World news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden outlines Afghanistan withdrawal: ‘It’s time for American troops to come home’ – live

      by

      Key events

      Show

      5.50pm EDT
      17:50

      Local US mosques caught in pandemic crunch turn to online fundraisers

      5.19pm EDT
      17:19

      ‘Terrible days ahead’: Afghan women fear the return of the Taliban

      5.00pm EDT
      17:00

      Today so far

      4.39pm EDT
      16:39

      Chauvin trial: defense claims bad heart and drug use killed Floyd

      3.36pm EDT
      15:36

      Biden visits Arlington National Cemetery after announcing Afghanistan troop withdrawal

      3.09pm EDT
      15:09

      Obama applauds Biden’s decision to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan

      2.52pm EDT
      14:52

      ‘It’s time to end the forever war,’ Biden says of Afghanistan

      Live feed

      Show

      5.50pm EDT
      17:50

      Local US mosques caught in pandemic crunch turn to online fundraisers

      Lizzie Mulvey reports:
      The building facade is deteriorating. The heating system is a fire hazard. When it rains outside, it also rains inside – a plastic container near the prayer area collects water. Masjid An-Noor, a mosque serving the Muslim community of Bridgeport, Connecticut, for over 30 years, is barely holding on – and it is part of a trend of mosques across America facing dire financial problems during the Covid-19 pandemic.
      In April last year, as states across America went into lockdown, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan was just beginning. The holy month is a time when mosques open their doors each night, welcoming members and guests for iftar – a communal meal to break the day’s fast. It’s also one of the most fruitful times of year for fundraising, particularly for local mosques, which cover the majority of expenses through individual donations.
      But as in-person worship was put on hold, congregants could no longer share their nightly meal. And throughout the rest of 2020, families were barred from going to Friday prayers, or Jum’ah, another robust time for fundraising. And with unemployment rising, many Muslims families faced their own financial hardship. As a result, donations to mosques across the country declined dramatically – for some places of worship, annual funding fell by 40-60%.
      Larger, regional mosques in the US, usually based in urban areas, are connected to large Muslim communities and a network of other mosques that provides financial security. Smaller neighborhood mosques, sometimes called mahallah mosques, in cities and suburban and rural areas, lack the same safety net. There is also little financial support offered by federal and state governments and many of them turn to GoFundMe efforts to survive – with mixed results.
      “We are extremely in financial debt, we owe a lot of money to people,” said Atif Seyal, an executive committee member of the mosque in Connecticut, who helped organize a GoFundMe fundraiser for the mosque, which sought to raise $100,000 but has so far accrued only $12,200.
      “We have a lot of children in the community and we want to teach them our religion,” said Seyal, explaining why it was important to him that the mosque continues to exist. The mosque also provides a service to people in the town of all ages, supporting “people in need, people who don’t have a job. When a family member passes we help them to get them buried in the proper way.”
      According to Tariq Reqhman, the secretary general of the Islamic Circle of North America, a non-profit in Queens, New York, “99% of mosques in New York City have community support, and do not have grants or public or government funding. Everything comes from the community.”
      Read more:

      5.48pm EDT
      17:48

      A bill to address hate crimes against Asian Americas advanced through the Senate – but faces potential roadblocks ahead.
      With a 92-6 vote, the Covid-19 Hate Crimes Act passed a procedural vote, and will be up for final passage this week. The bill, introduced by Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii would create a new Justice Department position to oversee the review of hate crimes related to the pandemic.
      Six Republicans – Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Ted Cruz of Texas, Josh Hawley of Missouri, Roger Marshall of Kansas, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Tommy Tuberville of Alabama — voted against advancing the measure.
      Republicans were generally unenthusiastic about the bill and had hoped to introduce nearly two dozen amendments to it.

      5.19pm EDT
      17:19

      ‘Terrible days ahead’: Afghan women fear the return of the Taliban

      Akhtar Mohammad Makoii (in Herat) and Michael Safi report:
      Outside a college from which their mothers were banned, the women waited for friends finishing exams they fear will be some of the last they can take. “The Americans are leaving,” said Basireh Heydari, a Herat University student. “We have terrible days ahead with the Taliban. I’m worried they won’t let me leave the house, let alone what I’m doing now.”
      The Biden administration’s decision to withdraw all US troops from Afghanistan by 11 September will bring an end to the US’s longest war. With Nato allies such as Germany already announcing on Wednesday that they will follow Washington’s lead and exit the country, Afghans fear an intensification of fighting between the national government and the Taliban, who were ousted by the US-led intervention two decades ago.
      Violence against civilians, especially women and children, has surged over the past year, according to UN statistics released on Wednesday, and Taliban control of the country is greater than at any point in the past two decades. The benefits of an ongoing foreign military presence in the country are unclear.
      But a return to hardline Islamist rule could mean the rollback of one of the intervention’s least disputed achievements – the lifting of a Taliban prohibition of female education.
      Read more:

      5.00pm EDT
      17:00

      Today so far

      That’s it from me today. My west coast colleague, Maanvi Singh, will take over the blog for the next few hours.
      Here’s where the day stands so far:

      Joe Biden announced all US troops will be withdrawn from Afghanistan by September 11. “It’s time for American troops to come home,” the president said in a speech at the White House. “It’s time to end the forever war.” Biden said the troop drawdown will begin next month and be completed by the 20th anniversary of the September 11 attacks.
      Barack Obama praised Biden’s troop withdrawal decision. “After nearly two decades of putting our troops in harm’s way, it is time to recognize that we have accomplished all that we can militarily, and that it’s time to bring our remaining troops home,” Obama said in a statement. Biden spoke to Obama and former president George W Bush yesterday about his decision on Afghanistan.
      The police officer who fatally shot Daunte Wright will be charged with second-degree manslaughter. The announcement comes three days after Officer Kim Potter shot and killed Wright, a 20-year-old Black man, during a traffic stop. Potter and the Brooklyn Center police chief, Tim Gannon, submitted their resignations yesterday.
      Derek Chauvin’s defense team called a forensic expert to testify that George Floyd died because of his heart condition and drug use. Experts called by prosecutors last week testified that Floyd only died because Chauvin kept his knee on the Black man’s neck for more than nine minutes.
      A new poll showed lingering coronavirus vaccine hesitancy among Americans, amid a “pause” in administering the Johnson & Johnson vaccine due to six reports of blood clots among the more than 6 million people who have received the vaccine. A new poll from Monmouth University found that 21% of Americans say they will never get a coronavirus vaccine if they can avoid it.

      Maanvi will have more coming up, so stay tuned.

