dataDp/1032.jpeg

Worldnews

No, Trump Is Not A Fascist. He Is A Hypercapitalist And Just As Dangerous

Trump wants to free big capital from the constraints of democracy by dismantling it. Since taking office in January, United States President Donald Trump has undertaken policy after policy that has shocked Americans and the world. From launching an immigration crackdown and persecuting legal residents sympathetic to the Palestinian people to dismantling diversity and inclusion programmes and assaulting higher education and free speech, Trump has fully embraced far-right agendas. His critics at home and abroad have readily called him a fascist. But fascism is not the ideology of choice for the US president. Fascist movements varied in their approaches to political and economic issues, but they have had several elements in common: The good of the nation is elevated above all, and the state plays an overarching role in society and the economy. In other words, fascism was an attempt to reformulate the socialist ideal into a strong nationalistic framework. And as a historical reaction to communism and liberalism, it remains exiled in the 20th century, in “the age of extremes,” as the British historian Eric Hobsbawm famously called it. Trump may be using the language of “America first” in his rhetoric, but he is not really pursuing the “good of the nation”. He is pursuing the good of the 1 percent. Trump and his cheerleaders want to go beyond neoliberalism, which maintains that a minimal state is ideal for economic prosperity, and establish hypercapitalism by dissolving any controls the state has over the accumulation of wealth by the extremely rich. They understand that we are living in times when extracting profit from society is not as easy, so they want to free capitalism from the hindrances of democracy and the demands of the people that their rights – political, social and human – be protected by the law and by the state. The tech bros that Trump has surrounded himself with have wrapped this hypercapitalism in a technological cover, claiming that technology can solve all woes and unlimited growth – read unlimited profits for the rich – is the only way to progress. This is clearly outlined in writings produced by the likes of Marc Andreessen, a Silicon Valley billionaire, who penned a Techno-Optimist Manifesto a year before US elections brought Trump to power for a second time. With an almost religious conception of technology and markets, he wrote: “Techno-Optimists believe that societies, like sharks, grow or die. … We believe in ambition, aggression, persistence, relentlessness – strength. … We believe in agency, in individualism. … We believe that there is no material problem – whether created by nature or by technology – that cannot be solved with more technology.” This view combines unrestrained capitalism with transhumanism – the belief that humans should use technology to enhance their abilities – and an individualistic interpretation of Charles Darwin’s survival of the fittest. It is easy to see that this sharp individualistic vision is the opposite of historical fascism, which prioritises the nation and the community over the individual. Some may point to Trump’s tariff policies as proof that he has statist tendencies. But if you scratch the surface, you would see that the trade war the US president is waging is really not about “bringing jobs back”, “defending national interests” or reversing globalisation. Trump is using tariffs as a coercive tool to force various countries into negotiating with him. When he announced a 90-day pause on some tariffs, he himself bragged about 75 governments reaching out to his administration. It is far more likely that these bilateral talks will be used to extort concessions that will favour big capital closely associated with the Trump administration rather than to defend the rights of American workers and to create the conditions for the return of manufacturing jobs to the US. It is true that Trump has attracted the support of postfascist politicians in Europe and uses fascist language and tools, but that is not enough to brand him a “fascist”. European postfascists, like Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, have themselves veered away from fascist conceptions of state and economy. Meloni and others have readily embraced “free market” policies of cutting taxes for the rich and wiping out social security provision for the poor. Her economic policies differ little from Trump’s. The US president has fully embraced xenophobic and racist language reminiscent of fascist rhetoric and launched a vicious campaign against immigrants. He does so not only to scare and win over marginalised parts of society but also to divert their growing discontent towards a racialised “other” rather than the wealthy class. This strategy is working not only because of the growing resentment for liberal elites that the impoverished majority has accumulated but also because the left has failed to act. Leftist and progressive politicians have condemned themselves to fruitlessly repeating the old right and left cliches, going on tirades about “Trump’s fascism” and debates about the Nazi or Roman salutes of his associates. Engaging in such rhetoric is futile and a waste of time and energy. Instead, the left should focus on developing concrete strategies to counter Trump’s popularity and hypercapitalist drive. It should go back to the root of problems that ordinary people face in their lives: jobs, healthcare, education and the ever-deepening cynicism about politics. It needs to not only expose Trump for who he really is – a champion of big capital interests – but also to provide a solid, realistic alternative. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance. Follow Al Jazeera English:...

