Wednesday, December 15, 2021

'US looking to designate persecution of Rohingya as genocide’

US Secretary of State Blinken hints at sanctions to pressure Myanmar’s coup regime to return to 'democratic trajectory'



Riyaz ul Khaliq |15.12.2021

ISTANBUL

The US is “very actively” looking to designate the ongoing repression of the Rohingya population of Myanmar as a “genocide,” the top US diplomat said on Wednesday.

“We continue also to look actively at determinations of what are the actions taken in Myanmar and whether they constitute genocide and that’s something we’re looking at very actively right now,” US Secretary of State Antony Blinken told a news conference on Wednesday in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia’s capital.

The Rohingya, described by the UN as the world's most persecuted people, have faced heightened fears of attack since dozens were killed in communal violence in Myanmar in 2012.

More than 750,000 Rohingya refugees, mostly women, and children, fled Myanmar and crossed into Bangladesh after Myanmar’s forces launched a violent crackdown on the minority Muslim community in August 2017, including killings, beatings, rape, and burning down homes.

Blinken said the situation in Myanmar after the military coup this February has “gotten worse,” calling for the release of those detained by the junta regime, including deposed State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi.

“I think it’s going to be very important in the weeks and months ahead to look at what additional steps and measures we can take individually, collectively to pressure the regime to put the country back on a democratic trajectory,” Blinken said.

“The long and short of it is we have to look at what additional steps, measures could be taken to move things in a better direction and that’s something that we’re looking at,” Blinken told a joint news conference alongside Malaysian Foreign Minister Saifuddin Abdullah.

According to Blinken, additional measures may include sanctions to pressure the Southeast Asian nation’s military leaders to return to a “democratic trajectory.”

Role of ASEAN

Blinken is on a three-nation trip to Southeast Asia, beginning in Indonesia.

Abdullah said the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) must do some “soul-searching” when it comes to Myanmar.

ASEAN, a regional grouping of 10 nations, has restricted its measures against Myanmar due to its “policy of non-interference in its members’ internal affairs.”

Since Myanmar’s Feb. 1 coup, more than 1,000 civilians have been killed and over 5,400 others, including the top leadership of the previous administration, were arrested by junta forces.

Blinken called for the release of all prisoners who have been “unjustly detained,” including Suu Kyi, besides urging the junta administration to allow unhindered humanitarian access and end violence against protesters.

“I understand that we celebrate the principles of non-interference, but ... ASEAN should also look at the principle of non-indifference because what happens in Myanmar is already getting out of Myanmar,” Abdullah said.

Malaysia is hosting nearly 200,000 Rohingya refugees.

“We have to do some soul-searching,” he said, expressing hope that an ASEAN foreign ministers’ meeting in January would be able to clarify the group’s position on Myanmar and lay out clear demands and milestones for the country’s military to meet along with a specific timeline for completing them.​​​​​​​
Dems want Pegasus & other spyware makers punished – media

FILE PHOTO ©Jaap Arriens ZUMA Press via Global Look Press

15 Dec, 2021 
RT

A group of US lawmakers want to put sanctions on leading spyware companies, including Israel’s embattled NSO Group, the producer of the hacking kit Pegasus, Reuters has reported.

Other targets for potential US sanctions include the United Arab Emirates spyware maker DarkMatter, and European firms Nexa Technologies and Trovicor, which also offer clients electronic surveillance services, the news agency said.

A group of 18 Democrat legislators, including Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, have sent a letter to the Treasury Department and State Department, asking to initiate sanctions against the listed companies. Reuters read the letter and talked to some of its sponsors.

The proposed sanctions would be put in place under the so-called 2016 Global Magnitsky Act, a legal framework which authorizes the US government to punish parties anywhere in the world accused of human rights violations. The punishments include freezing of assets and travel restrictions. The signatories said by cutting them off from US investments and financial services, the sanctions would “send a clear signal to the surveillance technology industry” about better vetting their clients.

READ MORE
Pegasus spyware linked to Israel branding Palestinian rights NGOs as terrorists – report

“These surveillance mercenaries sold their services to authoritarian regimes with long records of human rights abuses, giving vast spying powers to tyrants,” Wyden told Reuters.

“Predictably, those nations used surveillance tools to lock up, torture and murder reporters and human rights advocates,” he added. “The Biden administration has the chance to turn off the spigot of American dollars and help put them out of business for good.”

Pegasus maker NSO Group is already targeted by US restrictions. In November, it was added to the so-called Entity List, and now requires a special permission to acquire supplies or services from US providers. The Israeli firm is reportedly on the brink of being shut down completely amid a number of scandals and lawsuits surrounding its global hack-for-hire business.

DarkMatter was sued last week by the privacy advocacy Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on behalf of Saudi human rights activist Loujain AlHathloul. The lawsuit accuses the firm and three of its former executives, who are former US intelligence operatives, of illegally hacking AlHathloul’s iPhone. The surveillance program called Project Raven was first exposed by Reuters in 2019.

Nexa Technologies, formerly known as Amesys, stands accused of supplying surveillance technology to Libya under Muammar Gaddafi and Egypt under Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. It was allegedly used to spy on and persecute dissidents and critics of the respective governments. In June, four executives were indicted in France with complicity in torture and forced disappearances.

Trovicor, a divested unit of German-Finish venture Nokia Siemens Networks, was accused of doing similarly tainted business with the governments of Bahrain, