The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

A life worth living

Obituary, Victor Grossman 11 March, 1928 – 17 December, 2025


20/12/2025

Victor Grossman sits a table with 3 other panelists. The banner hanging from the table is red with white lettering that says "Nothing to lose but" and the rest is cut off. The banner also shows part of Karl Marx's face and a Bernie campaign symbol.

Victor Grossman died on 17th December, 2025. He was 97, and for a long time it felt like he would go on for ever. Phil Butland remembers a comrade and friend.

I first met Victor in 2013, when we were setting up the Berlin Linke Internationals, the forerunner of The Left Berlin. Victor was excited by the idea of uniting International activists both inside and outside die Linke, and introducing German activists to people who had recently been involved in the Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street, and the occupation of the squares in Spain.

He was particularly interested in developing new activists, attending every meeting which he could, and always being available to talk about his outstanding life, either as a public speaker in a large meeting, or in an informal chat. Well into his 90s, I would still see him at demos, where he would march as far as his ageing body would allow him. He was always keen to talk, and we would regularly march together until he felt unable to go any further and reluctantly went home.

One particular obsession of Victor’s was Sahra Wagenknecht. He adored her for fighting against the party bureaucrats who wanted to sacrifice the party’s opposition to NATO because they had eyes on a coalition government with the SPD or Greens. At the same time, he was deeply concerned about her racist populism. Many of the conversations we had on demos started with him asking me why I thought Sahra had made her latest “mistake.”

Between 2019 and 2023, theleftberlin.com published Victor’s Berlin bulletin—a weekly account to international friends about political developments in Germany.  We stopped doing this after someone created a website for the Bulletin, as there was less need for us to provide what was available elsewhere. But there was also a feeling that Victor was losing his sharpness and starting to repeat himself. I still read the bulletin avidly, though, even after they became less regular.

Principled Opposition

I knew of Victor long before I met him. We were both members of die Linke in Berlin Mitte. We were in different branches, so our paths did not cross regularly, but he would occasionally pop up at a regional meeting making a pithy observation warning us not to trust the leadership. He remained particularly suspicious of a new layer of careerist party leaders, who he felt would just as easily have joined the SPD or the Greens.

At the same time, he was faithfully loyal to the party itself. This was, after all, the man who defected from the USA to the DDR at the height of the Cold War. Victor remained convinced that 1989 was a step backwards in German history. He could argue quite persuasively that following the Second World War, only one half of Germany denazified, as West Germany filled its government posts with former Nazis.

At the same time, he was never uncritical of the East German state or of the party leadership; he did believe that the uprisings in East Berlin in 1953 and Hungary in 1956 were organised by the CIA. By chance he was on a spa treatment in Czechoslovakia in 1968 when Russian tanks invaded to suppress Czech leader Alexander Dubček’s reform package called “socialism with a human face.”

In his autobiography, Victor wrote: “I was still torn. ‘Socialism with a human face’ was a great idea in itself; many of the improvements, especially regarding the humane climate, were desperately needed in East Germany. But behind this facade, I had seen how the country was noticeably sliding to the right, and how left-wing groups who dared to resist this trend were marginalized, even threatened.”

This was the dilemma which Victor continually faced. His belief in the Eastern Bloc was regularly contradicted by facts on the ground. Victor was honest enough to recognise this, but in the absence of any obvious alternative, he preferred the Eastern Bloc to rampant capitalism. Like his hero Berthold Brecht, he insisted that the DDR was the least bad option.

For this reason, Victor absolutely hated the film The Lives of Others, not because it criticised the Stasi but because, he maintained, the Stasi were a joke. Everyone knew who they were, and they didn’t disrupt ordinary life. You may disagree  with his analysis, but it was understandable from a man who was threatened with one year in a US jail because he’d joined some anti-fascist organisations prematurely.

He retained this critical loyalty for the rest of his life. He joined the PDS, and then Die Linke, because where else could a socialist organise? You get the feeling that he felt the same about Die Linke as he did about Eastern Germany. He was fully aware of the Party’s shortcomings, but what was the alternative?.

