World news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in World Politics

      How the Legal Landscape Is Changing for War Crimes

      by

      War crimes, genocide, torture, forced disappearances, crimes against humanity and other serious violations of international law have been characteristic of conflicts in the Arab world since even before they were codified in law. These crimes still occur in many Arab countries, most notably in Syria and Yemen. Not only do perpetrators often go unpunished, but they also find themselves rewarded and promoted.

      Was the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Mother of All War Crimes?

      READ MORE

      So, when on November 30, 2021, a court in Frankfurt, Germany, handed down a life sentence to an Iraqi man who joined the Islamic State (IS) group for genocide against the Yazidi minority — the first time a former member of IS had been convicted of genocide and the first verdict for genocide against Yazidis — it was celebrated as a landmark case in the fight for justice and accountability. Taha al-Jumailly was found guilty of genocide, crimes against humanity resulting in death, war crimes, aiding and abetting war crimes, and bodily harm resulting in death.

      “Today, ISIS member Taha AJ was convicted of genocide and sentenced to life in prison. This is the first genocide verdict against an ISIS member. This verdict is a win for survivors of genocide, survivors of sexual violence, & the Yazidi community,” tweeted Nadia Murad, a 2018 Nobel Peace Prize winner and a Yazidi survivor of IS enslavement.

      Universal Jurisdiction

      The trial was also the first in Germany based on the principle of universal jurisdiction addressing crimes under international law committed abroad by a perpetrator who is not a German citizen and was only extradited on the basis of an international arrest warrant. Universal jurisdiction is the principle that some crimes are so serious that states should be allowed to claim jurisdiction over an accused person regardless of where they were committed or any other relation with the prosecuting entity. None of the crimes in the Jumailly case were committed in Germany, and neither the victims nor the suspect were German nationals.

      Embed from Getty Images

      Though universal jurisdiction has been practiced in just a few countries in recent years, it has become an increasingly important tool for achieving accountability and justice for the survivors and victims of international crimes. Hundreds of investigations are ongoing and dozens of convictions have been obtained.

      The blossoming of universal jurisdiction is attributable to several factors, one of which is that the alternative route to prosecuting international crimes through the UN Security Council and the International Criminal Court (ICC) has effectively been closed by geopolitics. The Syrian conflict, for example, has never been appraised by the ICC because Russia backs President Bashar al-Assad.

      The Pursuit of Cases

      In recent years, there has been a greater capacity and willingness on the part of some domestic authorities to pursue cases involving international crimes, at least in certain circumstances. More and more countries have also passed laws allowing them to conduct the kind of landmark prosecution that took place in Frankfurt. More countries are following the Dutch example in setting up specialized units within the police, prosecution and even immigration services dedicated to identifying perpetrators of international crimes and bringing them to trial.

      Another important factor in the power of universal jurisdiction is that victims and their advocates can contribute to investigations and prosecutions, and sometimes even influence the direction they take. In some countries, such as France and Belgium, victims and NGOs can initiate criminal proceedings. Even where this is not possible, victims and their advocates can still drive cases forward in other ways, such as by tracking perpetrators’ movements, sharing information with the authorities and exerting pressure on them to act.

      Dutch authorities have even issued directions for Syrians in the Netherlands on how to file a criminal complaint against other Syrians relating to violations in Syria. In February, after Germany’s top court ruled that war crimes committed abroad can be tried in the country, a court in Koblenz became the first court outside of Syria to rule on state-sponsored torture by the Assad regime when it sentenced a former member of the secret police to four and a half years in prison for being an accomplice to crimes against humanity. Another former Syrian intelligence officer is currently on trial in Germany for overseeing 58 counts of murder and at least 4,000 cases of torture, rape or sexual abuse.

      Many Challenges

      Despite this recent progress, enormous legal, evidentiary and logistical challenges remain before international criminal cases can be brought to trial. Investigating and prosecuting international crimes in domestic courts is not straightforward, especially in a complex conflict such as the Yemen war where crimes have been committed over many years by different actors.

      Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

      Foreign investigators cannot easily gather evidence on the ground, so they have to rely on the cooperation of different parties to the conflict to build cases. UN bodies like the group of eminent experts, international organizations, local NGOs, and organizations such as Airwars assist with investigations.

      Even if evidence linking an individual perpetrator to war crimes can be established, the suspect still has to be apprehended. In some countries practicing universal jurisdiction, those accused of committing war crimes do not need to be within reach of authorities for an investigation to be opened, but they need to be physically brought to court before any trial can take place.

      Though international cooperation can be used to apprehend and extradite international pariahs like IS militants, pirates and slave traders, war criminals who are still serving members of Arab regimes are not about to be handed over. Only when they set foot in a country practicing universal jurisdiction — whether for work, vacation, claiming asylum or for any other reason — can they be arrested immediately, providing they do not benefit from immunity.