dataDp/1032.jpeg

Worldnews

A Political Prisoner: US Advocates Rally For Detained Georgetown Scholar

Lawyers say the Trump administration’s efforts to deport Badar Khan Suri violate his freedom of speech and association. Alexandria, Virginia – “Free him now. Free him now.” Those words rang outside a federal courthouse near Washington, DC, on Thursday, as lawyers argued over the case of Badar Khan Suri, who has been detained by the United States government over his support for Palestinian rights. Dozens of activists had gathered to show solidarity with Khan Suri, a postdoctoral scholar at Georgetown University. He was arrested in March as part of President Donald Trump’s campaign to punish and deport non-citizens accused of fuelling “anti-Semitism” and “illegal protests” on college campuses. Speaking to the crowd in Alexandria, Virginia, Mapheze Saleh – Khan Suri’s Palestinian American wife – highlighted the impact of his detention on their three children. She said they just wanted their father back. “Why is this happening to him? Why is the Trump administration persecuting him?” Saleh said. “Because he fell in love and married to a Palestinian, because he dared to express his belief in non-violence and because he spoke out bravely against the genocide of my people in Gaza.” Before his detention, Khan Suri was in the US on an academic visa, conducting research on peace-building in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the US government has accused Khan Suri, an Indian national, of violating the terms of his visa by “actively spreading Hamas propaganda and promoting antisemitism on social media”. It has not offered proof of either assertion. Outside the courthouse on Thursday, Amanda Eisenhour, an activist from Alexandria, said Khan Suri’s case represents the intersection of issues including free speech, constitutional rights and the “tyranny” of the US immigration system. “It’s also about Palestine,” Eisenhour told Al Jazeera. “I want to make sure that’s always part of the conversation. Dr Khan Suri is a political prisoner because of his association, because of his marriage to somebody who’s Palestinian. We’re now a country that holds political prisoners, and we have to be ready to fight against that.” As the legal hearing unfolded, activists outside chanted for Khan Suri’s freedom and Palestinian rights under a statue of a blindfolded woman holding scales, symbolising justice without bias. One protester held up a sign, “Mob bosses disappear people.” Another placard proclaimed, “Due process now.” In the courtroom, lawyers for both sides questioned the geographical divide between where the hearing was taking place – and where Khan Suri is held presently. After his arrest in Virginia, immigration officials quickly moved Khan Suri from a local detention centre to one in Louisiana and then in Texas. Critics say the government has transferred individuals slated for deportation to faraway states to keep them away from their families and legal teams. They also point out that states like Louisiana and Texas are more likely to have conservative-leaning courts. On Thursday, Khan Suri’s lawyers argued for the scholar to be moved back to his home state of Virginia, where his case is currently unfolding. “We hope the court sees through these unlawful government tactics, keeps Dr Suri’s case here in Virginia, orders that he be released or, at minimum, orders that he be returned to Virginia, where he’ll be close to his legal counsel and to his family,” said Samah Sisay, staff lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights, which is involved in the case. But the Trump administration made an opposing request, pushing for the court case to be transferred to Texas. Ultimately, Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles demanded answers about why Khan Suri was moved so swiftly out of Virginia. She gave the government’s lawyers 24 hours to respond. The Georgetown scholar’s lawyers have reason to be optimistic about the outcome. Federal district courts have asserted jurisdiction in similar cases, and on Wednesday, a judge in Vermont ordered the release of Columbia University student Mohsen Mahdawi, who is also facing deportation. Since Trump began his second term in January, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has suggested that he revoked the visas of hundreds of foreign students