One subject on which Victor remained particularly intransigent was on the issue of Palestine. As a Jewish socialist, Victor knew that his liberation was bound closely to that of the Palestinians. At a time when very few people on the German Left, and particularly die Linke, were prepared to stand up for Palestine, you could always bank on Victor to speak out, sign an appeal, or support a demo for Palestinian rights.

An extraordinary Life

Victor Grossman was born Stephen Wechsler in New York one year before the World Economic Crisis of 1929. He often humbly boasted that he was the only person ever to hold degrees from both Harvard and the Karl Marx University. As a teenager, he became very active in many Communist and Socialist organisations.

Then, in 1950, he was drafted for the Korean War and sent to train in West Germany.  Before he was sent, he had to sign a statement that he was not a member of a list of named subversive organisations. Although he had indeed joined several of the groups on the list, Victor signed the statement anyway.

One day in 1952, he was called to appear before a military court in Nuremberg. Sensing it was to do with his false statement—which could lead to 1 year in prison—Victor decided to defect. He swam across the Danube and turned himself in to the bemused Soviet army which was occupying that part of Austria. 

After 2 months detention, he moved to East Berlin where he started a new life, first as a factory and railway worker, later as a journalist and a loyal oppositionist. He befriended the actor Dean Reed—another defector from the US—who made a series of East German cowboy films told from the point of view of Native Americans.

Victor published his autobiography Crossing the River in 2014. Despite its English title, the book is in German, although in 2019 he did publish a shorter, English, version—A Socialist Defector: From Harvard to Karl-Marx-Allee.

Despite his many talents, Victor was a modest man. I will miss his perception, his energy, but above all his sense of humour. Victor was a witty man and a born raconteur. We did not agree on everything politically but he was a passionate internationalist who was prepared to argue his case and usually ended up on the right side.

Ingar Solty from the Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung adds

I am not the only person to miss Victor’s presence. I asked Ingar Solty from the Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung about his memories of Victor. Ingar sent the following text:

“During the late 1940s, early 1950s, with the victory of the Chinese Revolution and the beginning of the Cold War, the example of Victor Grossman shows that not only German socialist and communist survivors of fascism and world war could consider East Germany as the better German state insofar as all the demands of the social democrats and in fact the majority in the West were realized only here: de-nazification, land reform, and the socialization of industry. 

This is why communist artists like Peter Hacks as well as Wolf Biermann moved from West to East. The example of Victor, however, shows that international communists could also be convinced that the GDR was a safe haven for them against the anti-communist witch-hunts of the early 1950s, stretching from the House of Un-American activities in the US to the Adenauer-Erlass in West Germany. 

Victor Grossman then was a key actor with regards to the proletarian internationalism of real socialism. It was Grossman and the Canadian, Perry Friedman, who played a key role with regards to the interculturality connecting the American Folk Revival in the US with the Burg Waldeck festivals in West Germany and the Oktoberklub and hugely influential Singebewegung in the GDR. 

Across the Cold War divide, at the height of bloc confrontation right after the Cuban Missile Crisis, there were socialists in East and West returning to the folk tradition in order to sing against the threat of nuclear warfare, for peace and social justice. Grossman’s radio program in the GDR brought Pete Seeger, Joan Baez, Peter Paul and Mary, and Phil Ochs to an East German audience and even to East Berlin itself. It also facilitated the particular internationalism which led to the massive show of solidarity coming from GDR civil society when Angela Davis was imprisoned. 

In this regard, the other America always had a place in a country whose solidarity generally stood with the victims of US and Western imperialism who sought to liberate themselves from it, stretching from the revolutionaries in Cuba to the defenders of socialism in Chile and the ANC in South Africa.”

Salud Victor. The world will be a worse place without you.

The show must go on

Berlin’s high court brands “From the river to the sea” a Hamas slogan, further tarnishing its own judicial image


19/12/2025

Buffy the Vampire Slayer once sang, “Life is a show and we all play our part.” The judge of Berlin’s Higher Court played her part loud and clear, giving judicial voice to Germany’s infamous political Staatsräson.

