President Donald Trump has ordered the deployment of US troops to Portland, Oregon, authorising use of “full force” if needed.

Trump said he was “directing Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland”.

He claimed that the move would help protect “any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists,” adding on Truth Social: “I am also authorizing Full Force, if necessary.”

The announcement drew pushback from Democratic lawmakers, who said there was no need for federal troops to be deployed to the city.

“There is no national security threat in Portland. Our communities are safe and calm,” said Oregon Governor Tina Kotek in a statement, adding that she has asked the Trump administration for further information.

Portland’s mayor Keith Wilson said in a statement that the “number of necessary troops is zero, in Portland and any other American city”.

Saturday’s announcement marks the further expansion of deployment of troops in American cities, amid a wider crackdown by the Trump administration on illegal immigration.

Trump’s post does not specify whether he intends to activate national guard or regular US military. The post also did not specify what is meant by the use of “full force”.

“We stand ready to mobilize U.S. military personnel in support of DHS operations in Portland at the President’s direction,” Chief Pentagon Spokesman, Sean Parnell told the BBC. “The Department will provide information and updates as they become available.”

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Portland has been targeted by protesters since early June, sometimes leading to violent clashes.

As of 8 September, the US Attorney’s Office had brought federal charges against 26 people for crimes including arson, assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest.

On Friday, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said that demonstrators had “repeatedly attacked and laid siege to an ICE processing centre” in Portland.

In a post on the social media platform X, the department stated that several individuals had been arrested and charged with federal offences.

“Rose City Antifa, a recently designated domestic terrorist organization, illegally doxed ICE officers. They published their home address online and on public flyers. Individuals associated with Antifa also sent death threats to DHS personnel,” DHS wrote on X.

Earlier this week, Trump signed an order formally designating antifa as a domestic terrorist organisation.

Antifa, short for “anti-fascist”, is a loosely organised movement of primarily far-left activists.

Legal experts have pointed out that there is no legal mechanism in the US that would formally establish any group as a domestic terror organisation. Such efforts, they said, could face constitutional challenges under the First Amendment, which protects free speech and assembly.

Democratic lawmakers have criticised both the president’s rhetoric and the reported actions of ICE agents in the state.

Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon said on Friday that there were “credible” reports that federal agents “may be replaying the 2020 playbook “, in a reference to federal forces being deployed in response to protests against the murder of George Floyd, a black man who died in police custody.

“I urge Oregonians not to fall into Trump’s attempt to incite violence,” Wyden said.

Local lawmakers have also accused ICE of going after people who are not an actual danger to society.

“ICE has said they’re targeting people for arrest and detainment who have committed crimes. That’s what they told us. But that’s not what we are seeing,” said Democratic house representative Suzanne Bonamici on Friday.

Lawmakers cited recent incidents, including the detention of a father outside his child’s preschool and a wildland firefighter who was arrested while battling fires in the Olympic National Forest.

They also pointed to a statistic published by the Cato Institute, a US think tank based in Washington DC, which reported that 65% of people detained by ICE had no criminal convictions.

World Opinions + BBC News

L’article Debate. Trump orders deployment of troops to Portland and authorises ‘full force’.. Video est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

Under the heat of the Barcelona sun, a pro-independence party, Together for Catalonia, is holding a campaign event ahead of Sunday’s general election in Spain.

About 40 people are gathered to hear speeches before a video message is shown, recorded by the former president of Catalonia, Carles Puigdemont.

He lambasts the Spanish state, comparing its lack of democratic credentials to Hungary and Poland, and calls for an independent Catalan republic.

It is a low-key event compared to the massive demonstrations that led up to Catalonia’s attempt to secede in 2017.

The Spanish authorities responded to that bid by clamping down with police action and temporarily imposing direct rule in the region, while Mr Puigdemont fled to Belgium, where he has remained ever since.

But this Sunday’s Spanish general election could have a major impact on the country’s simmering territorial issue. The result, many believe, will decide whether the relationship between Catalonia and Madrid improves or flares up once again.

“If the right wins, the situation could complicate in Catalonia,” said Lola García, a journalist at La Vanguardia newspaper who wrote an account of the 2017 crisis.

“We might well go back to seeing heightened tensions there.”

Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez declared improving the febrile atmosphere in Catalonia a priority when he first took office in 2018, and again when he formed a new coalition government in 2020.