who engaged in protests or criticism of Israel. But the push to deport Khan Suri has been one of the most prominent cases. To justify removing Khan Suri and other student activists, Rubio has cited the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, a Cold War-era law. One rarely used provision allows the secretary of state to deport non-citizens who pose “potentially serious adverse foreign consequences” for the US. The Trump administration has not charged Khan Suri with a crime. But officials have accused him of “connections to a known or suspected terrorist”: his father-in-law. “Suri was married to the daughter of a senior advisor for to [sic] Hamas terrorist group,” the Department of Homeland Security said in a social media post. But Khan Suri’s supporters point out that his father-in-law, Ahmed Yousef, has not been associated with Hamas for years and has even criticised the group on multiple occasions. Yousef had served more than a decade ago as an adviser to former Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, a Hamas leader who was killed by Israel in Iran last year. Regardless, legal experts say familial ties are not a criminal offence or grounds for deportation. Hassan Ahmad, a Virginia-based lawyer representing Khan Suri, said the allegation about the Georgetown scholar’s father-in-law sets the case apart from the push to deport other pro-Palestine students. “We’re talking not just about the First Amendment, freedom of speech. We’re talking about the constitutional freedom of association as well,” Ahmad said. “And that’s something that distinguishes Dr Suri’s case, in that here they’re going after him based on not anything that he said or retweeted or forwarded or liked or spoke to anyone [about], but based only on his association. That’s not the America we want to be.” Eden Heilman, the legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Virginia, which is helping to represent Khan Suri, also said deporting someone based on their personal connections is a “very scary premise”. “If that’s what the government has done, which they are alleging they are doing with Dr Suri, we are in an unprecedented time in terms of our constitutional threats,” Heilman told reporters on Thursday. Moreover, social media accounts that appear to belong to Khan Suri do not show any direct support for Hamas or hostility towards the Jewish people. Instead, the scholar has used his social media presence to decry Israeli atrocities in Gaza and highlight apparent war crimes against Palestinians. “Israel is bombing hospitals in Gaza to turn the land inhabitable, in order to build the case for making Palestinians in Gaza think of migrating to the Sinai desert,” Khan Suri wrote in October 2023. In recent months, Trump has called for the removal of all Palestinians from Gaza, a plan that rights advocates say amounts to ethnic cleansing. Democratic Congressman Don Beyer, who represents a district in northern Virginia where Khan Suri lived, attended Thursday’s hearing to show support. “I’ll be doing everything I can to help Dr Khan [Suri] and his family, and I encourage each one of us to do all that we can to tell these stories, to help educate the American people about what’s happening in this threat to our Constitution, to our rights,” Beyer said in a video message on Thursday. “It is Kafkaesque that somebody can be kidnapped without reason, without acknowledgement, without logic, without charges and taken off to be locked in a prison in Texas, not knowing what happens next.” Anita Martineau, a Northern Virginia resident, told Al Jazeera people should not be “kidnapped” for their speech. She attended a protest outside the hearing, holding a poster that read, “Bring Khan Suri back now.” “It’s absolutely unconstitutional, and it needs to stop,” Martineau said. “American people and anyone in this country, whether they’re citizens or residents, they all need to stand up. We need to speak with one voice.” Melissa Petisa, an activist with the group Alexandria for Palestinian Human Rights, also called for Khan Suri to be “released immediately”. She added that Trump is targeting students as a tactic to distract from the escalating carnage in Gaza. “We’re here because we want to show solidarity with Dr Suri,” Petisa told Al Jazeera. “We’re also here because we’re showing solidarity with Palestine.” Follow Al Jazeera English:...

