Janine Jackson interviewed Detention Watch Network’s Silky Shah about mass deportation for the July 11, 2025, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

FAIR.org (7/9/25)

Janine Jackson: As is being reported, including by Belén Fernández for FAIR.org, among the myriad horrors of Trump’s budget bill—though not his alone; everyone who voted for it owns it—is the otherworldly amount of money, $175 billion, slated to fund mass deportation. That exceeds the military budget of every country in the world but the US and China. And some $30 billion is to go to ICE, the masked goons that are descending on swap meets and workplaces to carry out what many are calling brazen midday kidnappings.

We knew that this White House would be horrible for Black and brown people, and for immigrants especially, and yet we can still be shocked at how bad and how fast things are happening. Despair might be understandable, but it’s not particularly useful. So what do we do? What can we do?

Joining us now is Silky Shah, executive director at Detention Watch Network. She joins us now by phone. Welcome back to CounterSpin, Silky Shah.

Silky Shah: Thank you for having me.

CounterSpin (1/24/25)

JJ: We see the narrative shifting. “Hey, he said it was just going to be violent criminals, or criminals, or people whose crime is administrative, but now, this is getting weird.” What’s happening now, the rounding up of anyone brown, basically, including people who are actively engaged in the legal processes of securing citizenship—we can be outraged, but I’m less sure about surprised, just because there was no “decent” way to do what Trump telegraphed he wanted to do.

At the same time, though, I don’t know that anyone really expected masked men spilling out of vans to snatch up children off the street. So, just first of all, did you even imagine the particular situation we’re seeing right now? You explained back in January how the apparatus were set up, but is this surprising, even at your level of understanding?

SS: I think what’s so shocking about this moment is that the scale of what has happened before is becoming astronomical. So, as you mentioned, $175 billion for immigration enforcement, $30 billion for ICE agents in particular, $35 billion for immigration detention. These are just wild numbers, and I think that is really what is so shocking.

Public Books (3/20/25)

I do think—we’re speaking here on CounterSpin—one of the biggest challenges of the last 20, 30 years of immigration enforcement, and how it’s been portrayed, is that there is a constant framing of immigration as a public safety issue, immigration as a national security issue, which is really not true. Mostly immigration is about labor, it’s about family relationships, it’s about seeking refuge.

And I think what’s so frustrating is that, actually, for many, many years of having this narrative of “some immigrants are deserving and some immigrants aren’t,” the “good immigrant versus the bad immigrant,” what ends up happening is where we’re at now, which it’s like all immigrants are perceived as a problem. And there’s no question that there’s an underlying racism and xenophobia and classism and all the other things at play here.

I think what’s so important for us to understand now, when we’re talking about the way ICE is operating, is that it’s been enabled by that framework—that when you reinforce this idea that some people are deserving, then you kind of expect everybody to be in that category. And in reality, the way the system worked before, is that people were being funneled through the criminal legal system. And this really skyrocketed the number of people who are in deportation proceedings, especially under the Obama administration. So this framework of “we are going to target people who are criminals,” it’s a distraction; the goal is to scapegoat immigrants, and all immigrants, and ignore the crisis of mass incarceration, which ICE is inherently a part of.

JJ: Where is the law in all of this? Is it that there are laws that exist, but aren’t being enforced? Is it that the law has changed, such that what we’re seeing is terrible, but lamentably legal? Do laws need to be changed? I think a lot of folks see masked men spilling out of vans and snatching kids and think, “That can’t be legal.” But is it?

Silky Shah: “They’re actually using immigration enforcement as a pretense to go after people who don’t agree with their ideas.”

SS: Well, I think there are some aspects of this that have been baked into the law for 30 years now, and some aspects that are new. And so I think it’s important to understand that. When you think about it, this initial framing of, “Oh, people are being disappeared and kidnapped,” came when a lot of students who had protested or expressed solidarity with Palestine were being targeted by ICE, many of whom had not had contact with the criminal legal system, many of whom had legal status in some form, including Green Cards and visas.

In that context, 30 years ago, when they passed the 1996 immigration laws, it actually started to expand the category of people who didn’t get due process, who didn’t have the right to due process; that included newly arriving immigrants, and also people who were legal permit residents, or had visas but had some crime, some conviction, that meant that they no longer had a right to make their case before a judge, and were required to be detained, required to be deported.

And so all of that stuff has been happening for decades now, and there are many aspects of what happened. Being separated from your family, even if you have a pregnant wife, all those things are quite normal. And also not having a warrant; I mean, ICE goes after immigrants all the time without a warrant. And a lot of our work has been to help people know their rights, know what is needed. But I think the thing that’s scary is that they’re actually using immigration enforcement as a pretense to go after people who don’t agree with their ideas, people who might be showing support for Palestine, or merely because they are Black and brown, and are an easy scapegoat for this administration.