      4.39pm EDT
      16:39

      Chauvin trial: defense claims bad heart and drug use killed Floyd

      Chris McGreal

      A leading forensic pathologist has told the Derek Chauvin trial that George Floyd was killed by his heart condition and drug use.
      Dr David Fowler, testifying for the defence, also introduced the idea that vehicle exhaust may have played a part in Floyd’s death by raising the amount of carbon monoxide in his blood and affecting his heart.
      Fowler, Maryland’s former chief medical examiner who trained in South Africa during the apartheid era, said the combination of cardiac disease, methamphetamine use and carbon monoxide killed the 46-year-old Black man while Chauvin, who is white, was arresting him last May in Minneapolis.
      “All of those combined to cause Mr Floyd’s death,” he said.
      Fowler is a controversial witness. He is being sued by the family of a Black teenager, Anton Black, killed by the Maryland police in 2018 after being held face down by three police officers.
      Fowler certified that Anton Black died from natural causes, with his bipolar disorder a contributing factor.
      The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has accused Fowler of “creating false narratives about what kills Black people in police encounters”.
      Last week, medical experts testified for the prosecution that Floyd died because the way that Chauvin and the other police officers pinned him to the ground in the prone position caused brain damage and heart failure.

      4.18pm EDT
      16:18

      Republican Senator Lindsey Graham criticized Joe Biden’s decision to withdraw all US troops from Afghanistan, saying he was “heartbroken” over the announcement.
      “I beg you, President Biden, re-evaluate this,” Graham said at a press conference.
      The South Carolina senator cited one study indicating a withdrawal of American troops will lead to a new threat to the US homeland within three years.
      “With all due respect, President Biden. you have not ended the war — you have extended it,” Graham said.

      3.56pm EDT
      15:56

      The Guardian’s Dan Sabbagh in London and Julian Borger in Washington report:
      Addressing the world from the White House, Joe Biden said 2,500 US troops plus a further 7,000 from “Nato allies” including 750 from the UK would gradually leave the country starting on 1 May. “The plan has long been in together, out together,” he added.
      “We cannot continue the cycle of extending or expanding our military presence in Afghanistan, hoping to create ideal conditions for the withdrawal and expecting a different result,” Biden said in his late afternoon speech.
      The plan was debated at a Nato summit in Brussels earlier on Wednesday. Member states did not oppose the plans for a full withdrawal once the US has made its intentions clear earlier this week, partly because they cannot guarantee the security of their own forces without the presence of the US.
      Minutes after Biden’s confirmation of the withdrawal plan, all Nato members, including the UK, put out a joint statement, confirming they would join in with an “orderly, coordinated, and deliberate” removal of troops alongside the US.
      The alliance said that it had achieved a goal to “prevent terrorists from using Afghanistan as a safe haven to attack us” but acknowledged also there was no good reason to stay on. “There is no military solution to the challenges Afghanistan faces,” Nato members said.

      3.36pm EDT
      15:36

      Biden visits Arlington National Cemetery after announcing Afghanistan troop withdrawal

      Joe Biden just paid a visit to Section 60 of Arlington National Cemetery, where servicemembers who died fighting in America’s recent wars, including the war in Afghanistan, are buried.
      The president laid a wreath in honor of those lost troops. He noted it is now difficult for him to visit a cemetery and not think of his late son Beau, who fought in Iraq and later died of brain cancer.
      “Look at them all,” Biden said of the rows of headstones before him.

      JM Rieger
      (@RiegerReport)
      REPORTER: Was it a hard decision to make, sir?BIDEN: No it wasn’t. … It was absolutely clear … we went for two reasons: Get rid of bin Laden and to end the safe haven. … I never thought we were there to somehow unify … Afghanistan. It’s never been done. pic.twitter.com/gVHixStVdi

      April 14, 2021

      Asked by a reporter whether it was a difficult decision to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan, Biden said it was not.
      “To me, it was absolutely clear,” Biden said. “We went for two reasons: get rid of bin Laden and to end the safe haven. I never thought we were there to somehow unify … Afghanistan. It’s never been done.”

      3.26pm EDT
      15:26

      Joe Biden spoke with Barack Obama and George W Bush yesterday about his decision to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan, the White House press secretary said.
      “While we are not going to read out private conversations, he values their opinions and wanted them both to hear directly from him about his decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan,” Jen Psaki said on Twitter.

      Jen Psaki
      (@PressSec)
      @potus spoke with both President Bush and @BarackObama during separate calls yesterday. While we are not going to read out private conversations, he values their opinions and wanted them both to hear directly from him about his decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.

      April 14, 2021

      Biden mentioned his phone call with Bush in his speech formally announcing the troop withdrawal. The president did not mention his separate conversation with Obama, although Psaki has previously said the two men speak often.
      Biden said that, despite their policy differences, he and Bush are “absolutely united in our respect and support” for the troops who have served in Afghanistan over the past 20 years.

      CBS News
      (@CBSNews)
      Biden says he spoke with former President Bush about plans to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, and they were “absolutely united” in respect for Americans who served there”Less one 1 percent of Americans serve in our armed forces. The remaining 99 percent — we owe them.” pic.twitter.com/4N9BqoFtT8

      April 14, 2021

      3.15pm EDT
      15:15

      It’s worth noting that Barack Obama and Joe Biden have not always seen eye to eye on the war in Afghanistan.
      Biden opposed then-President Obama’s decision in 2009 to approve a troop surge to Afghanistan, a point that he repeatedly brought up on the campaign trail last year.
      However, Biden also opposed launching the raid that resulted in the killing of Osama bin Laden, which Obama approved.

      3.09pm EDT
      15:09

      Obama applauds Biden’s decision to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan

      Barack Obama has released a statement praising Joe Biden’s decision to withdraw all US troops from Afghanistan by September 11.
      “President Biden has made the right decision in completing the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan,” the former president said.

      Barack Obama
      (@BarackObama)
      After nearly two decades in Afghanistan, it’s time to recognize that we have accomplished all that we can militarily, and bring our remaining troops home. I support @POTUS’s bold leadership in building our nation at home and restoring our standing around the world. pic.twitter.com/BrDzASXD3G

      April 14, 2021

      Obama acknowledged there will be “very difficult challenges and further hardship ahead in Afghanistan,” and he urged the US to remain involved in diplomatic efforts to ensure the human rights of Afghan people.
      “But after nearly two decades of putting our troops in harm’s way, it is time to recognize that we have accomplished all that we can militarily, and that it’s time to bring our remaining troops home,” Obama said.
      “I support President Biden’s bold leadership in building our nation at home and restoring our standing around the world.”