dataDp/1032.jpeg

Worldnews

Everyone Lives In Fear: Voices Of Kashmir After Deadly Pahalgam Attack

As tensions soar between India and Pakistan, Kashmiris are caught between fear and uncertainty. Srinagar, Indian-administered Kashmir — India and Pakistan are on edge, amid speculation that New Delhi might launch a military operation against its western neighbour days after the deadly attack on tourists in Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir. On the afternoon of April 22, suspected rebels emerged from the forests into a picturesque meadow in Pahalgam accessible only by foot or horseback, and opened fire on male tourists. They killed 25 tourists and a local Kashmiri pony rider. The worst such attack in Kashmir in a quarter-century set off a spiral of tit-for-tat steps by India and Pakistan that have brought the nuclear-armed neighbours to the brink of military conflict. Yet while India blames Pakistan for the attack, and Islamabad accuses New Delhi of not sharing any evidence to back its claims, Kashmir is facing the brunt of their tensions. India has responded to the Pahalgam attack with a spree of detentions of people suspected of supporting secessionist groups; and raids and demolitions of the homes of rebels, in the part of Kashmir it administers. It has also temporarily shut down tourism in parts of the Kashmir valley. It is also expelling Pakistanis living in India and Indian-administered Kashmir – including the families of former rebels New Delhi had previously invited as a part of a rehabilitation programme. Meanwhile, dozens of Kashmiris in cities across India have reported facing harassment, physical assault and threats to leave. Al Jazeera spoke to people living in the region about how their lives have been affected by the Pahalgam attack. I was in Pahalgam when the attack took place. It was shocking for all of us. As an architect and tourism planner focused on developing adventure tourism in Kashmir, I experienced the immediate fallout of the incident. The government’s decision to suspend all trekking activities and close 48 tourist destinations following the attack has directly impacted my work. The months of planning, coordination with local partners and scheduled expeditions were brought to an abrupt halt. The attack led to mass cancellations, financial losses, and the dismissal of local guides, porters, and service staff – many of whom rely entirely on seasonal tourism for income. The impact extended beyond businesses; it shook the confidence of tourists and disrupted the livelihoods of hundreds of people across the tourism value chain. My years of work to brand Kashmir as a safe, adventure-friendly destination have been lost abruptly. My work has taken a significant hit, but I hope that things will improve, tourists will come back and the sector will revive. I am very stressed about my livelihood right now but there is no option but to hope. What happened in Pahalgam should never have happened. Incidents like that don’t just create panic, they destroy our only source of livelihood. Since that day, the number of tourists has dropped so badly that I have spent these days without a single ride. I sit idle, waiting near taxi stands or at home, hoping someone might call me but the phone just does not ring any more. Since March, this year had started with some hope. Bookings were picking up, and it felt like we might finally see a good season after years of struggle. But now everything has come crashing down. I fear that if this continues, people like me, who have no government job, no land, no business, will be left penniless. We survive on tourism and this incident has been a big setback as I am left with no other option. I don’t have savings to fall back on. I have a family to support, children to educate and loans to repay. When tourists don’t come, it’s not just a bad day at work, it’s a question of how we will eat tomorrow. I was staying in a rented room in Srinagar [Indian-administered Kashmir’s main city] when the Pahalgam incident took place. Following reports of youth being picked up across Kashmir, I was urgently called back home [in central Kashmir’s Ganderbal district]. A few months earlier, I was summoned to the local police station over a social media post which they did not like. I was let off with a warning and sent home. Since returning from my rented accommodation, I have been confined to my house. My parents don’t allow me to step outside. Every time I get a call, I feel a wave of anxiety, fearing it might be the police. My mother was scheduled to travel to Delhi in a few days for open-heart surgery, but now she is too afraid to go. One of my friends who is a student recently returned and warned us that it is extremely dangerous to travel under the current circumstances. He was studying in Punjab and had to rush home after attacks on Kashmiri students. Our lives have become so uncertain that we do not know whether we should worry about two meals, our job, our education, our homes being demolished or the political uncertainty that is shaping up. Kashmir might be a wonderland, a mini-Switzerland or a paradise for others, but for us, it is an open prison. Everyone lives in fear. What future do we have? My sister has been living in Kashmir with her husband and children for over a decade. A few years ago, she brought me here as well. She had never once complained about facing any harm. In fact, she would always speak highly of the locals and their warmth. That is what encouraged me to come and try building a life here, too. I sell pani puri [a popular street snack in South Asia] on a cart and earn my livelihood. The weather is also good here. When the attack on tourists happened, it did create fear on the first day. We were very scared not knowing what would happen. But things are returning to normal slowly and people are gradually returning to their daily routine. I continue to run my stall and even close it late in the evening without much worry. We are feeling safe so far. The atmosphere here, at least for now, doesn’t feel threatening to outsiders. I am originally from Karachi [in Pakistan]. I came to Kashmir in 2014 under the rehabilitation policy announced by the [Indian] government for the families of the former rebels who had gone to Pakistan but gave up guns and settled there. After marrying my husband, who is from Baramulla in north Kashmir, I came to Kashmir. For the past decade, I have been living here with him and our two daughters. This is our home now. When I hear today that Pakistani residents are being sent back, I get anxious.  My heart breaks. I don’t want to go back. How can I leave my husband and children behind and return alone? I would rather die than be separated from my family. I beg the government, with folded hands, please don’t send us away. My daughters are studying here. We have built a life in Kashmir, brick by brick, year after year. We are not a threat to anyone. All we want is to live in peace, together as a family. If I am sent back, it is like cutting an arm or leg from the body, who on Earth would do that? *The names of Amir and Safiya have been changed at their request for their safety. Follow Al Jazeera English:...

