March 29, 2024
On Wednesday, the University of
Michigan unveiled a proposal for a new administration policy that could be used
to effectively prohibit public protests on campus, as part of an escalating
nationwide and global crackdown on opposition to Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
The policy document states:
No one has the right to infringe on the exercise of others’ speech and
activities by disrupting the normal celebrations, activities, and operations of
the University (“University Operations”).
Students who are determined to have
violated this policy will be subject to disciplinary action, including
expulsion.
This attack on free speech follows a
public condemnation from university president Santa Ono of a March 26 protest
against the Gaza genocide. Ono declared:
We all must understand that, while protest is valued and protected,
disruptions are not. One group’s right to protest does not supersede the right
of others to participate in a joyous event.
The banning of protest in the guise
of preventing “disruption” of “public order” and “economic life” is the stock
in trade of every authoritarian regime in modern history. For that reason, from
a democratic legal standpoint, the permissibility of “disruption” has always
been understood as essential to freedom of speech and expression.
As the United Nations Human Rights
Committee has explained:
Private entities and the broader society … may be expected to accept some
level of disruption, if this is required for the exercise of the right of
peaceful assembly.
According to the draft text
circulated Wednesday, inviting “feedback” through April 3, the new policy would
ban any actions that “disrupt” university activities of any kind, including by
“obstructing lines of sight, making loud or amplified noises, projecting light
or images, or otherwise creating substantive distractions.” It would also be a
violation of the policy to “prevent or impede the free flow of persons about
campus,” or to refuse to leave the campus when ordered to do so by a university
official.
Does a picket by striking workers
“prevent or impede” pedestrian traffic? Does holding up a banner outside an
event “obstruct lines of sight”? Does yelling “boo” instead of applauding when
a war criminal takes the stage constitute a “substantive distraction”?
The vagueness of the policy is
deliberate. The intended effect is to give the university a license to ban any
protest whatsoever, since all protests by their very nature involve
“substantive distractions.”
The policy also provides that in the
event of an alleged violation, students will summarily be given notice of
charges and encouraged to “voluntarily accept responsibility” or else face a
one-sided university-controlled “process” to determine their punishment. The
policy also threatens to refer students to the police and local prosecutors by
making “requests for misdemeanor charges under Article XII of the Regents’
Ordinance and state trespass law.”
The university’s threat to involve
the police and prosecutors is directed particularly against the university’s
many international students, whose visa status is often precarious and can be
revoked for any number of reasons, or for no reason at all.
In addition to students, the new
“disruption” policy also expressly applies to staff, faculty and visitors.
Students who violate the policy can face “expulsion,” while faculty members can
face “termination.” The policy also purports to override all other
“conflicting” policies to the contrary. This presumably includes the Statement
of Student Rights, which upholds the “long tradition of student activism and
values freedom of expression, which includes voicing unpopular views and
dissent.”
The University of Michigan, in fact,
was a center of student protests during the Vietnam War and Civil Rights
periods. The new proposed policy, if it had been in effect at that time, would
have virtually criminalized entire graduating classes of the student body.
The International Youth and Students
for Social Equality at the University of Michigan issued a statement Thursday
condemning the “latest moves by the administration to intimidate and silence
opposition to the US/Israeli genocide in Gaza.”
The IYSSE stated:
We unconditionally defend all students, faculty and staff who are targeted
by the university thought police and victimized for the “crime” of protesting
against an ongoing genocide that recalls the Nazi Holocaust.
Socialist Equality Party
presidential candidate Joseph Kishore spoke to many students and issued a
statement to those attending a 1,000-strong rally against the university
administration in Ann Arbor yesterday. He called the proposed policy an
“outrageous attack on democratic rights and the right to protest.”
Kishore continued:
It is a continuation and escalation of the efforts to criminalize and to
smear protests against the genocide in Gaza. This is a response of the ruling
class to growing opposition among workers and among young people to the
horrific crimes that are being carried out with the active support, with the
financial support, with the political support of the Biden administration and
the Democratic Party.
The present crackdown occurs as
sentiments in the US population have shifted sharply—from 45 percent
disapproval of Israel’s actions in Gaza in November to 55 percent disapproval
in March, according to a Gallup poll published Wednesday. Among students and
young people, who are more exposed to direct reporting from Gaza on social
media, the shift has been even more overwhelming. On Facebook, TikTok and
Instagram, hashtags critical of the Israeli government regularly outpace
pro-Israel hashtags by ratios of twenty to one, thirty to one, and more.
The response of the university
authorities, corrupted by innumerable ties to the ruling capitalist political
parties and the military-intelligence apparatus, has generally been
heavy-handed repression.
The U-M administration unveiled its
new policy against “disruption” the same week that some two dozen students and
a journalist were victimized in connection with an anti-genocide demonstration
at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee. That protest was called after the
administration blocked a vote on a resolution that would have prevented student
government funds from being spent at businesses that support Israel.
