The dissimulation surrounding the UAE-Israeli alliance hides a quid pro quo for Trump’s re-election campaign

Despite denying secret relations with Israel for decades, the UAE has now officially normalised ties but the timing benefits US President Donald Trump the most, argues Ernest Khoury

Palestinians are angry at the decision [Getty]

ErnestKhoury
The dissimulation surrounding the UAE-Israeli alliance hides a quid pro quo for Trump’s re-election campaign

Date of publication: 15 August, 2020

Whenever it was accused of harbouring relations with Israel, the United Arab Emirates lied repeatedly over the past 25 years, as it was concluding a secret alliance with Tel Aviv that encompasses security, political, economic, and cultural collaboration. The lies continued to be the framing hallmark of the official Emirati position, even as it announced a peace deal with Israel that just makes official what had already been ongoing for a quarter of a century.

But while those lies may have been understandable before 13 August 2020, the day the Emirati-Israeli alliance (not just normalisation) was made official, why did the UAE continue to lie after? What is it hiding behind the farce of invoking the annexation of the West Bank by Israel, and the false claim of credit by Mohammed bin Zayed of having stopped it by forging the alliance with Tel Aviv?

The whole world knows that the postponement of annexation is unrelated to imaginary stunts by the rulers of the UAE, and is rather the result of a domestic political crisis in Israel that Benjamin Netanyahu and Benny Gantz have been unable to resolve and agree when it comes to the details of annexation, as the Trump administration has demanded them to do.

In truth, the audacity of the agreement is only surpassed by the magnitude of Mohammed bin Zayed’s lies. Even the Israeli media has been unable to swallow the blatant falsehoods, despite having for years celebrated the humiliating prostration of Emirati rulers and their cronies towards Israel and any Israeli official they spot no matter how junior or insignificant. Indeed, minutes after the Abu Dhabi-Tel Aviv alliance was made public, Israel’s KAN 11 TV quoted an Israeli official as saying that the annexation of the West Bank was still on the agenda, as though telling the crown prince of Abu Dhabi: Spare us and yourself the macho stunts!

In reality, the UAE, by announcing the alliance with Israel, was only doing its part to help save Donald Trump’s stalling election campaign. Trump, who faces a looming electoral defeat on November 3, was very keen to portray himself as the third US president (After Jimmy Carter in Camp David; and Bill Clinton with Wadi Araba and Oslo Accords) as the broker of a new Arab-Israeli peace deal.

Trump believes this would be seen as an achievement, even if rare for his administration, in foreign policy, one that could be used to boost his campaign before November. This amid continued diplomatic failures for his administration, from Venezuela, to relations with NATO allies, China, Russia, and Iran, which Trump has failed to force into an alternative nuclear deal to replace the 2016 JCPOA, not to mention the Gulf crisis, which had nearly been resolved a little more than a month ago, before Mohammed bin Zayed’s vetoes kicked in and denied Trump a diplomatic victory to supplant these failures.
Read also: 'Deal of shame': UAE formally endorses Israel's occupation of Palestine

It follows that the timing of announcing the Emirati-Israeli alliance had been carefully chosen by all sides concerned, including the United States, to act as a diplomatic gift to one person: Donald Trump, the candidate, not the president. Otherwise, the UAE would have spared itself another lie contained in the declaration of the alliance, which claimed that it had been brokered by Donald Trump personally.

But what did Trump broker exactly? Do they really think the world is oblivious to how warm UAE-Israel relations have been for at least the past 20 years? Do they believe people do not watch or read the news, and know about the routine joint military exercises between the UAE and Israel? Do they think people do not know about the Emirati planes landing in Ben Gurion Airport, the almost weekly mutual visits of both sides’ officials, and the tweets of mutual appreciation between Netanyahu and the sons of Zayed, let alone the other Emirati officials who profess fondness of the rulers in Tel Aviv?
Do they think no one remembers the meetings between the UAE ambassador to Washington Yousef al-Otaiba and all senior Israeli officials, including Netanyahu? What about Otaiba’s presence at the announcement of the Trump-Netanyahu plan on 28 January, to bless the liquidation of what remains of the Palestinian cause? Do they really think that people are ignorant of the fact that the Israeli-Emirati alliance had long ago reached the level at which the UAE sees Israel’s enemies as its enemies, and dreams of fighting them side by side with Israel?

The declaration of the UAE-Israel alliance should have taken place 25 years ago and spare our ears and eyes the serial lies and remove the clouds from the eyes of some simple minded folk. Instead, many Arab rulers only envy Mohammed bin Zayed and hope to walk in his footsteps, towards embracing Israel.



This is an edited translation of the original published by our Arabic sister site al-Araby al-Jadeed
Have questions or comments? Email us at editorial-english@alaraby.co.uk

Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab.

Officials apologize and say charges will be dropped after Black reporter is arrested covering Proud Boys rally

By Hollie Silverman, CNN Mon August 17, 2020

Reporter Samuel Robinson was arrested while covering a rally and counterprotest in Michigan on Saturday.
(CNN)Officials in Kalamazoo have apologized for the arrest of a Black reporter who was covering a Proud Boys rally and counterprotests on Saturday, according to affiliate reports.
MLive reporter Samuel Robinson was covering the far-right group's rally and counterprotest and posting updates on social media most of the day.
In video taken by Robinson, the journalist could be heard telling officers several times that he was a member of the media as he was arrested with his identification lanyard around his neck.
"I'm being arrested now," Robinson said in the video. "I'm media, dude. I'm media. I'm with MLive. I'm with MLive," he said before the video cuts out.



Arresting reporters at a protest is an affront to the First Amendment
Robinson was released the same day on a $100 bond on a charge of impeding traffic, MLive reported.
On Sunday, Kalamazoo officials addressed the rally and arrests, saying they were sorry about the reporter's arrest and his charges would be dropped.
"I apologize for the trauma that it caused to this young man," Kalamazoo Public Safety Chief Karianne Thomas said during the news conference, CNN affiliate WOOD-TV reported. "We all respect the sanctity of the press."
Mayor David Anderson said the reporter had been released and the charges against him had been dropped, according to affiliate WWMT.
Robinson was among nine adults and one minor who were arrested during Saturday's event, Thomas said according to the WWMT. She did not know whether those arrested were counterprotesters or members of the Proud Boys but she said she didn't believe any Proud Boys were arrested, the affiliate reported.
The mayor said that he is consulting with the city attorney about dropping charges against the five people who were arrested whose cases are being handled by the city, WWMT reported.
"We will soon have an answer back on that but I've made that request and that is not normal for a mayor to interject themselves into the legal system in that way, but that's relating to five folks who were charged under city ordinances," Anderson said, according to WWMT.
In the video taken by Robinson, physical altercations between Proud Boys rally attendees and counterprotesters could be seen breaking out with no police officers present.
When police began to respond to the scene after fights broke out, video posted by Robinson showed them move in on the groups to get things under control. As Robinson walked with the police while filming, he was arrested.
According to CNN affiliate WOOD-TV, Thomas said that officers had been aware of the planned rally and counterprotests since July and were prepared with 111 officers in place to respond if the event took a turn.
Thomas said that there were several officers in unmarked vehicles and a sniper standing by, WOOD-TV reported.

HBO's Lovecraft Country Exposes the Dark History of America's "Sundown Towns"

By KOFI OUTLAW - August 17, 2020 12:25 am EDT

HBO's Lovecraft Country premiere sees a trio of African-American characters in 1950s Chicago trying to locate a missing family member who vanished in the "Lovecraft Country" region of Massachusetts. The road trip brings Atticus Freeman (Jonathan Majors), "Uncle" George Freeman (Courtney B. Vance), and Leti Lewis (Jurnee Smollet) into contact with horrific creatures of the occult - but those monsters are not the scariest things the group faces. The cross-country journey forces the group into a harrowing life or death chase to escape a "Sundown Town," which is indeed a very real (and dark) part of America's history.
Warning: Lovecraft Country SPOILERS Follow!

Atticus, Geroge, and Leti arrive in Devon Country in the Northeast (Pennsylvania?), and stop their car on the side of the road, trying to get their bearings for the next leg of the journey. During that rest period, the trio is happened upon by the infamously racist Devon County sheriff, who lines them up and demands to know why the group is in the area. George explains that they are simply taking a bathroom break, but the sheriff isn't interested in simply letting them be.

The lawman asks Geroge, Atticus, and Leti if they know what "Sundown Towns" are, and when they acknowledge they do, he tells them they are in a "sundown county." He then makes the not-so-subtle threat that if he had found them "pissing like animals" after sundown, it would be his duty to lynch them. What unfolds next is arguably Lovecraft Country's tensest scene, as the Atticus and co. have to outrace the sheriff to the country line before the sun falls, and seals their fate.


(Photo: HBO)
In real life, Sundown Towns (and Sundown Counties or Sundown Suburbs) have been a part of American culture ever since the Reconstruction era following the Civil War, and the implementation of the Jim Crow laws. The purpose was to exclude blacks and other non-whites from taking up residence in all-white areas, using a combination of discriminatory local laws and mandates, intimidation tactics, or outright violence. Signs were usually displayed to let people of color know to be out of the region by sundown or face harsh penalties, which could range from fines and imprisonment to outright assault and/or murder. The Sundown Town mandate gave these barbaric acts a veil of instituted legality that took many years to overturn.
While it would be easy to say that Sundown Towns are now things of the past, the truth is much less certain. Sundown Towns operated in murky areas of the official record - presumably on purpose. There's circumstantial evidence that these areas existed (old signs or ads, etc.), but very little in the way of official record or ordinance about the mandate. Nor do we have a clear record of which cities, towns, suburbs, or other regions participated in it, and for how long. Historians debate the details, but it's suspected that hundreds of cities or municipalities in America (in the North as well as the South) have been Sundown Towns at some point in their history. It's also suspected that while the practice was largely killed off following the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, it's not completely gone in some places, even today.
As the Sundown Town scene in Lovecraft Country reminds us, the old ways still feel plenty new.