With that aim in mind, his administration pardoned nine politicians who had been jailed for their role in the 2017 independence bid.

It also reformed the penal code, eliminating the crime of sedition and modifying the crime of misuse of public funds – both of which changes benefitted Catalan leaders who were facing legal action.

Meanwhile, Mr Sánchez’s government has also engaged in slow-moving talks with the pro-independence Catalan administration aimed at resolving the territorial problem.

“Today the situation in Catalonia is nothing like it was in 2017, 2018 or 2019,” Mr Sánchez said recently, describing the Socialists as “a party that defends the union of Spain”.

However, reducing the tensions in Catalonia has come at a cost for Mr Sánchez.

The conservative People’s Party (PP) and far-right Vox have repeatedly attacked him for making concessions to nationalists and for receiving the parliamentary support of the pro-independence Catalan Republican Left (ERC).

His reliance on the parliamentary votes of the Basque nationalists of EH Bildu – the successor to the political wing of the defunct Basque group Eta, which is deemed a terrorist organisation by the EU – has compounded that opprobrium, with some in his own party also expressing unease.

Alberto Núñez Feijóo, the PP’s candidate for prime minister, warned that Mr Sánchez has “made Spain a hostage of those who want to break the territorial unity of our country”, a message many voters seem to endorse.

The conservative leader has also tacitly criticised Mariano Rajoy, the PP’s prime minister during the 2017 Catalan crisis.

“We probably should have acted earlier and not let things go as far as they did,” Mr Núñez Feijóo said, suggesting he would be more proactive than his predecessor.

A Spanish government that is hostile to regional identities could have an upside for the independence movement, reviving it after several years of in-fighting, according to journalist Lola García.

She also believes plans by the Catalan government, led by the moderate ERC, to stage a Madrid-approved referendum on independence in the coming legislature are likely to go nowhere.

“The Catalan government is aware that it will not achieve [a negotiated referendum] either with the PP in government or the Socialists,” she said. Instead, she believes the regional administration is pushing for increased powers within its current arrangement as an autonomous region.

With the PP ahead of the Socialists according to most polls, but looking unlikely to secure an absolute majority, it is quite possible that Spain’s next government will be formed by the conservatives in a coalition with the hardline unionists of Vox.

“We already know that a PP-Vox government would mean a threat to political freedoms and rights and democratic institutions here in Catalonia,” said Meritxell Serret, minister of Foreign Action and the EU for the Catalan government.

She pointed to areas of Spain where the two right-wing parties have already formed governing partnerships since local elections in May, such as the Valencia region and the Balearic Islands.

In both cases, the new local government has announced plans to eliminate the office for defence of local languages, which opponents see as an attempt to eliminate regional identities.

While Ms Serret says the Catalan government is not satisfied with the concessions made by the Sánchez administration, she frames the possibility of Vox entering a right-wing coalition in dramatic terms.

“Vox have been threatening they will illegalise pro-independence parties, for example,” she said.

“We fear, and people fear, that they can represent a step back for our democracy to very dark moments when civil rights [and] freedoms were not only attacked, but were annulled. This is what they represent nowadays.”

World Opinions + BBC News

L’article Debate. Spain’s snap election revives issue of national unity est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.

In early December 2022, after months of violence and uncertainty, the UN mission in Sudan announced the signing of a “framework agreement” between the country’s military and political parties.

The deal is aimed at ending a standoff between the two sides triggered by a coup in October 2021. A product of international mediation led by the US, the framework agreement supposedly provides for a two-year, “civilian-led” transition towards elections.

It is true that after the 2021 coup, which triggered a new episode of violent repression that already claimed the lives of some 120 protesters, Sudan desperately needs to find its way back to the path towards democracy.

Last month’s deal, however, will serve no purpose other than providing another lifeline to the actors responsible for the current political deadlock. The deal does not touch crucial issues like transitional justice, accountability and security sector reform, and thus, just like many others before it, fails to offer a blueprint for breaking the vicious cycle of democratic regression, violence and military intervention.

Since the ousting of Omar al-Bashir in 2019, Sudan’s international partners came up with countless deals, arrangements and frameworks that they claimed would end instability and bring the country closer to democratic governance. However, these efforts always centred on those already wielding power and ignored the aspirations of those truly responsible for the toppling of the al-Bashir regime: pro-democracy activists, and especially women and youths, who led the protests and spearheaded the movement for freedom in 2019.