      Jumailly’s conviction “sends a clear message,” said Natia Navrouzov, a lawyer and member of the NGO Yazda, which gathers evidence of crimes committed by IS against the Yazidis. “It doesn’t matter where the crimes were committed and it doesn’t matter where the perpetrators are, thanks to the universal jurisdiction, they can’t hide and will still be put on trial.”

      *[This article was originally published by Arab Digest, a partner of Fair Observer.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 75 Shares119 Views

      in World Politics

      Has Britain Achieved a Post-Racial Politics?

      by

      The most closely guarded secrets of the British government are currently being reviewed by Priti Patel, the home secretary, or minister of the interior, as she would be described in most countries. It is her duty to receive the reports of the secret services: MI5, MI6 and GCHQ. Patel has to take those most difficult of decisions: which threats from Britain’s enemies to act on and which to ignore.

      The Far Right and the Politics of Feeling

      READ MORE

      Rishi Sunak holds the economic future of the country in his hands through his control of the Treasury as chancellor of the exchequer. Kwasi Kwarteng is Sunak’s deputy, as secretary of state for business, energy and industrial strategy. Sajid Javid is in charge of fighting the COVID-19 pandemic.

      Facing them across the House of Commons sits David Lammy, Labour’s shadow foreign secretary. Rosena Allin-Khan is Labour’s minister of mental health, and the woman charged with getting her party from the opposition into government is Shabana Mahmood, Labour’s national campaign coordinator.

      Minority Representation

      These men and women have little in common politically. Some are passionate capitalists, others fervent socialists. But all are members of Britain’s ethnic minorities. Some have family backgrounds in the Indian subcontinent. Others — an admittedly smaller number — can trace their roots to Africa. It is a little commented-upon fact that in Britain today, ethnic minorities are almost numerically represented in Parliament. Some 14% of the British population has an ethnic minority background, and 10% of MPs elected at the last general election in 2019 are black or Asian.

      The key point is not simply the numbers, but rather that they are as likely to be found on in the governing Conservative Party as they are in the opposition Labour Party. Back in 1987, the situation was very different. Four ethnic minority MPs were elected that year: Diane Abbott, Paul Boateng, Bernie Grant and Keith Vaz. All were Labour members.

      Embed from Getty Images

      As the House of Commons Library points out, “Their number has increased at each general election since then — most notably from 2010 onwards … But if the ethnic make-up of the House of Commons reflected that of the UK population, there would be about 93 Members from ethnic minority backgrounds … Of the 65 ethnic minority Members, 41 (63%) are Labour and 22 are Conservatives (34%). There are two Liberal Democrat MPs from an ethnic minority background.” These MPs have not languished in obscurity. They have been promoted to the highest political offices of the land, by both major political parties.

      The policies they would pursue could hardly be more different. Priti Patel has been roundly criticized by Labour for her virulent hostility to unrestricted migration and her determination to crack down on smuggling refugees over the English Channel from France. Her plans for “pushbacks” using the navy to deter migrants have been described as “inhumane, unconscionable and extremely reckless.”

      Patel’s background — her family came to Britain in the 1960s before dictator Idi Amin’s mass expulsion of Asians from Uganda in 1972 — appears to have had little influence on her opinions or policies. Little wonder that she is a favorite of the Conservative right and a potential successor to Boris Johnson as prime minister.

      Zero Tolerance

      The significance of the rise of Britain’s ethnic minorities through the ranks is that neither of the two main parties that dominate the country’s politics can any longer tolerate the kind of overt racism that was once a regular part of British culture. Patel and Allin-Khan may be poles apart politically, but neither would accept policies of the kind that once were espoused by the likes of the Enoch Powell.

      His notorious “Rivers of Blood” speech from 1968, in which he warned against the impact not just of immigration but also of a bill before Parliament designed to fight racism, was widely welcomed. The Conservative right hailed him as a champion, and Labour-supporting London dockers marched to Parliament to show their support.

      Does this imply that racism in Britain is a thing of the past? Emphatically not. But given Britain’s first-past-the-post electoral system, it means that only fringe parties, with little chance of winning seats in Parliament, are likely to take up the issue.

      Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

      Overt racism is still nurtured by a section of British society. The Brexit referendum in 2016 brought out the worst in some communities. The attacks on Poles were particularly disgraceful, given the bravery of their pilots, over 8,000 of whom fought in the critical Battle of Britain over the skies of England during World War II. No fewer than five neo-Nazi groups are banned in the UK, with Patel condemning “evil white supremacist groups, who target vulnerable people across the world.” A third of all terror plots uncovered in Britain emanate from the far right.

      None of this should be ignored. It is not inconceivable that overtly racist politics will rear its head once more in Britain, but neither the Conservative Party nor Labour is likely to support it. Only in extreme circumstances are they likely to flourish. As such, it may be that British politics can today be considered post-racial.