0ore: Lovecraft Country Non-Spoiler Review (Eps 1 - 5)
Lovecraft Country airs Sundays on HBO.
Disclosure: ComicBook is owned by CBS Interactive, a division of ViacomCBS.

In this video we take a look at why Cosmic Horror (or Lovecraftian Horror) is so hard to adapt onto the screen because of its visual complexity and abstraction.

Internal USPS documents raise questions about effectiveness of sorting machines removal order

By Paul P. Murphy and Curt Devine, CNN



Sun August 16, 2020

United States Postal Service trucks are parked at a postal facility in Chicago on August 15, 2019.

(CNN)The potential effectiveness of an order issued Sunday to stop the removal of United States Postal Service sorting machines is now in question.
Internal USPS planning documents obtained by CNN indicate nearly 95% of the mail sorting machines that had been set for removal during the last few months were already scheduled to be taken out of service by now.
White House chief of staff Mark Meadows told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union" that the USPS would not remove any more mail sorting machines until after the election.

Amid criticism, USPS says it will stop removing collection boxes for 90 days
Documents from June, obtained by CNN, show the USPS planned to remove 502 DBCS (Delivery Barcode Sorter) machines, or 13.2% of its total inventory by September 30. These machines make up the bulk of the USPS mail sort operation. They sort envelope mail, which would include ballots en route to voters. However, nearly 95%, or 475, of those were scheduled to be removed by the end of July according to documents.

It's unclear how many machines the USPS has actually removed at this point. CNN has reached out to the USPS to confirm if this plan was followed and what the current number of these machines is nationwide. However, union officials across the US have confirmed to CNN that a number of these machines, and other mail sorting machines, have been removed or are in the process of removal.

Meanwhile, CNN has obtained photos from a source with knowledge of the machines' removal showing a disassembled DBCS machine. The majority of the machine is being scrapped; part of it will remain in use by the USPS.
CNN has previously reported that union officials had said the destination of each removed machine varies. Some are scrapped entirely while some are transferred to other facilities.

Foiled In Security Council: The United States, Extending Arms Embargoes And Iran – OpEd

Flags of the United States and Iran. Photo Credit: Tasnim News Agency

August 17, 2020  By Binoy Kampmark

There are no official policing authorities as such when it comes to international relations. Realists imagine a jungle of states, the preyed upon and the predators, a grim state of affairs moderated by alliances, agreements and understandings. But there is one body whose resolutions are recognised as having binding force: the Security Council, that most powerful of creatures in that jumble known as the United Nations.

To convince the permanent five on the Security Council to reach agreement is no easy feat. There are the occasional humiliations in the failure to get resolutions passed, but whether it be the US, Russia, China, France or the UK, wise heads tend to prevail. Best put forth resolutions with at least some chance of garnering support. Rejection will be hard to take.

On August 14, a degree of humiliation was heaped upon the US delegation. Washington seemed to have read the situation through fogged goggles, assuming that it would get the nine votes needed to extend arms restrictions on Iran due to expire in October under Resolution 2231. Of the 15 members, only two – the United States and Dominican Republic – felt the need to vote for it. Russia and China strongly opposed it; the rest were abstentions. Previous warnings that any such quixotic effort was bound to fail had been ignored.

The body most shown up in all of this was the US State Department and, it followed, its indignant chief Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. “The UN Security Council failed today to hold Iran accountable,” he raged on Twitter. “It enabled the world’s top state sponsor of terrorism to buy and sell deadly weapons and ignored the demands of countries in the Middle East. America will continue to work to correct this mistake.” He also called the position taken by Britain and France “unfortunate”, as it had only been the US view to “keep the same rules that have been in place since 2007.”

US ambassador to the UN, Kelly Craft, took it personally, giving the impression that she saw it coming in the diplomatic tangle. “The United States is sickened but not surprised by the outcome of today’s UNSC vote. The Council’s failure to extend the Iran’s arm embargo is a devastating blow to the Council’s credibility.” She also promised that the US would “not abandon the region to Iranian terror and intimidation, and when we look for partners in that effort, we will look beyond the UN Security Council.”

The humiliation gave Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi much room to gloat. “In the 75 years of United Nations history, America has never been so isolated,” he confidently asserted. “Despite all the trips, pressure, and the hawking, the United States could only mobilize a small country [to vote] with them.”


There was much that sat oddly in this enterprise. It showed a US effort strongly driven by the anti-Iranian Middle East coven of Arab Gulf states, along with Israel. That said, the position amongst those states is not uniform either. In the words of Mutlaq bin Majid Al-Qahtani, special envoy of the Qatari Minister of Foreign Affairs for Combating Terrorism and Mediation in Settlement of Disputes, “Iran is a neighbouring country with which we have good neighbourly relations, and it has a position that we value in the State of Qatar, the government and the people, especially during the unjust blockade on Qatar.”

