Rev. T. Anthony Spearman, president of the North Carolina NAACP and a proponent of LGBT rights. Asked if he thought an openly gay or lesbian person could be elected president, Spearman said yes. “With Mayor Pete, I think down the road we’ll see how much of an impact his running will affect us.” Asked if Buttigieg could have won his state, Spearman said he wasn’t so sure.

Although first-of-their-kind campaigns often fall short, they can make progress in other ways. Robert Raben, a Democratic consultant who works on liberal causes and diversity initiatives, likened Buttigieg’s campaign to the moment in 1984 when Jesse Jackson stood onstage with his family at the Democratic National Convention. He had run for and lost the Democratic nomination that year, and yet his speech was watched by some 33 million viewers.

“You saw a black nuclear family that could have been in the White House,” Raben said. “It went from the abstract to the concrete.” With the idea of a gay couple living in the White House, Raben added, “Buttigieg brought us from the abstract to the concrete.”

While the question of whether the country is ready to send a gay man to the White House remains unanswered, the question of whether Americans will treat one seriously as a presidential candidate is now closed, he said. “And we’ll never have to have that conversation again.”

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

© 2020 The New York Times Company

Why Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is continuing her bid for president

THERE ARE THREE CANDIDATES IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY TWO MEN AND A WOMAN OF COLOUR WHO IS DELIBERATELY DISMISSED BY THE MSM AND PUNDITS 

BEATRICE PETERSON, ABC News•March 7, 2020

Why Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is continuing her bid for president
More
The field for Democrats has significantly narrowed over the past month, going from almost two dozen candidates in the beginning of the race to just three: former Vice President Joe Biden, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and a name that has, at times, been left out: Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard.
Gabbard, despite failing to come in first place in any presidential primary in the country, has stressed she’s staying in the race. She is facing an uphill battle to get to the 1,991 delegates needed to secure a nomination for the first Democratic convention ballot.
When asked by ABC News why she's continuing her bid, Gabbard said this campaign is "an opportunity to speak to Americans every single day about the sea change we need in our foreign policy."
On the campaign trail she has talked at length about the cost of war, also noting the physical and financial toll of war.
- ADVERTISEMENT -

"In Afghanistan right now, we're spending $4 billion of your taxpayer dollars every month," Gabbard said. "This money could be used here."

PHOTO: Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard listens to a question at a Town Hall meeting on Super Tuesday, March 3, 2020, in Detroit. (Bill Pugliano/Getty Images)

The Hawaii lawmaker told ABC News that in order to have a successful implementation of any of her competitors domestic policy proposals, they would have to "depend upon an end to military interventionism and the new cold war and nuclear arms race – all of which will waste trillions of dollars."
She said at the core of her campaign is the message that "successful domestic policy is inseparably linked to a successful foreign policy."

MORE: CNN, Univision to host March Democratic debate in Arizona, a 2020 battleground

At the height of the 2020 Democratic Party primary, Gabbard was one of six women vying to be the Democratic nominee for president. And with the departure of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren from the race this week, Gabbard is the last woman, person of color, veteran and millennial in the race.

Oklahoma State University Professor Farida Jalalzai has written about women presidents across the globe and notes Gabbard’s candidacy faced several challenges.
"You could maybe say that there are certain issues that perhaps she prioritizes more than others that haven't gained as much traction, for example," she said. "And of course, you also point to the big things, like she doesn't have. She doesn't have much in the way of fundraising."

PHOTO: Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard hugs and greets a crying supporter as she holds a Town Hall meeting on Super Tuesday Primary night on March 3, 2020, in Detroit. (Bill Pugliano/Getty Images)

When compared to many of her competitors, Gabbard has been able to sustain her bid for president on a lean campaign.

According to ABC News analysis, the campaign has raised only $11.1 million since launching in January 2019. And by the end of the month, her campaign had $2 million cash on hand.

