WASHINGTON, D.C.—An event held June 5 at the Institute for Policy Studies aimed to raise awareness and foster discussions around a new book, Survivors Uncensored: 100+ Testimonies of Resilience and Humanity, co-authored by Rwandan genocide survivors Claude Gatebuke and Delphine Yandemutso.
Not only does Survivors Uncensored bring together testimonies from survivors of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, it documents pre- and post-genocide atrocities, including in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The co-authors expressed the need for healing, reconciliation, accountability and peace promotion. Additionally, they shed light on the role of the United States and the West in atrocities currently occurring in the DRC, spanning from 1996 to today.
Panelists from left: Delphine Yandamutso and Claude Gatebuke. Moderator Steven Nabieu Rogers in the center / credit: Julie Varughese
Panelists included:
Delphine Yandamutso, Rwanda Accountability Initiative and co-author Survivors Uncensored
Claude Gatebuke, African Great Lakes Action Network and co-author Survivors Uncensored
Salome Ayuak, Black Alliance for Peace Africa Team
Dismas Kitenge, special guest live from Kisangani province, DRC
Steven Nabieu Rogers of Africa Faith and Justice Network moderated the discussion. IPS Director Tope Folarin welcomed the guests.
The co-sponsors of the event included Advocacy Network for Africa, Africa Faith & Justice Network, African Great Lakes Action Network, Africa World Now Project, Black Alliance for Peace, Friends of the Congo, and Institute for Policy Studies.
Atlantans attend a vigil memorializing slain activist Manuel “Tortuguita” or “Tort” Terán on Wednesday, January 18 / credit: Party for Socialism and Liberation-Atlanta
Editor’s Note: Light editing conformed this Peoples Dispatch article to TF’s style.
On June 7, 2021, then Atlanta city councilwoman Joyce Sheperd introduced a city ordinance to lease 381 acres of public land to the Atlanta Police Foundation for a police training facility, then budgeted at $80.6 million dollars. “To her surprise,” writes the activist group Defend the Atlanta Forest, this ordinance was met with massive public opposition.
Leading up to a meeting on June 16, 2021 of Atlanta city council’s finance executive committee, Atlanta residents called in 3 hours and 41 minutes of public comments in the form of pre-recorded messages. Most comments were in opposition to the project. Protesters showed up at Shepherd’s house during the meeting itself, chanting “No Cop City! Keep Atlanta green!” The construction of the training facility would cut down part of Atlanta’s South River Forest, which provides environmental protection against flooding and extreme heat. Shepherd quickly arranged to have police cars stationed outside of her home in response to the peaceful protest.
On September 6, 2021, Atlanta residents called in over 17 hours worth of public comment regarding the new training facility ordinance—of the 1,166 comments called in, 70 percent of them were opposed to the project. The Atlanta City Council ignored the overwhelming opposition and voted 10-4 in favor of building what activists have dubbed “Cop City.”
Cop City, if built, will contain a mock city of Atlanta, where police will practice urban warfare tactics. The facility will also include a Black Hawk helicopter landing pad, explosive testing areas, firing range, and an emergency vehicle driving course. The price tag on the project has since ballooned to $90 million dollars—$60 million to be raised by the Atlanta Police Foundation and $30 million coming from the pockets of Atlanta residents.
Atlanta has one of the largest Black populations out of U.S. cities, with almost half of Atlanta residents being African American. 18.5 percent of Atlantans live in poverty, a rate which is higher than that national average of 11.6 percent. “Operation Shield”, another Atlanta Police Foundation project launched in 2007, developed a network of 11,000 cameras and license plate readers, rendering Atlanta the most surveilled city in the country.
Defend the Atlanta Forest, a group which has emerged as a leader of the opposition to Cop City, writes, “At over 300 acres, Cop City will be the largest police training facility in the United States and is slated to include a mock city where police will train with firearms, tear gas, helicopters, and explosive devices to repress protest and mass unrest, much as they did during the 2020 George Floyd protests. Cop City will hyper-militarize law enforcement, equipping police with a site to train for the suppression of Atlanta’s diverse Black and working-class communities.”
I'm not sure people know just how bad the "cop city" project in Atlanta would be. They want a whole mock city to practice police repression. pic.twitter.com/dWTPtO7VIb
— Read Jackson Rising by @CooperationJXN (@JoshuaPHilll) January 21, 2023
Who’s Backing Cop City?
The anti-police brutality protests following the murder of George Floyd in 2020 caused a cultural shockwave, forcing the hand of even the most powerful corporations. Companies released statement after statement condemning police violence and racism. Some of those same corporations have become the most significant backers of Cop City.