Absurdly, Pompeo has promised to see how the US might rely on a provision in the nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action it unilaterally left in 2018, which permits a “snapback”. Triggering it would entail a return to the full complement of UN sanctions against Iran. This novel take was also given an airing by Craft. “Under Resolution 2231, the United States has every right to initiate snapback of provisions of previous Security Council resolutions.”

In April, Reuters noted the view of a European diplomat that it was “very difficult to present yourself as a compliance watcher of a resolution you decided to pull out of. Either you’re in or either you’re out.” Samuel M. Hickey from the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation also warned in May that invoking the snapback provision, especially by a non-party, “would not only underscore US isolation on the global stage, it might also undermine the effectiveness of the UNSC by creating a dispute over the validity of a UNSC resolution.” Russia and China expressed similar readings: it was a bit rich to trigger provisions in an agreement so publicly repudiated.

Iran, in turn, huffed at the very idea of a snapback through its UN ambassador Majid Takht-Ravanchi. “Imposition of any sanctions or restrictions on Iran by the Security Council will be met severely by Iran and our options are not limited.”

This entire act of gross miscalculation did its fair share of harm, though not in the sense understood by Pompeo and his officials. It spoke to a clumsy unilateralism masquerading as credible support; to great power obstinacy misguided in attaining a goal. It was not the UN Security Council that had failed, but the US that had failed it, an effort that many at the UN are reading as directed at torching the remnants of the Iran nuclear deal. The assessment of the US effort by former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter was sharp and relevant. “You got the Dominican Republic on board (how much did that cost the US taxpayer?) Not a single other nation voted with you! The shining city on the hill has been reduced to a glow, like the embers of a dying fire.”

Home » Foiled In Security Council: The United States, Extending Arms Embargoes And Iran – OpEd

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.

AND IF YOU WONDER WHY THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC SUPPORTED THE USA

LETS FLASHBACK TO 1965 AND THE UPRISING IN THE DR PUT DOWN BY BLACK US MARINES, FIRST TIME BLACK MARINES WERE USED TO PUT DOWN A REBELLION OF BLACK PEOPLE, THEY MUTINIED IN SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE WHEN ORDERED TO FIRE ON THEM. THEY WERE CONFINED TO BARRACKS, WHILE WHITE TROOPS FROM TENNESSEE RESTORED STATE POWER.

SCARS OF A MASSACRE
Eight years later, families of killed Marikana miners still seek justice

By Zukiswa Pikoli• 14 August 2020

A file picture dated 23 August 2012 of family members and members of Wonderkop informal settlement gathering on a hillside overlooking the scene of the massacre following a memorial service held in honour of Lonmin mineworkers who were killed by police in Marikana near Rustenburg. South African President Zuma and the Presidency announced on 25 June 2015 to release a report the same date that inquired on the death of 34 miners in August 2012 during during a platinum mine strike in Rustenburg. (Photo: EPA/STR) Less

On 16 August 2012, 34 miners were shot and killed by the South African police in what became known as the Marikana Massacre. The killing were a culmination of a three-week strike and stand off between unions and mining bosses.

On Thursday 13 August, the Socio Economic Rights Institute (SERI) commemorated the Marikana massacre by hosting a webinar discussion. Marikana has emerged as a definitive moment that highlights the endemic violence of the police while addressing protest and attempting to disperse gatherings.

Nowili Nungu,the daughter of Jackson Lehopa who was one of the miners who died eight years ago, shared her experience of losing her father. She said that life had been very painful and difficult as he was the family’s breadwinner. After her father’s death, she was left with so many questions such as “how are we going to live without a father, six siblings without a father?”

“I even considered leaving school and finding a job to help my mother,” says Nungu.

She was currently doing a diploma in public relations and thanked those that helped her along the way, naming AMCU president Joseph Mathunjwa and SERI among these people.

Nungu says that she feels as though there still is no justice eight years later. Whenever she sees someone wearing a police uniform it reminds her that they are the reason she no longer has a father.

“No one has been held accountable” she says. “Having a single parent, it’s not nice.”

Sebolai Liau’s father was also killed at Marikana.‘“My father passed on when I was 14 years old and I was doing Grade 8,” says Liau. “I was forced to play a father’s role to my four-year-old sibling.” He feels that he was “socially and emotionally abused both by the police and the prevailing circumstances”.

Liau said he would have expected to hear that some of the policemen had been arrested, yet they are still living their lives. He closed off his input saying: “May the souls of the departed rest in peace.”

Sbu Zikode from the civil society organisation Abahlali base Mjondolo pointed out that there had been some journalists, NGOs and academics who had supported repression of Abahlali. He pointed out that state violence has continued with government-sanctioned illegal evictions during the state of disaster – evidenced by many people being beaten, tortured and shot. He said that attempts to open and pursue cases have been unsuccessful and that the brutalisation of people continued. Zikode said these incidents show that the police and state are working against, and not for, the people.

“We do what we do because of the deep love we have for our country,” implored Zikode as he explained the organisation’s fight to ensure that shack dwellers’ rights are not violated. The state was creating an angry society, Zikode said. He said that he sees this moment as an opportunity to build unity and solidarity in the midst of the brutality faced by people.

