THE LAST STALINIST

Nguyen Phu Trong Left Vietnam’s Communist Party Ripe For Strongman Rule – Analysis

President of Vietnam To Lam. Photo Credit: Kremlin.ru

 July 22, 2024 

By RFA

By David Hutt

On July 19, the Vietnamese Communist Party announced the death of its general secretary, Nguyen Phu Trong. The previous day, it announced that Trong, 80, ostensibly the most powerful politician in the country, had been relieved of his duties for health reasons. 

He had missed several key meetings in recent months, and even when he did attend, he appeared shaky and unwell. He suffered a stroke a few years ago but seemingly bounced back. 

However, his near-unprecedented third term in office has been cut short.  To Lam, the public security minister and promoted to state President last month, will now assume Trong’s duties.

Having led the party since 2011, Trong attempted to reinvigorate an institution that, by the early 2010s, had become bogged down by individual rivalries, profit-seeking, and self-advancement. 

Corruption was so rampant the public was mutinous. Ideology and morality had fallen by the wayside. Pro-democracy movements threatened its monopoly on power. The private sector was not just fantastically wealthy, but desired more political power.

But in what condition does Trong leave the institution he sought to fix? 

Externally, its monopoly on power is safer. It has increased repression of activists and democrats while appeasing the public through its high-profile takedown of the corrupt. 

The private sector has been constrained, too, so poses no threat to the party’s political authority. The economy has insulated the party from any meaningful repercussions from the West over human rights.

‘Blazing Furnace’

Within the Communist Party, however, Trong leaves behind a mess. 

Lam, as public security minister, and Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh, artfully used Trong’s signature “Blazing Furnace” anti-corruption campaign to advance their own interests, effectively purging anyone who might rival them for Trong’s job in 2026. 

More Politburo members have been sacked than at any time in memory. Two presidents have “resigned” in as many years. The Politburo is now filled mostly with military personnel and securocrats, the only two factions – and sometimes rivals – left with power. 

Lam, if he does formally become acting general secretary, which the Politburo will have to vote on, is in a prime position to maintain the job in 2026. One imagines he has very different ideas about the nature of the Communist Party than Trong.

Early in the anti-corruption campaign, Trong remarked that he did not want to “break the vase to catch the mice.” That metaphor implied that tackling corruption should shield a delicate Communist Party, not smash it to pieces. 

However, in his quest to rid corruption from a corrupt institution, he eroded almost every check the Communist Party of Vietnam had to prevent a supreme leader figure from rising to the top.

Trong violated the three major “norms” that the party introduced in the early 1990s. 

Politburo members were expected to retire at 65, and individuals could only occupy the most senior positions for a maximum of two terms. More importantly, no one person could hold at the same time two of the four most powerful positions: General Secretary, State President, Prime Minister, and Chair of the National Assembly. 

This “four pillar” (tu tru) system  created a form of succession plan. Regular reshuffles and a separation of powers amongst the political elite would prevent the Communist Party from tilting towards dictatorship. 

Shattering the norms

The norms created a structure in which politicians could fight over policies, often brutally, but without the entire apparatus collapsing because of division. There could be a regular rotation between different factions and geographic networks, meaning no one group was ascendant for too long. 

Hanoi called this “democratic centralism.” Of course, it’s not democracy, but it’s a form of pluralism that, in theory, had prevented the party from descending into dictatorships like North Korea, Cuba, or China under Xi Jinping.

Trong broke every one of these rules. 

Between 2018 and 2021, he held the posts of party general secretary and state president simultaneously, the first person to do so since 1986. (Lam seems likely to repeat that.) 

Trong passed away during his third term as party chief, the first leader since Le Duan to have that record. He not only constantly had the party flout retirement-age limits for himself – he should have stepped down in 2021, if not earlier – but such exemptions have been handed out like confetti during his tenure.

At the same time, his anti-graft campaign has centralized power among an increasingly small number of Politburo members. Provincial party politics have been purged and constrained to give more power to the central party apparatus. The party dominates the government. The public security ministry is all-seeing. 