In November 2023, the German state declared—without evidence—that the international slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” was a Hamas slogan. Since then, German police, especially in Berlin, have used this profoundly ahistorical and ignorant assertion as a pretext to arrest thousands of people. For nearly two years, the prosecutor’s office attempted—largely unsuccessfully—to prosecute dozens of cases in Berlin, with many lower-court judges unequivocally ruling that the slogan is not a Hamas symbol. Nevertheless, prosecutors persisted, searching for a judge who would rule in their favour.

Today, 17 December, after thirteen sessions of a trial riddled with irregularities, and based on the “expert” testimony of an individual whose extreme bias is immediately evident from even a simple, cursory online search, a judge of the Berlin Higher Court declared the slogan to be one of Hamas.

Let us be clear: this trial was not really about “From the river to the sea…”, nor was it about one individual defendant. The entire Palestine solidarity movement was placed on the bench. The German state demonstrated its willingness to undermine its own rule of law in defence of the genocidal state of Israel. The ruling in this highly political trial bore little resemblance to an impartial application of the law. The so-called evidence presented—nine examples of Hamas using the slogan, not even consistently phrased—was flimsy at best. It appears the court was determined to legitimise the ongoing political persecution of the pro-Palestine movement through weak and unconvincing arguments, further damaging the already tarnished image of Germany’s justice system.

The defence team, exceptionally well prepared, played their part too—this time as the voice of reason—warning of the dangerous path Germany is taking. The curtailment of freedom of expression, which directly impacts the right to assembly, has now placed Germany alongside Orbán’s Hungary in the 2025 CIVICUS Monitor. In other words, in just two years of brutal repression of the anti-genocide movement, Germany has moved from an “open” state to a “restricted” one in terms of civil liberties.

This is happening while the German state rearms, expands its military ambitions, grants police ever-growing budgets and impunity, and watches an extreme-right party gain increasing electoral legitimacy. To say that Germany today looks disturbingly retro, uncomfortably reminiscent of the 1930s, would be an understatement.

Yet this time the German state faces one of its most formidable opponents: the international movement for the liberation of Palestine. Germany is facing legal challenges in both national and international courts, criticism from experts and NGOs, and the scrutiny of millions worldwide who have seen its genocidal and racist face. Government institutions are losing credibility domestically daily and making themselves look like fools internationally.

The liberation of Palestine stands as a symbol of the liberation of all peoples from colonial oppression. It also exposes the pretence that Germany has truly learned from its own one-genocide-per-generation past.

The spectacle of this trial will continue. Lawyers will appeal. People will keep taking to the streets to demand an end to collaboration with a genocidal state. Police will continue to arrest them, and prosecutors will continue to prosecute. But eventually, when the highest court rules on “From the river to the sea”, we will see whether the German judiciary is genuinely independent—or merely another follower of the Staatsräson cult.

Red Flag: What we can learn from East Germany is that socialism needs democracy

In his weekly column, Nathaniel Flakin takes another look at the German Democratic Republic


17/12/2025

The German Democratic Republic, swallowed up by its capitalist counterpart 35 years ago, left behind a fascinating legacy. The GDR produced Superfest Glas, virtually unbreakable beer glasses; it used hyperefficient prefab concrete construction to build Marzahn, a district of 160,000 people, in just a decade; it created some spectacular architecture. And almost unimaginable for a German state, the GDR showed solidarity with Palestine and gave material support to anti-colonial movements in Africa

This was all possible because East Germany had a planned economy. Production was not organized around satisfying capital’s endless demand for profits. The GDR thus accomplished things that seem impossible today. As one small example: Cheap unbreakable glasses are incredibly useful — but they are not made today as they are not profitable.

As socialists, we defend degenerated and deformed workers states like the GDR where they still exist, such as in Cuba. We point to how a poor country like the GDR was able to solve the housing crisis with economic planning — where the much wealthier Federal Republic of Germany claims to be completely helpless.

As I argued back in September, however, while a planned economy is a necessary condition of socialism, it is not enough to define a system as socialist. Socialism refers to the transitional stage between capitalism and communism — the term only applies if the working class is taking over the management of society and the state is withering away.