"A lot of other candidates who have outraised and outspent us by multiple times have not been able to stay in the race," Gabbard told ABC News. "I have been very fiscally responsible with the dollars that people are contributing to our campaign to maximize their effect and being able to get our message out to voters in the early states and across the country."

Her campaign is fueled by a small team of staffers, volunteers, friends and family members. She flies commercial to cut down costs, renting at times affordable hotel rooms and Airbnbs to save as much money as possible.

She told ABC News, "It is the power of our volunteers the power of individuals who are recognizing the need to bring about this kind of change in our leadership where we have a government of by and for the people that makes it possible for us to continue this mission."

MORE: Biden takes command of race, amid signs the party never left him: Analysis

The highest primary finish she’s had to date was in American Samoa, where she placed second behind former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, the billionaire with seven paid staffers on the territory, who has since ended his bid for presidency.

Gabbard, 38, hails from a long line of Samoans, born at LBJ Hospital in the village of Faga'alu.

Her grandmother Aknesis Agnes "Pako" Yandall Gabbard was known for her pineapple pie and cakes sold at the Gabbard family bakery in Leloaloa.

"It was especially meaningful to my family and me to receive such strong support from voters in my place of birth," she told ABC News following her win.

MORE: Sanders, Biden spar on Twitter over Social Security, beating President Trump

And unlike several of the past 2020 candidates, Gabbard says she hasn’t spoken to Biden or Sanders.

When asked what it means to pick up delegates -- thus becoming the second woman of color ever to do so -- she said gender shouldn't matter.

MORE: After Super Tuesday, Joe Biden Is A Clear Favorite To Win The Nomination

"To be honest, I’ve never believed that someone should vote for or against a candidate because of their gender, race or religion and so on," she said. "I feel strongly that we should vote for the candidate that best represents our values and who’s best prepared, who cares about the American people, who is motivated by a sincere desire to be of service to our people and our country."

She added that the president should be someone "prepared to be the commander-in-chief, and who will unite the American people."

Jalalzai noted that Gabbard "also gets scrutinized a lot, you know, and in part this question of, well, why are you in the race? Is a really telling one."

She said Warren and California Sen. Kamala Harris -- who left the race in early December 2019 -- both had attractive resumes, but were also viewed as unelectable after the loss of the first woman to be on the top of the ticket for either party, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

It is a challenge New York Rep. Shirley Chisholm who, before Gabbard, was the last woman of color to ever win a delegate as a presidential nominee in the Democratic Party, once said she also faced.

PHOTO: Rep. Shirley Chisholm announces her entry for Democratic nomination for the presidency at the Concord Baptist Church in Brooklyn, New York, Jan. 25, 1972. (Don Hogan Charles/New York Times Co./Getty Images, FILE)

Chisholm, the first African American woman elected to Congress -- arrived at the Democratic National Committee Convention in Miami, Florida "unbought and unbossed" with less than three dozen delegates. She ran a campaign that was underfunded and had little support, having failed to secure the support of the Congressional Black Caucus, of which she was a co-founder, or the National Organization for Women, in a year where they wielded influence on the Democratic Party platform.

Chisholm was largely fighting an uphill battle alone as the Watergate scandal loomed in the backdrop of the convention. And while Chisholm said she ran to win, that doesn’t mean she expected to win, experts said.

Anastasia C. Curwood, an associate professor at the University of Kentucky who is writing a book about Chisholm, said the former congresswoman "wanted to be a figure who would lead to change."

"She knew that it was extremely unlikely that she would be the one to win. But, but what she wanted was to start the process," Curwood told ABC News.

MORE: 2020 presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard surfs and pitches sports in an appeal to voters

While in many ways Chisholm's political ideology and challenges were different from Gabbard's, they both could have an impact by helping shape the outlook of future politicians through the idea of surrogate representation, Jalalzai said.