      3.03pm EDT
      15:03

      The White house has released a readout of Joe Biden’s call with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani earlier today.
      “They discussed their continued commitment to a strong bilateral partnership following the departure of U.S. troops from Afghanistan and affirmed shared respect and gratitude for the sacrifices made by American forces, alongside NATO allies and operational partners, as well as by the Afghan people and Afghan service members over the past two decades,” the White House said.
      “President Biden emphasized that the United States will continue to support the Afghan people, including through continued development, humanitarian, and security assistance. President Biden and President Ghani reaffirmed their shared conviction that every effort should be made to achieve a political settlement so that the Afghan people can live in peace.”
      Ghani said earlier today that he “respects” Biden’s decision to withdraw US troops, promising to help ensure a “smooth transition” as the drawdown begins.
      “Afghanistan’s proud security and defense forces are fully capable of defending its people and country, which they have been doing all along, and for which the Afghan nation will forever remain grateful,” Ghani said on Twitter.

      2.52pm EDT
      14:52

      ‘It’s time to end the forever war,’ Biden says of Afghanistan

      Joe Biden offered assurances that the US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan would be handled very carefully over the next several months.
      “We will not conduct a hasty rush to the exit. We’ll do it responsibly, deliberately and safely,” the president said. “And we’ll do it in full coordination with our allies and partners.”

      CBS News
      (@CBSNews)
      BREAKING: President Biden announces U.S. will begin its final withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan on May 1.”We will not conduct a hasty rush to the exit. We’ll do it responsibly, deliberately and safely.” https://t.co/qp2ZY191EH pic.twitter.com/Crd9zV1yjq

      April 14, 2021

      Explaining his decision to withdraw all US troops, Biden noted there are servicemembers currently deployed in Afghanistan who were not alive when the September 11 attacks occurred.
      Some servicemembers even have parents who served in the same war that they are now fighting, the president said.
      “The war in Afghanistan was never meant to be a multi-generational undertaking,” Biden said. “It’s time to end the forever war.”
      The president has now concluded his prepared remarks. He is next scheduled to visit Arlington National Cemetery to pay his respects to some of the servicemembers who died in Afghanistan.

      2.45pm EDT
      14:45

      Joe Biden argued the original reasons for the deployment of US troops to Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks no longer apply.
      “We went to Afghanistan because of a horrific attack that happened 20 years ago. That cannot explain why we should remain there in 2021,” the president said.
      Biden added, “We’ll be much more formidable to our adversaries and competitors in the long term if we fight the battles of the next 20 years, not the last 20.”
      The president acknowledged some people disagreed with his decision to withdraw all US troops because, despite the widespread desire to end the war, there were lingering doubts that now was the right time to leave.
      “When will it be the right moment to leave?” Biden asked. “One more year? Two more years? Ten more years?”

      2.40pm EDT
      14:40

      Joe Biden said he spoke to former president George W Bush yesterday about his decision to withdraw all US troops from Afghanistan by September.
      Despite their policy differences, Biden said he and Bush are “absolutely united in our respect and support” for the service members who have been deployed to Afghanistan over the past 20 years.
      The president said the drawdown of US troops in Afghanistan will begin in May and wrap up by September 11, which will mark the 20th anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

      Updated
      at 3.25pm EDT

      2.37pm EDT
      14:37

      ‘It’s time for American troops to come home,’ Biden says in Afghanistan speech

      Joe Biden is now delivering a speech on his plan to withdraw all US troops from Afghanistan in the Treaty Room of the White House.
      Biden said his many visits to Afghanistan over the past two decades, including as vice-president to Barack Obama, had convinced him that “only the Afghans have the right and responsibility to lead their country”.

      President Biden
      (@POTUS)
      It is time to end America’s longest war. It is time for American troops to come home from Afghanistan.

      April 14, 2021

      The president noted the US originally deployed troops to Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks, to ensure the country could not again be used as a launchpad to attack America.
      “We did that. We accomplished that objective,” Biden said.
      It has now been ten years since Osama Bin Laden was killed, the president noted, and the terrorist threat has evolved greatly in the decade since his death.
      “Since then, our reasons for remaining in Afghanistan have become increasingly unclear,” Biden said. “It’s time for American troops to come home.”

      Updated
      at 2.42pm EDT More

    • 91 Shares189 Views

      in World Politics

      Why Joe Biden Must Act on Myanmar

      by

      Burma, as Myanmar was known then, won its independence from the British in 1948. Since then, bilateral relations between the US and Myanmar can at best be described as lackluster. They have lacked what experts would call “strategic compulsions.” Western allies of the US lack strategic calculus in dealing with Myanmar. They have viewed it from the narrow prism of moralistic Western standards of democracy, human rights, rule of law, corruption and the trafficking of humans, drugs and weapons.

      Myanmar: What Comes Next for Minority Groups?

      READ MORE

      To be fair, the US has not always or entirely been sanctimonious. The historic Kissinger Doctrine integrated China into the liberal postwar order. It facilitated investments into, transferred technology to and trained manpower in China. Under Deng Xiaoping and his successors, China continued its peaceful rise. Xi Jinping, the current Chinese president, has ended that peaceful rise and destabilized the world order.

      Missing Out on Myanmar

      The US approach to Myanmar has been muddled and inconsistent. During the Cold War, Washington was happy to deal with allies in Asia that were military dictatorships. Under President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, the US was happy to deal with a communist regime.

      In contrast, Burma was a parliamentary democracy from 1948 to 1962 when Ne Win led a military coup. For the next 26 years, the country was ruled by the Tatmadaw, the official name of the country’s armed forces. In 1988, nationwide protests broke out. Aung San Suu Kyi, the Oxford-educated daughter of Burmese independence leader Aung San, emerged as the leader of a pro-democracy movement. The National League of Democracy (NLD) went on to win the 1990, 2015 and 2020 parliamentary elections.

      In comparison with China, Myanmar’s regime has been far less oppressive. There is no counterpart to the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution. The Tatmadaw has yielded to public pressure and held largely free and fair elections. In elections, even members of the Tatmadaw have voted for Suu Kyi’s NLD. Yet the US and its Western allies have ignored the strategic importance of Myanmar in the Indian Ocean region in general and the Bay of Bengal in particular.

      Chinese Influence Wanes and Waxes

      In the past, the US and its allies put pressure on the Tatmadaw by imposing sanctions on Myanmar. Instead of weakening the Tatmadaw, sanctions hurt the people and pushed the country into the arms of China. Between 2004 and 2007, a generational change in the Tatmadaw caused a rethink in Myanmar’s relationship with China.

      The younger officers of the Tatmadaw decided to decrease dependence on Beijing. They tried to reduce Chinese influence in political and military governance. They attempted to transition to some form of democracy and improve relations with the West and neighbors like India. In 2011, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton swung by Myanmar. President Barack Obama visited twice in 2012 and 2014. By 2016-17, the persecution of Rohingya Muslims, an ethnic minority in the country’s Rakhine state, was in the news and relations between the US and Myanmar were already souring.