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 188 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      A year after the Capitol attack, what has the US actually learned? | Cas Mudde

      by

      A year after the Capitol attack, what has the US actually learned?Cas MuddeThe government is finally taking the threat of far-right militia groups seriously. But the larger threat are the Republican legislators who continue to recklessly undermine democracy One year ago, he was frantically barricading the doors to the House gallery to keep out the violent mob. Today, he calls the insurrection a “bold-faced lie” and likens the event to “a normal tourist visit”. The story of Andrew Clyde, who represents part of my – heavily gerrymandered – liberal college town in the House of Representatives, is the story of the Republican party in 2021. It shows a party that had the opportunity to break with the anti-democratic course under Donald Trump, but was too weak in ideology and leadership to do so, thereby presenting a fundamental threat to US democracy in 2022 and beyond.The risk of a coup in the next US election is greater now than it ever was under Trump | Laurence H Tribe Read moreClyde is illustrative of another ongoing development, the slow but steady takeover of the Republican party by new, and often relatively young, Trump supporters. In 2015, when his massive gun store on the outskirts of town was still flying the old flag of Georgia, which includes the Confederate flag, he was a lone, open supporter of then-presidential candidate Trump, with several large pro-Trump and anti-“fake news” signs adorning his gun store. Five years later, Clyde was elected to the House of Representatives as part of a wave of Trump-supporting novices, mostly replacing Republicans who had supported President Trump more strategically than ideologically.With his 180-degree turn about the 6 January insurrection, Clyde is back in line with the majority of the Republican base, as a recent UMass poll shows. After initial shock, and broad condemnation, Republicans have embraced the people who stormed the Capitol last year, primarily referring to the event as a “protest” (80%) and to the insurrectionists as “protesters” (62%), while blaming the Democratic party (30%), the Capitol police (23%), and the inevitable antifa (20%) for what happened. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of Republicans (75%) believe the country should “move on” from 6 January, rather than learn from it. And although most don’t care either way, one-third of Republicans say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who refuses to denounce the insurrection.The increased anti-democratic threat of the Republican party can also be seen in the tidal wave of voting restrictions proposed and passed in 2021. The Brennan Center for Justice counted a stunning 440 bills “with provisions that restrict voting access” introduced across all but one of the 50 US states, the highest number since the Center started tracking them 10 years ago. A total of 34 such laws were passed in 19 different states last year, and 88 bills in nine states are being carried over to the 2022 legislative term. Worryingly, Trump-backed Republicans who claim the 2020 election was stolen are running for secretary of state in various places where Trump unsuccessfully challenged the results.At the same time, the situation of the non-Republican far right is a bit less clear. While some experts warn that the militia movement, in particular, has turned toward more violent extremism, the violent fringes of the far right are also confronted by a much more vigilant state. This is particularly true for groups linked to the 6 January attacks, such as the Oath Keepers, which has faced increasing public and state scrutiny after 21 of its members were alleged to have participated in the attacks. Similarly, Proud Boys leaders are facing trial over the event, and some have agreed to cooperate with authorities in their investigations.After decades of the US government ignoring or downplaying the threat of far-right violence, President Biden has made “domestic violent extremism” a key concern of his new administration, regularly singling out white supremacists as “the most lethal terrorist threat in the homeland”. Partly in response to reports that former military personnel were prominently involved in the 6 January attack, the Pentagon has acknowledged “the threat from domestic extremists, particularly those who espouse white supremacist or white nationalist ideologies,” to the military and the country at large.This is not to say that the state is in control of the violent far right. While more than 700 suspected insurrectionists have been arrested, only some 50-plus have been convicted so far, mostly facing fines and probation, after judges rebuffed the DoJ. And media reports found that both the military and law enforcement have struggled to rid themselves of far-right ideas and supporters. But potentially violent far-right individuals and groups are now surveilled much more than they have been since 9/11 – we’re in a moment perhaps more similar to the short period after the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995, still the most deadly domestic terrorist attack in US history.In short, a year after the Capitol attack, US democracy is in a different but still fragile place. Most importantly, the extremists are no longer in the White House, encouraging and protecting the far-right mob. In fact, the state is more aware of and vigilant towards the far-right threat than ever before this century. The threat of far-right direct violence is probably less severe than before – not because the movement is weaker, but because the state is stronger.At the same time, the Republican party has become increasingly united and naked in its extremism, which denies both the anti-democratic character of the 6 January attack and the legitimacy of Biden’s presidency, and is passing an unprecedented number of voter restriction bills in preparation for the 2022 midterms and 2024 presidential elections. As long as the White House mainly focuses on fighting “domestic violent extremism”, and largely ignores or minimizes the much more lethal threat to US democracy posed by non-violent extremists, the US will continue to move closer and closer to an authoritarian future.
      Cas Mudde is Stanley Wade Shelton UGAF professor of international affairs at the University of Georgia, the author of The Far Right Today (2019), and host of the podcast Radikaal. He is a Guardian US columnist
      TopicsUS Capitol attackOpinionUS politicsRepublicansThe far rightJoe BidenBiden administrationTrump administrationcommentReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      More than 1,000 US public figures aided Trump’s effort to overturn election