Surrogate representation is a way that politicians represent more than just people in their particular district,"as a member of a visible minority group, you are able to communicate messages about that group beyond your own district lines."

Why Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is continuing her bid for president originally appeared on abcnews.go.com

Business Insider
The DNC just made it mathematically impossible for Tulsi Gabbard to make the next debate, leaving Biden and Sanders one-on-one

Associated Press Despite her initially having a remote chance at qualifying for the next televised debate, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard will be a day late and more than a few delegates short. The Democratic National Committee announced the new threshold for the March 15 debate would be 20% of all delegates awarded so far, a steep task for Gabbard, given her campaign's resources and track record of poor performances so far. It's unclear why Gabbard is still in the race, but the bar being raised all but ensures a one-on-one debate between former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Little girls have to wait 4 more years, Warren says, as race loses female candidates

Four years ago, a major political party nominated the first female presidential candidate in history. Even before Hillary Clinton topped the ticket, there was Shirley Chisholm, the first black major-party candidate to run for president and the first woman ever to run for the Democratic Party's nomination. And two years ago, women turned out in droves to elect a sweep of women to Congress. Now, there are no realistically viable female candidates left in the 2020 race for president.

 

© Melina Mara/The Washington Post via Getty Images Democratic candidate for President Sen. Elizabeth Warren does a pinky swear with a little girl at the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines, Iowa on Aug. 10, 2019.

Six women -- a record number -- entered the race this election cycle, but with the latest departure of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, there are no top-tier female candidates left in the running. Although Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is still in the race, it's all but certain a heterosexual, white male in his 70s will secure the presidency.


Some have raised the question: How did sexism play into the 2020 primaries?

Warren tried to dodge what she called a "trap question" moments after announcing she would drop out. Still, she acknowledged that it was impossible to detach herself from the gender factor.

"If you say, 'Yeah, there was sexism in this race,' everyone says 'whiner,'" Warren told reporters outside of her home Thursday. "And if you say, 'No, there was no sexism,' about a bazillion women think, 'What planet do you live on?'"

When asked about the legacy her presidential run will create for other women and little girls, who she shared "pinky promises" with on the trail, Warren choked up.

"One of the hardest parts of this is all those pinky promises. And all those little girls who are going to have to wait four more years. That's going to be hard," Warren said. "I take those pinky promises seriously."

Warren expanded on the gender factor in an interview with Rachel Maddow Thursday night. While she said that it's possible for a woman to take the White House, "perhaps soon," she also acknowledged the pain she felt that it wasn't sooner.MORE: Women running for public office can now borrow clothes for free with this new program

"I walked through my headquarters today and ... I saw all those women who said, 'Thank you for being smart and making that OK. Thank you for talking over men sometimes because I'm just damn tired of always having it go the other way.' It's one of the hardest parts about this ... but it doesn't mean it's not going to happen. It doesn't mean it's not going to happen soon," Warren said.

"You get in the fight because you just got to keep beating at it until you finally break the thing. We'll know that we can have a woman in the White House when we finally elect a woman to the White House," she added.

 

Democratic Presidential Candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren makes pinky promises with little girls and before a get-out-the-vote event at Rundlett Middle School in Concord, N.H., on Feb. 9, 2020.

1/7 SLIDES © The Washington Post via Getty Images

Warren's chief strategist, Joe Rospars, was more direct in lamenting the "unfair double standards women face."

"No amount of sympathy, empathy or study can give me a real sense of the unfair double standards women face every single day. But advising Elizabeth as she navigated that tightrope gave me a small glimpse. It's wild and rage-inducing and exhausting," Rospars said in a Twitter thread.

Another former female presidential candidate this cycle, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand also weighed in on Twitter following Warren's departure, even linking to an organization that backs female candidates.

"I know days like today are tough. Trust me, I really know. But I also know that the best path forward is to dust ourselves off and get to work on the things we can control, like taking back the Senate from Mitch McConnell," Gillibrand said.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the first woman in U.S. history to hold her title, also had strong words when asked Thursday about the likelihood of a female president.