These crackdowns are only the latest
manifestations of an accelerating process. Since the onslaught against Gaza was
launched last October, demands for the repression of campus protests have been
issued from top levels of both the Democratic and Republican parties under the
phony guise of combating “antisemitism.” As part of this campaign, university
presidents were hauled before inquisitorial hearings in Washington, during
which legislators harangued them for failing to do more to censor student
speech, leading to the resignation of former Harvard president Claudine Gay.
More recently, the Democratic Party
announced that it would wage an “all-out war” on third parties and independent
candidates this year, specifically in an effort to prevent them from obtaining
ballot access. This process is mirrored throughout the world, including in
Rishi Sunak’s new “extremism” legislation in the UK and the ban on
demonstrations related to Algeria in Paris.
These increasingly desperate efforts
at censorship and repression are not hallmarks of a stable, self-confident
social order. They are a sign of weakness, a function of the crisis of world
capitalism and all of its traditional institutions, especially in the United
States, which is boiling over with unresolved social grievances.
Unable to attract any genuine mass
support for its policies, or to offer anything resembling a reform, the ruling
class is turning to more direct repression. In the US, this is true of the
faction headed by Trump and the Republicans no less than the faction headed by
Biden and the Democrats.
The ongoing Gaza genocide occurs in
the midst of a bloody escalation of global conflict that is already raging in
Ukraine and that threatens to expand into other parts of Eastern Europe, the
Middle East and Southeast Asia, escalating toward the use of nuclear weapons.
In this context, the Gaza genocide has exposed US-NATO imperialism for what it
truly is. America’s politicians—the would-be “champions of democracy” and
defenders of the so-called “rules-based international order”—stand before the
world’s population as a blood-drenched pack of hypocrites and mass murderers.
The social order they represent is
likewise exposed. It does not exhibit a tendency toward equality and progress,
but toward repression and destruction. All the great historical problems
associated with capitalism, which produced two world wars, fascism and genocide
in the last century, are back with a vengeance, notwithstanding all the efforts
to claim that those problems had been “solved” and would never again recur.
In this context, all of those
political tendencies and individuals that have sought to sow illusions that the
Democratic Party can be “pressured” and capitalism “reformed” are likewise
exposed. The American president who had been hailed from these quarters as one
of the most “left-wing” and “pro-worker” in history will likely be remembered
by his richly-deserved nickname “Genocide Joe.”
As the democratic veneer of
capitalism crumbles and its reactionary essence looms increasingly into view,
the social force capable of defending and expanding democratic rights and of
waging a struggle against capitalism itself—the international working class—must
take center stage. This requires a turn away from hopeless appeals to all the
discredited accomplices and enablers of genocide. Instead, all efforts must
focus on developing the necessary collective class consciousness and
organization for a struggle against the capitalist system itself.
U.S. Complicity in
Israel’s “Plausible” Genocide
“Honoring our alliances does not
mean facilitating mass killing,” Representative Ocasio-Cortez said on the floor
of the House of Representatives on March 22. “We cannot hide from our
responsibility any longer.” “Facilitating mass killing” and “responsibility”
could include United States legal complicity. While eyes are on a U.N. Security
Council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, a
court case in California (Defense for Children International, Palestine, et al.
v. Joseph R. Biden, et al.) is worth noting; the case directly challenges the
United States’ support for Israel. Although the case will not force Israel to
withdraw from Gaza, it does raise serious issues about the United States’
complicity in Israel’s continuous violation of human rights and humanitarian
law as well as its egregious non-compliance with the provisional measures
ordered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
The ICJ ruled on January 26 that
Israel was committing “plausible genocide.” In addition, in a March 25 Report
to the Human Rights Council by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human
rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Francesca Albanese
wrote in the Summary: “By analyzing the patterns of violence and Israel’s
policies in its onslaught on Gaza, this report concludes that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating Israel’s commission
of genocide is met.”
In the California case, United
States leaders are accused of illegal complicity in not preventing genocide as
well as contributing to Israel’s genocidal actions.
Over thirty eminent legal scholars
and practitioners, including Richard Falk, Philip Alston, and Andrew Clapham,
presented a brief (Amicus curiae) supporting the case before The United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth District. Without going into all the legalese,
the major points in the brief were: 1) The prohibition of genocide, complicity
in genocide, and the duty to prevent genocide are fundamental norms of
customary international law from which there are no exceptions. 2) Being aware
of the risk of genocide obliges states to prevent genocide from occurring. If a
state knows genocide is taking place, and the state continues to support the
state committing genocide, the supporting state has not fulfilled its legal
obligation to prevent genocide and may be held to be complicit in the genocide.
3) Historically, in previous cases before the ICJ, the United States has agreed
to these fundamental principles. 4) Domestic courts may enforce fundamental
customary international law such as California in this case.
The second major point merits
detailed explanation since it refers to two types of violations to the Genocide
Convention. The first violation is that the prevention of genocide is a legal
obligation. If a state has knowledge that genocide is being committed and does
nothing, if it has knowingly not prevented genocide, the state is complicit.