      by

      More than 1,000 US public figures aided Trump’s effort to overturn election Insurrection Index identifies those who acted as accomplices by participating in 6 January attack or spreading Trump’s ‘big lie’More than 1,000 Americans in positions of public trust acted as accomplices in Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election result, participating in the violent insurrection at the US Capitol on 6 January or spreading the “big lie” that the vote count had been rigged.One-party rule is now the credo of Trump and his followers | Lloyd GreenRead moreThe startling figure underlines the extent to which Trump’s attempt to undermine the foundations of presidential legitimacy has metastasized across the US. Individuals who engaged in arguably the most serious attempt to subvert democracy since the civil war are now inveigling themselves into all levels of government, from Congress and state legislatures down to school boards and other local public bodies.The finding that 1,011 individuals in the public realm played a role in election subversion around the 2020 presidential race comes from a new pro-democracy initiative that will launch on Thursday on the anniversary of the Capitol assault.The Insurrection Index seeks to identify all those who supported Trump in his bid to hold on to power despite losing the election, in the hope that they can be held accountable and prevented from inflicting further damage to the democratic infrastructure of the country.All of the more than 1,000 people recorded on the index have been invested with the public’s trust, having been entrusted with official positions and funded with taxpayer dollars. Many are current or former government employees at federal, state or local levels.Among them are 213 incumbents in elected office and 29 who are running as candidates for positions of power in upcoming elections. There are also 59 military veterans, 31 current or former law enforcement officials, and seven who sit on local school boards.When the index goes live on Thursday, it will contain a total of 1,404 records of those who played a role in trying to overturn the 2020 election. In addition to the 1,011 individuals, it lists 393 organizations deemed to have played a part in subverting democracy.The index is the brainchild of Public Wise, a voting rights group whose mission is to fight for government that reflects the will and the rights of voters. Christina Baal-Owens, the group’s executive director, said that the index was conceived as an ongoing campaign designed to keep insurrectionists out of office.“These are folks who silenced the voices of American voters, who took a validly held election and created fraudulent information to try to silence voters. They have no business being near legislation or being able to affect the lives of American people,” she said.The project has been set up with legal advice from Marc Elias, one of the most influential election lawyers in the US who was Hillary Clinton’s top counsel in the 2016 presidential campaign and who successfully led Joe Biden’s resistance to Trump’s blitzkrieg of lawsuits contesting the 2020 results. Elias told the Guardian that the index was needed urgently to avoid history repeating itself in 2024 or beyond.“We are one, maybe two elections away from a constitutional crisis over election subversion,” he said. “If we don’t recognize who was behind the attempt to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power, then next time we will be less prepared and it may succeed.”Elias said he saw the index as an example of the kinds of robust action progressives need to take to combat an unprecedented wave of anti-democratic legislation emanating from Republicans in the past 12 months. While Trump had reshaped the right to be laser-focused on elections and winning at all costs, Democrats are spreading their energies thinly between a number of causes of which protecting democracy was just one, he said.“The central theme of the Republican party today is undermining free and fair elections. Under Trump that has become a credential within the party, and we can’t let those folks win without a fight because if we do we lose our democracy.”The individuals recorded on the index who are already in public office include the 147 members of Congress who objected to the certification of the 2020 election result. The list also names many elected officials in state legislatures across the nation, including states like Arizona that were ground zero for Trump’s efforts to steal the election from Biden.Jake Hoffman, a lawmaker who represents Arizona’s 12th district, wrote to fellow Republicans a day before the Capitol insurrection urging them to pressure then vice-president Mike Pence into blocking Biden’s victory. “Vice-President Pence has the power to delay congressional certification and seek clarification from state legislatures in contested states as to which slate of electors are proper and accurate,” Hoffman wrote, reflecting a theory embraced by Trump that has been thoroughly rebutted.The week before the insurrection, 17 Arizona state lawmakers wrote to Pence urging him to “block the use of any Electors from Arizona” despite multiple counts by then establishing that Biden had won the state by more than 10,000 votes. Among the signatories was Mark Finchem, a member of the Arizona House of representatives who was present at Trump’s “stop the steal” rally in Washington on 6 January and who is now vying to become Arizona secretary of state – the top election official who oversees the presidential count.Among the 59 individuals on the index with military backgrounds is Christopher Warnagiris, who in June became the first active-duty member of the armed forces to be charged in relation with the Capitol assault. Despite facing nine counts of assault and violent entry, he has been permitted to continue serving within the training and education section at the Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia.Public Wise has drawn on a number of public information sources to compile the index, working in partnership with other pro-democracy groups who have added specialist skills. The partners include American Oversight, a non-partisan organisation that has used freedom of information laws to extract information from government agencies that exposes participants in the big lie.“The goal is to build up a holistic picture so that nothing can fall through the cracks and no one can slip away,” said Austin Evers, the executive director of American Oversight. “We ask: who is this cc’d on this email? What handle is this on a social media account? If we can connect the dots we can ensure accountability can be brought to bear.”Evers said that the most chilling revelation of the research was that the 6 January insurrection was inspired by an ideology that was supported by people in power. “State legislators in Arizona were involved in the run-up to January 6 and after January 6 used their positions to drive the big lie. That feels cancerous – the attack on democracy has the backing of political, and even governmental, infrastructure.”One likely charge leveled at the new index by rightwing individuals and groups is that it is a form of “cancel culture”, designed to silence anyone airing uncomfortable views. Baal-Owens dismisses any such criticism.“Our call to action is about voting, not doxing,” she said, pointing out that no private information is included on the index. “The call to action is not to show up at this person’s house or chase their child to school, but to allow every registered voter to have an educated way to cast their vote.”The groups behind the index hope that it will alert voters to the anti-democratic actions of people running for elected office. The value of such a record, they believe, would increase exponentially were the Republicans to take back control of Congress in this year’s midterm elections, leading almost certainly to an abrupt halt in congressional investigations into the events of 6 January.TopicsDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s ‘cult-like control’ of Republican party grows stronger since insurrection