This was always going to happen. How else do you clean up an uncleanable organization in which power flows up and discipline is enforced only by those above you?  The campaign increases the necessity of one section of the party to maintain power indefinitely. 

Who designates what is the true morality and which cadres are truly moral? Well, a certain clique of the party running the anti-corruption campaign

In one speech on the theme, Trong urged the party to “strengthen supervision of the use of the power of leading cadres, especially the heads, push up internal supervision within the collective leadership; make public the process of power use according to law for cadres and people to supervise.” 

The purge is designed to enforce the view that no one has absolute power above the party. Anyone who uses the power must serve the party and be responsible before it. 

Ripe for strongman rule

Yet, not only does the anti-corruption campaign require moral individuals to maintain power at the top of the hierarchy if it is to be successful, it necessitates the permanent renewal of even more moral individuals to lead the party in the future. As such, the anti-corruption campaign is something which can only maintain itself if people with similar views stay in positions of power, which is improbable. 

Indeed, Trong was an ideologue, a committed Marxist, yet he is much more of a moralist than many of his comrades. Like Ho Chi Minh, he sees personal vice, not structures, as the root of all problems. 

Indeed, he’s a species of socialist, like Che Guevara, who believes that to change a system, you need to change human behavior; that you could perfect human nature and create a “new socialist man” by stripping people of their instincts for greed, self-advancement, and nepotism. 

Instead of changing the system, Trong tried to change people.To do so required concentrating power into the hands of a few “moral” apparatchiks. 

Trong found out, as most outsiders knew, that those at the pinnacle of the institution got there thanks in large part to the sort of greed, corruption, and nepotism he sought to cure. Opportunists came out of the woodwork knowing that they could get rid of their rivals by alleging corruption. 

Everyone of any importance within the party or bureaucracy has skeletons in the closet, so the accusations multiplied – as did the resignations and dismissals. It came down to who decided which skeletons to reveal. 

The military and the “securocrats,” security and police cadres, who wrestled control of the Politburo, knew best where to look.

Over the past 13 years, Trong has, to use his metaphor, caught some “mice.” Some big ones, in fact. But corruption remains rampant. And he made the “vase” even more fragile. 

In the past, some commentators suggested that Trong was becoming the “Xi Jinping of Vietnam.” He wasn’t. 

But his erosion of the Communist Party’s norms and the accumulation of power needed to fight his anti-graft crusade opens the door for a supreme leader, a strongman putsch, a less pluralistic and consensus-based Communist Party. 

David Hutt is a research fellow at the Central European Institute of Asian Studies (CEIAS) and the Southeast Asia Columnist at the Diplomat. He writes the Watching Europe In Southeast Asia newsletter. The views expressed here are his own and do not reflect the position of RFA.

RFA

Radio Free Asia’s mission is to provide accurate and timely news and information to Asian countries whose governments prohibit access to a free press. Content used with the permission of Radio Free Asia, 2025 M St. NW, Suite 300, Washington DC 20036.

China Needs To Prepare For Prolonged Strategic Competition In The Face Of Rising Trade Protectionism – Analysis

 July 22, 2024  

By Anbound

By Chen Li

Amidst claims by the United States and Europe about China’s overcapacity, the European Union has recently decided to impose temporary tariffs on imports of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) from the country. Additionally, the U.S. and Mexico have jointly announced that to strengthen the North American steel and aluminum supply chain, Mexico will impose 25% and 10% tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from China, respectively.

In recent years, various trade barriers against Chinese goods have been increasing. According to American media reports, other than the U.S. and the EU, some emerging economies such as Brazil, India, Mexico, and Indonesia have begun anti-dumping investigations into low-priced Chinese goods. Since early last year, governments worldwide have announced more than 70 import restriction measures targeting China.

Researchers at ANBOUND believe that these protectionist practices against China are a long-term trade phenomenon, driven by shifts in the global trade landscape. This change is universal and structural, affecting not only the relations between the U.S. or the EU with China, but also extending globally. As it stands, China will need to adapt to the changing world trade rules and prepare for long-term strategic competition.

