logo
A Peace Vigil Sits near the White House. A Congressman Wants It Gone.

A Peace Vigil Sits near the White House. A Congressman Wants It Gone.

Yomiuri Shimbun2 days ago
Just beyond the tall metal fence encircling the White House, visitors from Europe paused outside a makeshift shelter on the red brick of Pennsylvania Avenue to offer thanks to a graying man in a wheelchair. Then a couple from New Jersey approached with questions. A man asked to take pictures for his wife. Sometimes, a whole tour group would descend, all at once.
Philipos Melaku-Bello is used to this parade of people. He's been stopped here every few minutes – with questions, challenges, gratitude, offers for help and support – for more than four decades.
Melaku-Bello, 63, is the longest-serving steward of the White House Peace Vigil, a 44-year protest calling for nuclear disarmament and an end to global conflicts. To maintain its position in Lafayette Square, just across Pennsylvania Avenue and visible from the north side of the White House, the demonstration must be manned 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Melaku-Bello spends more than 100 hours each week keeping the vigil alive. He is aided by a rotating cast of volunteers. Some stand watch through quiet mornings and scorching lunch breaks. Others work overnight shifts, spending the darkest hours of the day under a tarp covered in flags and banners that read: 'War is not the answer!'
The demonstration is widely considered to be the longest continuous act of political protest in U.S. history. It has survived seven presidents, countless global conflicts, hurricanes and blizzards, heat waves and floods. It has outlasted several U.S. wars, including the Cold War, the Persian Gulf War, the War on Drugs and the War on Terror.
Now, it faces a new threat: Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-New Jersey) wrote a letter to the Interior Department calling the vigil 'a 24/7 eyesore' and accusing the protesters who maintain it of hijacking a national park. He demanded the agency review its legality and, if appropriate, disband the demonstration.
Van Drew did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
'Let me be clear: nothing in the Constitution guarantees the right to erect permanent structures and occupy public land day after day, year after year, in a manner that creates public safety hazards, degrades the appearance of one of our most iconic parks, and burdens both the District and the National Park Service,' Van Drew wrote in May to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum.
Van Drew is a fourth-term congressman who was initially elected as a Democrat, but changed his party affiliation to Republican in 2020 to protest the first impeachment of President Trump, to whom he pledged his 'undying support.'
Trump has repeatedly pressured D.C. and other cities to do more to target encampments and homelessness. This year, the president issued an executive order that directed the Park Service to remove all homeless encampments from federal land in the District and last month directed federal agencies to find ways to forcibly hospitalize homeless people with mental illness and addiction.
But the peace vigil is not a homeless encampment. Its tent – used by vigil keepers to shelter from the elements – houses literature, signs, water and other supplies. Melaku-Bello and other volunteers maintain homes elsewhere.
A spokeswoman for the Interior Department declined to comment on Van Drew's letter or say whether the agency was furnishing a report on the vigil.
'While we do not comment on congressional correspondence through the media, the Department of Interior takes all correspondence from Congress seriously and carefully reviews each matter,' spokeswoman Elizabeth Peace wrote in an email to The Washington Post.
When asked about the potential threat of removal, Melaku-Bello smiled and gestured to the handwritten copy of the First Amendment he keeps on display. This, he said, is not the first time someone has wanted the vigil disbanded.
Decades of threats
The Peace Vigil began on June 3, 1981, when its founder, William Thomas, appeared outside of the White House holding a placard that read, 'Wanted: Wisdom and Honesty.'
With time, he accumulated other signs and broadened his message. Soon, it was: 'Ban All Nuclear Weapons or Have a Nice Doomsday' and 'Live By the Bomb, Die By the Bomb.' In his 28 years as the vigil's primary keeper, Thomas was homeless on and off, arrested several times for illegally camping in Lafayette Square, and surveilled nearly constantly by the Secret Service.
Still, he amassed a following.
Long before social media could beam a message around the world in an nanosecond, Thomas relied on a network of alternative publications, groups and supporters from out of town to spread the word of his protest. One such supporter was Melaku-Bello's father. It was through him that Melaku-Bello found his way to the vigil.
In 1981, Melaku-Bello was an anarchist kid from Southern California who believed in radical equality, peace and punk rock. He was touring the East Coast with his bandmates, performing at alternative venues – including the original 9:30 Club in D.C. – when he first came to visit the peace vigil.
It was, at the time, a small operation, with Thomas and a handful of others filling out round-the-clock shifts. Melaku-Bello said he volunteered to pull an overnight, three nights in a row, while he was in town. He found it peaceful, he said, staying up in the park as the city emptied and quieted down.
'It was basically young people who agreed with this neo-anarchistic ideology of no more wars, no more top-down systems, no more misogyny and racism,' Melaku-Bello recalled recently, sitting under an umbrella outside the shelter. 'That there had to be a better way.'
From then on, every time Melaku-Bello found himself in the District for work or art or any other reason, he would make a pilgrimage to the Peace Vigil and relieve the keepers for one night or several.
By the 1990s, Melaku-Bello had moved to the area and secured a job with the Alexandria parks and recreation department. He split his time between the job he got paid to do and the job he gave himself: supporting the peace activists and their mission and filling out the rotating crew of vigil keepers outside the White House. At their peak, Melaku-Bello said, they had a group of about 20 in rotation. That number tends to swell when other big protests come to town.
Today, there are about a half-dozen.
Thomas died of pulmonary disease on Jan. 23, 2009, at the age of 61. His longtime collaborator Concepcion Picciotto became the face of the vigil soon after. Seven years later, Picciotto died after spending three decades of her life outside the White House 'to stop the world from being destroyed.'
Soon, Melaku-Bello, who for decades had been a behind-the-scenes organizer, was thrust into the spotlight. He is the last of the original activists still dedicated to preserving their protest, and, over the past decade, has become its de facto leader – a title that he, a lifelong opponent of hierarchies, rejects.
Global support
Melaku-Bello said the number of hostile interactions he's had in recent months with passersby has increased – not just compared to what he experienced during the Biden administration, but also compared to President Trump's first term.
The vigil keepers have been physically attacked, spit on, heckled and called names and slurs. On a recent afternoon, a young man wearing a kippah shouted at Melaku-Bello for waving the Palestinian flag. On several occasions, Melaku-Bello has returned to his protest to find posters torn down, kicked in and vandalized. Several are covered in ink.
In its 44-year run, the protest has faced several legal challenges and been under near-constant watch by police agencies that patrol in and around the square, as well as the Park Service, which bans camping in Lafayette Square, requiring that a protest be active to qualify as a First Amendment demonstration.
The vigil has been torn down or removed just a handful of times, according to media accounts. It happened twice roughly a decade ago, when the makeshift structure that shelters the vigil keepers from the elements was left unattended in violation of Park Service rules. The protest was also forced to move from Lafayette Square in 2020, amid confrontations between racial justice demonstrators and police following the murder of George Floyd.
Over the years, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), the District's longtime nonvoting representative in the House, has aided them in reestablishing their protest after U.S. Park Police have cleared the demonstration.
Norton, who has had a decades-long relationship with the vigil keepers, also became their champion in Congress, helping the activists craft legislation that calls on 'all countries possessing nuclear weapons' to begin the 'verifiable and irreversible elimination of such weapons.'
The delegate has introduced a version of this bill every year since 1994.
In March, she introduced the Nuclear Weapons Abolition and Conversion Act for the 17th time. This year, the delegate included language that would direct the U.S. to 'redirect resources that are being used for nuclear weapons programs to be used for addressing the climate crisis and human and infrastructure needs, such as housing, health care and restoring the environment.' The legislation has never been brought to the House floor for a vote.
Norton, in a statement to The Post, bristled at her colleague's attempt to dismantle the demonstration.
'The First Amendment protects peaceful protests, even when they're seen as unsightly or inconvenient, and even when they occur in front of the White House,' Norton said in the statement. 'The Peace Vigil has stood in front of the White House for more than 30 years, with its organizers engaged in principled activism at considerable personal cost. If Representative Van Drew's claim that the vigil creates public safety hazards were valid, it would have been removed long ago.'
'Finally, Representative Van Drew argues in his letter that the Peace Vigil burdens D.C., but his district is in New Jersey,' Norton added. 'As D.C.'s sole member of Congress, I'm the best advocate for the District, and I wholeheartedly support the Peace Vigil, its organizers and its message.'
Van Dew's letter accuses the peace activists of sending 'the wrong message to law-abiding Americans.'
'This isn't about stopping a protest. It's about upholding the rule of law, preserving one of America's most iconic public spaces, and ending a double standard that's made a mockery of both,' the congressman wrote.
Despite these recent attacks, Melaku-Bello said the vigil's following has only continued to grow.
He frequently gives interviews to international press and relies on social media to communicate with followers and donors. Melaku-Bello – who speaks eight languages fluently and is as comfortable quoting Black Sabbath as he is Stokely Carmichael – has amassed supporters in countries all over the globe, and has used his platforms to speak out against global conflicts and, most recently, Trump's protectionist trade policies.
'I have a big following in the Philippines, I mean, I have a big following on a lot of continents,' Melaku-Bello said with a chuckle. 'A lot of times they'll send me messages through WhatsApp or through Instagram or Facebook Messenger. They'll send me articles that will come out in their country about us. It's cool.'
On a recent afternoon, Melaku-Bello balanced an open umbrella on the arm of his wheelchair to shield himself from the sun as temperatures crept close to 100 degrees and the bustle of Lafayette Square simmered.
Music from a trombone player across the street lilted past. Vendors hawking cold water, political T-shirts and, occasionally, ice cream greeted him like an old friend as they patrolled the plaza. A man on a scooter paused to assure Melaku-Bello that he would be back soon – to do an overnight shift at the vigil.
Then, a woman approached.
'Thank you for your protest,' said the woman, a German journalist named Ulrike Schirmer. 'You are a single man, but you do more than many leaders do at the moment.'
Melaku-Bello bowed his head in a gesture of gratitude.
'We are going together into the future,' Schirmer continued. 'That's my interest here. Not people trying to force us to separate.'
'Thank you, sister,' he said.
As she turned to go, he waved – to her and others who paused to watch the exchange – then settled back into his chair, ready for another photo, another hello, another round of questions.
He's got time, after all. He'll be here all day, maybe all night.
And then back again tomorrow.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