Asked whether Democratic voters did not select a woman nominee because they feared a woman could not beat President Donald Trump, Pelosi first said, "I think anybody could beat President Trump," before expanding on her answer. "I don't think you get a woman president by saying, 'We should have a woman.' You get a woman president saying, 'This is the best person for the job,' and any one of them could have fulfilled that description."MORE: Who's running for president in 2020?

"Every time I get introduced as the 'most powerful woman blah blah blah,' I almost cry because I'm thinking I wish that were not true," Pelosi continued.

"I so wish that we had a woman president of the United States, and we came very close to doing that -- a woman who was better qualified than so many people who have sought that office and even won it," she added, seemingly referring to how former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by at least 3 million votes.

Pelosi said she had always thought the public would be "much more ready for" a woman president than for a woman speaker.

"I think the American people are ready," she added. "I never thought we would have a woman speaker of the House before a woman president, because if you want to talk about tradition or whatever that is, this is a marble ceiling. It's not a glass ceiling."

The man who defeated Clinton in the electoral college, Trump, also commented after Warren's exit. When asked if sexism was a factor in her departure from the race, Trump called her a "mean person."

"I think lack of talent was her problem," Trump told reporters at the White House Thursday. "She had a tremendous lack of talent. She was a good debater. She destroyed Mike Bloomberg very quickly like it was nothing. That was easy for her, but people don't like her."

"She is a very mean person, and people don't like her. People don't want that," the president added.MORE: Women are running for office in historic numbers. Here are 10 female candidates to watch.

"Sexism was at the core of this election and 2016," said Dr. Ashley Dreff, director of women and gender studies and an assistant professor of religion at High Point University. "Women are continually held to double standards and higher standards in society. Warren and Clinton were both easily the most eloquent, intelligent and qualified persons for president. Warren, especially, not only had a vision, but had plans for that vision. Every time she faced undue criticism, she adjusted and clarified her plan, and then was criticized again. Most of the male candidates have not come close to Warren's level of detail and have not been criticized for it."

Warren's departure came just days after another prominent female senator, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, dropped out. Klobuchar also was asked on Friday about the lack of female representation left in the race.

"I think that having so many women up there on that stage, it was groundbreaking on its own. Literally the first night of the debate in the primary, we doubled the number of women that had ever run for president, on the first night," she said.

Klobuchar also revealed that the former Democratic nominee for president Hillary Clinton sent her a "very nice email" after she left the trail.

"When Hillary ran, it was a hard heartbreak for those of us that support us, when she didn't make it. But she literally did break the glass ceiling. And we're seeing higher numbers [of women running] than we ever did," she said.

Anastasia Curwood, an associate professor and director of African American and Africana studies at the University of Kentucky College of Arts and Sciences, and an expert on Shirley Chisholm, suspects that Chisholm would be "disappointed" with the lack of women of color running for president.

"My guess is that she just would have been stunned that it took so long for somebody else to come on, especially women of color, to get any delegates. We still haven't seen a black woman get delegates again," Curwood said. "She probably would have been pretty disappointed."

When Clinton ultimately lost the electoral college vote to Trump, she addressed the base of women and "little girls" in her concession speech who mobilized around her.

"To all of the little girls who are watching this, never doubt that you are valuable and powerful and deserving of every chance and opportunity in the world to pursue and achieve your own dreams," she said.

Between Clinton's concession speech and Election Day in 2018, a record number of women ran for Congress and state legislatures -- but Clinton said sexism still plays a pernicious role in elections, especially those for commander in chief.

"I think we made some progress, but there still was a lot of the unconscious bias and the gendered language that has been used around the women candidates," Clinton told Vanity Fair. "I think it affected all of the women that ran."

