Latest news with #politicisation
The Guardian
a day ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Veterans sound alarm after Trump deploys national guard for LA protests
The Trump administration's deployment of national guard troops to Los Angeles to intervene in civilian protests in the face of opposition from the Californian governor is a major escalation that risks the politicisation of the US military, armed service veterans are warning. Former top military figures have told the Guardian that the decision to put up to 2,000 troops under federal control and send them into the streets of LA is a violation of the military's commitment to keep out of domestic politics in all but the most exceptional circumstances. The last time a US president federalised the national guard against the wishes of a state governor was in 1965, when Lyndon Johnson deployed them to protect civil rights marchers in Alabama. 'This is the politicisation of the armed forces,' said Maj Gen Paul Eaton. 'It casts the military in a terrible light – it's that man on horseback, who really doesn't want to be there, out in front of American citizens.' Eaton, who commanded the training of Iraqi troops during the invasion of Iraq, predicted that the LA deployment would lead to the eventual invocation of the Insurrection Act. The 1807 law empowers the president to deploy the full US military against insurrection or armed rebellion. 'We are headed towards the invocation of the Insurrection Act, which will provide a legal basis for inappropriate activity,' he said. The largely peaceful protests in LA against Trump's deportation efforts have entered their fourth day. National guard troops began arriving in the city on Sunday, with authorisation to protect federal personnel and buildings but not to engage in law enforcement activities. Trump's move in the absence of a genuine civil emergency has sent alarm through military circles, which have long prided themselves on being above politics. 'This deployment was made counter to what the governor wanted, so it seems like a political forcing – a forced use of the military by Trump because he can,' said a retired senior US army officer who requested anonymity in order to preserve their lifelong non-partisanship. Trump's memo federalising the national guard for deployment in LA is written in sweeping terms, effectively casting it as a nationwide mobilisation. It says that regular military troops, as well as national guard forces, can be employed by the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, to protect federal functions anywhere in the country where protests are occurring. Most troublingly, the memo also acts pre-emptively – an action never seen before in the US – authorising the military to be deployed against anticipated protests. It says that troops can be sent to 'locations where protest against [federal] functions are occurring, or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments'. On Sunday, Trump signaled that LA was just the start of a much wider deployment. 'We're gonna have troops everywhere,' he said. Janessa Goldbeck, a Marine Corps veteran who is CEO of Vet Voice Foundation which advocates for veterans and military families participating in American democracy, said that the executive order was an invitation to Hegseth to 'mobilise as many troops as he wants anywhere within the US. That's a massive escalation across the country.' Geoffrey DeWeese, a former US army judge advocate who is now a legal director within the National Institute of Military Justice, expressed concern about how the national guard would be used in LA. Under the memo, they can act as protection for ICE agents, which potentially means that troops could accompany Ice in immigration deportation raids on homes and businesses. 'Ice and the national guard are [both] wearing camouflage, carrying automatic weapons – so how do civilians differentiate them? And what message does it send, when all you see are men and women in uniform, with guns and helmets and goggles and maybe gas masks?' The military mobilisation that is now unfolding is far from unexpected. Military and constitutional experts who were convened by the law and policy institute the Brennan Center last summer to wargame what Trump might do in a second administration predicted precisely the current train of events. Trump himself made no attempt to disguise his intentions, repeatedly telling his supporters during last year's election campaign that if re-elected he would use the military against 'the enemy within'. Concerns about the deployment have been heightened by Trump's previous actions which already pointed towards a politicisation of the armed services. In February he fired the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and several other top brass without giving just cause. Retired lieutenant general Jeffrey Buchanan, the former commander of the US Army North, said the dismissals also had a politicising effect. 'It will lead to Biden's generals, and Trump's generals – or generals who are 'my guys' and generals who are 'not my guys'. That erodes confidence in the military, because the people will think that the military are now politicians.' Buchanan added: 'The military's ultimate loyalty is to our constitution, not to a particular leader. We've had plenty of tensions between military leaders and presidents in our history, but we've always maintained this tradition.' There are also worries about Trump's upcoming military parade to be staged in Washington DC on 14 June to mark the 250th anniversary of the US army. The date happens to coincide with the president's 79th birthday. 'Tanks are rolling into DC, $40m is about to be spent, in a giant function to celebrate one man. That's deeply unAmerican,' said Vet Voice's Goldbeck. She added that while the military celebrated its birthdays, street parades were avoided 'because that is the action of a dictator. This is all in line with how Trump views the military as a tool at his personal disposal, not as a professional fighting force made up of men and women whose oath is to the constitution.'