What to Know about the Putin-Trump Summit in Alaska
What to Know about the Putin-Trump Summit in Alaska

Yomiuri Shimbun

time9 hours ago

  • Yomiuri Shimbun

What to Know about the Putin-Trump Summit in Alaska

The U.S.-Russia summit in Alaska is happening where East meets West — quite literally — in a place familiar to both countries as a Cold War front line of missile defense, radar outposts and intelligence gathering. Whether it can lead to a deal to produce peace in Ukraine more than 3 1/2 years after Moscow's invasion remains to be seen. Here's what to know about the meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump, the first summit in four years: When and where is it taking place? The summit will take place Friday at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson outside Anchorage, according to a White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal planning. It played a key role in the Cold War in monitoring and deterring the Soviet Union. It's Putin's first trip to the U.S. since 2015 for the U.N. General Assembly in New York. Because the U.S. isn't a member of the International Criminal Court, which in 2023 issued a warrant for Putin on war crimes accusations, it's under no obligation to arrest him. Is Zelenskyy going? Both countries confirmed a meeting between only Putin and Trump, despite initial suggestions that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy might take part. The Kremlin has long pushed back against Putin meeting Zelenskyy -– at least until a peace deal is reached by both sides and is ready to be signed. Putin said last week he wasn't against meeting Zelenskyy 'but certain conditions need to be created' and were 'still a long way off.' That raised fears about excluding Ukraine from negotiations. Kyiv and its European allies stressed that peace cannot be achieved without Kyiv's involvement. Zelenskyy was in Berlin for virtual meetings Wednesday with Trump and European leaders to try to ensure Ukraine and its allies are heard before the summit. The Ukrainian president told the group Putin 'is bluffing' about his military might and the effectiveness of sanctions, and 'is trying to apply pressure … on all sectors of the Ukrainian front' to try to show that Russia is 'capable of occupying all of Ukraine.' In reality, sanctions are 'hitting Russia's war economy hard,' Zelenskyy said. What's Alaska's role in Russian history? It will be the first visit by a Russian leader to Alaska, even though it was part of the czarist empire until 1867, the state news agency Tass said. Alaska was colonized by Russia starting from the 18th century until Czar Alexander II sold it to the United States in 1867 for $7.2 million. When it was found to contain vast resources, it was seen by Russians as a naïve deal that generated remorse. After the USSR's collapse, Alaska was a subject of nostalgia and jokes for Russians. One popular song in the 1990s went: 'Don't play the fool, America … give back our dear Alaska land.' Sam Greene of King's College London said on X the symbolism of Alaska as the site of a summit about Ukraine was 'horrendous — as though designed to demonstrate that borders can change, land can be bought and sold.' What's the agenda? Trump has appeared increasingly exasperated with Putin over Russia's refusal to halt the bombardment of Ukraine. Kyiv has agreed to a ceasefire, insisting on a truce as a first step toward peace. Moscow presented ceasefire conditions that are nonstarters for Zelenskyy, such as withdrawing troops from the four regions Russia illegally annexed in 2022, halting mobilization efforts, or freezing Western arms deliveries. For a broader peace, Putin demands Kyiv cede the annexed regions, even though Russia doesn't fully control them, and Crimea, renounce a bid to join NATO, limit the size of its armed forces and recognize Russian as an official language along with Ukrainian. Zelenskyy insists any peace deals include robust security guarantees to protect Ukraine from future Russian aggression. Putin has warned Ukraine it will face tougher conditions for peace as Russian troops forge into other regions to build what he described as a 'buffer zone.' Some observers suggested Russia could trade those recent gains for territory