So I think there are things that are happening outside of the scope of the law, and I think the test cases here are those students who were detained, and also the case of the many people who were sent to a mega-prison in El Salvador. I think those are instances where you’re just like, “Wow, that is definitely outside of law, and they’re operating in these ways that are really concerning.” But they’re also using these as strategies to change the law, which is what we saw recently with the men who are being deported to South Sudan, were stuck in Djibouti for many weeks, and now officially are in South Sudan. And the Supreme Court deeming that OK.

JJ: It’s bizarre.

You mentioned last time how much local- and state-level buy-in is required for this whole plan to work. Yes, there’s ICE. Yes, there is the Trump administration, but they do rely on state and local law enforcement, and other officials, to make this play out. Is that still a place to look for resistance, then?

SS: Absolutely. And I think it’s especially important now that we double down on those efforts because, yes, ICE is going to have $45 billion more over the next four years to build more detention centers, and our goal is to block that in every way, and make sure that isn’t permanent. And a lot of our strategy is getting local officials, state officials, to do that work, to say, “No, we don’t want a new ICE detention center in our community.” Once ICE detention exists in the community, people are much more likely to be targeted for deportation. Detention exists to facilitate deportation.

So in places like Illinois and Oregon, for instance, there are no detention centers. And that actually helps protect communities that much more.

NPR (6/6/25)

And I think, unfortunately, a lot of Democratic governors are responding in ways that are not ideal. I think in places like California and Washington State and other places, there needs to be a lot of work to say no, we have to double down on these policies that have protected immigrant communities, and expand them, and make sure that those transfers to ICE aren’t happening, so that we can limit ICE’s reach as much as possible. It’s still the most effective way to prevent them from getting the scale of deportations they want. The easiest way for them to do this is through these ICE/police collaborations, and stopping that is essential.

But also, in places like Florida, where Ron DeSantis is doing everything possible to work with ICE, and building things like this Everglades detention camp, and having agreements with ICE at every county jail. There’s been numerous deaths, actually, in Florida already, of people who have been in ICE custody. And so it really shows you the harm that that sort of relationship between state and local law enforcement does to make ICE even that much stronger. So I think there is this constant attention on ICE, but we have to understand that ICE operates within a broader apparatus around criminalization and the deportation machine, that many, many law enforcement agencies, including sheriffs, are central to.

JJ: And just to add to that: It’s about money, as you’ve explained. It comes back to money. Prisons—we can call them “detention centers”—bring money to a locality. And so that is part of the unseen or underexplored aspect of this, is that when you build a holding cell, then you’re going to put people in it. And that is part of what explains what’s happening.

SS: Absolutely. I think that this is so about the political economy, and some people have referred to this new MAGA murder bill as a jobs program. If you have this much more money for ICE, this much more money for detention, that means more jobs in these communities. And this is what we saw for years and years during the prison boom, is that many rural communities that were struggling financially were seeing prison as a recession-safe economy, like an ability to bring in jobs.

And especially when it comes to the relationship between sheriffs and ICE, there’s a symbiosis there between the federal government and local counties, that local counties are really depending on its revenue. I think one of our biggest challenges when we’re trying to work to end a detention contract is that fear of losing jobs, and that fear of losing that revenue.

Detention Watch Network (2021)

JJ: Let me just ask you, feeding off of that, to talk about #CommunitiesNotCages. What is the vision there? What are you talking about there, and where can folks see another way forward?

SS: Yeah, we launched a #CommunitiesNotCages campaign many years ago, under Trump’s first term, and we’re actually about to relaunch, because the amount of money that’s going to the system, the scale of what’s going to happen, I think we need to bring a lot more people in.

But a lot of it was actually responding to local organizing against detention. So we were seeing, in places like Alabama and Georgia and Arizona and elsewhere, that people were calling attention to the existing detention system and the harm that it was doing, the number of deaths that were happening, people hunger-striking in facilities. We were trying to really do work to get resources to them, make sure people are strategizing together.

And then in places like the Midwest, for years, so many groups were doing work to stop a new detention center from coming in. ICE wanted to have one large detention center in Illinois or Indiana or elsewhere. And they tried to build it in nine or ten different sites, and at every site they were able to organize with local community, or work with the state legislature, to stop detention expansion.

And so what we did was bring a lot of these communities together, the people who are organizing this campaign, thinking about state legislation, thinking about strategies with local counties or city councils, to learn from each other, and figure out, “OK, what can we do?”

Because one of the things we discovered, and we did some research on this, is that when there’s a detention center in your community, so if you have, say, 50 beds for detention, somebody’s two times more likely to be targeted for deportation. If you have 800 beds, somebody’s six times more likely to be targeted for deportation. And so that ability to cut off the detention capacity actually prevented increased deportation.

