Read the daily news to learn English

Inquest into British aid workers killed in Gaza may call on Israeli and UK military chiefs

Israeli and UK military commanders could be requested to give evidence to an inquest concerning three British workers killed in Gaza when aid vehicles they were travelling in were hit by an airstrike. It is also possible that the inquest into the deaths of John Chapman, 57, Jim Henderson, 33, and James Kirby, 47, may examine whether the weaponry that killed the men was made in the UK. Until now, the focus of the inquest has been on the role played by the aid organisation in charge of the convoy and the security firm that was protecting it. But at a pre-inquest review, Maria Voisin, the senior coroner for Avon, indicated that the scope of the final hearing would probably be widened to include the role of Israeli authorities in the deaths. The coroner said she was “minded” to designate the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and the colonel who ordered the strikes, Nochi Mendel, as “interested parties” for the inquest. Interested parties are often relatives of the person who died or an organisation or individual believed to be closely involved in what happened. Israeli military authorities last month said they would not open criminal investigations into the strike which, along with the three Britons, also killed the Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom, and one each from Poland, Palestine and the US. The UK, Australian and Canadian governments called the Israeli decision “shameful”. In a written submission to the court, Pete Weatherby KC, for Henderson, compared the case to that of the novichok attack by the Russian state in Salisbury, in which the British woman Dawn Sturgess was killed. In that case, the high court in London ruled the lack of any criminal investigation by the Russian authorities and the strong public concern surrounding the circumstances of Sturgess’s death necessitated the expansion of the scope of the investigation. Lawyers for the three men accepted that it was possible Israel would not cooperate with the inquest but called for UK ministers to try to apply pressure if needed. Another element the families are keen to have investigated is the role the British military may have played in the incident in April 2024. Weatherby’s submission says that a Royal Air Force surveillance plane spent about five hours above Gaza on the day of the attack, seemingly returning to base minutes before the airstrikes were launched. The families want to know what, if any, surveillance the plane gathered about the convoy – and what was shared with the Israeli authorities. The barrister also told the review hearing in Flax Bourton, near Bristol, it was a “matter of public concern” and “great importance to the family” to find out if the weaponry that killed the men was made in the UK. Voisin said she was open minded about which issues the inquest would consider and would keep some under review. “It’s very much a case of throwing the net wide at the moment,” she said. Henderson’s father, Neil Henderson, said in a statement: “We hope the coroner will carry out a thorough investigation into the attack that killed Jim and the others [including] an exploration of all the issues relevant to his death, encompassing the decisions and policies leading to the attack, and what role, if any, UK authorities or military equipment originating from the UK may have played.” Tayab Ali, who is representing the Kirby family, said: “On behalf of the Kirby family they are very pleased that the coroner took onboard their concerns and extended the scope of the inquiry to include those actors that actually caused James’s death.” The scope of the inquiry has also been widened to include inquiries of the IDF and the Israeli defence ministry. It is understood that inquiries will be made of the UK Foreign Office, Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit Systems as well. Ali said after Monday’s hearing: “In order for the inquiry to establish the real circumstances of James’s death it’s crucial that information is provided by the Israeli authorities including the IDF and MoD there, that’s the only way we’ll get to the bottom of how and why he was killed.” A further pre-inquest review will take place in March. No date for the final hearing has been set.