      by

      Trump’s ‘cult-like control’ of Republican party grows stronger since insurrection A year ago, it seemed as though the Republican party might snap out of its love affair with the former president. Not soWhether it was praising white supremacists, siding with Vladimir Putin or suggesting bleach as a coronavirus cure, there was nothing that Donald Trump could do to make the Republican party fall out of love with him.Then came 6 January, and – for a brief moment – it seemed that was no longer true.“Today all I can say is: count me out,” said Lindsey Graham, standing in a Senate chamber that just hours earlier had been overrun by a pro-Trump mob determined to overturn the 2020 presidential election. “Enough is enough.”Indictment of alleged Proud Boys leaders over US Capitol attack upheldRead moreA week later he was joined by Kevin McCarthy, the Republican minority leader in the House of Representatives, who called on Trump to “accept his share of responsibility” for the deadly violence at the Capitol. Other allies turned against the president. If ever there was a moment that the party could snap out of its five-year fever dream, this was it. Yet it did not.In the year since the insurrection that reverberated around the world, Trump’s stranglehold on Republicans has seemingly become stronger, not weaker. Graham was soon back on the golf course with him; McCarthy was soon kissing the ring at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Many leaders of the party have set about changing the narrative of the insurrection to portray it as a heroic last stand – a new “lost cause”.“We now have a major political party that is embracing violence systematically,” said Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution thinktank in Washington and former White House official. “They’re rewriting the events of January 6. They’re referring, as President Trump does, to these people as patriots. They are stirring up a minority.”Trump was the first president in American history to inspire an attempted coup. After a rally where the defeated incumbent urged supporters to “fight like hell”, the angry mob laid siege to the US Capitol to disrupt the certification of Joe Biden’s victory.Five people died, scores of police were beaten and bloodied and there was about $1.5m in damage in the first major attack on the Capitol since the war of 1812. More than 700 people have been charged in one of the biggest criminal investigations in American history.But even on the night 6 January, as members of the House and Senate stepped over blood and broken glass to get the job, some 147 Republicans still voted to overturn the election results. It was the first clue that Trump had burrowed too far down into the party’s foundations to be expunged – and that anyone who tried would themselves be purged.The second clue came after Trump had been impeached – for the second time – by the House, a vote in which just 10 Republicans joined Democrats. A majority of senators voted to convict the former president but fell 10 votes short of the two-thirds majority required by the constitution. Trump was acquitted.Jamie Raskin, a Democratic congressman who was the lead impeachment manager, said: “The evidence was so overwhelming, our legal case was so airtight and Trump’s culpability was so plain to see, I thought that perhaps the Republican party would use this as an opportunity to perform an exorcism on their own body.“But Trump just controls way too much money and too much power in the Republican party and it was really only a matter of a week or two before he reasserted his authoritarian, cult-like control over the whole GOP [Grand Old Party] apparatus.”The third clue, demonstrating Raskin’s point, came in May when Senate Republicans voted down an independent commission to investigate the riot, based on the model of a commission that examined the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Even the minority leader, Mitch McConnell, who had condemned Trump for inciting the violence and remains an arch foe, dismissed the proposed commission as a “purely political exercise”.Democrats instead created a House select committee to examine the events of that day and understand what role Trump played. It has interviewed hundreds of people and is threatening jail time for those who refuse to comply. But it has only two Republican members, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, and their fates say much about the direction of the party.Cheney, vice-chair of the committee and daughter of the former vice-president Dick Cheney, has faced the wrath of the Republican party of Wyoming, which voted to no longer recognise her as a Republican. She will be challenged for her seat in a primary election by a