New Yorker (5/7/21)

So we really see #CommunitiesNotCages as a part of the strategy to end this mass deportation agenda, and also really connect to that broader effort against the prison industrial complex and against the crisis of mass incarceration, which does so much harm and are really, I think Mariame Kaba has called them “death-making institutions.” I mean, we’re seeing that numerous deaths have just happened in the last few weeks.

And so we’re really concerned about the conditions right now. I’m the first person to say Trump is building on what’s a bipartisan agenda, for decades now, against immigrants. But the scale of what’s happening, and how abysmal these facilities are becoming, are even shocking to me, as somebody who’s been doing this work for 20 years.

So I think this is the time where we can’t give in. Yes, they got this $45 billion, but actually, we have a lot of ability to stop them from implementing their plans, and we really need to gear up and fight as much as we can.

JJ: Well, that sounds very much like an end, and yet I am going to push for one final question, because we need a positive vision. What we’re seeing, what’s passing for a positive vision on immigration right now is, “But he makes my tacos! He waters my lawn! Don’t come for him!” And it makes immigration feel like noblesse oblige. It’s very nice of “us” that we let “them” live here.

And we can debunk all day: Immigrants do pay taxes, they aren’t stealing jobs. It’s also mean and small as a vision. And I just feel that there’s a positive, forward-looking vision that we could be talking about.

CounterSpin (6/25/21)

SS: I think one of the most challenging things about the way the mainstream immigrant advocacy efforts over the last 20 years have hurt our ability to make the case for immigrants is that they’ve really reinforced the idea of the good immigrant versus bad immigrant. And when they’re talking about the “good immigrant,” a lot of it really pushes this idea of immigrant exceptionalism or productivity, or immigrants are better than everyone else.

Often there’s this narrative of “immigrants commit less crimes than US citizens,” which just reinforces both anti-Black racism and the idea that immigration is about public safety, which it’s not.

And so again, as I was saying before, immigration is really largely about labor and family relationships, and also the root causes of migration. A lot of the narrative hasn’t allowed us to talk about US empire, and the role that the US has played in destabilizing a lot of other countries and conditions for people across the world.

So when I think about a vision—and I hope that we can move forward in a different way—is that actually part of the reason immigrants have been able to be scapegoated is because the US government and billionaires have created a crisis, an economic crisis, for so many people. And what we really need to understand is that immigrants are central to our community, that we are in this together—like having better healthcare; having better, more affordable housing; having better education opportunities, those things are going to make it easier for us to make the case for immigrants.

So I think, actually, we need to really deeply show that immigration is connected to every issue, whether it be climate, whether it be housing, etc., all these things, and see us in it together and think about this as a broader question of working people, working-class, poor people, and really not exceptionalizing immigrants.

And the other thing I would just say is that in so many ways, immigration detention in particular is being treated as an aside, as this other issue: small, not big, and whatever, there’s mass incarceration, there’s deportation. But now it’s being used as a testing ground for Trump’s authoritarianism. And so we really need to see that, actually, the way they’re operating around immigration creates risks for all of us. And, again, the reason why it’s so important that we see our struggles intertwined, and that we work together on this.

JJ: We’ve been speaking with Silky Shah from the Detention Watch Network. They’re online at DetentionWatchNetwork.org. Thank you so much, Silky Shah, for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

SS: Thanks so much for having me.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Janine Jackson.

We go to Gaza for a report on the brutal conditions of Israel’s genocide of Palestinians from Abubaker Abed, a 22-year-old journalist who has recently been diagnosed with malnutrition as a result of Israel’s total siege of the Gaza Strip. “It’s unending misery,” says Abed. “We’re here stranded. We’re seeing the systematic killing of everyone, as Israel is targeting every single one here in Gaza.” In the week since Israel’s abrupt desertion of its ceasefire agreement, says Abed, the total suffering in Gaza “is much worse than ever before.” He pleads for international intervention and accountability. “As long as the world allows Israel to do so, this will not stop.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

As the Trump administration, led in part by his unelected adviser Elon Musk, sets its sights on cutting the Department of Education, we speak to longtime educator Jesse Hagopian about what he calls an “extremist, authoritarian power grab to dismantle public education and enforce ideological conformity.” Hagopian, whose new book, Teach Truth: The Struggle for Antiracist Education, traces the history of racist educational censorship, adds, “This isn’t about protecting children. We know that dismantling the Department of Education is really about imposing … the violence of organized forgetting.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Kazakh President Qasym-Zhomart Toqaev has given a lengthy interview in which he discusses what he sees as the origins of the "Bloody January" protests of 2022 as well as the threat of dual power systems.

Speaking to the state-run Egemen Qazaqstan newspaper, which published the interview on January 3, Toqaev said the protests that began in the southwestern town Zhanaozen on January 2, 2022, following a sharp rise in fuel prices and which quickly spread to other cities, including Almaty, were instigated by an unidentified "rogue group."