Race to be next UN secretary general could rest on US and China trade-offs

Numerous last-minute entrants in the race to become the new UN secretary general are being discussed amid concerns that the world powers may not be able to agree a successor to António Guterres from the current field of seven candidates. Three rounds of secret ballots have so far not produced an obvious frontrunner, with probably only three candidates regarded as still having a realistic chance of gathering the required support. The new leader, due to take office in January, will face an organisation at the start of a cost-cutting overhaul programme and seen as marginal to the major global conflicts. But surveys still show strong international support for the institution among a public that blames world leaders as much as the UN itself for its recent failing. A survey by GeoPoll for the UN Foundation published last week found six out of 10 people trust the UN to deliver on the issues that matter to them, but 85% said they had heard nothing or little about the process to choose a new secretary general. The successful candidate must win the support of nine current members of the 15-strong security council with no veto by any of the five permanent members of the council – France, the UK, China, Russia and the US. Achieving consensus among the permanent five is fraught given the breadth of political divisions. Guterres’s term ends on 31 December. Names being mentioned as potential late drafts include Lana Nusseibeh, the minister of state at the United Arab Emirates and a former UAE ambassador to the UN, and Sigrid Kaag, a former UN assistant secretary and Dutch centrist politician. She was briefly the senior humanitarian and reconstruction coordinator for Gaza before joining the advisory committee to Donald Trump’s Board of Peace. Other candidates mentioned include Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, the polyglot president of Kazakhstan, and, in deference to the US, Viktor Orbán, the former prime minister of Hungary, who is still much admired by Trump but reviled as a disruptive populist by many European leaders. Vuk Jeremić, a Serbian former president of the UN general assembly who came second behind Guterres in the 2016 race, has also been mentioned. None of the speculated candidates have given any public indication they wish to be drafted. A communique at the end of this month’s Brics summit attended by 21 countries, of which 10 are full members, said: “We note that no woman has ever been elected for the role of secretary general, and only one national from Latin America and Caribbean, and only two nationals from Africa and Asia each have ever occupied this position.” Some would also resent a late candidate, regardless of their origin, entering the field since strenuous efforts have been made to democratise the selection process by holding regional and global hustings. The last general assembly president, Annalena Baerbock, has helped spearhead the attempt to open the selection process. But the need to avoid alienating any of the five, internally divided, veto-wielding security council members inevitably incentivises the candidates to issue slightly bland consensus-seeking statements at a time when the organisation needs firm leadership. All the candidates have said they would like to see the UN return to an active role as a peacemaker – a task often demanded by amateur US diplomats close to Trump. In the third and last straw poll of the 15 security council members on Friday, Rebeca Grynspan of Costa Rica regained the lead after receiving nine “encourage” votes from the security council. She got five “discourage” votes and one “no opinion”. Her fear is that the discourage votes came from Russia and China, an opposition she would need to overcome. In the second straw poll on 21 August she had dropped behind Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett, a Guyanese politician who then came first – receiving eight encourage votes, three discourage and four no opinions. Last Friday, Rodrigues-Birkett maintained the eight encourage votes, but her discourage votes had risen from three to six. A third candidate, the Ecuadorian former finance minister María Fernanda Espinosa, is just about still a viable contender despite the numbers discouraging her reaching six last week, up from three in August. She has been calling for an early warning system inside the UN to help prevent wars, and for a secretary general more willing to take risks in mediation. It will not be until later in the process – when colour-coded balloting reveals if a vote is from a permanent member of the security council or not – that it will be clear whether a candidate faces an insurmountable barrier. In reality the decision may turn on the horse-trading between the US president and the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, and whether Trump accepts that China cares more about the UN’s future than him, and that may mean accepting a candidate that China wants and the US can tolerate. The Trump administration appears to have softened some of its scepticism towards the UN under the US ambassador to the UN, Mike Waltz. The US not only provided $1.8bn (£1.35bn) in additional humanitarian funding in March but also recently sent $827m in dues, admittedly less than a quarter of what it owes the cash-strapped organisation. Michelle Bachelet, a former president of Chile and a human rights campaigner, became the first candidate to drop out of the race at the weekend after she received only one encouragement in last week’s poll.

Houthis move to seize strategic terrain after Trump calls off airstrikes at last minute