The global trade landscape has undergone significant changes. The post-World War II momentum of global economic integration is waning, giving way to de-globalization and regional economic integration. Since the financial crisis, as consumer demand in developed countries has weakened and with technological advancements and supply chain de-risking, developed nations have actively pursued reshoring of manufacturing. At the same time, developing countries, especially China, have reduced their dependence on intermediate goods trade as they upgrade their industries, leading to the slowdown in global trade growth and the restructuring of global value chains. Before the financial crisis, the global average ratio of imports to GDP grew at about twice the rate of global GDP growth. However, since 2011, this ratio has dropped below 1. According to the European Central Bank’s analysis, global trade is unlikely to return to the growth trends seen before the financial crisis, and the slowdown in global trade post-2011 is expected to become the “new normal.” Based on the concept of “close produce” previously proposed by ANBOUND, the slowdown in global trade is accompanied by a restructuring of global value chains, breaking the previous model of international division of labor. At the same time, production is shifting closer to terminal markets. This indicates a shift from global economic integration to regional economic integration, inevitably giving rise to trade protectionism in the process.

Trade protectionism is increasingly gaining momentum globally. Even before former U.S. President Donald Trump initiated the trade war with China, the Obama administration had imposed hefty tariffs that were five times the standard rate on Chinese steel imports and created obstacles in the Doha negotiations. This led to abandoning the World Trade Organization (WTO)’s global multilateral trade cooperation framework in favor of regional agreements such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Among protectionist measures, anti-dumping duties and import tariffs are the most widely used, collectively accounting for about 30% of all measures. Additionally, there has been a rise in the use of export subsidies, licensing or restrictions on foreign direct investment, and domestic clauses in public procurement, leading to a surge in trade distortions. According to Global Trade Alert, harmful trade interventions by governments have steadily increased since 2008, with a sharp rise starting in 2018. Overall, the number of global harmful trade interventions surged from 199 in 2018 to 910 in 2023, a 357% increase. From 2009 to 2023, there were a total of 58,205 harmful trade interventions globally, with 1,752 targeting China, the highest number for any country.

Trade protectionism has undermined the rule-based multilateral trading system established under economic globalization, specifically the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the WTO, created after World War II. Firstly, regional trade agreements are increasingly replacing the WTO’s global multilateral trade rules, accelerating the fragmentation of trade and industrial spaces. Secondly, the Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) principle under the WTO multilateral trade system faces numerous challenges in the current international trade environment. Although MFN ensures equality, the principle of treating all equally may not be applicable to countries at different levels of development, leading to some fairness issues. The U.S. has previously questioned the MFN principle concerning China’s market access restrictions, trade imbalances, and intellectual property protection. Lastly, under the influence of the politicization of economic and trade issues, the WTO has been pushed to the margins of global economic governance, and its trade rules have fallen into an

In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has heightened countries’ awareness of the importance of diversifying supply chain risks. At the same time, amid the global economic downturn, unilateralism and populism have surged, with geopolitical factors increasingly influencing economic and trade issues, even beginning to dominate them. This has led to the reshoring of manufacturing, strengthening of economic and trade ties within alliances, and weakening of economic and trade relationships outside these alliances. As a result, despite years of attempts, the Doha Round negotiations have failed, and the WTO’s appellate body has been paralyzed since December 2019.

Since the Age of Exploration, international trade rules have been evolving. Before the great maritime discoveries, global commercial trade was regional. Afterward, the world was connected through maritime trade, establishing a truly global trading system. This disrupted the tribute system and continental mindset of that era in China, and the international order shaped by maritime trade was dominated by the West for over three centuries. After World War II, the GATT and the WTO established a multilateral trading system based on mutual benefits. China’s entry into this trade system allowed it to deeply participate in the global value chain, benefiting from economic globalization and achieving an economic miracle. Today, the global trade landscape is undergoing another structural shift, which naturally introduces new orders and disciplines within the new trade system, and this is something that China should be prepared for.