      Embed from Getty Images

      Yet this was a relatively good time for the country. Even financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank opened their purse strings. During this brief honeymoon period with the West, China found itself on the back foot for the first time since 1988.

      In 2011, Myanmar suspended the construction of the Myitsone dam, a controversial hydroelectric project financed and led by a state-owned Chinese company. In 2015, Myanmar’s general elections led to yet another victory for Suu Kyi’s NLD. This was an opportune moment for the West to build relations with Myanmar and counter China. The Tatmadaw had ceded ground to elected officials. Washington could have cultivated both of Myanmar’s centers of power: the NLD and the Tatmadaw.

      But the US missed this opportunity. From 2017, the Rohingya issue clouded Myanmar’s relationship with the West and allowed China to regain its clout in the country. The military coup in February this year strengthens China’s hand further.

      China has already been strengthening its hand by following its tried and tested policy of investing in infrastructure. The China–Myanmar Transport Corridor is connecting the Chinese province of Yunnan to the Bay of Bengal. Roads, railways, river navigation, oil and gas pipelines are deepening economic ties between Myanmar and China. It is part of the Middle Kingdom’s “Look South” policy that seeks to draw Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Pakistan into the Chinese arc of influence.

      The military coup in Myanmar presents a great opportunity to China and represents the first major foreign policy challenge to President Joe Biden’s administration as well as the Quadrilateral Security Alliance, the informal strategic dialogue between the US, Japan, Australia and India known as the Quad.

      The US Still Has Some Cards

      China may be in the ascendant right now, but the West still has clout in Myanmar. Suu Kyi studied at Oxford, lived in the UK for decades and married an Englishman. People from Myanmar have immigrated to Australia, New Zealand, the UK and the US. So, the West commands what Joseph Nye has calls “soft power” in the country. Burmese people want to immigrate not to China but to the US.

      Yet American foreign policy to Myanmar has squandered this soft power prodigally. Obama is the only American president who gave Myanmar the attention it deserved. His foreign policy pivot to Asia was a strategic masterstroke, but Donald Trump abandoned Obama’s outreach not only to Myanmar but the rest of Asia.

      The military coup is a wake-up call for the US to act. China is now firmly in the saddle in Myanmar. The Tatmadaw is finding ferocious resistance on the streets. There is another overlooked problem. Like many postcolonial states, Myanmar is a bewildering patchwork of cultural, ethnic and linguistic groups. Many of them have been fighting for independence or autonomy for years.

      Few in the West realize that a savage conflict might be about to break out. About 20 rebel groups, including the United Wa State Army, Karen National Union, Kachin Independence Army and Arakan Army, control 33% of Myanmar’s territory. Many of them have condemned the coup. In response, the Tatmadaw has launched airstrikes in Karen state. With drugs and arms flush in rebel areas, Myanmar might be about to become the new Afghanistan.

      The Quad leaders’ joint statement on the White House website emphasizes “the urgent need to restore democracy and the priority of strengthening democratic resilience” in Myanmar. This mention is heartening, but the Quad and the US need to do more. Opening dialogue with the Tatmadaw would be a good start. Intelligence sources report that most young officers favor multi-party democracy and are wary of Myanmar turning into a Chinese tributary.

      A carrot-and-stick approach by Washington could still work. The World Bank has halted payments to projects after the military coup. International condemnation has rattled the Tatmadaw. Pressure to reach a political reconciliation might bear fruit. Carrots in the form of infrastructure funding and development assistance could prove attractive. Involving Asian nations such as India, Japan, South Korea and Bangladesh, as well as member states of ASEAN, could pave the path to Myanmar’s transition away from military rule.

      Despite foreign policy blunders, economic woes and internal division, the US is still the undisputed top dog in the world. With the help of its Asian and European allies, Washington can counter China, prevent civil war and restore democracy in Myanmar. The time has come for Biden to act.

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

    • 63 Shares129 Views

      in World Politics

      Athletes Shake Up Sports Governance

      by

      Sports governance worldwide has had its legs knocked out from under it. Yet national and international sports administrators are slow in realizing the magnitude of what has hit them. Tectonic plates underlying the guiding principle that sports and politics are unrelated have shifted, driven by a struggle against racism and a quest for human rights and social justice.

      The NBA Is Conflicted Over National Symbols

      READ MORE

      The principle was repeatedly challenged over the last year by athletes and businesses forcing national and international sports federations to either support anti-racist protest or, at the very least, refrain from penalizing those who use their sport to oppose racism and promote human rights and social justice — acts that are political by definition. The assault on what is a convenient fiction that sports and politics do not mix started in the US. This was not only the result of Black Lives Matter protests on US streets, but also the fact that, in contrast to the fan-club relationship in most of the world, American sports clubs and associations see fans as clients — and the client is king.

      From Football to F1

      The assault moved to Europe in the last month with the national football teams of Norway, Germany and the Netherlands wearing T-shirts during qualifiers for the 2022 FIFA World Cup that supported human rights and change. The European sides added their voices to perennial criticism of migrant workers’ rights in Qatar, the host of next year’s World Cup. Gareth Southgate, the manager of the English national team, said the Football Association was discussing migrant rights in the Gulf state with Amnesty International.

      While Qatar is the focus in Europe, greater sensitivity to human rights appears to be moving beyond. Formula One driver Lewis Hamilton told a news conference in Bahrain ahead of this season’s opening Grand Prix that there “are issues all around the world, but I do not think we should be going to these countries and just ignoring what is happening in those places, arriving, having a great time and then leave.” Hamilton has been prominent in speaking out against racial injustice and social inequality since the National Football League in the US endorsed the Black Lives Matter movement and players taking the knee during the playing of the American national anthem in protest against racism.

      Embed from Getty Images

      In a dramatic break with its ban on “any political, religious or personal slogans, statements or images” on the pitch, FIFA, the governing body of world football, said it would not open disciplinary proceedings against the European players who wore the T-shirts. “FIFA believes in the freedom of speech and in the power of football as a force for good,” a spokesperson said.

      The statement constituted an implicit acknowledgment that standing up for human rights and social justice was inherently political. It raises the question of how FIFA will reconcile its stand on human rights with its statutory ban on political expression. It makes maintaining the fiction of a separation between politics and sports ever more difficult to defend. It also opens the door to a debate on how the inseparable relationship that joins sports and politics at the hip like Siamese twins should be regulated.

      Georgia’s Voting Law

      Signaling that a flood barrier may have collapsed, Major League Baseball this month said it would be moving its 2021 All-Star Game out of Atlanta in response to a new law in the US state of Georgia that threatens to potentially restrict voting access for people of color. In a shot across the bow to FIFA and other international sports associations, major companies headquartered in Georgia, including Coca-Cola, Delta Airlines and Home Depot, adopted political positions in their condemnation of the Georgia voting law.