A response to my piece by the Internationale Forschungsstelle DDR, mirrored at Monthly Review, insists that the GDR was socialist — yet it does not offer any definition of socialism. Surely, the comrades do not believe that it’s enough for a government to use this term — otherwise they would have to refer to the bloody neoliberal dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad as socialist too.

Democracy like oxygen

Looking to define socialism, the IFDDR implicitly concedes that democracy is necessary. As the quote, often falsely attributed to Leon Trotsky, goes: “a planned economy requires democracy just as the human body requires oxygen.” So the authors claim that the “D” in GDR was real, and East Germany was in fact democratic. 

They explain that workers in the GDR had a “right to participate in factory management” and that laws were discussed by millions before passage. They even point to the notorious Eingaben system: citizens could write a letter to their representatives, and would get an answer within four weeks.

Notably, they do not mention the most elaborate form of East German democracy: GDR citizens voted for parliamentary bodies every four or five years, at the national, district, and municipal levels. Yet they only had a single list to choose from, and the National Front won between 99.95 and 99.46 percent each time. As election observers noted in 1989, despite only offering one choice, the authorities nonetheless engaged in systematic fraud.

This is not to defend parliamentary democracy, which in capitalist countries is nothing more than a façade for the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. But a Marxist criticism of bourgeois parliaments aims for higher forms of democracy, such as workers’ councils, soviets, and Räte, in which workers elect delegates to bodies that are both executive and legislative, based on the model of the Paris Commune. East Germany’s Stalinists, in contrast, created a pathetically unconvincing copy of bourgeois democracy.

The IFDDR claims that in the GDR, “economic power was … devolved to the working masses,” yet they do not cite any examples of what economic decision making looked like. To name one major policy shift: in 1971, Erich Honecker proclaimed the “Unity of Economic and Social Policies,” which included higher subsidies for consumer goods and increased housing construction, at the expense of heavy industry.

What to do with the surplus is about the most important decision that a socialist society can make. So what percentage of East German workers were in favor of this turn? What percentage were opposed? To claim “99.46 percent” is to spit in the face of the working class. That is obviously not how real decision-making works — not in a strike committee of five workers, and not in a socialist society with 16 million citizens. 

East Germany offered pseudo-democratic mechanisms that modern capitalist politicians are learning to love: “participation,” whereby decisions are made at the top, but atomized individuals are allowed to “participate” by voicing an opinion that then lands in the recycling bin.

I would say, for example, that the Federal Republic’s decades of cuts to the railway system have been terribly undemocratic because this austerity goes against the will of the majority of the population. The IFDDR might respond that everything is fine because the Deutsche Bahn provides suggestion boxes where everyone can give feedback.

Repression

While I am deliberately not focussing on the Ministry of State Security (MfS, better known as the Stasi in the West), it was also an economic decision to build up the largest security apparatus of any country that has ever existed, with 91,015 full-time employees and hundreds of thousands of informants. This bureaucracy was supposedly necessary to protect socialism and prosecute Nazi war criminals — yet it spent enormous resources surveilling workers or harassing critical communists (Rudolf Bahro and Robert Havemann are just two famous examples). The GDR’s pervasive repression against youth cultures did a lot to undermine support for socialism. And again, who decided that this was a good use of society’s resources? Why put money into suppressing Western rock bands, rather than creating better rock bands?

The authors quote Lenin, only to toss out his ideas about the withering away of the state under socialism as a “regression to the utopianism Marx and Engels criticized.” So what did Lenin write about the vast resources invested in the Stasi?

“Naturally, the exploiters are unable to suppress the people without a highly complex machine for performing this task, but the people can suppress the exploiters even with a very simple ‘machine’, almost without a ‘machine’, without a special apparatus, by the simple organization of the armed people (such as the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies…).”

In other words, a society organized on Leninist lines would rely on self-organization to defend socialism. Who, precisely, decided the GDR should do it otherwise?

John Peet

To close, I would like to quote at length from the hard-to-find autobiography of John Peet. The head of the Reuters bureau in West Berlin, Peet sought asylum in the GDR in 1950 in protest against West German rearmament. For 25 years, he published the fortnightly newsletter German Democratic Report from East Berlin. At the end of his life, looking back at 35 years in the GDR, he was proud that everyone got housing, education, and employment. He pointed to the legalization of abortion and many other accomplishments.

Yet he described the system as one of “benevolent paternalism,” in which “all important decisions” are made by the top leadership of the Socialist Unity Party. Peet commented: “I believe that many of these decisions are wise. But they are arrived at without any public discussion of the pros and cons, and without any proper channel for dissent to be registered.” (Had he not heard of Eingaben?) He concluded:

“I fear the results can only be negative. Since the majority of the population have the feeling that they cannot participate in the decision-making, they tend to withdraw and live their private lives. They march on May Day demonstrations and vote in the single-list parliamentary elections because it is the done thing, but without any particular enthusiasm. There are obviously all sorts of creeping dangers in such a conformist society; for instance, it is almost inevitably the mediocre, the conformists, who get ahead. Karl Marx once said that his favourite motto was ‘De omnibus dubitandum’ — doubt everything. Today in the GDR, the ruling motto would appear to be just the opposite: ‘Father knows best.'” 

Peet spent far longer than the IFDDR defending the East German system, yet even he had to acknowledge that bureaucratic rule was preventing socialism from flourishing. We should study the GDR, which shows that a planned economy offers mind-blowing potential to improve our quality of life — but also that without real proletarian democracy, this potential can be wasted.

Red Flag is a weekly opinion column on Berlin politics that Nathaniel has been writing since 2020. After moving through different homes, it now appears at The Left Berlin.

Protest movement against corruption in the Philippines

Duterte’s case in ICC encourages Filipinos to hold thieving and ruthless ruling dynasties accountable for their crimes

The Philippines is now rocked by a growing protest movement against massive corruption.  The corruption scandal involves misappropriated funds intended for flood control projects, with reports of “ghost” projects and substandard construction. This scandal has led to the resignation of several high-ranking officials and sparked widespread protests across the country. The trail of corruption begins with President Marcos Jr. and leads all the way down. Amidst this acute crisis, Filipinos are emboldened to demand accountability from the thieving and brutal political dynasties ruling the country.

As the political crisis of the ruling political dynasties worsens, a majority of Filipinos favor the pursuit of former Philippine President Duterte’s case of crimes against humanity in the ICC (International Criminal Court) and the country’s rejoining the ICC.

Notwithstanding pressures, ICC pursues Duterte’s case.

On 10 February 2025, the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC applied for an arrest warrant against Duterte for the crimes against humanity of murder, torture, and rape. The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I (“the Chamber”) assessed the material submitted by the Prosecution and found reasonable grounds to believe that Duterte is individually responsible as an indirect co-perpetrator for the crime against humanity of murder, allegedly committed in the Philippines between 1 November 2011 and 16 March 2019.

The warrant of arrest against Duterte was issued by the Chamber on 7 March 2025. On 12 March 2025, he was surrendered to the ICC after being arrested by the authorities of the Republic of the Philippines in accordance with the warrant of arrest.

The initial appearance of Mr. Duterte took place on 14 March 2025.  He appeared in the hearing via video link, as authorized by the Chamber. On 8 September 2025, Pre-Trial Chamber I postponed the commencement of the confirmation hearing in the case, which had been initially scheduled to start on 23 September 2025. This was followed by a request  from the defense of Duterte for an indefinite adjournment of the proceedings, alleging that he is not fit to stand trial, leading the majority of the Chamber to consider that a limited postponement of the hearing on the confirmation of charges was warranted to allow sufficient time to adjudicate the request and related matters.

The ICC said that should the Pre-Trial Chamber confirm the charge, it will then commit the case for trial before a Trial Chamber, which will conduct the subsequent phase of the proceedings: the trial itself.

The Pre-Trial Chamber has rejected the request of the defense team of former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte for interim release. In its decision, released October 10, the Pre-Trial Chamber said Duterte’s detention “continues to remain necessary.”