dataDp/1032.jpeg

Worldnews

Romania Election 2025: Results, Whos Standing And Whats At Stake?

It’s the country’s second poll in less than a year after a previous election was anulled. Romanians will head to the polls on Sunday, May 4, to elect their next president in the first round of a “do-over” election, the second such poll within six months. The Eastern European country previously held a presidential election on November 24, 2024, from which far-right candidate Calin Georgescu, who was polling in single digits during the campaign, surprisingly emerged victorious. That result was annulled after reports emerged of alleged Russian election interference in favour of Georgescu, throwing the country into a political crisis. Romania’s elections authority banned the pro-Moscow independent in March. He is now subject to criminal investigations. Here’s everything you need to know about the redo vote and who the top contenders are: Polls will open at 7am (04:00 GMT) on Sunday, May 4 and close at 9pm (18:00 GMT). Voters can cast their ballot at any of 18,979 polling stations around the country. An additional 965 stations will be set up in countries with big diaspora communities, including Malta, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Moldova and the United States. The president is elected for a five-year term in a two-round voting system. A president can serve up to two terms. A candidate must secure more than 50 percent of all registered votes to be declared a winner in the first round. If no candidate achieves the 50 percent threshold on May 4, a run-off will be held on May 18 between the two top finishers. The candidate with the most votes will be declared the winner. The rising cost of food and other basics in the country is likely to be the biggest factor in how people choose to vote. The country’s economy has steadily been on the decline for decades, forcing many young people to seek work abroad. Close to one-third of the population faces poverty. There is deep-rooted anger over how establishment parties have run the country since the fall of the communist government in 1989. Romania scores among the bottom four countries in Europe in terms of corruption, according to Transparency International. Voters generally have little trust in public institutions and politicians. Romania, like several other European nations, faces growing questions from sections of its population about its support for Ukraine in the war against Russia. More right-leaning voters are against additional backing for Kyiv. Overall, voters are split between wanting a government more removed from the West and closer to Russia, and one that’s pro-European Union and NATO. This divide is reflected in the makeup of Romania’s parliament. Following parliamentary elections on December 1 last year, Romania’s pro-Europe parties came together to form a majority government in a bid to shut out far-right nationalists. The ruling National Coalition for Romania was formed when the pro-Europe Social Democratic Party (PSD), which topped the polls in the December election but failed to achieve a majority, reached an agreement with the centre-right National Liberal Party (PNL), the reformist Save Romania Union party (USR), and the small ethnic Hungarian UDMR party. Overall, the coalition holds 58 of the 134 seats in the Senate, the upper house, and 135 seats out of 331 in the lower Chamber of Deputies. On the anti-EU side, the most popular party is the far-right Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR), which is led by presidential candidate George Simion. It holds 28 seats in the Senate and 61 in the Chamber of Deputies. SOS Romania, also a far-right party, holds another 12 seats in the Senate and 28 seats in the Chamber of Deputies. The far-right Party of Young People (POT) holds 24 lower and seven upper seats. Overall, these euro-sceptic parties hold 113 seats in the Chamber of Deputies – not far behind the ruling coalition’s 135. Given this divide, the EU will have its eyes on this presidential election. The right-wing, eurosceptic politician is leader of the Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR) and is currently leading the polls with support