Six days after the death of Floyd, shipping and retail giant Amazon tweeted, “The inequitable and brutal treatment of Black people in our country must stop.” Private logistics company UPS pledged millions of dollars towards racial justice organizations and historically Black universities following the killings of Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and Breonna Taylor. In 2020, Wells Fargo bank claimed that it had paused donations to police foundations.
All of these major corporations have become a part of the corporate network now backing Cop City. Other companies in this network include, but are not limited to, Inspire Brands (which includes Arby’s, Buffalo Wild Wings, Dunkin Donuts, and others), Waffle House, Chick-fil-a, JPMorgan Chase, and Home Depot. Many top executives at these companies have existing or former ties to police organizations across the country, including the Atlanta Police Foundation.
Activist Dies Fighting Cop City
Many resisting the construction of Cop City have labeled themselves “forest defenders,” in regards to the hundreds of acres of forest set to be destroyed through the building of the police training facility. One such forest defender, Tortuguita, was killed on January 18 during SWAT operations to clear up a protest camp in the Weelaunee Forest, which activists have been occupying for over a year to resist Cop City construction.
Georgia State Patrol (GSP) troopers claim that 26-year-old Tortuguita refused to exit their tent and shot at officers, injuring one. Police then responded by shooting and killing the activist. However, activists are demanding an investigation into the murder, as GSP claims there is no body camera footage and Tortuguita was not known to own or carry a gun.
Tortuguita’s death is not an outlier, and is in fact part of a pattern of criminalization of protest in Atlanta: “forest defenders” have been beaten, pepper sprayed, violently arrested, or otherwise attacked by police since June 2021.
There have been several protest actions following Tortuguita’s murder, including an explosive protest on Saturday, January 21, which right-wing officials slammed as “terrorism” due to incidents of property destruction. Infamous Georgia representative Marjorie Taylor Green published a string of tweets demanding that “BLM” and “Antifa” protesters be labeled as “domestic terrorists.”
In 2021, I called for BLM and Antifa to be declared domestic terrorist organizations.
Tonight, with the violence and rioting in Atlanta, I’m renewing that call.
We must treat these thugs just like we treat any other group using political violence to intimidate their enemies. https://t.co/sqPHQeIDbj
One of the accusations hurled at protesters by authorities is an old one: That those demonstrating are in fact not from Atlanta or are not part of the communities most affected by policing. This “outside agitator” conspiracy is identical to accusations against 2020 anti-police brutality protesters: That those opposed to police violence are not genuinely oppressed or working class, instead, they were wealthy white people looking to stir up trouble.
In response, Atlanta activists have dug up an interesting piece of information about Cop City: Almost half—43 percent—of trainees at the facility would be recruited from out of state. A massive influx of police from across the country would convene in Atlanta to learn the latest tactics in police repression. These police trainees are the true “outside agitators,” activists say, and also a reason why anyone in the United States, not only those from Atlanta, has a vested interest in fighting the construction of Cop City.
the majority of trainees at #copcity would come from outside atlanta. the offense is translocal & so our resistance must be. pic.twitter.com/6xJSUg1kQr
— cop city will never be built (@MariahforAthens) January 24, 2023
This article was produced by Peoples Dispatch / Globetrotter News Service.
The Workers’ Party of Tunisia and several human rights groups have strongly objected to a deal proposed by European countries on the movement of migrants. They have called it a violation of sovereignty and the human rights of refugees.
On June 11, top European Union (EU) officials visited Tunisia and issued a joint statement after meeting President Kais Saied, saying that both parties have agreed to work jointly to end “irregular migration.”
Critics of the deal claim that the EU is using Tunisia’s precarious economic condition to force it to control the movement of migrants across the Mediterranean Sea in exchange for financial support, just like they did with Turkey and Libya.
The Workers’ Party claimed in a statement on June 15 that any such deal will make Tunisia a “policeman” patrolling its borders so that people trying to escape their deteriorating economic conditions can be stopped from going to Europe and punished.
Reports indicate that the EU is pushing Tunisia to establish a harsh border policy in exchange for its support for the country’s stalled bid to obtain a $1.9 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund.
Tunisia’s loan has been stalled for months due to Saied’s reluctance to implement the reforms demanded by the IMF. Saied is reportedly worried that his government—already facing large-scale popular resistance since his political coup in July 2021—will face another popular upsurge if the IMF’s demands to cut subsidies for essential commodities such as flour and fuel, cuts to social services, and privatization are implemented.
Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared in Multipolarista.
The U.S. government has imposed aggressive sanctions that aim to “kneecap” China’s tech sector and halt the country’s rise, Washington policymakers and industry analysts have admitted.