The Chamber said Duterte’s continued detention is necessary to ensure his appearance at trial, since the latter, “from his initial appearance, contested his arrest and detention, qualifying it ‘as a pure and simple kidnapping.’”

Also mentioned to support its decision are the various speeches given by Duterte’s daughter, Vice President Sara Duterte, about the idea of “breaking Mr. Duterte out of the ICC Detention Centre,” and attempts to delegitimize the Court’s proceedings against Mr. Duterte, citing collusion between the Court and the government of the Philippines as well as the use of “fake witnesses.”

The decision was influenced by concerns that his release could pose risks, including potential escape, endangerment of witnesses, and the possibility of committing further crimes.

Duterte’s defense team has claimed that he is physically and mentally unfit to stand trial due to cognitive impairments.  The chamber plans to conduct a separate assessment of his mental fitness to stand trial, indicating that the current medical findings do not negate the necessity of his detention. The International Criminal Court has cleared a key hurdle in the ongoing proceedings against detained former president Rodrigo Duterte, with the Pre-Trial Chamber I saying the ICC retains jurisdiction over the crimes against humanity case.

On October 24, the Chamber unanimously decided that the international tribunal has jurisdiction over the alleged crimes committed in the Philippines from Nov. 1, 2011, to March 17, 2019. The names “Dela Rosa” and “Aguirre” were mentioned in the heavily redacted Pre-Confirmation Brief submitted by the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) dated Sept. 22 and made public on Sept. 23 in relation to the crimes against humanity charges filed against former president Rodrigo Duterte before the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Sen. Ronald dela Rosa, an incumbent member of the Philippine Senate, was the first Philippine National Police (PNP) chief during the Duterte administration and was the chief implementer of Duterte’s bloody war on drugs. “Dela Rosa promised that they would ‘immediately’ implement a ‘scaled up’ version of the Davao model. If someone fights back, they’ll die. If nobody fights back, we’ll make them fight back.’ ‘Produce blood. Instill fear’,” the document said.

Last year, the OTP tagged Dela Rosa and four other retired and current police officers as “suspects” for alleged involvement in the deaths of thousands of people in Duterte’s drug war.  At the moment, the Philippines is rife with rumors that Dela Rosa has been issued a warrant of arrest by the ICC.  Philippine Ombudsman Jesus Remulla fanned this speculation by confirming that an ICC warrant of arrest for Dela Rosa has already been issued. Senator Dela Rosa is now making himself scarce to avoid being arrested and sent to the ICC to face charges.

Lawyer Vitaliano Aguirre, Duterte’s first secretary at the Department of Justice, was quoted by the document as saying that the “new administration’s program was to do everything to stop drugs, crimes, and corruption—we will choose to kill these drug lords.”

The International Crime Court (ICC) weathered pressures from Duterte supporters in the Philippines and in its headquarters at The Hague, Netherlands. On October 1, 2025, the Philippine Senate (dominated by Duterte’s allies) passed a resolution asking the ICC to consider placing former president Rodrigo Duterte under house arrest on humanitarian grounds. In the Philippines, supporters of former president Rodrigo Duterte gathered in a show of unity and frustration over what they described as continued government silence regarding the latter’s situation abroad. During this time, at the Hague, noisy Duterte supporters held demonstrations calling for their leader to be repatriated to the Philippines.

A sophisticated network of fake social media accounts sprang to the impassioned defense of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte after he was sent to the International Criminal Court to face charges over his bloody drug war.

On the other hand, there is growing support for holding Duterte to account for his crimes at the ICC. The Duterte Panagutin Campaign Network was launched by human rights defenders and victims of Duterte’s bloody fake war against drugs to fight for justice and hold Duterte and cohorts accountable.  Since its launching in November 2024, it has conducted information campaigns to counter fake news and narratives promoted by Duterte supporters.  It has also organized protest actions to promote its advocacy.

On March 18, 2025, activists from various countries in Europe held a rally at the ICC to demand justice. The Duterte Panagutin Campaign Network – Europe was formed in the Hague, Netherlands, on Duterte’s 80th birthday on March 28, 2025. The network asserts that Duterte’s arrest is not the end of our struggle. For them, true justice means disarming and dismantling the entire system of impunity that enabled these atrocities to happen.