from 30 percent of voters as of April 26, according to Politico’s Poll of Polls (an average of all the polls). Simion, who is perceived as being pro-Moscow – like Georgescu who is a former member of AUR – and is backed by nationalist camps, criticised the decision to annul the controversial November elections. He is opposed to same-sex marriage and is a euro-sceptic. He has also spoken out against sending aid to Ukraine. He has advocated for taking back territory from Ukraine and Moldova that once belonged to Romania. In May 2015, Simion was declared “persona non grata” by Moldova and barred from entering the country for five years on the grounds that he was “endangering national security”. This ban was renewed for a further five years in February 2024. Simion was criticised in 2019 for supporting the election to parliament of two former military officers accused of suppressing revolutionaries in the country’s 1989 overthrow of communist rule. The independent candidate and longtime politician is backed by the more centrist governing Social Democratic Party and National Liberal Party alliance (PSD-PNL). According to Politico’s Poll of Polls, Antonescu, who was a one-time acting president and head of the Senate, was polling at 24 percent as of April 26. He supports Romania’s membership of the EU and NATO. He is also in favour of sending more aid to Ukraine. Antonescu has highlighted his political experience in his campaigns. The activist and mathematician is the mayor of Bucharest, a position he has held since 2011. He is running as an independent candidate on an anticorruption ticket and is polling at 22 percent, according to Politico. For more than a decade before becoming mayor, Dan campaigned against the demolition of heritage buildings in the capital city and against the conversion of public parks to construction sites. He is favoured by liberal camps who support closer ties with the EU and want to prevent the rise of right-wing candidates like Simion, but who do not favour the centrist ruling coalition. Dan was re-elected as mayor last June, and his announcement to run following the annulled presidential elections in November came as a surprise. His campaign promises are to reform institutions, get rid of corruption and inefficiencies, and increase defence spending. He is also promising to unite Romanians across ideological lines. Prime minister until 2014 under the ruling Social Democratic Party (PSD), Ponta is also running as an independent candidate in this election, polling at 10 percent at the end of April, according to Politico. His stint in the top job was marred by allegations of tax evasion and money laundering that eventually forced him to resign, however. In 2018, a court acquitted him of the charges, marking his comeback to politics. Ponta is currently a legislator in the Chamber of Deputies. He has highlighted nationalist and protectionist themes in his campaign: He is against buying Ukrainian grain and wants to protect the interests of Romanian farmers. Lasconi is a journalist and the mayor of Campulung in south-central Romania. She is popular with liberal voters. She is running as leader of the political party, Save Romania Union (USR) and is polling at 7 percent in Politico’s Poll of Polls. Lasconi placed second in the November elections and was set to face Georgescu in the run-off vote before it was annulled. As mayor, she is in favour of EU support, which her office said allowed Campulung to build parks and other critical infrastructure. The president of Romania is head of state and can issue official decrees. Under the constitution, the president has the power to nominate the prime minister, who must then be approved by parliament. The president does not have the power to dismiss the prime minister once in place, although he or she can appoint an acting prime minister if the current one becomes incapacitated. The prime minister and his cabinet have ultimate control when it comes to running the country. While the president is required by the constitution to maintain a neutral stance, if Simion does win the presidency, that would place him ideologically at odds with the coalition government. Follow Al Jazeera English:...