pro-Trump candidate. Kinzinger has been subjected to death threats and will not seek reelection.Michael Steele, former chairman of the Republican National Committee, said: “They have to rewrite the history because that’s the only way they can justify their existence because if you let the actual facts of history speak to the truth of who they are, then I don’t know how they look themselves in the face in the morning.”Today the loudest voices in the Republican party belong to the extremists. For them, Trump’s “big lie” that the election was stolen from him due to voter fraud, rendering Biden an illegitimate president, goes hand in hand with the lie that the insurrection was a morally justified crusade, an righteous endeavor to save democracy, not destroy it.Trump himself perpetuates this through a regular barrage of interviews, rallies and emailed statements since he was barred from Twitter. Notably he has sought to lionize Ashli Babbitt, who was shot dead during the riot, as a martyr.Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican congresswoman, has cast rioters currently held in detention in a similar light. In November she visit a Washington jail’s so-called “patriot wing” and complained the inmates were enduring “inhumane” conditions because of their political beliefs.Other pro-Trump Republicans in the House echo these messages – one referred to the Capitol attack as a “normal tourist visit” – or do little to contradict them. Some Republican senators are evidently more uncomfortable with the web of deceit and urge the party to look forward to the next election. But again only a small minority are willing to take Trump on directly.All are aware of the power of rightwing media over state Republican parties and the “Make America great again” base. Fox News host Tucker Carlson produced a three-part documentary, Patriot Purge, for the Fox Nation streaming platform that pushed the bogus claim that the insurrection was a “false flag” operation designed to hurt Trump’s supporters.Steve Bannon, a former adviser to Trump, uses his “War Room” podcast to promote the “big lie” that Trump won re-election in a landslide and features guests such as Mike Lindell, a pillow businessman who peddles wild conspiracy theories. Bannon encourages listeners to support the legal defence of the 6 January “political prisoners”.This has helped fuel a climate in which fealty to Trump and his debunked narrative is a litmus test for Republican candidates for Congress. Almost a third of Republicans believe violence may be necessary to “save” the US, according to a recent poll by the Public Religion Research Institute.Trump’s resilient ability to bend the party to his will, and to his disinformation about election “integrity”, have fueled a drive to make it harder to vote, likely to have a disproportionate impact on Democrats. Between January and October, 19 states enacted 33 laws to restrict voting access, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.In addition, Trump loyalists are running as candidates for secretaries of state and other positions that would give them power over the running of future elections. With Republicans in a strong position to regain control of the House and Senate this year, the party is readying for a repeat of 6 January with a different outcome.Steele added: “The elements of it are being played out in states throughout the country as Republicans rewrite the election laws in their favor.”One year on, many analysts argue that America is now split between a Democratic party and anti-democratic party, the latter being barely recognisable as the one-time home of Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower. Instead Trump remains its most powerful and popular figure and could run for the White House again in 2024.Kurt Bardella, an adviser to the Democratic National Committee, believes that 6 January will go down as the day that the Republican party surrendered to “an anti-democratic terrorist cell” and that its mission since has been to permanently undermine democracy.“I have long said that January 6 was merely a dress rehearsal for how Republicans intend to try to hijack free and fair democratic elections in this country going forward,” added Bardella, a former Republican congressional aide.“They know that when the playing field is level and everybody can participate in the democratic process, they cannot win, so the only recourse that they believe that they can obtain power is by throwing out democratic norms and overthrowing elections, even if that means using instruments of violence, fear and terror to do so.”TopicsRepublicansUS politicsDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Capitol attack panel seeks cooperation from Fox News host Sean Hannity