Houthi fighters are moving to seize strategic heights in Yemen that would cut the Red Sea coast off from areas held by Saudi-backed forces after Donald Trump called off US strikes on the group at the last minute, reportedly as bombs were being loaded on to aircraft. Amid increasingly heavy fighting in Yemen, which has displaced tens of thousands of people in recent weeks, the New York Times reported on Monday that the US president had flip-flopped wildly in recent days after a call from Saudi Arabia for US strikes on the Houthis. It comes amid the Houthis’ rapid advance on the ground with the group gaining control over much of Yemen’s Red Sea coast from Saudi-backed Yemeni government forces and advancing to areas adjacent to the crucial Bab al-Mandab strait, which Saudi Arabia has used as an alternative route for oil exports bypassing disruption in the ⁠strait of Hormuz. In the call reported by the New York Times, Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, implored Trump to step in to help halt the Houthi advance after weeks of such appeals. Trump, who had been resisting joining the Saudi war in Yemen, after the call then told the Pentagon to prepare for airstrikes against the Houthis before reversing course once again, the report said. Trump has frequently given mixed signals to Riyadh, telling reporters during a visit to Ireland earlier this month that the Houthis “called us, and they don’t want to fight us”, adding that the group was “allowing ships to pass” the Bab al-Mandab strait and that the situation would “work out very well”. He added that the Houthi problem was limited to “one country” an apparent reference to Saudi Arabia promising to “take care of fixing that”. The UN says hostilities in Yemen have displaced at least 125,000 people since the start of September. Taiz city has received the largest number of displaced persons, taking in up to 86,000 Yemenis since the recent escalation began. The rapid advance by the Iran-aligned group this ‌month has extended the wider Middle East conflict to a new theatre and further threatened global energy supplies. Washington has so far rebuffed repeated pleas from Prince Mohammed to join the fight in Yemen with the Houthis claiming on Saturday they had fired on Riyadh, where columns of smoke were visible near the main airport. The Yemeni president, ⁠Rashad al-Alimi, ⁠spoke to Trump on Sunday, requesting ‌support for his ‌UN-recognised government in its fight against the Houthis. Trump ⁠made no direct pledge of military support during the call, sources said. Saudi Arabia has launched hundreds of strikes in recent days on Houthi positions in the strategic Kahboub mountains, according to the group, but making little impact on the advance of its fighters. Fighting has centred on the outskirts of the remote Al-Wazi’iyah district in Taiz province and Ras al-Ara along the Indian Ocean coast, which separate the Red Sea coast from the city of Aden, where the government is based. The Houthis aim to secure the rear of their forces around the Bab al-Mandab strait by taking control of the mountains, which would also allow them to open new ‌fronts, according to ⁠sources who spoke to Reuters. The surge in fighting between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis has created a new dilemma for Trump, under pressure to help defend Washington’s close Saudi allies but anxious not to further expand the deeply unpopular war he launched in February against Iran. The US bombed the Houthis for two months in early 2025, but Trump called off those strikes after reaching a ceasefire with the group and has kept out of the conflict since. Amid the broad failure of the US-Israeli war against Iran, and with the US midterm elections looming, the Trump administration’s priorities appear to be to secure at least some oil supplies through the strait of Hormuz, while avoiding a wider entanglement in Yemen. That, however, invites longer-term risks, not least the growing alienation of key US allies in the Gulf, including Saudi Arabia, where Washington is increasingly seen as an unreliable ally, that could also undermine the so-called “security for oil” understanding where the US provides a defence umbrella for Gulf states in exchange for energy supplies. Reuters contributed to this report

US strikes on alleged drug boats may constitute ‘crimes against humanity’, UN expert says

A special rapporteur for the UN human rights council has concluded that there are “reasonable grounds to believe” that the United States attacks on boats allegedly carrying drugs in the Pacific and Caribbean “constituted crimes against humanity”. The boat strikes, carried out since September 2025 on the stated grounds of stopping drugs being trafficked by sea to the US, have killed more than 230 people. The latest, on Saturday, killed four people in the Caribbean. The UN itself, along with several human rights organisations, lawyers and international law experts, had already described the bombings as “extrajudicial killings”, but special rapporteur Ben Saul went further. In a briefing note posted by Saul on social media on Sunday night and first reported by the BBC, Saul wrote that, in addition to “serial extrajudicial killings”, the attacks were “in violation of the right to life, being unjustified in national or personal self-defence or under international humanitarian law, the international law of the sea, narcotics suppression conventions, or international counter-terrorism law”. He added: “There are reasonable grounds to believe that the reported 68 attacks that killed 223 people constituted crimes against humanity of murder under customary international law.” The report cites 68 US attacks that killed 223 people. It is unclear how recently the figures were updated – tallies by organisations such as the Washington Office on Latin America put the death toll at 234 people in 66 attacks. US Southern Command, which has coordinated the attacks, posted on Saturday, alongside a grainy video, that it had “executed a lethal, kinetic strike on a go-fast vessel operating along established narco-trafficking routes in the Caribbean. Confirmed intelligence revealed the vessel’s active involvement in narco-trafficking. The operation killed four narco-terrorists”. As has become standard in announcements of such attacks, the US did not identify the victims or provide any details about the alleged intelligence that supposedly confirmed their involvement in drug trafficking. Saul’s report rejects the claim made by Donald Trump before Congress that the strikes amounted to “self-defence” against “designated terrorist organizations”. The special rapporteur wrote that the crews were not “militarily armed and possessed the intent and capacity to launch military attacks” against the US. “Even assuming that the vessels and crew attacked were members of the criminal groups listed as terrorist, such organizations have not mounted any ‘armed attack’ on the United States so as to trigger a right of self-defence,” he added. The US Department of State has not yet responded to a request for comment. Although Trump recently claimed the bombings had stopped 97% of all illegal drugs entering the US by sea, according to available data, the attacks have had no impact on the volume of cocaine entering the US. Journalists and human rights groups have managed to identify some of the victims, who in many cases were innocent or, when suspected of involvement in criminal activity, were at best low-ranked participants in trafficking networks.