“We are here to call [for] justice for Marikana.”

Axolile Notywala, from the Social Justice Coalition, said that the Marikana massacre highlighted a culture of impunity encouraged by those in leadership positions.“We have a failed and failing leadership who continue to fail at governing and fulfilling the promises of the Constitution,” said Notywala.

This results in the state governing through law enforcement agencies like the police and army. “We are becoming a police state,” said Notywala. He said that the illegal evictions that had been taking place particularly in Cape Town, speak to the state’s failure to provide dignified basic services. Failure to redistribute land has meant that people expropriate land for themselves.

Notywala said that people have a constitutional right to protest if services are not delivered. However, when they do “they are met with the barrel of the gun”. He argued that, in as much as those in law enforcement on the ground need to be held accountable, they are acting on the instructions of officials in high positions and that those high-ranking officials need to also be held accountable for sanctioning killings.

He also spoke of the importance and impact of language used by the state to criminalise people. He said using language like “land invasions” instead of “land occupation” and “illegal protesting” when there is no such thing as an illegal protest, is used to trigger the police to action.

Notywala said “this language shows disdain for black lives, Marikana, Andries Tatane, Abahlali and the murder of Collins Khosa all shows complete disdain for black lives in South Africa.”

He said that what we see currently playing out should not be allowed to happen and the onus is on us as South Africans, to ensure that those perpetrating injustices go to jail.

Adele Kirsten, who was part of the Marikana panel of experts on policing and crowd management, said that South Africa was witnessing a continued use of unlawful force by the police and that “it is deeply rooted in how the SAPS understands its role as a police service in our country”. There has been a missed opportunity to use the report’s findings and recommendations as a way to transform into a different kind of policing.

The report dealt extensively with the use of weapons and established that weapons of automatic fire are prohibited when dealing with crowd management. The report also established that any use of force had to be in line with international human rights law and principles.

The report found that what precipitated Marikana was inappropriate political interference as well as failure and non-accountability of top police management. The panel handed over the report to the minister of police in 2018.

DM/MC https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/

WTO’s ruling on plain packaging of tobacco a victory in war on smoking


By Sharon Nyatsanza and Savera Kalideen• 16 August 2020


Packs of Philip Morris International Inc. Marlboro Menthol cigarettes in the new packaging are arranged for a photograph at a tobacco store in Melbourne, Australia, on Monday, Oct. 1, 2012. Photographer: Carla Gottgens/Bloomberg via Getty Images Less

Now that the World Trade Organisation has ruled that plain packaging of tobacco products does not violate trade rules, the door is open for South Africa to go ahead with stricter controls.

The World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) Appellate body recently confirmed that Australia’s tobacco plain-packaging measures are in compliance with trade rules and obligations; laying to rest all concerns that the measures may be in conflict with WTO law.
The WTO Appellate body found that plain packaging measures are suitable to reduce the appeal of tobacco products, enhance the effectiveness of health warnings, and reduce the ability of packaging features to mislead consumers.

This serves as a green light for South Africa’s Control of Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Bill which introduces tobacco plain packaging measures. It also provides valuable lessons not only for the tobacco control community, but for the entire public health community.

Tobacco plain packaging measures are effective

Plain packaging measures aim to restrict the advertising and promotion of tobacco products. As noted by Philip Morris International executive Mark Hulit, the “final communication vehicle with our smoker is the pack itself… when you don’t have anything else — our packaging is our marketing”.

The measure involves the removal of all graphic design elements, logos and non-word marks on all tobacco packaging and products; only the brand names are permitted. The result will be a uniform presentation of all tobacco packages.

Global evidence pre- and post-implementation shows that these measures are apt to contribute to its objectives. A 2014 study undertaken at the University of Pretoria noted a higher response rate to pictorial warning labels than to word warnings. In the UK evidence shows that people are more likely to notice and read the health warnings closely, think about the risks of smoking and think of quitting. Post-implementation evidence from Australia shows that the regulations have statistically significantly reduced the appeal of cigarettes, with an increased awareness and an increase in quitline calls and quit attempts.

The government needs not recreate evidence to defend tobacco control policy; the World Health Organisation’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) has been used as the basis for introducing plain-packaging measures. All FCTC measures are evidence-based and reflect global consensus on best practice in curbing the tobacco epidemic.

We have already witnessed the critical role of the FCTC back in 2012, when British American Tobacco South Africa challenged the introduction of a prohibition of the advertising or promotion of tobacco products. The South African Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed this challenge and held that the FCTC provides guidelines when considering what steps to take to deal with risks posed by tobacco use.

When policy measures are challenged, usually the plaintiff will show that less restrictive alternative measures can be used to equally achieve the same objective. The WTO found that plain-packaging measures form part of a comprehensive policy, as such a complementary measure cannot be raised as an available alternative measure. Simply put, educational campaigns or text warnings cannot be raised as alternatives to plain-packaging measures. They are complementary and form part of comprehensive policy as recommended by the FCTC.