      The greater assertiveness of athletes and corporations in speaking out for fundamental rights and against racism and discrimination will make it increasingly difficult for sports associations to uphold the fiction of a separation between politics and sports. The willingness of FIFA, the US Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC), and other national and international associations to look the other way when athletes take their support for rights and social justice to the sports arena has let the genie out of the bottle. It has sawed off the legs of the FIFA principle that players’ “equipment must not have any political, religious or personal slogans.”

      Already, the US committee has said it would not sanction American athletes who choose to raise their fists or kneel on the podium at this July’s Tokyo Olympic Games as well as future tournaments. The decision puts the USOPC at odds with the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) strict rule against political protest. The IOC suspended and banned US medalists Tommie Smith and John Carlos after the sprinters raised their fists on the podium at the 1968 Mexico City Olympics to protest racial inequality in the United States.

      Regulation

      Acknowledging the incestuous relationship between sports and politics will ultimately require a charter or code of conduct that regulates it and introduces some form of independent oversight. This could be something akin to the supervision of banking systems or the regulation of the water sector in Britain, which, alongside the United States, holds privatized water as an asset.

      Human rights and social justice have emerged as monkey wrenches that could shatter the myth of a separation between sports and politics. If athletes take their protests to the Tokyo Olympics and the 2022 World Cup, the myth would sustain a significant body blow. In December 2020, a statement by US athletes seeking changes to the USOPC’s rule banning protest at sporting events said: “Prohibiting athletes to freely express their views during the Games, particularly those from historically underrepresented and minoritized groups, contributes to the dehumanization of athletes that is at odds with key Olympic and Paralympic values.”

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

    • 50 Shares129 Views

      in World Politics

      Japan’s Art of Forgetfulness

      by

      What choices are available to a nation that, in its quest for modernization, foolishly built a nuclear reactor in a seismically active tsunami zone? The Royal Society reported in 2015 that the disastrous fate of Fukushima in 2011 resulted from a “cascade of engineering and regulatory failures.” This included not only multiple design errors and miscalculations of the geological risks, but also “methodological mistakes that nobody experienced in tsunami engineering should have made.” The report concluded that the “Fukushima accident was preventable, if international best practices and standards had been followed.”

      Peter Thiel’s Bitcoin Paranoia

      READ MORE

      A full 10 years later, after dealing with the aftermath in a reasonably efficient manner, Japan has one major task left. It must find a way of disposing of more than a million tons of contaminated water from the powerplant’s three decommissioned reactors. To the chagrin not only of neighboring countries including China and South Korea but also environmental groups and even Japan’s own fishing industry, the Japanese government has made the controversial decision to close the book on Fukushima by dumping the water into the ocean.

      According to Al Jazeera, the Japanese government claims to have taken this decision on the basis of its newfound concern with the “international best practices and standards” the Royal Society referred to in its report. The government released this statement on April 13: “On the premise of strict compliance with regulatory standards that have been established, we select oceanic release.”

      Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

      Oceanic release:

      An act stirred by the temptation to believe that whatever you can discreetly dump into the ocean will be so diluted by the mass of moving water that within weeks or months, even if it is public knowledge, no one will actually remember that the deed was done or blame those who did it

      Contextual Note

      In his explanation of the government’s decision, Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga appealed to the fabled capacity of the Japanese to accept the inevitable. “Releasing the … treated water,” he said, “is an unavoidable task to decommission the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant and reconstruct the Fukushima area.” As a politician, not only does he feel it is his humble duty to put the errors of the past behind him, but he knows it is always effective to focus on potential positive outcomes — in this case, the reconstruction of the non-nuclear reconstruction of the affected area. Averted readers should know that when a politician from any nation calls something “unavoidable,” the most sensible reaction is to suppose that what they really mean by “unavoidable” is what we judge to be the most convenient and economic way for us to dismiss such an annoying issue.

      Embed from Getty Images

      Polls in Japan show little support for the government. Le Monde reports that a poll conducted by NHK, the Japanese broadcaster, found that 51% of those polled opposed the plan, with only 18% supporting it. The Chinese called the plan “extremely irresponsible.” South Korea seconded the Chinese, deeming it “totally unacceptable.” Protesters in Seoul accused Japan of engaging in “nuclear terrorism,” echoing the Iranian government’s complaint this week following Israel’s brazen sabotage of the nuclear facility at Natanz in Iran. Even Taiwan — more fearful of China than of contaminated waters — expressed its concern, though much more timidly. 

      These reactions contrast with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s tweet in which he thanks “Japan for its transparent efforts in its decision to dispose of the treated water from the Fukushima Daiichi site.” Transparent? China complained that the Japanese made their decision “without fully consulting with neighboring countries and the international community.” Is that what Blinken sees as a “transparent” effort? Or does he mean that because the operation will only be carried out in two years’ time, announcing it today is an example of transparency? After all, the US tends to act first and explain later and rarely worries about transparency.

      Then there is another consideration the Japanese government would be wise to ponder. Dumping the still polluted water into the Pacific means that sooner rather than later the West Coast of the US will be affected. At some point in the future, could this have dire consequences for Japanese Americans who risk being assaulted for spreading “Fukushima cancer” just as Chinese Americans have been attacked for releasing the “Wuhan flu”?

      Historical Note

      The Japanese language has a common expression: Shouganai. One specialist of Japanese offers this explanation of the expression: “The best way I can translate ‘Shouganai’ is ‘It can’t be helped,’” comparing it with the well-known French expression, “C’est la vie.” The author confesses to using the Japanese “phrase almost daily.” Italian Americans from New York might prefer to compare it with their favorite all-purpose phrase for dismissing any subject they don’t want to discuss: “Forget about it.” Every culture has its own way of accepting what is written off as a fatality that cannot be constructively addressed.

      Pushing the explanation of the Japanese phrase further, the author insists that despite always being used in reference to negative events, Shouganai is “actually a pretty positive way to look at the world.” It signifies a basic feeling at the core of Japanese culture, that it’s “better to not get hung up on things outside of your control.” In contrast, US culture encourages making every effort — including at times extreme violence — to demonstrate one is in control.

      Since the end of the Second World War, the Japanese government has developed the art of not getting hung up on disagreeable past events from the past, such as the fate of the Chinese and Korean sex slaves they euphemized with the name “comfort women” at a time in their history when they believed they could dominate all of Asia. After their six-week-long massacre known as the Rape of Nanking, sensing the risk of bad PR the knowledge of the brutal campaign of massacre and violent rape might produce, the emperor decided to step in. The answer was less murder and more rape, but better organized and subject to the kind of discipline and social rituals with which Japanese culture feels comfortable. The treatment of the comfort women was unspeakably cruel and inhuman, but the Japanese military had the good sense to manage it as a stable institution rather than allowing rape to play out according to the random whims of marauding soldiers.