CNA
23-05-2025
- Politics
- CNA
China slams 'politicisation' of education after US blocks foreign enrolment at Harvard
BEIJING: Beijing on Friday (May 23) slammed the "politicisation" of educational exchanges after the United States revoked the right of Harvard University to enrol foreign students, many of whom come from China. "The Chinese side has consistently opposed the politicisation of educational cooperation," foreign ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning said at a regular press briefing. "The relevant action by the US side will only harm the image and international standing of the United States." Harvard enrolled nearly 6,800 international students in the current academic year, making up 27 per cent of its total enrollment. Chinese nationals made up a fifth of Harvard's foreign student intake in 2024, according to university statistics. The Trump administration's order will require current foreign students to transfer to other schools or lose their legal status. 'Harvard's leadership has created an unsafe campus environment by permitting anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators to harass and physically assault individuals, including many Jewish students, and otherwise obstruct its once-venerable learning environment,' the Department of Homeland Security said on Thursday. It also pointed to China's Communist Party (CCP) as a factor for the decision. 'Harvard's leadership further facilitated, and engaged in coordinated activity with the CCP, including hosting and training members of a CCP paramilitary group complicit in the Uyghur genocide,' the department said. Harvard, which has sued the government over a separate raft of punitive measures, fired back, calling the move "unlawful." "We are fully committed to maintaining Harvard's ability to host our international students and scholars," it said in a statement, adding that it was working to offer students guidance and support. "This retaliatory action threatens serious harm to the Harvard community and our country, and undermines Harvard's academic and research mission." Last month, Trump threatened to stop Harvard from enrolling foreign students if it did not agree to government demands that would put the private institution under outside political supervision. "As I explained to you in my April letter, it is a privilege to enrol foreign students," Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem wrote. "All universities must comply with Department of Homeland Security requirements, including reporting requirements under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program regulations, to maintain this privilege," she said. HARVARD REFUGEE The number of Chinese international students in the United States has dropped to about 277,000 in 2024 from a high of around 370,000 in 2019, driven partly by growing tension between the world's two biggest economies and heightened US government scrutiny of some Chinese students. "Our teachers have sent us an email saying the school is actively working hard on a response within the next 72 hours and aims to negotiate with the government," said Teresa, a Chinese postgraduate student at the Harvard Kennedy School. Her post on Friday on the Instagram-like Xiaohongshu platform was titled "Harvard refugee". Zhang Kaiqi, a master's student in public health, had packed his luggage and souvenirs ready for a Friday flight back to China. But upon hearing the news, he urgently cancelled the expensive flight, losing his internship at a us NGO in China. "I was sad and irritated. For a moment, I thought it was fake news," the 21-year-old said. As others digested Thursday's order, two Chinese students said they were added to WhatsApp groups in which panicked foreign students were frantically sharing legal advice on their immigration status.
The Herald
15-05-2025
- Politics
- The Herald
EFF slams MP's removal from parliament after questioning Buyambo Mantashe's Seta board appointment
The EFF has condemned the conduct of chairperson of the parliamentary portfolio committee on higher education and training Tebogo Letsie after EFF MP Sihle Lonzi was forcefully removed from a committee meeting. The incident occurred when Lonzi questioned the director-general about the appointment of Gwede Mantashe's son, Buyambo Mantashe, as chairperson of the manufacturing, engineering and related devices sector education and training authority (merSETA) board. A leaked list of appointments to sector education and training authority (Seta) boards that has been circulating online revealed Mantashe's son as one of the Seta boards' chairpersons with the credentials 'son of ANC national chairperson Gwede Mantashe'. 'This undemocratic act was not only unparliamentary in nature, but a violent suppression of accountability and a direct attack on the political rights of MPs to exercise oversight over the executive,' EFF spokesperson Sinawo Thambo said. 'Let it be known that Lonzi's only 'crime' was demanding accountability. His question directly addressed the politicisation, cadre deployment, and corruption that has become the defining feature of the ANC's relationship with public institutions.' Other contentious appointments include former KwaZulu-Natal premier Nomusa Dube-Ncube as the BANKSETA chairperson and head of the KwaZulu-Natal department of transport Siboniso Mbhele as TETA board member. 'These appointments, made by minister Nobuhle Nkabane, are glaring examples of political patronage, where state institutions intended to empower youth and workers are turned into ANC deployment zones for loyal cadres and family members of the ruling elite.' Thambo said. Thambo accused Letsie of protecting ANC leaders, saying that his actions undermine the credibility of parliament. 'The EFF will not tolerate the politicisation of parliamentary spaces. We reaffirm the right of our members to hold institutions accountable without fear or censorship. The violent removal of Lonzi is not just an attack on him, it is an attack on democracy and the people of South Africa.' TimesLIVE
