Foreign news
The lawsuit against the NRA is just a tool for party conflict
Editor’s note: Li Yun is a researcher at the Institute of Foreign Military Research of the Department of War Research, China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Academy of Military Sciences. The article reflects the author’s opinions, and not necessarily the views of CGTN.
On August 6, New York State Attorney General Letitia James announced a lawsuit calling for the dissolution of the National Rifle Association (NRA). She said that the association is full of corruption and some executives are wantonly squandering public funds, causing irreversible damage to the association’s ability to operate as a non-profit organization. The lawsuit caused an uproar as soon as it was announced.
As we all know, in the United States, the “right to bear arms” is not only a social issue, but also an ideological and political one. Its direct legal basis is the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The NRA is not only the largest organization supporting this right in the United States, but also one of the most powerful lobby groups. Moreover, even if the NRA’s executive corruption case is established and some executives are brought to justice, it does not mean that the NRA can be dissolved. Even if the NRA is dissolved, it doesn’t mean that gun violence, a chronic disease of American society, can be solved overnight.
So why is the New York State Attorney General doing this? Given that New York State is governed by the Democratic Party, Letitia James is a Democrat, and that it is less than three months to the presidential election, the lawsuit is more like a tool of the party struggle. With the U.S. economy falling by as much as 32.9 percent in the second quarter, the cumulative number of COVID-19 cases in the U.S. is approaching 5 million, and Trump still lags far behind Biden in the polls, the Democratic Party may intend to take this lawsuit to launch a new attack on Trump.
The NRA has been a firm supporter of Trump since the 2016 election. Last month, the NRA once again made it clear that it supports Trump’s re-election. The prosecution of the NRA at this time will not only divert the association’s resources from the Republican Party, but also make it unable to play its full role in supporting Trump’s election.
At the same time, the Democratic Party can also use this lawsuit to unite its own voters and further mobilize voters to actively participate in voting. Many experts regard the failure of Democratic voters to actively participate in voting as an important reason for Hillary Clinton to lose the presidential election in 2016. To prevent history from repeating itself, the Democratic Party will have to use various issues to mobilize its own voters.
However, the Democratic Party’s move may backfire and help the Trump’s campaign. The “right to bear arms” is a highly controversial topic in the United States. Raising this topic at this time can divert people’s attention from the dismal economy and the Trump’s failure in handling COVID-19. Also, it could cause a fierce response from Trump supporters, given their ardent support for the NRA, and help the Republican Party mobilize its base.
Obviously, the Republicans are also aware of this potential. As soon as the New York prosecutor announced the lawsuit, Trump scolded it as a conspiracy by the Democratic Party. He said: “Just like Radical Left New York is trying to destroy the NRA, if Biden becomes President your GREAT SECOND AMENDMENT doesn’t have a chance. Your guns will be taken away, immediately and without notice. No police, no guns!”
No matter what the real purpose of lawsuit is or whether the lawsuit is successful, the lawsuit will further tear apart the American society which has been extremely divided ideologically. Politicians, both Democratic and Republican, are well aware that the lawsuit will further exacerbate social fragmentation. The lawsuit and the response of the two parties to the lawsuit have shown that, for the sake of party interests, the two parties have given up their efforts to bridge social fragmentation and unite the people and no longer hope to win votes from the opposing camp. The campaign strategy of both parties is to take advantage of the extreme fragmentation of American society to mobilize their own voters to vote.
Therefore, our next focus should not be on the final outcome of the lawsuit and its impact on the Second Amendment to the Constitution, but on the impact of the lawsuit on the presidential election in November. Whether this lawsuit is the “last straw” that overwhelms Trump or Trump’s “August surprise,” let us wait and see.
(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)
Foreign news
Court of Arbitration Declares Indus Waters Treaty Fully Operational Rejects India’s ‘Abeyance’
Cyril Ogar
The Court of Arbitration has unanimously reaffirmed that the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) remains fully in force, ruling that India cannot unilaterally place the 1960 agreement in “abeyance” or suspend its obligations under the treaty.
The decision represents a significant legal development in the longstanding dispute between India and Pakistan over the management and use of the Indus river system.
The Court’s finding addresses a fundamental issue at the heart of the dispute: whether either party can unilaterally suspend the treaty outside the legal framework agreed by both countries.
In its unanimous determination, the Court made clear that the IWT continues to bind both India and Pakistan and that its obligations cannot be set aside through a unilateral political declaration.
The ruling means India remains subject to the treaty provisions governing the use of the Western Rivers, including requirements relating to the design and operation of hydroelectric projects, as well as the dispute-resolution mechanisms established under the agreement.
The Court has also ordered interim measures concerning the Ratle Hydroelectric Plant, restricting specified construction activities while the broader dispute remains under consideration.
The measures are aimed at preserving the effectiveness of the arbitration process and preventing developments that could prejudice the outcome of the proceedings.
For Pakistan, the decision represents significant legal validation of its longstanding position that the IWT is a binding international agreement and contains no provision allowing either party to unilaterally place it in abeyance.
Pakistan has consistently maintained that disagreements over the treaty should be addressed through the institutional mechanisms established by the agreement, rather than through unilateral action.
The IWT provides a structured framework for resolving disputes through mechanisms including the Permanent Indus Commission, Neutral Expert and Court of Arbitration processes.
The latest ruling therefore reinforces the principle that treaty obligations cannot simply be disregarded because of deteriorating political relations between signatories.
The significance of the decision extends beyond the India-Pakistan dispute. It underscores the broader international-law principle that agreements governing shared rivers and other transboundary resources must be respected and disputes resolved through established legal and institutional channels.
The Indus river system supports agriculture, livelihoods, food security and communities across the region, making the stability of the treaty particularly important.
The ruling also highlights the distinction between seeking to amend an international agreement through mutually agreed procedures and attempting to alter its obligations unilaterally.
The IWT has endured wars, prolonged diplomatic tensions and periods of limited bilateral engagement. Its continued operation demonstrates the importance of rules-based mechanisms in managing shared resources when relations between neighbouring states become strained.
For Pakistan, the outcome provides an opportunity to frame the decision not merely as a bilateral legal victory, but as an affirmation of international law, treaty compliance and peaceful dispute resolution.
The central message from the ruling is clear: the Indus Waters Treaty remains in force, its obligations continue to bind both parties, and disputes concerning shared waters must be addressed through the legal mechanisms agreed by India and Pakistan.
-
Featured7 years agoLampard Names New Chelsea Manager
-
Featured6 years agoFG To Extends Lockdown In FCT, Lagos Ogun states For 7days
-
Featured7 years agoChildren Custody: Court Adjourns Mike Ezuruonye, Wife’s Case To April 7
-
Featured7 years agoNYSC Dismisses Report Of DG’s Plan To Islamize Benue Orientation Camp
-
Featured5 years agoTransfer Saga: How Mikel Obi Refused to compensate me After I Linked Him Worth $4m Deal In Kuwait SC – Okafor
-
Featured7 years ago
Board urges FG to establish one-stop rehabilitation centres in 6 geopolitical zones
-
Sports4 years ago
TINUBU LAMBAST DELE MOMODU
-
News2 years agoZulu to Super Eagles B team, President Tinubu is happy with you