Final analysis conclusion:

The surge in trade protectionism targeting China is a result of the structural shift in the global trade landscape. Amid the slowdown in global trade growth, the trade pattern is moving from global integration toward regional integration. In response, China needs to recognize the changes in the current trade environment and prepare for the challenge of long-term trade protectionism.

• About the author: Chen Li is an Economic Research Fellow at ANBOUND, an independent think tank.

Anbound

Anbound Consulting (Anbound) is an independent Think Tank with the headquarter based in Beijing. Established in 1993, Anbound specializes in public policy research, and enjoys a professional reputation in the areas of strategic forecasting, policy solutions and risk analysis. Anbound's research findings are widely recognized and create a deep interest within public media, academics and experts who are also providing consulting service to the State Council of China.

 UK

Labour Government: The Politics Of Service – OpEd

UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. Photo Credit: Official Portrait, Wikimedia Commons

 July 22, 2024  

By Graham Peebles

After 14 years of Conservative incompetence, corruption and lies, the election of The Labour Party led by Kier Starmer, has ignited a feeling of hope and optimism in the country.

In a historic election, on 4 July Labour won a landslide with 412 parliamentary seats (of 650 in total); the Tories, as if anyone cares, recorded there worst ever election result, and have at last been consigned to the political wilderness to tear themselves apart.

The new intake of MPs constitutes the most ethnically diverse and gender balanced parliament in history, with women making up 40% of all MPs. It also has the largest number of LGBTQ+ MPS ever, with Labour’s 50 LGBTQ+ MPs representing the largest party cohort of any parliament, anywhere in the world.

Labours extraordinary triumph demonstrates that in the age of extremism, a left of centre party can still win power, something that is encouraging for countries in Europe and the US. Populism in the UK, strengthened by the Brexit referendum and relentlessly fuelled by the Conservatives, however has not been driven out of British politics. Reform UK, a new far right company (not a political party), that promotes intolerance, hate and division, won 5 parliamentary seats and came second in 103 constituencies.

Like all such groups they have no workable policies, blame everything on immigrants and migration, talk dismissively about climate change and net zero, and are a poisonous, dangerous force in the country. These xenophobic parties prosper where inequality, economic insecurity and social injustice exist. The antidote is to deal with these underlying causes, to build inclusive fair societies and to challenge divisive intolerant rhetoric wherever it emerges. If Labour can do this the country will be a more harmonious united place, and Reform’s support will quickly fall away.

Labours inheritance

The Conservatives ran the country into the ground, and created what the Lisa Nandy, the new Secretary of State for Culture, described as “the darkest decade and a half in my lifetime.” They divided the country, destroyed public services, including the NHS, which the new Secretary of State for Health described as ‘broken’, increased inequality and child poverty, saw homelessness explode, tanked the economy and, with their total disregard for the rule of law, undermined the UK’s position in the World. In addition they caused the Brexit disaster and, among other calamities, are responsible for countless avoidabledeaths during Covid.

The task before the new government is therefore huge, but the team is strong and their commitment to “a calm and patient rebuilding” appears genuine. Repairing the damage done and creating a sense of optimism, where for so long there has been despair, will not be easy and will take time, something governments tend not to have much of. Unity is key; if Labour can bring about a degree of social justice and reduce economic hardship, if it restores the NHS and decentralises political decision making to the nations and regions, it may have a chance of squashing the forces of division and generating a feeling of national togetherness.

Labour’s one word campaign slogan was ‘change’, and, after a matter of days in office, the single biggest change has been in tone. Gone is the infighting, the pettiness and duplicity, to be replaced with committed determination, openness and competency. As The Guardian put it, “The grownups are back in Westminster. The Tory psychodramas inside No 10 have been replaced by a serious Labour government focused on delivery.”

In his first speech at Prime-Minister Keir Starmer delivered a message of hope and sincerity. He promised to build a “government of service” and to restore trust in politics, by ‘actions not words’. To put the “country first” not the party, and to govern “unburdened by doctrine”. Politics, which for so long has not served the country, he said, “can [indeed should] be a force for good”.

Starmer’s initial decisions have been consistent with Labour’s commitment to ‘change and stability’; terms that may appear contradictory, but as Labour voices have repeatedly pointed out, after 14 years of chaos and pettiness, stable thoughtful government is change. Most of the shadow team were appointed to the cabinet, which contains more female ministers than any previous government, and includes Rachel Reeves, the first ever female chancellor. It is also the most working class cabinet – the majority of the top team went to comprehensive schools, with only one member of the cabinet attending private school, compared with 75% in Conservative cabinets over recent years.

All of which is significant, and means that unlike successive Tory administrations, which we’re overflowing with millionaires and privilege, the people now engaged in fashioning policies, and putting forward legislation, will have a real understanding of the lives most people are living.

Politicians routinely talk about their desire to unite a country, and Labour have said that cultivating unity is a main priority for them. In his first speech as PM, Starmer said this, “You have given us a clear mandate and we will use it to deliver change. To restore service and respect to politics, end the era of noisy performance, tread more lightly on your lives. And to unite our country, four nations standing together again.”

One way they hope to “unite the country” is by chipping away at inequality, by moving decision making closer to people is key to this; working with regional mayors and leaders, decentralising power and establishing cooperative relationships. “Putting people in charge of their own destiny”, Lisa Nandy says, is the “silver thread connecting all areas of the new government.”

Whilst many of us would like to see Labour go much further than it has so far pledged to do, particularly in relation to Europe and the environment, after years of duplicity and incompetence it feels like Britain has turned a corner and that the work of re-building and healing, so desperately needed, has begun.

MastodonLinkedInShare

Graham Peebles

Graham Peebles is an independent writer and charity worker. He set up The Create Trust in 2005 and has run education projects in India, Sri Lanka and Ethiopia where he lived for two years working with acutely disadvantaged children and conducting teacher training programmes. Website: https://grahampeebles.org/

Apprentice hung from noose, had drill poked in groin in workplace bullying incident in Victoria, Australia

APPRENTICE; INDENTURED SERVANT

AAP
By Melissa Meehan
21 Jul, 2024 05:29 PM2 mins to read
SaveShare


A first year apprentice suffered physical abuse and sexual harassment at an air conditioning trade workplace in Australia. Photo / 123RF

An apprentice was hung from a noose and poked with a drill in his groin as part of prolonged bullying at work, with his employer fined A$10,000 ($11,116) over the abuse.

The first-year apprentice, was working for Celsius Ballarat Pty Ltd in Bakery Hill, near Ballarat, Victoria, Australia when he was targeted by colleagues.

He was too afraid to tell the directors of the company, in fear of retribution, but ended up going to police in February when he was lifted into a noose - leaving him unable to breathe for a few seconds.

During an investigation into the allegations, a Worksafe summary reveals the apprentice was subject to numerous physical assaults including being spat on, being placed in headlocks and being shot at with a nail gun.

He was also subject to sexually harassing comments and actions such as being hit in the groin, and taunting about the fact his biological father was not alive.

A bucket of water mixed with paint was also thrown over him during a cold day on site and he was poked with a drill in the groin numerous times while on a ladder, the summary says.

It was all brought to a head on February 15, last year when two colleagues lifted him into a noose hanging from a strut in a roof cavity where they were working.

“The apprentice states that he was unable to breath for a few seconds,” court documents say.

Last week, the company faced Ballarat Magistrates Court where it pleaded guilty and was without conviction sentenced to pay a fine of A$10,000 ($11,116) and to pay costs of A$3,227.

Without the guilty plea, the company would have been fined A$20,000 ($22,200) without conviction.

 

Mexico’s New President Inherits Grim Media Landscape – OpEd

Mexico's Claudia Sheinbaum. Photo Credit: Eneas De Troya, Flickr, Wikimedia Commons

 July 22, 2024  

By IWPR

By Daniel Lizárraga

For the first time in its history Mexico, which has been governed only by men for 200 years, will have a female president. 