under Ukrainian control in the four annexed regions annexed by Moscow. Zelenskyy said Saturday that 'Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier.' But Trump said Monday: 'There'll be some land swapping going on. I know that through Russia and through conversations with everybody. To the good, for the good of Ukraine. Good stuff, not bad stuff. Also, some bad stuff for both.' Zelenskyy said Tuesday that Putin wants Ukraine to withdraw from the remaining 30% of the Donetsk region it still controls as part of a ceasefire deal, a proposal the Ukrainian categorically rejected. Kyiv won't give up territory it controls, he added, saying that would be unconstitutional and would serve only as a springboard for a future Russian invasion. He said discussions led by the U.S. on ending the war have not addressed key Ukrainian demands, including security guarantees to prevent future Russian aggression and including Europe in negotiations. French President Emmanuel Macron said Wednesday that Trump was 'very clear' in a virtual meeting with European leaders and Zelenskyy that the U.S. wants to achieve a ceasefire. Macron added that Trump had been clear that 'territorial issues relating to Ukraine … will only be negotiated by the Ukrainian president.' What are expectations? Trump said Wednesday there will be unspecified 'very severe consequences' if Putin does not agree to stop the war after the summit. Putin sees a meeting with Trump as a chance to cement Russia's territorial gains, keep Ukraine out of NATO and prevent it from hosting any Western troops so Moscow can gradually pull the country back into its orbit. He believes time is on his side as Ukrainian forces are struggling to stem Russian advances along the front amid swarms of Moscow's missiles and drones. The meeting is a diplomatic coup for Putin, isolated since the invasion. The Kremlin sought to portray renewed U.S. contacts as two superpowers looking to resolve various global problems, with Ukraine being just one. Ukraine and its European allies are concerned a summit without Kyiv could allow Putin to get Trump on his side and force Ukraine into concessions. 'Any decisions that are without Ukraine are at the same time decisions against peace,' Zelenskyy said. 'They will not bring anything. These are dead decisions. They will never work.' European officials echoed that. 'As we work towards a sustainable and just peace, international law is clear: All temporarily occupied territories belong to Ukraine,' European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said. 'A sustainable peace also means that aggression cannot be rewarded.' NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said Sunday he believed Trump was 'making sure that Putin is serious, and if he is not, then it will stop there.' 'If he is serious, then from Friday onwards, the process will continue. Ukraine getting involved, the Europeans being involved,' Rutte added. Since last week, Putin spoke to Chinese leader Xi Jinping, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, as well as the leaders of South Africa, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Belarus and Kyrgyzstan, the Kremlin said. That suggested Putin perhaps wanted to brief Russia's most important allies about a potential settlement, said pro-Kremlin analyst Sergei Markov.

After serving as bulwark for 80 years, Japan's U.S. ties continue to evolve
After serving as bulwark for 80 years, Japan's U.S. ties continue to evolve

Japan Times

time9 hours ago

  • Japan Times

After serving as bulwark for 80 years, Japan's U.S. ties continue to evolve

Under the security alliance with the United States, Japan has served as a bulwark against an expansion of the Soviet communist bloc and China's hegemonic ambitions since the end of World War II. In August 1945, Japan surrendered in the war following heavy casualties, including from U.S. air raids across the country and the U.S. atomic bombings of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Allied powers considered dividing Japan. But the United States, wary of the potential rise of the Soviet Union, wanted Japan to recover quickly as a capitalist country. Washington used Japan as a base for containing communism during the Cold War.