      The website History explains the pattern of denial associated with this episode: “For decades, the history of the ‘comfort women’ went undocumented and unnoticed. When the issue was discussed in Japan, it was denied by officials who insisted that ‘comfort stations’ had never existed.” Whether those same officials were saying Shouganai in private while they systematically refused to admit anything in public will never be known. Even today, the Japanese government continues to deny some of the most obvious facts about the “comfort women.”

      .custom-post-from {float:right; margin: 0 10px 10px; max-width: 50%; width: 100%; text-align: center; background: #000000; color: #ffffff; padding: 15px 0 30px; }
      .custom-post-from img { max-width: 85% !important; margin: 15px auto; filter: brightness(0) invert(1); }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h4 { font-size: 18px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h5 { font-size: 14px; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from input[type=”email”] { font-size: 14px; color: #000 !important; width: 240px; margin: auto; height: 30px; box-shadow:none; border: none; padding: 0 10px; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-pen-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center right 14px; background-size:14px;}
      .custom-post-from input[type=”submit”] { font-weight: normal; margin: 15px auto; height: 30px; box-shadow: none; border: none; padding: 0 10px 0 35px; background-color: #1878f3; color: #ffffff; border-radius: 4px; display: inline-block; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-email-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 14px center; background-size: 14px; }

      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox { width: 90%; margin: auto; position: relative; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label { text-align: left; display: block; padding-left: 32px; margin-bottom: 0; cursor: pointer; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;
      -webkit-user-select: none;
      -moz-user-select: none;
      -ms-user-select: none;
      user-select: none;
      order: 1;
      color: #ffffff;
      font-weight: normal;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label a { color: #ffffff; text-decoration: underline; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input { position: absolute; opacity: 0; cursor: pointer; height: 100%; width: 24%; left: 0;
      right: 0; margin: 0; z-index: 3; order: 2;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:before { content: “f0c8”; font-family: Font Awesome 5 Free; color: #eee; font-size: 24px; position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0; line-height: 28px; color: #ffffff; width: 20px; height: 20px; margin-top: 5px; z-index: 2; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:before { content: “f14a”; font-weight: 600; color: #2196F3; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:after { content: “”; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:after { position: absolute; left: 2px; width: 18px; height: 18px; margin-top: 10px; background: #ffffff; top: 10px; margin: auto; z-index: 1; }
      .custom-post-from .error{ display: block; color: #ff6461; order: 3 !important;}

      The Fukushima catastrophe lacks the deeply human moral dimension associated with the crimes perpetrated by Japanese imperialism in the early 20th century. The scandal relating to the fact that the nuclear catastrophe was preventable had more to do with professional negligence and government incompetence than moral failings, cruel personal behavior and abusive policies, though the frontier between conscious and neglectful abuses will always be difficult to define. The tendency to deny and then forget is common to both.

      On the purely moral plane, were either of these human disasters in any way comparable with US President Harry Truman’s decision to drop — without warning — not one but two atomic bombs on urban civilian targets at the end of World War II? The immediate difference between the attitudes of the two nations is that the Japanese showed some sense of shame, however hypocritical, following the Rape of Nanking. Their consistent denial of the true history of comfort women also indicates a degree of implicit shame. It’s as much a question of not losing face as it is of aggressive denial.

      In contrast, the American government never attempted to disguise its fulsome pride in an achievement that — following its cultural logic summed up in the expression, “a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do” — put an end to a world war. Could it have been done differently? Of course. But for most Americans, the positive result canceled all the useless scruples one might have concerning the gravity of the damage done.

      *[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on Fair Observer.]

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

    • 125 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Capitol attack: blistering internal report reveals widespread failures by police

      by

      A blistering internal report by the US Capitol police describes a multitude of missteps that left the force unprepared for the 6 January insurrection – riot shields that shattered upon impact, expired weapons that couldn’t be used, inadequate training and an intelligence division that had few set standards.The watchdog report released internally last month, obtained by the Associated Press ahead of a congressional hearing on Thursday, adds to what is already known about broader security and intelligence failures that Congress has been investigating since hundreds of Donald Trump’s supporters laid siege to the Capitol.In an extensive and detailed timeline of that day, the report describes conversations between officials as they disagreed on whether national guard forces were necessary to back up the understaffed Capitol police force.It quotes an army official as telling then Capitol police chief, Steven Sund, that “we don’t like the optics of the national guard standing in a line at the Capitol” after the insurrectionists had already broken in.The inspector general, Michael Bolton, found that the department’s deficiencies were – and remain – widespread.Equipment was old and stored badly, leaders had failed to act on previous recommendations to improve intelligence, and there was a broad lack of current policies or procedures for the civil disturbance unit, a division that existed to ensure that legislative functions of Congress were not disrupted by civil unrest or protest activity.That was exactly what happened on 6 January as Trump’s supporters sought to overturn the election in his favor as Congress counted the electoral college votes.The report comes as the Capitol police force has plunging morale and has edged closer to crisis as many officers have been working extra shifts and forced overtime to protect the Capitol after the insurrection.The acting chief, Yogananda Pittman, received a vote of no confidence from the union in February, reflecting widespread distrust among the rank and file.The entire force is also grieving the deaths of two of their own, officer Brian Sicknick, who collapsed and died after engaging with protesters on January 6, and officer William “Billy” Evans, who was killed on 2 April when he was hit by a car that rammed into a barricade outside the Senate.Evans lay in honor in the Capitol Rotunda on Tuesday.The Capitol police have so far refused to publicly release the report, marked throughout as “law enforcement sensitive”, despite congressional pressure to do so.The House administration committee chairwoman, Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat, issued a statement in March that she had been briefed on the report, along with another internal document, and that it contained “detailed and disturbing findings and important recommendations”. Bolton was expected to testify before her panel on Thursday. More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Damned either way, Biden opts out of Afghanistan as US tires of ‘forever wars’