Toqaev's shoot-to-kill order to quell the unrest led to the deaths of more than 230 protesters, and the Kazakh president has been criticized for not living up to his promise to the public to answer questions about the incident.

The Kazakh authorities have prosecuted several high-ranking officials on charges that they attempted to seize power during the protests, with some removed from office or sentenced to prison, and others acquitted.

Many were seen to be allies of Toqaev's predecessor, long-serving Kazakh leader Nursultan Nazarbaev.

When asked what caused the unrest, Toqaev initially cited "socio-economic problems accumulated over the years," which had led to stagnation and undermined faith in the government.

However, Toqaev then suggested that "some influential people" did not like the changes to the country's political scene after he was appointed as acting president by Nazarbaev in 2019 and later that year elected as president.

Toqaev said the unknown people perceived the change "as a threat" to the power structure after decades of rule by Nazarbaev, and then "decided to turn back the face of reform and destroy everything in order to return to the old situation that was convenient for them."

"This group of high-ranking officials had a huge influence on the power structures and the criminal world," Toqaev alleged. "That's why they decided to seize power by force."

Toqaev, citing investigations by the Prosecutor-General's Office, said the unidentified group began "preparations" about six months before the nationwide demonstrations in January 2022, when the government made what he called "an ill-conceived, illegal decision to sharply increase the price of liquefied gas."

From there, Toqaev alleged, "extremists, criminal groups, and religious extremists" worked together to stage a coup. When the protests broke out in January 2022, Toqaev claimed that 20,000 "terrorists" had entered the country.

Experts have widely dismissed suggestions of foreign involvement in the mass protests.

Aside from about 10 members of the fundamentalist Islamic group Yakyn Inkar -- which is considered a banned extremist group in Kazakhstan -- who were arrested in connection with the protests, no religious groups have been singled out for alleged involvement in the protests.

The goal of the alleged coup plotters, Toqaev said, was to set up a dual power structure that would compete with the government.

"I openly told Nazarbaev that the political arrogance of his close associates almost destroyed the country," Toqaev said, without expounding on who the associates might be.

Toqaev had not previously mentioned speaking with Nazarbaev about the mass protests.

Toqaev also suggested that Kazakhstan, which has come under criticism for its imprisonment of journalists and civil and political activists, does not have any political prisoners.

When asked about political prisoners, Toqaev said only that "our legislation does not contain a single decree, a single law, a single regulatory document that provides a basis for prosecuting citizens for their political views."

For there to be political persecution, according to Toqaev, there would need to be "censorship, special laws, and punitive bodies" in place.

Toqaev also appeared to subtly criticize Nazarbaev, who became head of Soviet Kazakhstan in 1990 and became Kazakhstan's first president after the country became independent in 1991.

Nazarbaev served as president until he resigned in 2019, although he held the title of "Leader of the Nation" from 2010 to 2020 and also served as chairman of the Security Council from 1991 to 2022. Nazarbaev has since been stripped of those roles and titles.

While discussing Nazarbaev, Toqaev said that "everyone knows his contribution to the formation of an independent state of Kazakhstan. He is a person who deserves a fair historical evaluation."

But the current Kazakh president also said that "there should be no senior or junior president in the country."

"Go away, don't beg!" Toqaev said. "Citizens who will be in charge of the country in the future should learn from this situation and stay away from such things and think only about the interests of the state and the prosperity of society."

This content originally appeared on News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

Military leaders in Gabon seized power on Wednesday shortly after reigning President Ali Bongo had been named the winner of last week’s contested election. Bongo and his family have led the country for close to 60 years, during which they have been accused of enriching themselves at the expense of the country. The military junta announced General Brice Oligui Nguema would serve as transitional leader in what is the latest military coup in a former French colony, joining recent power shifts in Niger, Mali, Guinea, Burkina Faso and Chad. “The independence of Gabon has never been real,” says Thomas Deltombe, French journalist and expert on the French African empire. “I think we might be witnessing a second independence, a new decolonization process.” We also speak with Daniel Mengara, a professor of French and Francophone studies and founder of the exiled opposition movement Bongo Must Leave, which he continues to head. “This is a rare opportunity for the Gabonese people to engage in national dialogue,” says Mengara, who warns that the intentions of the coup leaders are still unclear.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

We go to Ciudad Juárez for an update on the fire that killed at least 38 men held at a Mexican immigration detention center just across the U.S. border from El Paso, Texas. Surveillance video from the jail shows guards walking away as flames spread inside the jail cells, making no effort to open the jail cells or help the migrants who were trapped. Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador blamed the fire on the men who were being held at the detention jail, alleging that they set their mattresses on fire to protest conditions, while U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Ken Salazar claimed the tragedy was a consequence of “irregular migration.” The deaths in Mexico came just hours after the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees urged the Biden administration not to adopt a proposed anti-asylum rule that would turn more refugees away at the border. We speak with the U.S.-Mexico border-based journalist Luis Chaparro.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

The Federated States of Micronesia will receive more US economic assistance under the Compact of Free Association in exchange for the Pacific nation’s broader role in regional security that entails expanded military use of its land, water and air.