Chancellor vows to stay on for Germany’s ‘democratic future’ after latest loss to far-right AfD

Germany’s beleaguered leader, Friedrich Merz, has vowed to keep his fractious coalition government together for the good of the country’s “democratic future” after his conservative party suffered a drubbing at the polls in two state elections. Merz, who has vowed to plough ahead with an unpopular reform agenda, dismissed speculation over his position, saying it was vital that he and his coalition government remained in place. “We are determined to live up to the historic responsibilities our country is facing,” Merz said on Monday. “It is about nothing less, and nothing more, than the democratic future of our country.” Germany faces political uncertainty in the aftermath of three hefty defeats for Merz’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) this month, with it ousted from a state parliament for the first time, and the far right and far left making strong gains at its expense. On Sunday the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) emerged victorious in the coastal northern state ofMecklenburg-Western Pomerania for the third time in a German state, securing 38%. The anti-immigration, pro-Russia AfD party’s leaders predicted Merz would be out of office in months, as they set their sights on securing victory at the next federal election in 2029. “The chancellor certainly won’t make it to the end of the year,” Leif-Erik Holm, the AfD’s top candidate in Mecklenburg, said. “I think the twilight of the chancellor’s era has begun.” Merz described the results as a “disaster”, in particular the CDU’s ejection from Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania’s state parliament, where it failed to reach the 5% barrier needed after losing more than half of its voters to the far-right AfD and centre-left Social Democrats. The result was all the more shocking as Mecklenburg was once a CDU stronghold. In Berlin on Sunday, the CDU fell to second place behind the far-left Linke party, which is on track to lead the next government in the city-state and could give Berlin its first Turkish-born mayor in its lead candidate, Elif Eralp. In Mecklenburg, the SPD under its existing state leader, Manuela Schwesig, is expected to lead a three-party coalition government. Her campaign had focused almost wholly on presenting herself as a buttress against the AfD, as well as distancing herself from the federal government’s reform agenda. The SPD is Merz’s coalition partner in the federal government. Although the CDU’s poor performance had been predicted, Sunday’s outcomes only added to the extreme pressure on Merz already after the CDU’s crushing defeat to the AfD in the state of Saxony-Anhalt two weeks ago, which triggered the first serious speculation over his future as leader. Last week, the CDU’s powerful regional leaders governing in eight states gave their backing to Merz, but questions remain as to how sustained their support will be. At the same time there appear to be few candidates willing to step up to the post, which is increasingly being viewed as a poisoned chalice. On Monday, Merz dismissed the idea that the outcome was a personal rebuke. “The reasons for these election results go far beyond my own person,” he said. “We are witnessing a profound transformation of the political party system in Germany as well as in many other countries around the world.” Karin Prien, the education minister and deputy CDU leader, accepted accusations that the government was failing to take voters’ fears seriously enough. But she said the government had no choice other than to continue trying to reform Germany from within, at a time of chronic economic weakness and global instability. “Without support and steadfastness we will not be able to achieve the necessary reforms, which are by no means a given. Nevertheless, not everything can remain as it is,” she told the broadcaster Deutschlandfunk. “The chancellor knows he will have to change, at least in how he addresses the people … We are a strong country, we have every chance of mastering this challenge together, but I believe that cooperating with each other will be crucial for this, and for the party it means we must broaden our appeal.” Doubts over the efficacy and fairness of the government’s agenda – which includes an overhaul of the pension system, a reduction in overbearing bureaucracy and cuts to income tax for the less well-off – played heavily into both election campaigns. On Monday, SPD leaders said they remained confident in their coalition with the CDU, but said that changes to the agenda were necessary. Lars Klingbeil, the deputy chancellor and finance minister, said: “Saying we will ignore what the voters said to us in three state polls won’t work.” While the country needed reforms, he said, they “must be fair and they need support in the population”. The labour minister, Bärbel Bas, also of the SPD, said the plans needed a “reality check”, but said “nothing would be more lethal than letting this coalition break apart over some technicality”. Rubbing salt into Merz’s wounds, the Kremlin on Monday waded into the election analysis, calling the AfD’s win in Mecklenburg a response to Berlin’s refusal to buy cheap Russian gas, which has jolted the economy and caused prices to soar, contributing to voter dissatisfaction. The Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said: “Naturally, Germans, or at least some of them, are looking for an alternative to the current authorities in order to improve their situation. That is a natural process.”