      by

      Joe Biden has decided that 20 years is enough for America’s longest war, and has ordered the remaining troops out no matter what happens between now and September.Biden’s withdrawal is one area of continuity with his predecessor, although unlike Donald Trump, this administration consulted the Afghans, US allies and its own agencies before announcing the decision. But both presidents were responding to a national weariness of “forever wars”.To the surprise of no one, the Republican party that acquiesced in Trump’s order to get the troops out by May, is now launching attacks on Biden’s “reckless” decision. The political attacks will mount if, as many expected, the current peace initiative fails and the Taliban steps up their offensive.In Afghanistan, any US president is damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Biden has plainly decided in that case, “don’t” is the better option.In the Obama administration, Biden was a consistent voice of scepticism over the utility of military force in foreign policy, sometimes in opposition to advocates of humanitarian intervention.He bluntly told a television interviewer on the campaign trail that he would feel “zero responsibility” if the status of Afghan women and other human rights suffered as a consequence of a US withdrawal.“Are you telling me that we should go into China, go to war with China because what they’re doing to the Uyghurs,” he asked his CBS interviewer.Safeguarding Afghan women and civil society has never been an official aim of the vestigial US military presence, but in the absence of a clearly defined goal, it became part of the de facto rationale.“There are things that American officials have said over time to encourage that kind of thinking,” said Laurel Miller, who served as US special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, and now runs the Asia programme of the International Crisis Group.“I’ll admit to – when I was in government – not feeling comfortable with some of those statements of enduring commitment, because I didn’t think it was believable.”In making this decision, Biden has made clear he is setting aside Colin Powell’s famous “Pottery Barn rule”: if you break it, you own it. The quote comes from 2002 when the then secretary of state cited the fictional rule (which is not the policy of that furniture store) to warn George W Bush of the implications of invading Iraq. In Afghanistan, the US has part-owned the store for two decades now, and in reality, people and their livelihoods are still getting smashed.There are gains to be lost however. While the US has been in Afghanistan, the number of children in school has gone from well under a million (almost all boys) to more than 9 million (40% of whom are girls). Life expectancy has risen from 44 to 60.There is no question such advances are at stake. The US intelligence community’s prediction, in its annual Threat Assessment published on Tuesday, is that peace talks were unlikely to succeed.“The Taliban is likely to make gains on the battlefield, and the Afghan government will struggle to hold the Taliban at bay if the coalition withdraws support,” the assessment said, adding: “the Taliban is confident it can achieve military victory”.Whether that confidence is borne out depends on some unknowables, such as whether the Afghan security councils will crumble or be galvanised by the departure of their US and Nato backers, and whether the absence of a foreign foe will dampen enthusiasm among would-be Taliban recruits.Michael Semple, a former EU envoy in Afghanistan and now a professor at Queen’s University Belfast, said he believed more progress could have been made to stabilise the country prior to departure. He said “not enough has been done to avoid the risks of Taliban takeover or civil war”.There are questions, too, over whether withdrawal will allow the US military to achieve its more narrowly defined objective in Afghanistan: to prevent the resurgence of al-Qaida or Isis in the country to the extent that they could pose a direct threat to the US, its interests or allies.“Effective CT [counter terrorism] requires good intelligence, good partners, good capabilities and access,” General Joseph Votel, the former head of US Central Command told the Defense One website. “While probably not impossible – all of these will be much more challenged and difficult from over the horizon.”US generals have told successive administrations for years that Afghanistan had “turned the corner”, but each year there were more corners. Biden has chosen to stop trying to turn them. After 20 years of US presence in Afghanistan, no one knows for sure what happens next. More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Chauvin trial: use-of-force defense witness says ‘I felt Derek Chauvin was justified’ – live

      by

      Key events

      Show

      5.27pm EDT
      17:27

      Kenosha police officer who shot Jacob Blake is back on the job

      2.16pm EDT
      14:16

      Brooklyn Center mayor calls for more community-based policing, names new acting chief

      1.44pm EDT
      13:44

      Police chief and officer resign over fatal shooting of Daunte Wright

      11.54am EDT
      11:54

      Floyd was ‘very’ startled when police pointed gun at him, witness tells Chauvin jury

      10.39am EDT
      10:39

      The Chauvin prosecution rests

      8.55am EDT
      08:55

      Proceedings to resume in Chauvin murder trial

      Live feed

      Show

      5.27pm EDT
      17:27

      Kenosha police officer who shot Jacob Blake is back on the job

      Joanna Walters

      Around three months after it was announced that the officer who shot Jacob Blake in the back last summer would not face criminal charges, the police in Kenosha, Wisconsin, announced that the officer is back on the job.
      Without mentioning Blake’s name or details of the shooting last year, beyond referring to a “use of force incident” the Kenosha Police Department put out a statement via Twitter this afternoon.

      Kenosha Police Dept.
      (@KenoshaPolice)
      Media Release pic.twitter.com/wdq5QaNNyk

      April 13, 2021

      Blake said in January of this year that he feared becoming the “next George Floyd” if he had allowed himself to fall down last August when he was shot multiple times in the back and side next to his car after a confrontation with police.T he shooting has left him paralyzed from the waist down.
      The police statement today on behalf of the chief, Daniel Miskinis, said that the incident “was investigated by an outside agency, has been reviewed by an independent expert as well a the Kenosha county district attorney.”
      Officer Rusten Sheskey returned to work with the Kenosha PD on March 31.
      ”Officer Sheskey was found to have been acting within policy and will not be subjected to discipline,” the statement said, adding: “Although this incident has been reviewed at multiple levels, I know that some will not be pleased with the outcome however, given the facts, the only lawful and appropriate decision was made.”

      5.18pm EDT
      17:18

      Testimony from Barry Brodd, who took the stand for Derek Chauvin’s defense as a use-of-force expert, has come to an end.
      Judge Peter Cahill has sent jurors home for the day, and lawyers on both sides are now discussing legal matters.

      5.02pm EDT
      17:02

      The Guardian’s Oliver Laughland is reporting from Minnesota on the death of Daunte Wright, who was killed by police during a traffic stop Sunday in the Minneapolis suburb of Brooklyn Center. Wright’s death comes as the trial for Derek Chauvin nears a conclusion, heightening tensions in a city that’s on edge about its outcome.
      Laughland writes:

      As court broke for lunchtime recess, members of George Floyd’s family held a joint press conference with members of Wright’s family.
      It was bitterly cold, with snow pounding the assembled group. Both Wright’s mother, his aunt, cousin and girlfriend addressed reporters along with two of George Floyd’s brothers.
      Civil rights attorney Benjamin Crump, who is now representing both families, spoke about the Wright case just as news broke that the Brooklyn Center police chief Tim Gannon and officer Kim Potter who shot and killed the unarmed 20 year-old had resigned. He expressed disbelief that the Wright shooting had occurred while the Chauvin trial was going on.
      “It is unbelievable, something I cannot fathom, that in Minneapolis, Minnesota, a suburb ten miles from where the Chauvin trial regarding George Floyd was taking place that a police officer would shoot and kill another unarmed black man,” Crump said.
      He continued: “If ever there was a time where nobody in America should be killed by police, it was during this pinnacle trial of Derek Chauvin. What I believe is one of the most impactful civil rights police excessive use of force cases in the history of America.”
      Wright’s mother, Katie, told the story of how she had been on the phone to her son as he was apprehended by law enforcement. She spoke through tears and watched as his aunt lead the crowd in a now familiar chant.
      “Say his name!,” she shouted.
      “Daunte Wright”. The group replied.