When she takes office in October 2024, Claudia Sheinbaum will inherit unprecedented power and a series of grave and unresolved human rights issues, including the fact that Mexico is the most dangerous country to practice journalism in peacetime, according to Reporters Without Borders (RSF)

Although there have been federal and local protection mechanisms for human rights defenders and journalists in place since 2012, the situation remains grave. 

According to Article 19, 164 journalists died in Mexico between 2000 and 2024; 153 men and 12 women. 

Most recently, on April 26, 2024 — a month before the electoral campaigns ended — journalist Roberto Carlos Figueroa, who directed the media outlet Acá en el Show in Cuernavaca, Morelos, was kidnapped by an armed group. Money was demanded for Figueroa’s release and his wife paid the ransom; however, he was later found dead. 

RSF announced it would join the official investigations to determine if his disappearance was related to any published or upcoming news. Organised crime groups do not usually target journalists for ransom, knowing that it was unlikely this would be profitable in a country where the average reporter’s salary is 18,898 pesos —1,025 US dollars a month. 

FEW SAFEGUARDS

Figueroa’s murder raised the number of journalists killed under López Obrador’s 2018-2024 government to 44, an average of seven each year. The president, who steps down on October 1, has repeatedly insisted that journalists were neither persecuted nor harassed during his tenure. Although it is true that no media outlet closures were ordered during his term, his speeches were consistently hostile against any watchdog journalism that held him, his party or their allies to account.

Nonetheless, López Obrador has presided over the Mexico’s third deadliest ever government for journalists, behind the administrations of Enrique Peña Nieto with 47 and Felipe Calderón Hinojosa with 48, when a war against drug trafficking was unleashed. 

On Sunday, January 23, 2022 — when López Obrador’s government was starting its fourth year — journalist Lourdes Maldonado was shot dead in front of her house. She was under federal protection after receiving threats and had been given a panic button to activate in case of an emergency. However, it was of no use, as the killers surprised her before she got out of her car.

Two years earlier, in March 2019, she had expressed fear for her life at one of the Mexican president’s morning conferences after winning a labour lawsuit against the company Primer Sistema de Noticias — which owned a local TV channel — belonging to Jaime Bonilla Valdez, former governor of Baja California. 

On that occasion, López Obrador listened attentively, then committed to follow up on her case. Lourdes returned to Tijuana.

While the perpetrators of her murder were detained, nothing is known about who ordered her assassination, or why.

Amnesty International (AI) and the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) have warned that Mexico’s protection mechanisms for journalists tend to deny, weaken, or withdraw safeguards for those who need them.

In a joint statement, CPJ and AI described “an alarming picture of a deeply flawed institution that needs significant reform to meet the needs of journalists in one of the most violent countries in the world for the press”.

On Tuesday, June 11, the body of reporter Víctor Manuel Jiménez Campos was found in an abandoned water well in the community of Torrecillas, in the municipality of Villagrán. He had been missing since November 1, 2020, last seen heading to cover a baseball game.

Villagrán, with an estimated population of around 65,700, is the operations centre of the Santa Rosa de Lima cartel, led by Antonio Yepez Ortiz, “El Marro,” initially dedicated to fuel theft and later to drug trafficking. Rates of violence in Guanajuato have increased due to territorial clashes with the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), one of the most aggressive organisations to have emerged in Mexico in the last decade.

GROWING DANGERS

Threats against journalists have been another growing issue. In 2023 alone — the penultimate year of López Obrador’s term — Article 19 recorded 561 threats, highlighting 124 cases of harassment, 100 assaults and 106 instances of illegitimate use of public power. They also recorded 54 blockages by the authorities to prevent information from being made public and 37 physical attacks.

Another pending issue is the distribution of official advertising in the media. In 2022, López Obrador’s government spent significantly less money compared to other administrations. But it concentrated 680 million pesos, or 28 per cent of its budget, in just three companies: Televisa, TV Azteca, and La Jornada, seriously limiting access to finance for smaller and more investigative media. 

López Obrador often used his daily press conferences to label the media as corrupt and conservative. Every Wednesday, he included a section called Who’s Who in the Lies, where he not only responded to reports but also revealed journalists’ incomes.