“Of paramount importance is that our nation’s citizenry be informed in advance when US fighter jets fly over the State of Yap, for example, or when the US practice firing anti-aircraft missiles from the ground,” FSM President David Panuelo said in a state of the nation address delivered on Friday before the FSM Congress.

Panuelo advised the FSM citizens to also expect more training exercises in and around the nation’s ocean.

• READ MORE: Other FSM reports

“These exercises will be increasing in frequency over the next several years, and while they are ultimately in our national interest and in the interest of our nation’s security — of which the US is our indisputable guardian — it is important that our citizens know about them well in advance so that our people do not see these activities and then immediately fear the worst,” he added.

The compact grants the United States “strategic denial” — the option to deny foreign militaries access to the freely associated nation and provide for US defence sites.

Panuelo acknowledged that the US military’s ramped-up presence in the region was brought about by growing geopolitical conflicts in the Pacific, where Washington and Beijing play tug of war.

The unabated rivalry is compounded by China’s persistent threats to take over Taiwan, which the US vows to defend.

Panuelo said the amplified military activities in Yap will require the expansion of the state ports and increased presence from the US Navy Seabees.

In his state of the nation address, Panuelo said the FSM would receive $140 million in annual sector grant assistance from Washington under the compact’s renewed economic provisions. The agreed amount represents more than $50 million a year over current assistance levels, the president added.

“The good news is that there is much we have already completed successfully with regards to our compact’s negotiations,” Panuelo said.

“I have also made clear that in addition to this sector grant assistance, a one-time contribution of funds into our Compact Trust Fund remains a critical component of our nation’s economic requirements, and is necessary for the health and sustainability of the fund,” Panuelo said.

The economic provisions of the compact are set to expire in September. Washington last week announced the signing of a memorandum of understanding, separately with Palau and the Marshall Islands, renewing the economic assistance for both freely associated states.

Washington and the FSM have yet to formally sign an agreement, but Panuelo said he has “shaken hands” with Joseph Yun, the US special presidential envoy for compact negotiations, on the proposed new deal.

“There remains some important work to be done before our nation’s negotiating teams can sign off,” Panuelo said.

Among the sticky points is the FSM-proposed update on fiscal procedures, which Panuelo said must “reflect more deference to the FSM in the management and implementation of funding assistance.”

Panuelo earlier asked Washington to let the FSM manage its own financial responsibilities under the compact, noting that the funds provided by the treaty are part of diplomatic arrangements rather than largesse.

Read related story US asked not to micromanage FSM Other pending issues include “the development of mutually acceptable subsidiary agreements that are appropriate for the next compact period.”

At the same time, the negotiating panels are working on the continuation of US programmes such as Pell grants, and the reinstatement of US Department of Education programmes previously made available to FSM students.

“The FSM will work very hard until we are satisfied with all aspects of the agreements between our country and the United States,” Panuelo said.

Besides the compact funds, Panuelo reported that the FSM has received a total of $747 million from other foreign donors and lenders including the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, Japan, China, the European Union, Australia and India.

“The figure would be higher if we could financially measure certain forms of in-kind assistance,” Panuelo said.

“Part of this success is due to the improved coordination between the nation and its development partners since the establishment of the Overseas Development Assistance policy in 2013,” Panuelo said.

Foreign donations financed the FSM’s infrastructure projects including the administration’s $100 million “Pave the Nation” initiative.

Republished from the Pacific Island Times with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Protesters took to the streets in more than a dozen Chinese cities on Sunday, calling for President Xi Jinping’s ouster in the biggest challenge to Communist Party rule in decades, according to media reports and video footage from social media posts of people on the ground.

Many came out to express condolences and solidarity with the families of those who died in an apartment fire in the Xinjiang regional capital Urumqi, which many have blamed on strict lockdown measures under Communist Party leader Xi Jinping's zero-COVID policy.

Former student leaders from the 1989 mass pro-democracy movement, which ended with a massacre by the People's Liberation Army around Beijing's Tiananmen Square on the night of June 3-4, 1989, lauded the protests as evidence of a resurgence of public resistance to authoritarian rule. 

Still, they appear unlikely to build into a coordinated movement, they told Radio Free Asia.

"The likelihood that these incidents will trigger a mass democratic movement on the same scale as the 1989 democracy movement isn't very high," said Hu Ping, honorary editor of the U.S.-based Chinese-language political magazine Beijing Spring. "But they are still symbolically very important; it shows people aren't numb."