      Oliver Laughland
      (@oliverlaughland)
      Daunte Wright’s mother Katie is talking about the phone-call she had with her son as he was pulled over by Brooklyn Center police. She’s speaking through tears as the snow continues to fall, flanked by members of the Floyd family. pic.twitter.com/pwE2KyXSLE

      April 13, 2021

      4.47pm EDT
      16:47

      The prosecution has pressed Barry Brodd, a defense expert witness on use-of-force, about whether the crowd surrounding George Floyd’s arrest constituted a threat to police officers.
      Their line of questioning stems from the fact that Chauvin’s lawyer, Eric Nelson, has claimed the crowd was a distraction and potential threat to officers. Prosecutors are questioning Brodd about this because he has previously said a crowd could change the dynamics for officers, thus impacting what constitutes a “reasonable” use-of-force.
      The prosecution is playing body camera video that shows a crowd gather, over time, as police subdue Floyd. In a video from the beginning of Floyd’s subdual, there are only a few people on the sidewalk.
      Prosecutors, through their questioning, point out that there are a “handful of onlookers on the sidewalk”—not the street, not near police. They also point out that the initial crowd is comprised of an elderly man and two teenage girls.
      “They don’t appear to be making any noise at all at this point,” the prosecution says.
      “Not that I can hear, no,” Brodd says.
      “And [they] certainly would not have distracted the defendant?”
      “That I cannot say,” Brodd replies.
      “Well, they’re not doing anything and they’re not saying anything,” the prosecution prods.
      “I think they could have been aware of their presence, and started to plan for it.”
      The prosecution plays another video of the crowd, when more observers have gathered on the sidewalk, some of whom are making statements about the arrest.
      “Was this crowd a threatening crowd?”
      “No,” Brodd concedes.

      Updated
      at 4.49pm EDT

      4.05pm EDT
      16:05

      Amudalat Ajasa

      One of our correspondents in Minnesota, Amudalat Ajasa, has been on location today and yesterday in Brooklyn Center, the suburb of Minneapolis where Duante Wright, 20, was shot dead on Sunday by the police and where people outraged. She’s running around reporting for a forthcoming article, so for now your blogger brings you some of her reportage.

      Amudalat Ajasa
      (@AmudalatAjasa)
      Despite frigid temperatures and snow, people have gathered to mourn the death of #DaunteWright at the new fist monument on 63rd and Kathrene in Brooklyn Center. pic.twitter.com/5uNiE5yLMa

      April 13, 2021

      There has been a particularly raw sense of solidarity-in-tragedy in the area, given that Brooklyn Center is only around 15 miles from the junction in south Minneapolis, now known as George Floyd Square, where Floyd, 46, was killed last May by the police.
      Outside the Cup Foods corner store where Floyd was pinned to the street by now-ex officer Derek Chauvin, who’s standing trial for murder, statements of support have been written for Duante Wright.
      And the original Black power fist sculpture, made out of wood, that graced the intersection until it was replaced recently with a metal one, was quickly transported to Brooklyn Center and appeared at a vigil for Wright yesterday.
      Protest has been constant since Sunday.

      Amudalat Ajasa
      (@AmudalatAjasa)
      Hundreds of protesters have gathered outside of the Brooklyn Center police department to protest the death of #DaunteWright for the second day in a row. pic.twitter.com/3HgmiazxYe

      April 12, 2021

      They’ve faced police in riot gear. Munitions were fired at protesters last night.

      Amudalat Ajasa
      (@AmudalatAjasa)
      Officers in riot gear are trying to push the protesters into the street. #DaunteWright pic.twitter.com/OxqbLbh7A1

      April 12, 2021

      Protesters chant Wright’s name.

      Amudalat Ajasa
      (@AmudalatAjasa)
      Protesters chant #DaunteWright’s name at the Brooklyn Center police department with a little over an hour before the 7 PM curfew. pic.twitter.com/jMFKe5amno

      April 12, 2021

      And here’s the moment yesterday when some activists outside the Brooklyn Center police and mayoral press conference heard the explanation that the officer Kim Potter, who has since resigned, had meant to draw her Taser to stun Wright but drew her gun by mistake and shot him dead.

      Amudalat Ajasa
      (@AmudalatAjasa)
      Activists and reporters just watched as the body cam video of #DaunteWright is revealed inside the Brooklyn Center police department. The police chief claims the officer accidentally shot her gun instead of her taser. pic.twitter.com/3vOINE9gxj

      April 12, 2021

      Updated
      at 4.09pm EDT

      3.41pm EDT
      15:41

      The prosecution is now cross-examining Barry Brodd, a defense witness called to testify about use-of-force. One thing that Brodd has said earlier was that the prone restraint position isn’t inherently a use-of-force. Derek Chauvin kept his knee against George Floyd’s neck for more than nine minutes when he was prone against the ground.

      Danny Spewak
      (@DannySpewak)
      Defense witness Barry Brodd says that “maintaining of the prone control, to me, is not a use of force,” and that there were “valid reasons” to keep Floyd face-down because of “space limitations.”

      April 13, 2021

      The prosecution’s questioning of Brodd has made him seem a bit inconsistent. They ask Brodd whether his opinion would change—whether he would consider the prone position a use of force—if it caused an arrestee pain.
      “If the pain was inflicted through the prone control, I would say that is a use of force,” he says.
      Prosecutors ask Brodd whether he thinks it’s “unlikely that orienting yourself on top of a person on the pavement, with both legs, is unlikely to produce pain?”
      “It could,” Brodd says.
      By pressing Brodd on his statement that the prone position doesn’t necessarily cause pain—which does not make much sense—he doesn’t come across as the most reliable witness.

      3.02pm EDT
      15:02

      It hasn’t taken long for Chauvin’s attorney to try casting George Floyd as unpredictable drug user whose behavior changed the playing field for appropriate use-of-force. Chauvin’s lawyer, Eric Nelson, has asked use-of-force expert Barry Brodd whether substance use can affect use-of-force requirements.
      “It has quite a large impact, in my opinion,” Brodd replies. People on drugs might not “be hearing” what officers ask them to do.
      “They may have erratic behavior. They don’t feel pain.”
      “They may have superhuman strength,” he also says. “They may have an ability to go from compliant to extreme non-compliance in a heartbeat.”
      Brodd also says that the prone position might be “safer” for an arrestee who’s handcuffed, because they can’t run off and injure themselves. It might also prevent an arrestee from choking on their own vomit, he claims. More