It was perhaps no surprise that judicial harassment has increased year by year, according to Article 19. In 2023, 22 judicial processes were initiated against journalists in administrative, civil, electoral, and even criminal areas, equivalent to an average of 1.8 cases opened each month.

Article 19 highlighted the case of journalist Claudia Solera, who in April 2024  received notice of a 300 million peso lawsuit — over 16 million US dollars— for an article published in the Excelsior newspaper 14 years ago. A law firm accused her of damaging its assets and image by exposing a series of irregularities in illegal agreements with retirees. 

So far, Sheinbaum has not made her view of the media clear, but recently she alleged that “there are some outlets that are dedicated to permanently criticising our movement without reason, regardless of what is said or done”.

Artur Romeu, director of the Latin America Office of Reporters Without Borders, said in a statement that Sheinbaum would have the historic opportunity to end this uncontrolled violence against media professionals.

“The biggest challenge will be to effectively coordinate institutional efforts in favour of a more ambitious policy of prevention and protection for journalists, using all possible mechanisms at the federal and state levels,” he said. “The fight against violence against media professionals cannot continue to depend solely on the federal protection mechanism. A more systematic approach is essential, and its success depends on genuine political will.”

• About the author: Daniel Lizárraga is a veteran Mexican investigative journalist and currently coordinator of Investigative Journalism Projects for Latin America at IWPR.
• Source: This article was published by IWPR

Share

IWPR

The Institute for War & Peace Reporting is headquartered in London with coordinating offices in Washington, DC and The Hague, IWPR works in over 30 countries worldwide. It is registered as a charity in the UK, as an organisation with tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) in the United States, and as a charitable foundation in The Netherlands. The articles are originally produced by the Institute for War and Peace Reporting.

ARREST HIM FOR WAR CRIMES

Activists plan protests during Netanyahu's Washington visit this week

Police expect a "large number of demonstrators" and were making additional security arrangements but said there were no known threats.

By REUTERS

JULY 22, 2024 Pro-Palestine demonstrators cross New Jersey Avenue near the U.S. Capitol, during a protest in Washington, U.S, December 17, 2023.(photo credit: REUTERS/TOM BRENNER)

Activists opposing Israel's war in Gaza and Washington's support for its Middle Eastern ally plan protests at the US Capitol on Wednesday to coincide with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's US visit this week.

Police expect a "large number of demonstrators" and were making additional security arrangements but said there were no known threats.

Netanyahu will be in Washington this week for a July 24 address to a joint session of the US Congress. He is expected to meet President Joe Biden.

Biden has recently supported talks for a ceasefire but has continued military support for Israel.

Israel's military campaign followed an Oct. 7 attack by Hamas, whose militants surged into Israel, killing 1,200 and taking around 250 hostages, according to Israeli figures.

Pro Palestinian protesters demonstrate during the UN Climate Change Conference, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, in Bonn, Germany, June 7, 2024. (credit: REUTERS/WOLFGANG RATTAY)

A coalition of groups is expected to participate in the protests, among them ANSWER (an acronym for "Act Now to Stop War and End Racism"), women-led peace and human rights group CodePink, Palestinian groups such as Palestinian American Community Center and Jewish groups including Jewish Voice for Peace.

CodePink told Reuters organizers had arranged buses for human rights advocates to come to Washington from numerous states across the country.

US Capitol Police statement

"We anticipate a large number of demonstrators to show up," the US Capitol Police said. "Our plan includes adding more officers – including from several outside agencies."

A flyer urged the formation of a "People's Red Line around the Capitol building" on Wednesday, where demonstrators will criticize the US government for not drawing a "red line" in supporting Israel despite the war's death toll.

Around 230 anonymous Capitol Hill staffers from 122 offices signed a letter, made public last week, urging their bosses to either protest or boycott the July 24 address to Congress by Netanyahu against whom the International Criminal Court prosecutor's office recently requested an arrest warrant over alleged war crimes.

US protests since war erupted in Gaza have included marches, vigils and blocking of bridges and roads near train stations and airports in multiple cities along with encampments on college campuses.