      by

      Capitol attack panel seeks cooperation from Fox News host Sean HannityCommittee requests answers from Hannity about communications with Donald Trump before, on and after day of 6 January attack The US House of Representatives panel investigating the deadly attack on the US Capitol last January is seeking cooperation from Sean Hannity, the Fox News host and one of Donald Trump’s closest allies in the media, as the committee continues to widen its scope.Congressman Bennie Thompson, the chair of the committee, and vice-chair Liz Cheney have requested that Hannity answer questions in relation to communications between Hannity and the former president, as well as the former president’s chief of staff Mark Meadows, and others in the days leading up to the attack, the day itself and in the aftermath.In a letter to Hannity, made public on Tuesday, Thompson and Cheney wrote: “The Select Committee now has information in its possession, as outlined in part below, indicating that you had advance knowledge regarding President Trump’s and his legal team’s planning for January 6th.Will the hundreds of Capitol rioters in court ever be held truly accountable?Read more“It also appears that you were expressing concerns and providing advice to the President and certain White House staff regarding that planning. You also had relevant communications while the riot was underway, and in the days thereafter. These communications make you a fact witness in our investigation.”The House select committee investigating the 6 January insurrection revealed last month that Hannity and other Fox News hosts had messaged Meadows during the attack. Hannity has been a major supporter of Trump on his Fox show, as well as an adviser to the former president.“Can he make a statement? Ask people to leave the Capitol?” Hannity texted Meadows during the attack, the recently released records show. The anchor has avoided publicly blaming Trump for riling up the crowd that then attacked the Capitol.In his letter, Thompson said that the committee has “immense respect for the First Amendment to our Constitution, freedom of the press, and the rights of Americans to express their political opinions freely”, and did not intend to seek information regarding Hannity’s broadcasts.However, the chairman said, the committee also has a responsibility to investigate the dozens of text messages it has in its possession, dating from 31 December 2020 to 20 January 2021, between Hannity, Trump and Meadows regarding the outcome of the 2020 presidential election and Trump’s failed efforts to contest it.One specific December 2020 text from Hannity to Meadows highlighted in the letter reads: “I do NOT see January 6 happening the way he is being told. After the 6 th. (sic) He should announce will lead the nationwide effort to reform voting integrity. Go to Fl and watch Joe mess up daily. Stay engaged. When he speaks people will listen.”The letter to Hannity also highlights texts from the night before the insurrection, including one in which Hannity said he was “very worried about the next 48 hours” and another to Meadows in which he wrote, “Pence pressure. WH counsel will leave.” The letter says it appears from other text messages that Hannity may have spoken directly with Trump on 5 January regarding planning for the following day.Hannity had previously criticized the violence that took place nearly a year ago at the Capitol. But he’s also been sharply critical of the committee and its work, saying after his texts were revealed: “We’ve been telling you that this is a waste of your time and money. They have a predetermined outcome.”A Fox News spokesperson declined to comment on the request. Jay Sekulow, Hannity’s lawyer, told the Associated Press on Tuesday night that they are reviewing the committee’s letter and “will respond as appropriate”.The request is the first by the nine-member panel to a member of the media and opens a new door for the investigation as it widens its scope to any and all people who were in contact with the former president and his inner circle in the time surrounding the attack.The committee says the extraordinary trove of material it has collected 35,000 pages of records so far, including texts, emails and phone records from people close to Trump is fleshing out critical details of the worst attack on the Capitol in two centuries, which played out on live television.As the House prepares to commemorate the anniversary of the attack Thursday, the panel, which commenced its work last summer, has already interviewed nearly 300 people and issued subpoenas to more than 40 as it seeks to create a comprehensive record of the attack and the events leading up to it.Thompson said about 90% of the witnesses called by the committee have cooperated despite the defiance of high-profile Trump allies such as Meadows and Steve Bannon.Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will mark the anniversary this Thursday with speeches, alongside a slate of commemorative events.On Monday, meanwhile, Donald Trump announced he was cancelling his own press conference on the day, blaming the House committee.“In light of the total bias and dishonesty of the January 6th Unselect Committee of Democrats, two failed Republicans, and the Fake News Media, I am canceling the January 6th Press Conference at Mar-a-Lago,” Trump said.TopicsUS Capitol attackSean HannityUS politicsDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in World Politics

      Paranoia and the Perils of Misreading

      by

      In the summer of 2021, genocide scholar Dirk Moses published an article in the Swiss online journal Geschichte der Gegenwart (History of the Present) titled, “The German Catechism.” He argued that Germany’s sense of its special obligation to Jews after the Holocaust has become a debilitating blockage to thinking through some of the most pressing issues of the present.

      Practice and Practitioners of Holocaust Denial

      READ MORE

      In Moses’ words, the “catechism” consisted of five strands: 1) the Holocaust is unique because it was the unlimited extermination of Europe’s Jews for the sake of extermination, without the pragmatic considerations that characterize other genocides; 2) it was thus a Zivilisationsbruch (civilizational rupture) and the moral foundation of the nation; 3) Germany has a special responsibility to Jews in Germany and a special loyalty to Israel; 4) anti-Semitism is a distinct prejudice and a distinctly German one — it should not be confused with racism; 5) and anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.

      Leading to Debate

      Moses’ claims, not least his use of the term “catechism” with all of its religious connotations, gave rise to considerable debate in Germany and beyond. (The key texts are now collated on the New Fascism Syllabus website.) Notably, many female scholars, especially women of color, engaged in this debate, which opened a space for a discussion of issues relating to German colonial history, postcolonial approaches to German history and the Holocaust.

      Embed from Getty Images

      But when the discussion took place in the feuilletons of distinguished German-language newspapers, the authors were mainly middle-aged white men. Here, the criticisms, now bound up with the belated German publication of Michael Rothberg’s 2009 book, “Multidirectional Memory,” tended to be more defensive of German memory culture and critical of Moses’ supposed intentions. Left-liberal historians such as Gotz Aly and Dan Diner, who had been instrumental in freeing the federal republic from its self-exculpatory and conservative-nationalist postwar culture, bringing the Holocaust into the center of the national discussion, seemed especially incensed; though this is hardly surprising since these were the very people Moses had in his sights, using an Arendt-inspired tone that seemed designed to enrage.