Germany’s Merz ‘grateful’ centre-left SPD wants to stay in coalition after CDU’s heavy losses – as it happened

I’ll draw the blog to a close for today. In Germany, Chancellor Friedrich Merz says his party’s losses to the far-right in two state elections this month mark a “profound turning point” for his conservative party and the political centre. For the first time in eight decades, the CDU was booted from state parliament, failing to gain the 5% voter base needed to enter. AfD’s triumphant co-leader Alice Wiedel said the results showed the anti-immigration, pro-Kremlin party had become the “people’s party” – while another party boss suggested Merz would be out of the party leader position by the end of the year Merz dismissed calls for him to go 16 months into term, digging in instead on his pledge to deliver reforms on tax, welfare and pensions. The EU and allies roundly condemned the “sham” parliamentary election held in Russia over the weekend, including in many occupied parts of Ukraine, refusing to recognise the results In the first elections held since Putin launched the full-scale invasion in 2022, his United Russia party won a supermajority of 355 of the 450 seats in the Duma. The results were a sham said Western democracies, given political parties critical of Putin were banned from the vote and there were no legitimate opposition candidates on the ballot paper. “The veneer of democracy is all that remains in Russia,” said European Commission VP Kaja Kallas. Many world leaders will be in New York tomorrow for the UN General Assembly talks, where talks with US President Trump loom on issues like NATO spending, Ukraine and Iran wars and even the Greenland deal hashed out.

The AfD thrives in the absence of mainstream parties that speak to people’s daily lives | Letters

Carolin Würfel is right to see the success of AfD in the eastern states of Germany as a way to protest against west German dominance (I know why many east Germans vote AfD. And no, it’s not an inherited longing for dictatorship, 15 September). But she overlooks the fact that the “takeover” of 1990 could not have been done much differently. Any path more resembling those of other east European nations would have led to mass migration to West Germany. In that sense the current situation is not the fault of western politicians and industrialists. One thing could and should have been done differently, though. An attempt to build a conservative-centrist party representing the east would have been important, instead of just transferring the western parties. Die Linke fulfilled such a role for some time, but from the left, not the centre. Now AfD fulfils this role from the right. In Bavaria, the Christian Social Union has exactly such a role and has helped to keep that state a stable member of the federal republic. A similar “Ost-Union” would have been important, but for that the 5% threshold in the federal voting laws would have had to be replaced by a state-based threshold. A new local party in one state, “Thüringen.Gerecht”, formed by former members of BSW, a split from Linke, could develop into such a role, but without federal representation it will be a very long road. Jürgen Schwarz Berlin • Carolin Würfel’s article highlights a dynamic that is not confined to Germany. The same forces are reshaping politics across Europe and the US, and they all begin with a widening gap between political leaders and the people they are meant to represent. In much of Europe, that gap produces cynicism. Many citizens feel that leaders are driven by party interests, media pressures and broad national narratives rather than the realities of daily life. When people sense that distance, they become receptive to parties like the AfD, which present themselves as the only ones willing to listen. In the US, the emotional response is different. What I see is not just cynicism but a deeper hopelessness – a belief that no leader or institution can address the problems people face. This is the environment in which Donald Trump rose to power. Like the AfD, his appeal comes from exploiting the disconnect between political rhetoric and lived experience. Across democracies, people are responding to the same underlying pressures: deindustrialisation, rapid technological change, climate‑driven disruption and large migration flows from countries experiencing severe poverty, state fragility and deep social fragmentation. These are human problems, not ideological talking points. When leaders fail to engage directly with individuals, frustration and hopelessness become political fuel for movements whose primary interest is power, not solutions. Mickey Wright Utah, US