In the Philippines, on the same day, protestors also demonstrated, calling for justice for Duterte’s victims. On September 21 and 23 rallies were held at the ICC to demand justice for victims of Duterte’s anti-drugs campaign. 

Duterte’s case at the ICC is a win for Filipinos fighting for justice and impacts the ICC’s global reputation.

Duterte’s arrest, detention, and trial at the ICC is a big achievement in the Filipinos’ fight for justice.  Holding Duterte accountable for his crimes in the Philippines is impossible because of his power and influence in the government.  His daughter, Sara Duterte (though facing serious corruption charges), is still the incumbent vice president, and the majority of members of the Senate are his allies.  

Moreover, former Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Remulla admitted that “The cases that we are speaking about were filed by their families in the ICC because they could not get justice in the country…” The ICC has been firm in implementing its mandate, notwithstanding the legal antics of Duterte’s defense counsel, British-Israeli Nicholas Kaufman.  (This is the same Kaufman who delivered Israel’s threat to ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan, who was then chief prosecutor on Duterte’s case, to back off from the Gaza case or “They will destroy you, and they will destroy the court.”)

Duterte’s case in the ICC is significant: he is the first Asian leader and a former president of the Philippines to be tried by the tribunal. As a close ally and client state of the U.S., it inspires a global democratic movement to fight for justice.

In a blatant display of U.S. exceptionalism and unilateralism, it imposed sanctions against the ICC because of the case against Netanyahu, and it does not want to be accountable for its crimes against humanity.

The United Nations is against US sanctions on ICC officials, which undermine the independence of the tribunal and justice for victims. The European Union is also critical of US sanctions against the ICC. “The ICC holds perpetrators of the world’s gravest crimes to account & gives victims a voice,” according to von der Leyen. “It must be free to act without pressure.

19 December 2018: Revolution in Sudan

This week in working class history


16/12/2025

On 19 December 2018, the Sudanese government announced that the price of a loaf of bread would triple, from one Sudanese pound to three. Similar price rises followed for other basic goods, on the recommendation of the IMF. The subsequent protests were not merely economic, but a revolt against the 30-year rule of the dictator Omar al-Bashir. In Atbara—a marginal town but historically a centre of militant rail workers—protesters burned down the offices of Bashir’s National Congress Party.

The Atbara protests quickly spread to several cities, including the capital, Khartoum. The main organising force was the Sudanese Professionals Association (SPA), a coalition of members from 17 banned trade unions, including teachers, doctors, engineers, pharmacists and other white-collar workers. The SPA was supported by youth and women’s organisations. On 25 December, it mobilised thousands for a march on the presidential palace in Khartoum. The march was met with tear gas, rubber bullets and live ammunition.

In April 2019, protesters began an indefinite sit-in around military headquarters. On 11 April, Bashir was removed from power. The army dissolved parliament and attempted to retain control, announcing that a Transitional Military Council would rule during a so-called “transitional” period. Protesters again took to the streets, forcing the council’s leader, Awad Ibn Auf, to resign. The movement continued, culminating in a general strike on 28–29 May, followed by another strike two weeks later.

On 3 June, in what became known as the Khartoum massacre, government forces killed over 100 protesters at the sit-in in Khartoum, raped men and women, and threw dozens of bodies into the River Nile. Yet the protests persisted. In August, opposition leaders negotiated a rotten power-sharing agreement with the military council. On 25 October 2021, a military coup dissolved the transitional government and abducted civilian ministers and revolutionary leaders.

The success of the counter-revolution led to war between the Rapid Support Forces—successors to Bashir-backed Janjaweed militias—and the Russian-backed Sudanese Armed Forces. Neither faction represents the revolutionary moment of 2018. That legacy survives instead in the neighbourhood-based resistance committees that emerged after a split within the SPA. Initially organising mutual aid during Covid, these committees are now developing an independent political programme. The Sudanese revolution is not over.