      The “catechism debate” has revealed some intriguing fault lines in the German politics of memory. Moses’ insistence that the terms of his catechism mean that what began as a progressive movement to make Holocaust memory central to the Berlin republic’s self-understanding has gradually become a conservative shutting down of critical voices who want to address German colonialism and current-day racism has touched a nerve. The responses can be read on the New Fascism Syllabus website, where many fair-minded respondents, such as historian Frank Biess, have attempted to grapple honestly with Moses’ claims and to set out what they think their limits are.

      Yet the debate is significant not just in its own right, but because it has spilled over into the reception of Moses’ new book, “The Problems of Genocide,” a reception that is itself inseparable from the debate over Rothberg’s book, which turned — contrary to Rothberg’s intention to facilitate open discussion — on the extent to which the Holocaust in German memory culture prevents discussion of German (or wider) colonial atrocities or modern-day racism.

      What Does He Say?

      What does Moses argue in his book? The clue lies in the subtitle, “Permanent Security and the Language of Transgression.” By this, he signals that his argument is less about the politics of Holocaust memory — though this features in the book — than the way in which the concept of genocide, contrary to the intentions of many lawyers, historians and political theorists, facilitates rather than hinders atrocities and human rights abuses across the world.

      Critics, especially Holocaust historians, have been quick to condemn what they regard as a conspiracy theory at the heart of the book, namely that Raphael Lemkin, the Polish-Jewish lawyer who coined the term “genocide” and campaigned all his life to have it incorporated into international law, was a Jewish exclusivist who worked with non-Jewish groups in a way that allowed him to get them to take his concept seriously, but who was only concerned with the fate of the Jews under Nazi rule.

      Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

      Moses does indeed set out something like this argument, saying that to “mobilise action about Jews … it made strategic sense to link the fate of Jewish and non-Jewish victims of Nazis under a single conceptual umbrella. This is the task that Lemkin’s genocide concept was designed to perform. Far from unthinkingly eliding the differences between Jewish and non-Jewish victims as supposed by Lemkin’s critics decades later, uniting them was the point of the concept.” His conclusion is that “if anyone is to blame for the problems of genocide, it is Lemkin.” In response, Omer Bartov, exemplifying the critical reading of Moses’ book, claimed in an Einstein Forum debate that Moses was putting forward what sounds like a “Jewish–Zionist plot.”

      Moses’ reading is debatable. Putting it forward requires dismissing Lemkin’s own autobiographical claims that he was moved, as a child, by learning of the Ottoman Empire’s massacres of Armenians and, more importantly, asserting that Lemkin remained a Jewish Zionist-nationalist from the 1920s — an orientation well documented by James Loeffler — through to the wartime and postwar period. But this is a reading that, albeit contestable, is well within the norms of intellectual history.

      Revisionism is what historians do all the time, and there is nothing about Moses’ position that justifies reaching for one’s metaphorical gun. Besides, this is not the heart of the book, which has a far more expansive remit than Lemkin and Holocaust historiography, taking in a remarkable range of references in world history. He has set out his argument plainly and in detail on numerous occasions. (See, for example, his talk with Geoff Eley at the University of Michigan or his interview on the New Books in Genocide Studies website.)

      What Does This Mean?

      It seems that what is happening here exemplifies Moses’ argument that Holocaust studies is riven by paranoia. Why should seeing the Holocaust as exemplifying the “problems of genocide” — understood in Moses’ terms — mean that one is downplaying the Holocaust? The opposite is the case: The Holocaust should tell us something about the destructive potential of modern states, but it has been siloed in a way that reduces the force of its potential critique, permitting “business as usual” in the modern world. Why, to return to old debates in genocide studies, should placing the Holocaust in a comparative context diminish its significance?

      Embed from Getty Images

      If one were to compare the Holocaust with the Boston Tea Party or the Peterloo Massacre, the critics would be justified in objecting. But analyzing it alongside other horrific occurrences, such as the Armenian, Rwandan or Cambodian genocides or cases of genocide in settler-colonial contexts, not only allows one to understand genocide as a generic phenomenon, but it also throws into sharper relief what distinguishes the Holocaust from other genocides — since none are the same. One can be a responsible Holocaust historian and still subscribe to the idea that motivates genocide studies.

      This is a case of fighting the wrong enemy. In the same way that the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) sometimes seems more concerned about which historians have signed the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism and reinforcing its own singular and narrow definition of anti-Semitism than about combating the radical right, especially as it seeps into mainstream politics in the United States and elsewhere, Moses’ critics have embarked on seeking to have him “canceled” in a kneejerk fear that his critical takedown of the “genocide” concept paves the way to anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.

      What Dirk Moses is seeking to do is to show how the idea of genocide has had opposite effects to those intended, if not by Raphael Lemkin, then by his followers today. He is hardly proposing a world of anarchy or an opening the floodgates to scholarly anti-Semitism. One does not have to agree with everything that Moses says to accept that this is a serious book. Dismissing it as anti-Semitic is nothing more than paranoia in action.

      *[Fair Observer is a media partner of the Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More