"The people of China today don't all agree with Xi Jinping and the Communist Party, as many people once imagined," he said. These protests “show that the desire of the Chinese people for freedom and democracy never went away."

Hu added: "It's pretty earth-shattering and highly significant that people in mainland China are chanting 'Xi Jinping, step down!" in public."

‘Stability maintenance’

According to a recent report from the U.S.-based think tank Freedom House, people in China frequently challenge those in power, despite a nationwide 'stability maintenance' program aimed at nipping popular protest in the bud.

Despite pervasive surveillance, a "grid" system of law enforcement at the neighborhood level and targeted "stability maintenance" system aimed at controlling critics of the ruling Chinese Communist Party, the group identified hundreds of incidents of public protest between June and September alone, many of which were linked to the zero-COVID policy.

Miles Yu, former foreign policy adviser to the Trump administration, said there is a different demographic involved now, as the strict anti-virus policy hurts the interests of blue- and white-collar workers, young and old alike.

"For a long time, civil unrest in China came from the lowest ranks, from relocated households, migrant workers and so on," Yu told RFA. "This time, it has affected the interests of the middle class."

"The anti-lockdown protests have a broad base across the country, which is why the resistance movement is surging in China right now," he said.

Different climate now

But Hu said the 1989 protests took place in a much more tolerant political climate than exists under Xi Jinping, who has continued to impose top-down controls on everything people do, see, read or say since taking power in 2012, building a nationwide state machinery known as "stability maintenance" to bolster his grip on power.

"Back then, the political climate was generally quite relaxed, and college students and young people had various ways they could express opposition to the status quo," Hu said. "The situation today is the total opposite -- the authorities clamp down on [dissent] with extreme severity ... maintaining high pressure to maintain stability."

But he added: "It's particularly valuable that we are seeing these kinds of protests even under such circumstances as these."

Perry Link, emeritus professor of East Asian Studies at Princeton University, said that while the weekend's protests don't approach the scale of the 1989 democracy movement, this level of public dissatisfaction was still a "meaningful historical event."

"The last time someone shouted 'Down with the Communist Party' was during the 1989 student movement, so it's particularly significant that people are shouting this slogan once more, more than 30 years later," Link said.

Students entering the mainstream

Former 1989 student leader Zhou Fengsuo, who heads the U.S.-based rights group Humanitarian China, said it was inspiring to see young people coming out onto the streets.

"It was very exciting to see them singing the national anthem ... demanding democracy, rule of law and freedom of expression," Zhou said. "Suddenly, students were entering the mainstream."

"It was an emotional experience for people who still cherish the ideals of the past to see these young people doing that," he said. "The people stood up to demand freedom and democracy through their own struggle."

Zhou said the protests also came as a surprise, given the level of government censorship and surveillance of social media platforms used to spread the word about the protests, particularly WeChat.

"The majority of Chinese people are still being brainwashed by the government, because all they can use is WeChat," Zhou said. "This makes it hard to predict how this protest will go."

Former 1989 student leader Wang Dan said it wasn't always advisable to keep up momentum following a wave of mass protests, and said the weekend's protests were more like a "small step" on a much longer journey.

"It's a small step forward ... and if you keep moving forward in small steps, you will definitely achieve your goal, even if you don't get the entire Communist Party leadership and Xi Jinping to resign all at once," Wang said.

"We should use ... flash mobs, performance art and other methods, so the struggle can continue over a long period of time," he said, calling for a list of government agents whose details could be handed to the U.S. government as leverage to ensure more lenient treatment of detainees.

"If someone is arrested, the people around them should get their name, and if too many are detained, people should surround the police station and try to get them released," he said.

Punishing the perceived ringleaders

Wang Juntao, who heads the U.S. branch of the banned China Democracy Party, said the authorities are highly likely to start handing down harsh punishment to a minority of protesters they have decided were the ringleaders, while easing back on the zero-COVID policy without shelving it.

"They're likely to take steps to appease the majority, while severely punishing a small group,”  Wang said.

He said there are signs of a wider political awakening, even under Xi Jinping's authoritarian rule, however.

"When things are quiet, the majority will likely conform and cling to the political system, and even emotionally identify with it," Wang said. "But if something hurts their interests, particularly when it moves them emotionally, they will wake up fast."

"The biggest bringer of enlightenment,” he said, “is actually the tyrannical rule of the Communist Party.”

Translated and edited by Luisetta Mudie. Edited by Malcolm Foster.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Chen Zifei, Wang Yun and Jenny Tang for RFA Mandarin.

Yet more proposed Chinese “security agreements” in the Pacific Islands have been leaked.

The drafts have been described by critics as revealing “the ambitious scope of Beijing’s strategic intent in the Pacific” and its “coherent desire […] to seek to shape the regional order”. There are concerns they will “dramatically expand [China’s] security influence in the Pacific”.

