Monday, June 22, 2020

Black Lives Matter: Trump, Antifa, and the Anti-Racist movement

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Aditi Mohta

Article Title

Black Lives Matter: Trump, Antifa, and the Anti-Racist movement

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

June 22, 2020

URL

President Trump visits St. John Episcopal Church, Washington

President Trump visits St. John Episcopal Church, Washington | Source: White House via Wikimedia

As massive protests following the passing of George Floyd kept on shaking the United States. President Donald Trump tweeted on 31st of May that far-left group Antifa was the one behind the violent riots and he would designate it as a terrorist group. He said, “The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization.” This assertion was repeated by the US Attorney General William Barr as well.

Antifa, short for anti-fascists, is an amorphous movement and not an organization as Trump labels it to be. They tend to be on the left of the U.S. political spectrum, many describing themselves as socialists, anarchists, anti-capitalists or communists. Antifa, according to many commentators, is just a decentralized collection of individual activists who mostly use non-violent methods to achieve their goal, which is to resist the spread of fascism. They track people who spread racist hatred and fascist ideology through on-ground events, traditional media, or social media and use cultural forms of art like drawing, music, film screenings etc. to spread the message of inclusivity. There are more militant anti-fascist groups as well, who mostly engage in non-militant activities but are willing to use more confrontational tactics at times as well. 

This is not the first time that Donald Trump has criticized Antifa to shift the focus away from racial discrimination faced by the black community in USA. In this instance as well President has tried to portray the protestors and looters with a vague phrase “radical-left bad people” and invoking “Antifa” to represent the whole of leftist militant groups which are bound more by belief than by any organizational structure.

Taking a cue from President Trump, many officials, conservative commentators and white supremacists started blaming Antifa for using the “Black Life Matters” movement to indulge in violence and undermining the government of the USA. Mr Trump’s national security adviser, Robert C. O’Brien, had also blamed such activists during his appearances on CNN and A.B.C. News. Mr O’Brien said the F.B.I. needed to “come up with a plan” to deal with Antifa. John Guandolo, who was in the FBI for 13 years, went a step ahead and claimed that Antifa and “Black Life Matters” are communist organizations, who are planning to overthrow the US government. He also praised President Trump for calling Antifa a terrorist organization and lamented that the FBI are unaware of its plan. Fiona Moriarty-McLaughlin, a journalist at the right-wing publication Washington Examiner, re-posted a video purportedly depicting "Paid #Antifa thugs" vandalizing the store — even though there is no evidence to suggest that the vandals were members of the movement.

The FBI and local law enforcement agencies have aggressively pursued charges against rioters, looters and others accused of havoc. However there is no evidence of any involvement of organized violence by Antifa or any other left-wing group. The most serious case that has emerged in federal court involved three men in Nevada linked to a loose, national network of far-right extremists advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government. They were arrested on May 30 on charges of trying to foment violence during Black Lives Matter protests. There are many instances when white thugs were seen vandalizing which blacks feared could be used against them.

The invocation of Antifa by President Trump during the “Black Life Matters” protest is conveniently used by the conservative commentators and white supremacists to somehow shift the focus away from the deep rooted racism in the USA to the violent actions by some protesters during the “Black Life Matter” protest.

As massive protests following the passing of George Floyd kept on shaking the United States. President Donald Trump tweeted on 31st of May that far-left group Antifa was the one behind the violent riots and he would designate it as a terrorist group. He said, “The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization.” This assertion was repeated by the US Attorney General William Barr as well.

Antifa, short for anti-fascists, is an amorphous movement and not an organization as Trump labels it to be. They tend to be on the left of the U.S. political spectrum, many describing themselves as socialists, anarchists, anti-capitalists or communists. Antifa, according to many commentators, is just a decentralized collection of individual activists who mostly use non-violent methods to achieve their goal, which is to resist the spread of fascism. They track people who spread racist hatred and fascist ideology through on-ground events, traditional media, or social media and use cultural forms of art like drawing, music, film screenings etc. to spread the message of exclusivity. There are more militant anti-fascist groups as well, who mostly engage in non-militant activities but are willing to use more confrontational tactics at times as well. 

This is not the first time that Donald Trump has criticized Antifa to shift the focus away from racial discrimination faced by the black community in USA. In this instance as well President has tried to portray the protestors and looters with a vague phrase “radical-left bad people” and invoking “Antifa” to represent the whole of leftist militant groups which are bound more by belief than by any organizational structure.