Dreff agreed, adding: "We need to continue to teach girls that they can dream, but dreaming necessitates fighting and persisting in our lived reality. This is not easy work. We also need to teach girls that sexism and misogyny exists in this world, and it's probably not going anyway anytime soon."

ABC News' Beatrice Peterson, Lissette Rodriguez, Sasha Peznik and Cheyenne Haslett contributed to this report.

Civil rights activist Rev. Jesse Jackson has endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) for president, the campaign announced Sunday. 

© Getty Civil rights activist Jesse Jackson endorses Sanders

"A people far behind cannot catch up choosing the most moderate path," Jackson said in a statement. "The most progressive social and economic path gives us the best chance to catch up and Senator Bernie Sanders represents the most progressive path. That's why I choose to endorse him today."

Jackson said Vice President Joe Biden's campaign had not reached out or asked for his endorsement.

Jackson said the Vermont progressive answered the concerns of the black community in his support of voting rights and renewing the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. The civil rights leader plans to speak at a campaign event in Grand Rapids, Mich., Sunday.

He said the "black firewall" has changed the dynamics of the election, and campaigns need to appeal to the black community.

"That's some of what the firewall needs and that Senator Sanders has committed himself to, and that's why I can enthusiastically endorse Senator Bernie Sanders today," he said, citing Sanders's wealth tax and "Medicare for All" plans.

Sanders announced the endorsement on ABC's "This Week" Sunday after host George Stephanopoulos noted Biden's wins on Super Tuesday and support from nine former presidential candidates. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) offered her support to the former vice president Sunday.

"It's no secret, George, you know politics in this country, we're not going to get the most support of elected leaders, not most governors, not most senators," Sanders responded. "But we are winning the support of grassroots America because we have an agenda that speaks to working people."

"[Jackson has] been a leader in helping to transform this country, an aide to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., so we're proud," Sanders said.


JUST IN: Sen. Bernie Sanders tells @GStephanopoulos that civil rights activist Jesse Jackson will endorse him later today.

"We have the support of virtually every major grassroots organization." https://t.co/X1LhrSyd0J pic.twitter.com/ABbajFTKab- This Week (@ThisWeekABC) March 8, 2020

Biden won 10 of 14 states that voted in Super Tuesday and now sits at 664 delegates. Sanders has 573 delegates allocated to him, although the Super Tuesday delegates have not been completely distributed

---30---

`We can do it,' say young believers fueling Sanders campaign

The Canadian Press March 8, 2020

ANN ARBOR, Mich. — They've watched their parents and friends struggle to pay medical bills. They've spent time in Spain, Australia and other countries where people don't have the same worry. They live at home instead of the college dorm to try to cut down on what they'll owe in loans. They question whether to have kids in an environment where the effects of climate change are getting worse by the day.

The young Bernie Sanders supporters who gathered for a Super Tuesday watch party in Michigan came with reasons both personal and ideological for wanting him to be president. But they were all asking the same question: Why can't things be different?

“Young people are aspirational," said Jaclyn Schess, 24, a health economics researcher at the University of Michigan. She sat on a folding chair inside the Sanders campaign's Ann Arbor office watching returns projected on a screen from the online news network The Young Turks. "We can look at what's happening now without being weighed down by the failures of the past and say ‘Our country deserves better. ... We can do it.'”

As Sanders tries to top former Vice-President Joe Biden for the Democratic presidential nomination, the Vermont senator and self-described democratic socialist's most enduring support has come from voters under age 30 like Schess. They are moved by Sanders' vision for the country — of a place where everyone has health care, college is free and rich people and corporations don't have more political influence than teachers and students — and his consistency on the issues.

They don't believe his ideas are unrealistic or unaffordable. To them, the main argument that President Donald Trump and others have used against Sanders — that he's a “socialist” who wants to give everything away for free — isn't at all scary and may be a point in Sanders' favour .