The Joe Biden administration took the extraordinarily aggressive action this month of blocking China from importing most semiconductors, machines to create chips and supercomputer parts.
A former Pentagon official acknowledged that this was a “disproportionate” and “unilateral” attack, amounting to a “form of economic containment.”
Jon Bateman, an ex-analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) who served in several important policy roles in the Pentagon, wrote that U.S. officials have “imposed disproportionate measures” and “strong-armed others into compliance.”
Washington’s “mindset all but guarantees a continued march toward broad-based technological decoupling,” he concluded.
Bateman stated that the “increasing boldness of U.S. unilateral actions, and Washington’s open embrace of a quasi-containment strategy” reflect the U.S. government’s new cold war goal: “China’s technological rise will be slowed at any price.”
Today, Bateman is a senior fellow in the technology and international affairs program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a powerful Washington-based think tank that helps Washington craft policy – with plentiful funding from the U.S. government, its allies, large corporations and banks, and billionaire oligarch family foundations.
Bateman is by no means a pro-China advocate. In April, he published a report for Carnegie called “U.S.-China Technological ‘Decoupling’: A Strategy and Policy Framework.”
In the lengthy document, Bateman “offered a concrete picture of what centrist decoupling might look like and how implementation could work at the agency level.”
Bateman wrote the Foreign Policy article as part of a debate with more hard-line hawks in elite Washington policy-making circles. He warned that their “maximalist” strategy could backfire and hurt the U.S. and its allies, and instead promoted a more cautious, incrementalist approach.
“America’s restrictionists—zero-sum thinkers who urgently want to accelerate technological decoupling—have won the strategy debate inside the Biden administration,” he warned.
“More cautious voices—technocrats and centrists who advocate incremental curbs on select aspects of China’s tech ties—have lost,” Bateman lamented.
He acknowledged that Washington’s new cold war on China has been completely bipartisan, but “Donald Trump’s scattershot regulation and erratic public statements offered little clarity to allies, adversaries, and companies around the world,” whereas “Joe Biden’s actions have been more systematic.”
“The United States has waged low-grade economic warfare against China for at least four years now—firing volley after volley of tariffs, export controls, investment blocks, visa limits, and much more,” he wrote.
Bateman said the Biden administration’s new sanctions, however, “more so than any earlier U.S. action, reveal a single-minded focus on thwarting Chinese capabilities at a broad and fundamental level.”
“Although framed as a national security measure, the primary damage to China will be economic, on a scale well out of proportion to Washington’s cited military and intelligence concerns,” he wrote.
He added, “The U.S. government imposed the new rules after limited consultation with partner countries and companies, proving that its quest to hobble China ranks well above concerns about the diplomatic or economic repercussions.”
Bateman noted that the United States is trying to pressure allies to join its new cold war on China, leading an international campaign to economically isolate Beijing by building a “Chip 4” alliance with South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan – which control the vast majority of the global semiconductor industry.
Bateman’s fears that these aggressive new cold war policies could backfire have already come true. Washington’s rapid attempt to decouple the U.S. economy from China is taking a toll on U.S. universities.
At least 1,400 scientists of Chinese descent have left U.S. research institutions and instead gone to China, according to a report published this October by academics at Harvard, Princeton, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
The South China Morning Post reported that the “high number illustrates a ‘chilling effect’ resulting from U.S. government policies deterring research and academic activity by scientists of Chinese descent and suggests American research could suffer.”
The tech press has sounded similar alarm bells about Washington’s bellicose attacks on Beijing.
Electronics industry website EE Times quoted a corporate analyst who said the U.S. “sanctions put a temporary checkmate on China developing their foundry industry at more advanced nodes.”
The website also used cold war rhetoric to refer to the aggressive U.S. policies, writing:
The latest U.S. salvo in the chip war against China will set back its domestic chipmakers by generations, while global suppliers of semiconductors and fab tools will incur billions of dollars in lost sales because of a giant dent in demand out of China, analysts told EE Times.
The administration of U.S. President Joe Biden has strengthened Cold War measures from longer than 40 years ago. In its new rivalry, the U.S. aims to freeze China’s advancement on a new front: chip technology that is critical for economic development and military superiority.
Wired said Washington’s “sweeping new controls are designed to keep [China’s] AI industry stuck in the dark ages while the U.S. and other Western countries advance.”
The tech magazine quoted Gregory Allen, director of the AI governance project at the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS), an influential neoconservative think tank in Washington that is bankrolled by the weapons industry, U.S. government, and Washington’s allies.
Allen summed it up: “The United States is saying to China, ‘AI technology is the future; we and our allies are going there—and you can’t come.’”
Benjamin Norton is founder and editor of Multipolarista.