Taking a cue from President Trump, many officials, conservative commentators and white supremacists started blaming Antifa for using the “Black Life Matters” movement to indulge in violence and undermining the government of the USA. Mr Trump’s national security adviser, Robert C. O’Brien, had also blamed such activists during his appearances on CNN and A.B.C. News. Mr O’Brien said the F.B.I. needed to “come up with a plan” to deal with Antifa. John Guandolo, who was in the FBI for 13 years, went a step ahead and claimed that Antifa and “Black Life Matters” are communist organizations, who are planning to overthrow the US government. He also praised President Trump for calling Antifa a terrorist organization and lamented that the FBI are unaware of its plan. Fiona Moriarty-McLaughlin, a journalist at the right-wing publication Washington Examiner, re-posted a video purportedly depicting "Paid #Antifa thugs" vandalizing the store — even though there is no evidence to suggest that the vandals were members of the movement.

The FBI and local law enforcement agencies have aggressively pursued charges against rioters, looters and others accused of havoc. However there is no evidence of any involvement of organized violence by Antifa or any other left-wing group. The most serious case that has emerged in federal court involved three men in Nevada linked to a loose, national network of far-right extremists advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government. They were arrested on May 30 on charges of trying to foment violence during Black Lives Matter protests. There are many instances when white thugs were seen vandalizing which blacks feared could be used against them.

The invocation of Antifa by President Trump during the “Black Life Matters” protest is conveniently used by the conservative commentators and white supremacists to somehow shift the focus away from the deep rooted racism in the USA to the violent actions by some protesters during the “Black Life Matter” protest.

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

February 4, 2021 4:49 PM

The case of Huawei: How that impacts Canada-China relations

In December 2018, Meng Wanzhou, the Chief Financial Officer for Huawei, a China-based tech company which is dominating the telecom supplies, was arrested in Vancouver, Canada on her flight stop to Mexico. This was done on a request from the USA with whom Canada has an extradition treaty. She was sought by the USA for allegedly dealing with Iran using an American banking system in spite of the sanctions placed on Iran by the country, in 2013. In May, Wanzhou lost the legal challenge to the extradition process, meaning that they will go ahead with the extradition proceedings.

Within days of Wanzhou’s arrest, two Canadian citizens in China were arrested on alleged accounts of spying. This is seen as a retaliation for the Wangzhou arrest by the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who says that there is a direct link between Wanzhou’s arrest and those of Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig,  the Canadians who are detained in China. Though China has been tight-lipped about the link between the two, these two incidents are often raised jointly by the Chinese spokesperson. David Mulroney, former ambassador for Canada to China, has said that the officials in Beijing are mirroring the ongoing extradition case to that of the detained Canadians.

Although Mr. Trudeau has in the past repeatedly emphasized the need for good relations with China, and has enthusiastically worked on them to the point of agreeing to discuss a Canada-China extradition treaty. But the China-Canada relations already started souring much before the arrest after a trade deal fell through in 2017. Many major carriers in the country, some of which have been outspoken in their support of Huawei, have decided to shun the company and opt for western alternatives instead. One of them, Bell Mobility, even announced that it will use equipment from its Finnish rival, Nokia.

Huawei is considered a symbol for China’s technological prowess, and the arrest is seen by the Chinese Communist Party as an attack on its symbol of technological achievement. The Chinese state-owned newspaper the Global Times calls the act a “political persecution launched by the US, with the intention to contain China’s high-tech development.” The China Daily also criticized the court ruling as unfair and potentially harmful in mending the Canada-China relations.

There has also been a backlash from legal experts and family members of the detained Canadians on the Canadian policy of letting the extradition charges proceed and not going with a prisoner swap. Mr. Mulroney, however, feels that it would legitimize “hostage diplomacy”, which would put at risk all traveling Canadians for arbitrary arrests to gain political leverage. There is a stark difference between the condition of the hostages and that of Meng Wanzhou, for while the two prisoners spend their days in small cells in isolation, interrupted by interrogation and bland meals, Wanzhou lives in her Vancouver mansion, being happy about the fact that she can spend more time reading and oil painting, now.

The Canadian government is also claiming that it has to let the extradition process go on without political interference as to not compromise the independent, legal decision of surrendering the Huawei CFO. Mr. Mulroney has said that “it wouldn’t be the right thing to do. It would compromise the integrity of both our democracy and our justice system,” and that their values need to count for something. Brian Greenspan, a Toronto lawyer with experience on extradition cases, has said that the government has the power to withdraw from the extradition case, and that the lessons from a previous case in which political pressure affected an international case, are being applied wrongly here.

There are many sides to this tension, complicated by previous feuds, economic decisions, the detentions of the Canadians and Wanzhou and the difference between the political and the legal, and the many opinions on whether it should be that way.

Read More