Those young voters remain the backbone of Sanders' effort, though they weren't enough for him to stop Biden from leapfrogging him in the delegate count on Super Tuesday. Sanders won four states out of 14, including California, with support from 57% of voters under 30, according to AP VoteCast surveys of voters across eight of the states that voted.

But those young voters made up just 15% of the vote, putting pressure on Sanders to increase that vote share or broaden his appeal — or both — as the race moves on to Michigan, Washington, Missouri, Mississippi on Tuesday and elsewhere after that.

The biggest delegate haul this week will be Michigan. Sanders defeated Hillary Clinton there in 2016, thanks in part to strong support in counties that are home to colleges such as the University of Michigan and Michigan State University.

A big part of Sanders' success is that he's empowered younger voters and made them feel they are part of a movement in a way few politicians have done since Barack Obama in 2008, said John Della Volpe,director of polling at the Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics.

Their potential political power is notable. Generation Z — those between 18 and 23 — make up 1 in 10 eligible voters,and is the only generation that has grown by percentage of eligible voting population since 2016, according to the Pew Research Center.

AP VoteCast shows these young voters more likely than those older to be liberal ideologically. Sixty per cent of voters under 30 across eight Super Tuesday states surveyed described themselves as liberal and 39% said they are “very liberal.” But they have historically turned out to vote at much lower rates than older voters, a trend that has continued this primary season.

“If they all voted at close to the proportion of older voters it's a completely different country,” Della Volpe said.

Sanders said at a post-Super Tuesday news conference that his campaign hasn't been as successful as he'd hoped at getting young people out to vote. In a sign he's ramping up those efforts in Michigan, he cancelled events in Mississippi to spend more time in Michigan, including a Sunday night rally in Ann Arbor, hosted by the university's chapter of Students for Bernie. Sanders drew almost 6,000 people to a rally on the campus in 2016, days before his surprise win in the state over Clinton.

“The vision he’s talking about is of the world that we want," said Emily Moos, 22, who works as an environmental organizer registering young people to vote in Ann Arbor.



Moos was among those at the Super Tuesday gathering who believe the influence of money, particularly from fossil fuel companies and other corporations, has corrupted U.S. politics, affecting everything from the climate crisis to health care and the minimum wage.

Sanders has raised over $120 million this election cycle, including more than $25 million in January, from over 1.5 million people while refusing money from corporations and political action committees. That's a big reason Sanders' supporters are choosing him over rivals such as Biden, who they say is influenced by PACs and large-dollar donors.

“How can we trust anybody if they have to kind of kneel to these corporate entities?" said Matthew Rodriguez, 29, who is studying in the University of Michigan's school of social work. "We can trust Bernie. When he says he’ll fight for these things, we know he’ll fight for it no matter what.”

That extends to health care and Sanders' push for “Medicare for All,” which his rivals have described as a pipe dream.

Jonah Hahn, 25, said he saw firsthand how it could work when he was living in Spain for a fellowship. That country's national health care system provides universal coverage and access to free health care for Spanish nationals. In the private insurance market, Hahn paid $60 per month for everything, with no copays. Back in the U.S. he pays a $50 copay to see a specialist, after a $300 monthly premium.

“Nothing convinces you about the importance of universal health care like living in a country that has it,” said Hahn, who considers himself a democratic socialist. “It’s not like I needed to be radicalized, but when you actually see it, you say 'OK, Spain has certain political issues, but no one is debating whether their health care system works or not.’”

What if Sanders isn't the nominee? University of Michigan student Keegan Cupp, 18, said he's “Bernie or bust,” and will stay home. But he was the only one of about a dozen people interviewed who said so.

“I dislike Trump to the highest degree and I will hold my nose and vote for Biden if I have to," Rodriguez said.

Emily Arking, 18, said if Sanders isn't the nominee it “will be a big bummer” because it will be her first election voting. But it won't stop her.