Furthermore, as the scholars note; “The duty does not require a finding that
genocide is occurring; rather, awareness of a serious risk of genocide places
an obligation on all States to take whatever action possible and necessary to
prevent its occurrence or continuation.” The ICJ’s decision on “plausible
genocide” makes this point relevant for the United States as does the Report of
the Special Rapporteur. There is obviously a serious risk of genocide being
committed by Israel in Gaza. There can be no doubt of the United States’
“awareness of a serious risk.” Therefore, as the brief argues, the United
States, like all states that have ratified the Convention, is legally bound “to
take whatever action possible and necessary to prevent its [genocide]
occurrence or continuation.”
The second type of violation in the
brief is even more damning for the United States. It describes a positive act
of commission rather than the negative act of not preventing. If a state
continues to support the state committing genocide, the brief points out, the
supporting state may be held complicit in genocide’s commission. The United
States continues to supply weapons to Israel after October 7. “The United
States has quietly approved and delivered more than 100 separate foreign
military sales to Israel since the Gaza war began Oct. 7, amounting to
thousands of precision-guided munitions, small-diameter bombs, bunker busters,
small arms and other lethal aid, U.S. officials told members of Congress in a
recent classified briefing,” John Hudson wrote on March 6, 2024, in The
Washington Post. The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times confirmed this
account of the Congressional briefing in similar reports.
The United States is therefore twice
guilty of violating Article IIIe of the Genocide Convention which specifically
prohibits complicity.
How does the United States continue
to supply weapons to Israel in violation of the Genocide Convention? The U.S.
Arms Export Control Act does permit exceptions for arms sales to close allies.
The United States uses this loophole to continue sending weapons to Israel. But
using this loophole to continue sending weapons does not exonerate complicity
in genocide. In the least, it is hypocritical. Using the Arms Export Control
Act “doesn’t just seem like an attempt to avoid technical compliance with US
arms export law, it’s an extremely troubling way to avoid transparency and
accountability on a high-profile issue,” Ari Tolany, director of the security
assistance monitor at the Centre for International Policy think tank, was
quoted in The Guardian.
Hypocritical and secretive.
According to a recent New York Times article: “Last December, Secretary of
State Antony J. Blinken twice invoked a rarely used emergency authority to send
tank ammunition and artillery shells to Israel without Congressional review.
These were the only two times the administration has given public notice of
government-to-government military sales to Israel since October.”
What about other countries? Have
they changed their policies towards Israel following the ICJ ruling? The
Canadian government, which provides about $4 billion dollars a year in military
aid to Israel, recently announced that it would halt arms sales to Israel after
the Canadian Parliament passed a non-binding motion to stop the weapons sales.
Canada was not alone. “Canada joins the Netherlands, Japan, Spain, and Belgium
in suspending arms sales,” Aljazeera reported.
In addition to countries’ stopping
arms sales, The Guardian revealed that more than 200 members of parliaments
(MPs) from 12 countries wrote a letter trying to persuade their governments to
impose a ban on arms sales to Israel. The MPs, a network of socialist and
activists, argued that they will not be complicit in “Israel’s grave violation
of international law” in its Gaza assault. In their letter, the politicians
argued that after the ICJ ruling, “an arms embargo has moved beyond a moral
necessity to become a legal requirement.”
The MPs were also not alone. U.N.
experts stated that “any transfer of weapons or ammunition to Israel that would
be used in Gaza is likely to violate international humanitarian law…” The
experts, mostly independent rapporteurs for the United Nations Human Rights
Council, wrote: “The need for an arms embargo on Israel is heightened by the
International Court of Justice’s ruling on 26 January 2024 that there is a
plausible risk of genocide in Gaza and the continuing serious harm to civilians
since then.” As the Genocide Convention requires all states who have acceded to
employ all means reasonably available to them to prevent genocide in another
state as far as possible, “This necessitates halting arms exports in the
present circumstances,” the experts argued.
In relation to the California case,
the experts were quite clear; “State officials involved in arms exports may be
individually criminally liable for aiding and abetting any war crimes, crimes
against humanity or acts of genocide,” they wrote. “All States under the
principle of universal jurisdiction, and the International Criminal Court, may
be able to investigate and prosecute such crimes.”
In full awareness of the serious
risk of “plausible genocide” by Israel taking place in Gaza, the United States
has not stopped Israel’s actions and continues to send weapons to Israel. The
United States has been and continues to be complicit. “International law does
the enforce itself,” the experts concluded. “All States must not be complicit
in international crimes through arms transfers. They must do their part to
urgently end the unrelenting humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza.”
The legal argument is clear. The
moral argument is clearer. Will political action follow? Eight senators wrote
to Mr. Biden on March 11 calling on him to require Israel’s Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu “to stop restricting humanitarian aid access to Gaza or
forfeit U.S. military aid to Israel.” Requiring Israel to allow access to
humanitarian aid would be a start. Stopping sending military equipment would be
even better. But even a U.N. Security Council ceasefire – where the U.S. meekly
abstained – will not absolve the United States of complicity in Israel’s
“plausible genocide.”
No comments:
Post a Comment