Health may supersede trade and economic interests

Predominantly, the WTO promotes trade and economic interest. If a measure is inconsistent with WTO rules it has to be removed or adjusted, otherwise the member country implementing the measure will face retaliatory actions. The WTO has been criticised for its impact on regulatory autonomy, but in this case, it has shown once more that in some instances trade and economic interests can be superseded by public health policy.

The WTO has stated that “health concerns can take precedence over trade issues. If necessary, governments may put aside WTO commitments in order to protect human life”. Human health has been recognised as being important to the highest degree and South Africa as a WTO member is allowed to take measures to protect health — including implementing plain packaging as part of effective tobacco control policy.

Plain packaging measures do not violate WTO intellectual property provisionsThe WTO has found that the measures are not in violation of trademark obligations under the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). It concluded that TRIPS only provides for the right to stop unauthorised third parties from using an identical or similar trademark — it therefore provides protection against free-riding and or imitation; but does not provide trademark owners with the right to use the mark.

Based on the evidence submitted in this case, with the backing of the FCTC, it also found that the measures pursued legitimate objectives and were a justified restriction on trademark use. Encumbrances on trademark use can be allowed if justified.

Plain packaging measures have been tried, tested and emerged victorious
Litigation is commonly used to deter countries from implementing tobacco control policy, and threats of litigation have led to regulatory delays and watering down of legislation. Plain packaging measures have been challenged by the tobacco companies in different countries (including France and Australia), by investment tribunals and under the WTO dispute settlement system; and may also be challenged in South Africa.

Governments have been relentless in supporting these measures, and litigation has also fortified the case for plain-packaging measures — all challenges instituted against plain-packaging measures have been unsuccessful, marking a new era in tobacco control.

Back in 2012, when Australia implemented tobacco plain-packaging measures, it was the only country to do so, showing that a country can successfully pursue unprecedented evidence-based public health measures. Since then more than 10 countries have now introduced plain-packaging measures as part of a comprehensive tobacco control policy.

In 2012, the high court of Australia dismissed the plain-packaging challenge, finding that the measures did not amount to acquisition of property. One of the judges highlighted that a key reason why tobacco companies objected to plain-packaging legislation was that this could extinguish the advertising and promotional functions of the trademarks.

In 2016, the United Kingdom High Court and Court of Appeal also dismissed challenges to plain-packaging measures. High Court Justice Green found that the evidence tendered by the tobacco industry, in that case, was below international standards, as it was not peer-reviewed or “benchmarked against internal documents” and was not verifiable.

Pursuing public health is a legitimate goal and the law should be used to facilitate and promote the realisation of the highest attainable standard of health. The government should not be dissuaded from introducing public health policy that is well designed, evidence-based, effective and non-discriminatory, by threats of litigation either at local or international tribunals. Lessons should be drawn from litigation around the world.

The measures introduced by the Tobacco Bill are evidence-based, they will bring policy closer to the FCTC and will play a key role in reducing tobacco prevalence. 

DM  https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/

BOOK EXTRACT
The loneliness of solitary confinement: exploring the female experience of activism


By Shanthini Naidoo• 16 August 2020

‘Women in Solitary’ is the South African story of four women – Joyce Sikhakhane-­Rankin, Rita Ndzanga, Shanthi Naidoo and Nondwe Mankahla – and their refusal to testify in the apartheid-era ‘Trial of 22’ in 1969 – a trial that included Winnie Madikizela-Mandela. Through interviews, the author explores the female experience of activism and how women take on additional political roles to their personal ones.

December 1969: Thirty-two-year-old Shanthi Naidoo was surprised to hear her name being called as a state witness. She had been detained a month or two after the initial raids that saw approximately 100 activists arrested. They had come for her in the early hours in the Rockey Street, Doornfontein home she shared with her large family, pulling her out of her bed. A third-generation activist, whose grandparents were involved in the resistance movement, Shanti’s family had gone through the motions of arrests and detentions several times before. In detention she suffered many days and nights of intense interrogation. Now, caught unawares, she was called to the stand. She got to her feet. When Liebenberg instructed her to speak, she looked Justice Simon Bekker on the bench straight in the eye. “I have two friends amongst the accused,” she declared. “I don’t want to give evidence because I will not live with my conscience if I do.” When threatened with further imprisonment, she said: “I am prepared to accept it.”

With those three short sentences, uttered in defiance, the foundations of the state’s case began to crumble. Over the next few months, more pressure would be put on her to testify, and appeals made to her family to persuade her, to consider her emaciated condition and subsequent detentions that could follow. Her family steadfastly refused to push her onto the side of the government.


Years later, Winnie Mandela wrote: “It is Shanti Naidoo whom I still see vividly in my mind, her hollow eyes, her thin arms hanging loosely out of that pale… yellowish, sleeveless dress, her slanted head when she craned her neck in the dock to hear Justice Bekker on that memorable day. When she declared in a firm voice which left no doubt… How I loved her always, even more now. My admiration and respect for her doubled. Only a person who has been through solitary confinement would realise the amount of sacrifice that lies behind those few words. To my horror, hot tears rolled down my cheeks in the Supreme Court when Shanti said those words.”