Last month’s ‘framework agreement’ is unlikely to deliver democratic governance and stability.

It is time we understand that agreements between the military and political elites, however positive they may appear on the surface, will not help Sudan achieve peace and stability. What Sudan needs is a new political arrangement that centres and invests in the pro-democracy movement and works to help it build democratic leadership capacity.

I have firsthand experience with the many obstacles that prevent the pro-democracy movement from transforming into an effective vehicle for democratic governance.

I have been involved in political activism in Sudan since I was 16. In a closed, conservative society under an oppressive regime, engaging in political and public work as a young woman was not easy. I had two options: I could either involve myself in women’s organisations and platforms, which at the time were acting as subordinate to the male-dominated political organisations, or I could attempt to navigate my way into mainstream political parties and confront the many layers of power relations and anti-woman attitudes there.

I went with the latter option. Navigating Sudan’s political party culture characterised by repression, alienation, bullying and sexual harassment as a woman was difficult. On top of all this, I also had to deal with the stigmatisation of politically active women in society. Although it was a frustrating experience in many regards, it taught me a lot about how political organisations function in an impoverished, polarised country and what challenges they need to overcome to break the cycle of militarised governance.

When I eventually moved from party politics to civil society work, I found myself in a struggle of a different nature. In civil society spaces, connecting with the masses and agitating for change was perhaps easier, but we held even less official power. Despite the challenges, however, as an activist working for various civil society platforms, I was able to support other activists and collaborate with pro-democracy organisations and human rights defenders during critical times to help bring an end to al-Bashir’s oppression.

During the 2018-2019 protests in Sudan, an overwhelming majority of protesters on the streets were young, and more than 60 percent of them were women. Thus, women and young people rightfully believed they owned the uprising and viewed the revolution as a fruit of their labour. Despite in many ways leading the process of bringing down the Bashir regime, however, the women and youth of Sudan eventually had to yield to the leadership of weak and isolated political parties for several reasons.

Between the time I was part of Sudan’s political scene in the late 1980s and early 1990s to 2019, some 30 years have passed and so much has changed. By the time the revolution was under way and al-Bashir was on his way out, political parties had long lost any connection they had with the people and were solely interested in self-preservation. They had failed to engage with and accommodate in their policy plans the new waves of activism led by women, youths and minorities. Thus, in their attempts to lead the political transition after the revolution, they were doomed to failure.

The blame for this sad state of affairs is not on political parties alone. For decades, the international community neglected and undermined Sudan’s civilian political parties and movements while accepting the “strong men” with guns as their primary interlocutors.

Due to this lack of support and guidance, Sudan’s vibrant civil society successfully instigated regime change but failed to generate effective political leadership in the aftermath of the revolution.

And deals like the one signed last month, which serve to legitimise the military’s overinflated role in Sudan’s governance while giving the impression of democratic progress, further prevent the pro-democracy movement from developing political leadership capabilities. They provide the military and out-of-touch armed movements with legitimacy and make the dream of a truly civilian democracy even harder to achieve for activists.

Some suggest – given Sudan’s more than half a century of history of military control, economic fragility and the tendency for political violence combined with the current lack of a viable democratic leadership contender – the Sudanese should settle for military rule or a hybrid military-civilian government in the name of stability and security. Last month’s framework agreement also appears to be an effort in this direction.

However, the Sudanese people cannot and should not accept anything less than true democracy.

After holding on to the government for decades amid extreme polarisation, systemic corruption and civil wars, the Sudanese military and its allies from armed movements are in decay and in no state to rule over a country. Insisting on giving a role – any role – to the military in Sudan’s governance would prevent the country from moving on from its painful past and building robust democratic institutions and systems. Keeping military rule alive in any shape or form would only bring more suffering and instability to the country.

Sudan deserves an opportunity for democracy. We deserve a chance to move beyond military rule. What we need is not a “framework deal”, recycling broken promises, or even money. We need the international community to truly support our civil society so we can take the steps to finally return the military to its barracks for good and build truly democratic leadership for our country.

By Hala Al-Karib  is an activist and research practitioner from Sudan – Aljazeera

L’article Debate. Sudan should not settle for anything other than true democracy est apparu en premier sur زوايا ميادين | Mayadin Columns.