“I was talking to my dad earlier and he told me that there were plenty of times he's walked into the voting booth and just let out a huge sigh because he didn’t like who he was voting for,” she said. “But he did it nonetheless.”

Schess said she was disappointed to hear there was anyone in the room who planned to stay home.

“You’re contributing to Trump winning if you don’t vote," she said. “There’s too much at stake.”

___

Associated Press writer Hannah Fingerhut in Washington contributed to this report.

Sara Burnett, The Associated Press

Women's rights activists attacked then detained in Kyrgyzstan
Reuters March 8, 2020
BISHKEK (Reuters) - Police in Kyrgyzstan detained dozens of women's rights activists on Sunday shortly after journalists witnessed the protesters being attacked by masked men.

The activists gathered in one of the squares of capital Bishkek in the Central Asian country, to stage a march of solidarity against violence on International Women's Day.

But masked men, some of whom wore traditional Kyrgyz white felt hats, attacked the protesters, grabbing and tearing apart their banners, in the presence of multiple journalists including a Reuters reporter.

The attackers left as soon as police arrived on the scene and proceeded to detain about 50 activists, mostly women.

It was unclear what charges they could face. The Bishkek police department could not be immediately reached for comment.

Citing multiple cases of forced marriage and domestic violence, activists say women's rights are deteriorating in the former Soviet republic of 6 million amid a resurgence of right-wing ideology.

Last December, an art exhibition in Kyrgyzstan that featured a woman undressing in front of an audience was censored by the government, and the head of the gallery resigned after receiving death threats.



(Reporting by Olga Dzyubenko and Vladimir Pirogov; writing by Olzhas Auyezov; Editing by Elaine Hardcastle)

Hong Kong pro-democracy protesters hold vigil to mourn student's death
Reuters March 8, 2020

HONG KONG (Reuters) - Hundreds of black-clad Hong Kong protesters, holding candles, returned on Sunday to the parking lot where a student fell to his death in November, vowing to continue their fight for greater democracy in the Chinese-ruled city.

The death of Chow Tsz-lok, 22, who fell from the third to the second floor in a parking lot in the eastern Tseung Kwan O district as police cleared crowds in the area, was the catalyst for some of the most intense clashes since the protests escalated in June last year.

Fears over the coronavirus have reduced the scale and frequency of protests this year, but there have been violent demonstrations on some weekends in a sign the pro-democracy movement remains active.

On Sunday evening, protesters, mostly in trademark black clothing and surgical masks, laid down white flowers, origami cranes and messages on colored post-it notes at a makeshift altar where placards read "Keep the heat; Fight until the end".

One protester was waving a "Liberate Hong Kong" black flag, while a banner that read "murderer" was hung up.

There was a heavy riot police presence nearby and at least one arrest was made.

“It’s very touching. When I came here half an hour ago I almost cried, because I didn’t expect so many people would come today," said 22-year-old computer programer Sean Chow, who is not related to the student who died.

"(His death) means something that is unresolved and something that needs to be fully investigated and I believe all the people here want an answer. It's an absolute tragedy."

Earlier on Sunday, Hong Kong police said they arrested 17 people, aged between 21 and 53, during an overnight raid of 22 flats in relation to a series of bomb plots between late January and early February.

Items including three homemade bombs, three electronic circuits and 2,600 kilograms of chemicals were found.

"In recent months Hong Kong has been faced with an ongoing ... violent campaign designed to intimidate, in order to try to achieve political aims," Alick McWhirter, senior bomb disposal officer of the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Bureau told reporters.

"It seems a potential tragedy has been averted."

Police said the bombs were intended to be used in public events and aimed at police officers.

Protesters are angry about what they see as creeping Chinese interference in Hong Kong, which returned to China in 1997 under a "one country, two systems" formula intended to guarantee freedoms that are not enjoyed on the mainland.

China says it is committed to the arrangement and denies meddling. It has accused foreign governments including the United States and Britain of inciting the unrest.