MANILA: Philippine police vowed on Monday to revamp and intensify a fight against crime and drugs, a week after President Rodrigo Duterte promised no letup in a bloody crackdown that has alarmed the international community.
“Surgical and chilling will be the trademark of the reinvigorated anti-illegal drugs and anti-criminality campaign,” police chief Oscar Albayalde told a news conference.
Thousands of suspected drug dealers and users have been killed in the past two years in what police say were shootouts.
Police have rejected accusations by activists that suspects were being systematically executed, based on weak intelligence and with the assumed backing of Duterte.
Prosecutors of the International Criminal Court (ICC) have launched a preliminary examination to assess whether crimes against humanity may have been committed. Duterte in March canceled the Philippines’ ICC membership in protest.
Albayalde said Duterte’s war on drugs would be “recalibrated,” and there would be renewed focus and intensity, with “built-in safeguards” to ensure operations were lawful and protected human rights.
A police oversight committee would be formed, he said.
The police chief warned of “frightful” consequences for anyone who continued to sell drugs.
He said police intelligence had identified 893 “high-value targets,” warning that they and “their patrons and protectors” would receive a “strong message of the certainty of punishment.”
Albayalde said nearly 1.3 million drug users and street peddlers had surrendered, and that they would be strictly monitored, including 215,000 who have undergone rehabilitation.
Philippine police have several times promised to overhaul the anti-drugs campaign, although human rights groups say there has been little noticeable change.
Philippine police vow ‘surgical and chilling’ war on drugs, crime
Philippine police vow ‘surgical and chilling’ war on drugs, crime
Ben & Jerry’s risks ‘destruction’ under parent company Magnum, co-founder says
- Ben Cohen’s remarks part of long-running dispute over ice cream maker’s freedom to pursue social mission
- Company has long supported pro-Palestinian cause through business operations
LONDON: The co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s has said the ice cream brand will be destroyed if it remains with parent company Magnum, the BBC reported.
Ben Cohen’s remarks are the latest in a longtime feud between Ben & Jerry’s and Magnum over the former’s freedom to pursue its social mission and retain independence over its board.
The Magnum Ice Cream Co. on Monday began trading on the European stock market after spinning off from owner Unilever.
Magnum wants to strengthen Ben & Jerry’s “powerful, nonpartisan values-based position in the world,” a spokesperson said.
In 2000, Ben & Jerry’s was sold to Unilever as part of a deal that saw it retain an independent board and the right to pursue its social mission.
But the deal led to clashes between the Vermont, US brand and its owner.
The feud has now been inherited by Magnum.
Ben & Jerry’s has long supported the Palestinian cause. In 2021 it prohibited the sale of its products in areas occupied by Israel.
In response, its Israeli operation was sold by Unilever to a local licensee.
In October, Cohen said the brand was prevented from launching an ice cream product that expressed “solidarity with Palestine.”
Ahead of its spin-off from Unilever last month, Magnum said that Anuradha Mittal, chair of Ben & Jerry’s, “no longer met the criteria to serve.”
Mittal has held the position since 2018 but was encouraged to resign following an internal audit conducted by Magnum, which found a “series of material deficiencies in financial controls, governance and other compliance policies, including conflicts of interest,” according to a spokesperson.
“So far, the trustees have not fully addressed the deficiencies identified.”
Mittal, speaking to Reuters, said: “The so-called audit of the foundation was a manufactured inquiry, engineered to attempt to discredit me.
“It is important to understand that this is not simply an attack on me as chair, it is Unilever’s attempt to undermine the authority of the board itself.”
Cohen said that Magnum had “no standing to determine who the chair of the independent board should be.”
“Therefore, by trying to (change the chair of the board), I would say that Magnum is not fit to own Ben & Jerry’s.”
Ben & Jerry’s must be either owned by a “group of investors that support the brand” and sought to encourage its values, or Magnum should make a “180-degree turnaround and say they support the chairman of the independent board,” Cohen said.
Mittal said she had no plans to step down from the board ahead of Magnum’s share market entry this week.
Cohen is still an employee of Ben & Jerry’s and is the most high-profile spokesperson for the brand. But he told the BBC that under Magnum’s ownership, the ice cream maker could end up losing its most “loyal” customers.
“If the company continues to be owned by Magnum, not only will the values be lost but the essence of the brand will be lost,” he said.
Magnum CEO Peter ter Kulve told the Financial Times on Sunday that Ben & Jerry’s founders — Cohen and Jerry Greenfield — were in their 70s and “at a certain moment they need to hand over to a new generation.”
Greenfield left the company this year over concerns that its social mission was being stifled.
Cohen said: “As they destroy Ben and Jerry’s values, they will destroy that following and they will destroy that brand. It’ll become just another piece of frozen mush that is just going to lose a lot of market share.”