Nondwe Mankahla, a 33-year-old rabble-rouser from Port Elizabeth, was the state’s second witness, but once again Liebenberg was to be stymied. She had agreed to be a witness only in order to stop the beatings during her interrogation at the old Sanlam building in PE – which was to be the venue of Black Consciousness Movement leader Steve Biko’s murder years later – after which she was moved to Pretoria.


On the morning of the trial Nondwe was interrupted during her exercises in her cell and was not even given time to dress for her court appearance – the first time in a year that her comrades, family and friends would see her. “I must have looked like I was coming out of a hole after all those months,” she would say later. “I was feeling dizzy in the fresh air”.

Despite the months in solitary confinement, and the prospect of further detention or worse, once she was put on the stand she refused to testify. “I do not wish to give evidence against my people,” was all she said.

The prosecutor was admonished by the judge, Justice Simon Bekker, who threatened contempt of court charges, to no avail. “What kind of witnesses are these?” he demanded of Liebenberg. But Liebenberg had no answers.

Bekker declared, “I find the accused not guilty. You are dismissed.”

At these words cheers rang through the courthouse and reverberated to the supporters outside, who expressed their elation by shouting and singing. Freedom – at last! The elation would last for just a few minutes, however. With barely a moment to feel the sunlight on their pasty skin or to breathe the clean air, the accused were immediately re-detained under the Suppression of Communism Act for a further 90-day period and taken back to their solitary cells. No doubt reprisals for the state witnesses would come. There was some talk that after the Christmas recess, everybody would be discharged, but this did not happen. Each delay was an axe blow. Still, they carried on, fighting the detention with their stubborn refusal to give in. DM

Shanthini Naidoo is a former Sunday Times journalist who works in content marketing. She has also worked for The Times newspaper and O magazine. Naidoo lives in Johannesburg. The book is published by Tafelberg, an imprint of NB Publishers.

Author’s note: While I do share a name or a derivative of it, with Shanthi Naidoo, there is no bloodline between us of which I am aware. We are born nearly 50 years apart but the connection of our names provided coincidences of great consequence. Shanthi, 85, is retired now and lives in Johannesburg; she returned to South Africa from the UK after 1994. She is one of the reasons why this story found me, and I am glad for it. Joyce Sikhakhane-Rankin agreed to speak too, perhaps charmed by the confusion about her friend with a similar name. The same for Joyce’s children, who thought I was a grand-daughter of their mother’s good friend, whom they had never met. For Ma Nondwe and Ma Rita, it was a memory trigger, hearing a name from a story they hadn’t revisited for many years. The coincidence brought a unique way into their homes and minds. For this, I am thankful for a name that has been mispronounced all of my adult life. That connection binds me to Shanthi Naidoo, who truly lives her shanti (peace) despite an intensely unpeaceful life.

https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/

Apartheid
Rita Ndzanga
Shanthie Naidoo and Nondwe Mankahla

The legacy of Fidel Castro for southern Africa and beyond

We salute Fidel this 13th August along with the Cuban people and humanity. Fidel will live on in Africa, as everywhere else, as an everlasting icon of liberation in all its forms. Fidel Lives! Siempre. Venceremos!

Opinionista • Ronnie Kasrils • 14 August 2020
An earlier version of this article was published on Prensa Latina website.

From the 1960s the nom de guerre of “Castro” was popular among freedom fighters in Southern Africa. Today, the sons of many offspring of those guerrillas bear the name Fidel or Fidelis, in Africa, as in Latina-speaking countries and elsewhere.

That “60s generation” was immensely inspired by Fidel Castro Ruz’s epic leadership of the Cuban Revolution in overthrowing tyranny, confronting imperialism, transforming society and the historic lessons of international solidarity. Generations since have learnt those motivational lessons, have studied in Cuba, continue to follow his legendary footsteps, in theory and practise, of one of the foremost revolutionaries of modern times. His life and legacy are intrinsically bound up with Africa’s destiny and the undying gratitude of its peoples, along with the rest of humanity.

In Fidel’s immortal words, after forcing the ignominious retreat of the racist South African military from Angola in 1988:

“The history of Africa will be written as before and after Cuito Cuanavale.”

From 1975, Cuban internationalist forces under the direction of Commandante Fidel had helped save the independence of emergent People’s Angola from those same racist invaders and the CIA-backed counter-revolutionary bandits.

Becoming aware of these historic developments from his prison cell through secret means, Nelson Mandela wrote in praise that “it was the first time that a country had come from another continent not to take something away, but to help Africans to achieve their freedom.”

Assisting Angola over the following years, those self-same reactionaries finally met their fate at the five-month-long battle for Cuito Cuanavale, which sent them packing. The outcome was Angola being free of foreign forces from that time on; the subsequent independence of Namibia from Pretoria’s occupation in 1990; followed by freedom for South Africa in 1994. Mandela stated that victory at Cuito Cuanavale “destroyed the myth of the invincibility of the white oppressor and inspired the fighting masses of South Africa.”