But does this overstate their importance?

• READ MORE: China documents threaten Pacific sovereignty, warns FSM president
• Other reports on China in the Pacific

A pause for breath
Australia and New Zealand should be concerned about China’s increasingly visible presence in the Pacific Islands. A coercive Chinese presence could substantially constrain Australia’s freedom of movement, with both economic and defence implications.

And Pacific states and people have reason to be concerned. The restrictions on journalists during Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s visit to Solomon Islands demonstrate the potential consequences for transparency of dealing closely with China.

And there are questions about the implications of the Solomon Islands-China security agreement for democracy and accountability.

But before we work ourselves into a frenzy, it is worth pausing for breath.

The leaked drafts are just that: drafts.

They have not yet been signed by any Pacific state.

At least one Pacific leader, Federated States of Micronesia President David Panuelo, has publicly rejected them. Panuelo’s concerns are likely shared by several other Pacific leaders, suggesting they’re also unlikely to sign.

Fiji is joining U.S. President Joe Biden’s Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, the White House said, making it the first Pacific Island country in the plan that is part of a U.S. effort to push back on China’s growing regional influence https://t.co/XByydU09IP pic.twitter.com/7xphYtRdv0

— Reuters (@Reuters) May 27, 2022

China wields powerful tools of statecraft — particularly economic — but Pacific states are sovereign. They will ultimately decide the extent of China’s role in the region.

And these drafts do not mention Chinese military bases — nor did the China-Solomon Islands agreement.

Rumours in 2018 China was in talks to build a military base in Vanuatu never eventuated.

What if some Pacific states sign these documents?
First, these documents contain proposals rather than binding obligations.

If they are signed, it’s not clear they will differ in impact from the many others agreed over the last decade. For example, China announced a “strategic partnership” with eight Pacific states in 2014, which had no substantive consequences for Australia.

So common — and often so ineffectual — are “strategic partnerships” and “memoranda of understanding” that there is a satirical podcast series devoted to them.

Second, the drafts contain proposals that may benefit Pacific states.

For example, a China-Pacific Islands free trade area could open valuable opportunities, especially as China is a significant export destination.

Third, the drafts cover several activities in which China is already engaged. For example, China signed a security agreement with Fiji in 2011, and the two states have had a police cooperation relationship since.

It’s worth remembering Australia and New Zealand provide the bulk of policing assistance. The executive director of the Pacific Island Chiefs of Police is even a Kiwi.

The drafts do contain concerning provisions. Cooperation on data networks and “smart” customs systems may raise cybersecurity issues. This is why Australia funded the Coral Sea Cable connecting Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea to Australia.

Provisions relating to satellite maritime surveillance may cause friction with existing activities supported by Australia and its partners.

Greater Chinese maritime domain awareness of the region – meaning understanding of anything associated with its oceans and waterways – would also raise strategic challenges for Australia, New Zealand, and the US.

But there is a risk of over-egging the implications based on our own anxieties.

The omission of #PNG from the new Indo-Pacific Economic Framework set up by the US to contest China in the region is a huge mistake & a missed opportunity, especially with China on the prowl in the Pacific Islandshttps://t.co/tRse7G3dvi

— Keith Jackson AM FRSA FAIM (@PNGAttitude) May 27, 2022

China’s interests
Much of China’s diplomacy has been opportunistic and not dissimilar to what Australia and other partners are doing.

Although the region is strategically important to Australia, the southern Pacific islands are marginal to China. And apart from Kiribati and Nauru, the northern Pacific islands are closely linked to the US.

China’s interest may primarily be about demonstrating strategic reach, rather than for specific military purposes.

So, amplifying narratives about China’s threatening presence may unintentionally help China achieve its broader aim of influencing Australia.

And framing China’s presence almost exclusively as threatening may limit Australia’s manoeuvrability.

Given the accelerating frequency of natural disasters in the region due to climate change, it is only a matter of time before the Australian and Chinese militaries find themselves delivering humanitarian relief side-by-side. Being on sufficiently cordial terms to engage in even minimal coordination will be important.

Indeed, Australia should try to draw China into cooperative arrangements in the Pacific.

Reviving, updating, and seeking China’s signature of, the Pacific Islands Forum’s Cairns Compact on Development Coordination, would be a good start.

If China really has benign intentions, it should welcome this opportunity. The compact, a mechanism created by Pacific states, could help ensure China’s activities are well-coordinated and targeted alongside those of other partners.

Amplifying threat narratives also feeds into Australia’s perceived need to “compete” by playing whack-a-mole with China, rather than by formulating a coherent, overarching regional policy that responds to the priorities of Pacific states.

For example, Australia has funded Telstra’s purchase of Digicel, following interest from Chinese telco Huawei, despite questions over the benefits.

What will Australia offer next?
There is a risk some Pacific states may overestimate their ability to manage China. But for the time being it is understandable why at least some would entertain Chinese overtures.

New Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong has rushed to Fiji days into the job with sought-after offers of action on climate change and expanded migration opportunities. Pacific leaders might be wondering what Australia will offer next.

Dr Joanne Wallis is professor of international security, University of Adelaide and Dr Maima Koro is a Pacific research fellow, University of Adelaide. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Nurtured by President Rodrigo Duterte to much criticism at home, Manila is keeping its relationship with Beijing on an even keel, ostensibly demonstrating, according to political analyst Rommel Banlaoi, a “pragmatic independent foreign policy” in a polarized world.

For instance, the Filipino foreign secretary is in Tokyo this weekend to take part in the first ever bilateral two-plus-two talks involving the foreign and defense ministers of the Philippines and Japan.

This visit follows a meeting between China’s Xi Jinping and Duterte on Friday, where they “committed to broaden the space for positive engagements” on the South China Sea issue. And on the same day, the Philippines concluded one of its largest military exercises with the United States, its longtime defense ally.

Banlaoi, president of the Philippine Association for Chinese Studies (PACS), said Manila is demonstrating its independence by maintaining its longstanding security alliance with the U.S, strengthening is strategic partnerships with Japan, Australia, South Korea, and the European Union, and maintaining friendly relations with China despite tensions over the waterway.

Still, disputes to do with the South China Sea, part of which is called the West Philippine Sea by the Filipinos, are the main reason behind for broadened security cooperation between the Philippines and other countries in the region, analysts said. Celia Lamkin, Founder of the National Youth Movement for the West Philippine Sea

“The foreign and defense talks between Japan and the Philippines in Tokyo [on Saturday] are significant because of the non-stop aggression and militarization by China in our West Philippine Sea,” Celia Lamkin, Founder of the National Youth Movement for the West Philippine Sea, told BenarNews, using the Philippine term for the South China Sea.

On Thursday, the Philippine Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana met with his Japanese counterpart, Nobuo Kishi, in Tokyo to discuss “ways to further enhance bilateral and multilateral cooperation,” according to the official Philippine News Agency.

The two defense ministers agreed to bolster security cooperation and expand bilateral and multilateral exercises, according to a statement from the Japanese Ministry of National Defense.

“They shared their intent that they will not tolerate any unilateral change of the status quo by force in the Indo-Pacific, particularly in East Asia and Southeast Asia,” the statement said.

China is involved in maritime disputes with Japan over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea.

The inaugural two-plus-two meeting on Saturday will continue to “promote bilateral defense cooperation and exchanges to uphold and strengthen the Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP),” Japan Defense Ministry said.

“We need allies like Japan and the U.S. to show China to respect international law in our West Philippine Sea and the rest of the South China Sea,” said Lamkin from the National Youth Movement for the West Philippine Sea.

China claims nearly the entire South China Sea, including waters within the exclusive economic zones of Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam and Taiwan. While Indonesia does not regard itself as party to the South China Sea dispute, Beijing claims historic rights to parts of that sea overlapping Indonesia's exclusive economic zone as well.

‘Open, warm, and positive’

A day before this two-plus-two meeting, Duterte, who is due to leave office after the Philippine general election in May and who has consistently called China’s Xi a friend, had a telephone meeting with the Chinese leader.

During the call, the two said they work towards maintaining peace and stability in the South China Sea by exercising restraint, a statement from Duterte’s office said.

A Chinese statement, meanwhile, said Xi had expressed his approval for how the two nations have dealt with the issue of the disputed South China Sea. Beijing, however, has consistently ignored a 2016 decision by an international arbitration court in The Hague that rejected China’s expansive claims in the contested waterway.

Meanwhile, news emerged on Thursday that, for days, a Chinese coastguard ship had followed a research vessel deployed by Philippine and Taiwanese scientists in waters in off the northern Philippines, sparking concerns.

Still, the statement from Duterte’s office described the hour-long telephone conversation as “open, warm and positive.”

Then again, Manila surprised many a day earlier by voting against Beijing’s ally Moscow, and in favor of a resolution to suspend Russia from the United Nations Human Rights Council. It was the only ASEAN Nation to vote in favor of the resolution, apart from the Myanmar government in exile.

Also, last September, when Australia, the United Kingdom and the U.S. announced the establishment of a trilateral security pact, AUKUS, the Philippines was the first country in Southeast Asia to endorse it despite concerns from regional players including Malaysia and Indonesia.

With the Philippine presidential election looming in May, all eyes are on who will win the race, said Lamkin from the National Youth Movement for the West Philippine Sea.

She added: “Our struggle for sovereign rights in the West Philippine Sea depend very much on who will be the next president.”

Jason Gutierrez of BenarNews, an RFA-affiliated on-line news outlet, contributed to this report from Manila.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By RFA Staff.