Pakistan jails sisters of Imran Khan before protest seeking his release

Three sisters of Pakistan’s incarcerated former prime minister Imran Khan have been arrested amid a heavy-handed government crackdown on plans for a nationwide protest to demand Khan’s release. The lawyer for the three sisters, Aleema Khan, Uzma Khan and Noreen Niazi, said on Monday that they had all been detained and jailed for 30 days under a warrant that accused them of being a threat to public order. Leaders from Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) condemned the “illegal harassment” of his sisters. Since Khan was arrested and held in prison on corruption charges in 2023, his sisters have been vocal advocates for his release. His family and party allege that Khan is being kept in solitary confinement and has been denied visits and calls from his family for six months, as well as being allegedly prevented from accessing vital medical treatment for an eye condition. The arrest of Khan’s sisters marked a dramatic escalation of a crackdown on PTI members and supporters in the run up to a nationwide demonstration due to be held on Sunday – described as a “long march” – to demand the release of Khan and to protest an alleged erosion of democracy and the constitution under the ruling coalition government. None of Khan’s sisters hold a political position in PTI. Since protesting against their brother’s detention – including by camping outside the prison where he is held, demanding to see him – they have been named in various court cases. This is the first time they have all been held in prison. Aleema was arrested in Lahore on Sunday as she was travelling to a private club; her driver was also picked up by police. Uzma and Noreen were then arrested at around 3am on Monday morning, after they held a press conference to condemn Aleema’s detention at her house in Lahore. According to their lawyer, Rana Mudassir Umar, hundreds of police officers later surrounded the family home as more than 100 entered to arrest Uzma and Noreen, as well as their children, grandchildren – who are four and six years old – and the household staff. The house was raided and all their phones were taken. By 7am on Monday morning, the children and grandchildren had been released but the three sisters were held and charged under the country’s Maintenance of Public Order law, according to Umar. He said: “They have not been allowed any family access, no legal counsellor access and they were not even allowed to bring clothes or basic things. “We have challenged their arrests in the high court in Lahore and [are] hoping we will get a hearing soon.” While Pakistan is ostensibly ruled by a civilian coalition government, the army is widely regarded as the country’s most powerful establishment, led by Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshall Asim Munir, who fell out with Khan while Khan was prime minister. The current government was brought to power in an election in 2024 which was widely documented as rigged, allegedly by military intervention, to prevent Khan’s party returning to power. Speaking to the Guardian last week, Khan’s two sons, who are based in London and fighting for his release, accused Munir of a “personal vendetta” against their father and alleged the Pakistani authorities were “slowly killing” Khan in prison. Interior minister Mohsin Naqvi said on Monday that the government would “find a permanent solution” to prevent to march going ahead and shutting down swathes of the country “once and for all”. Despite Khan’s lengthy incarceration, he is still regarded as Pakistan’s most popular politician and there are fears among officials that large numbers could turn out to support PTI’s march on Sunday. It is being held as discontentment is rife on the streets amid an economic crisis and crippling petrol shortages due to the turmoil in the Middle East and the Gulf. Disgust at the alleged mistreatment of Khan is also widespread. Khan’s party has faced constant harassment over the past three years, with most senior PTI figures either in jail or pressed to leave politics. Sheikh Waqas Akram, a senior PTI leader, said the government feared that hundreds of thousands of people may turn out to the long march and “topple the government”, as protest movements have done recently in neighbouring countries such as Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka. Over the weekend, the capital of Pakistan, Islamabad, was transformed into a fortress of heavy security, with barriers and heavy armed security lining the roads and shipping containers placed to block the entrances into the city. “Punjab police are raiding houses, harassing families, bulldozing houses and arresting workers and families,” Akram said. “They are going to insane levels to crush the long march and stop it with violence and arrests. This illegitimate government know they can’t survive if people are allowed to protest and march on Islamabad in huge numbers.”