80 Years After WW2, Japan Again Finds Itself in Uncharted Waters
80 Years After WW2, Japan Again Finds Itself in Uncharted Waters

The Diplomat

time12 hours ago

  • The Diplomat

80 Years After WW2, Japan Again Finds Itself in Uncharted Waters

The country's postwar history was a remarkable story of national rebirth. Now the assumptions that underpinned the last 80 years of policy are being stressed to the limit. August is a month of remembrance for Japan. On August 6, 1945, Japan became the first (and so far only) country in the world that has ever been struck by an atomic bomb. This was quickly followed by a second atomic bombing on August 9. Then August 15 marks the date of Japan's unconditional surrender to the Allied Forces, officially ending World War II. This year marks the 80th anniversary of the war and destruction. Japan's postwar history was a remarkable story of a nation's rebirth and reconstruction. Having vowed to strive to 'occupy an honorable place in international community' in its Constitution – and prohibiting itself from resorting to war as a means to settle disagreements with other countries – Japan has become one of the staunchest supporters of the international order, institutions, and norms that were created after World War II. Placing its bilateral alliance with the United States at the core of its foreign policy, Japan has striven to fulfill the role of 'a rule-promotor, a commons' guardian and an effective partner and ally to the U.S. and other democracies,' as Prime Minister Shinzo Abe put it in 2013. Indeed, Japan's postwar foreign policy embodies its tireless – and continuing – efforts in this endeavor. Despite persistent economic stagnation, Japan is the third largest financial contributor to the United Nations, only after the United States and China. It also is one of the top providers of Official Development Assistance. Both distinctions are fitting for a country that remains one of the most powerful economies in the world. Also, as the only country in the world that experienced the catastrophic damage of the atomic bomb, Japan has consistently been among the leading voices to push for nuclear disarmament. Prime Minister Ishiba Shigeru reaffirmed Japan's commitment to ultimately achieve a 'world without nuclear weapons' when he spoke at the peace memorial ceremonies in Hiroshima and Nagasaki earlier this month. Looking at Japan's postwar foreign policy, the Japan-U.S. alliance has undergone the greatest transformation since the two countries signed their original mutual security treaty in 1951, which was later revised into its current form in 1960. What once was a lopsided alliance between the United States as 'protector' and Japan as the 'protected,' in exchange for hosting a U.S. military presence, has evolved into a much more equitable partnership. So far, the alliance has demonstrated a remarkable resilience, adapting to the changing reality of geostrategic environment from the Cold War to the post-Cold War through the 21st century. However, as Japan reflects on the last eight decades, it also finds itself at a crossroad, both domestically and externally. Domestically, the so-called '1955 system,' which consistently provided stable political leadership under the dominant rule of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), has been showing signs of atrophy in recent years. The LDP's undeniable decline following its electoral setbacks in three consecutive elections, coupled with a proliferation of small parties (none of which enjoys enough voter support to replace the LDP as a new governing force), strongly suggests that Japan will enter a period of muddling through with weak political leadership with frequent leadership changes. Meanwhile, Japan's economy continues to struggle, as inflation outpaces the rise in people's wages. With a declining population and a society that is aging at an accelerating rate, Japan is also struggling to deal with enduring issues such as immigration, diversity, and gender equality. The political, economic, and societal uncertainties at home could not have hit Japan at a worse time. Today, the country finds itself having to navigate uncharted waters as the international order undergoes tectonic shifts. With the U.S. abdicating its noblesse oblige with Trump administration's 'America First' policy and its tariff war against allies, partners, and foes alike, the resilience of the post-World War II liberal international order and the strength of multinational institutions are increasingly being questioned. The deteriorating environment in the Middle East and protracted war between Russia and Ukraine has been accompanied by increasingly close strategic alignment among North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran. Add to that declining confidence in the postwar multinational framework, and these factors all point to a inevitable reality: anchoring its foreign policy in a robust Japan-U.S. alliance no longer sufficiently serves Tokyo's interest. In the years immediately followed World War II, Japan's policy was led by the Yoshida Doctrine, focusing on economic development by relying on the Japan-U.S. alliance for security. As the world searched for a post-9/11 adjustment to the international order, the late Abe Shinzo offered visions for Japan such as the 'Proactive Contribution to International Peace' and 'Free and Open Indo-Pacific.' Will Ishiba be able to offer a forward-looking vision that can guide Japan through domestic and international uncertainty at this important time of reflection for Japan? His ultimate political fate may depend on it.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store