It can be said that it helped provide the key to unlocking racist rule in the southern part of the continent. Alleviating the menacing shadow of apartheid over the entire region.

I had been privileged to have been present in Havana, as a member of a South African Communist Party (SACP) delegation in 1988, when Fidel briefed us at a huge topographical map of the southern part of Angola, as to how that epic Cuito Cuanavale battle had been won.

I was privileged when at the presidential inauguration of Nelson Mandela, in Pretoria on 27 March 1994, the greatest approval for a foreign guest by the cheering masses was reserved for the legendary Cuban leader: Fidel! Fidel! And Cuba! Cuba! They chanted in unison.

I was yet again privileged to escort Fidel on a naval ship out of Cape Town in September 1998, to Robben Island, when he visited Nelson Mandela’s one-time prison cell, and he was so visibly moved.

On 4 September, a few days earlier, he addressed the South African Parliament in what he described as having dreamed of such an experience “like a love letter to a sweetheart written thousands of miles away, without knowing how she thinks or what she wants to hear and without even knowing what her face looks like”.

On the same occasion Fidel reminded us that 461,956 Cuban soldiers fought side by side with Africans for their liberation and “from these African soils, where they worked and fought voluntarily and selflessly, they have only taken back home to Cuba the remains of their fallen comrades and the honour of a duty accomplished”.

It is the privilege of southern Africa’s people to have shared trenches, trained and studied in Cuba, received unstinting aid in countless ways not only on the battlefields, including presently that of the gallant Cuban health workers in the struggle against Covid-19. This, of course, is the experience of people around the world, particularly in Africa, Asia and Latin America, but amazingly too in European countries such as Italy. As it does elsewhere in the Caribbean and Latin America, Cuba continues to send medical professionals to Africa – over 50,000 Cuban doctors worldwide, including in 32 African countries.

When we launched our armed struggle in the 1960s there was a popular song we composed to a calypso beat:

“Take the country the Castro way!”

By the time freedom and independence came through bloody struggles, we came to realise so much more about the examples Cuba provided in people’s living conditions, healthcare and education, housing and social welfare, overcoming colonial backwardness and inequalities, the provision of security for the people and defence of the revolution.

In the enormous global struggle against imperialist domination, exploitation and racism; military aggression and counter-revolutionary regime-change; capitalism’s gargantuan divide between wealth for the privileged few and crushing poverty for billions; horrific diseases such as Covid-19 in the wake of environmental peril; those words, “Take the country the Castro way”, are alive in our hearts.

The song inspires hope, motivates united action, signposts Fidel’s immortal teachings and vision of the future.

We salute Fidel this 13th August along with the Cuban People and humanity. Fidel will live on in Africa, as everywhere else, as an everlasting icon of liberation in all its forms.

Fidel Lives! Siempre. Venceremos! 

DM https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/

Ronnie Kasrils is a veteran of the anti-apartheid struggle, was chief of military intelligence in the ANCs armed wing, a former government minister (1994-2008) and is an author of several books on the liberation struggle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronnie_Kasrils

After TikTok, Donald Trump indicates banning Alibaba, other Chinese firms in US 

US President Donald Trump, First Lady Melania Trump and their son Barron. (REUTERS)

17 Aug 2020,

The development came after Trump issued an executive order on August 14, requiring ByteDance to divest its interests in video-sharing app TikTok's operations in the US within 90 days.

Washington: US President Donald Trump has indicated that he was looking to ban other Chinese-owned companies, including e-commerce giant Alibaba in the United States, days after signing an executive order targetting TikTok's parent company, ByteDance, Fox News reported.

The development came after Trump issued an executive order on August 14, requiring ByteDance to divest its interests in video-sharing app TikTok's operations in the US within 90 days.

"There is credible evidence that leads me to believe that ByteDance ... might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States," the US President said in the order.

The new order came after an earlier executive order was signed by Trump. The previous order could have forced US-based app stores to stop distributing the TikTok app if ByteDance did not reach a deal to divest from it in 45 days.

Under the latest order, ByteDance is expected to destroy all its copies of TikTok data attached to American users.

Earlier this month, US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo said that the Trump administration is "working hard" to protect Americans from the threats of "untrusted vendors" such as TikTok and WeChat, which it wants to remove from US app stores like those operated by Apple and Google.

US politicians have repeatedly criticised TikTok, owned by Beijing-based startup ByteDance, of being a threat to national security because of its ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

China and the US are at loggerheads on a variety of issues including Hong Kong national security law, the South China Sea, coronavirus and trade.

Last month, India's Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) banned 47 apps, which were variants and cloned copies of the 59 apps banned earlier in June.

These banned clones include Tiktok Lite, Helo Lite, SHAREit Lite, BIGO LIVE Lite and VFY Lite.

The 59 apps, most of which were Chinese, had been banned by the Indian government in view of the information available that they are engaged in activities which are "prejudicial to sovereignty and integrity and defence" of the country.

The ban came amid the standoff between Indian and Chinese troops in Eastern Ladakh.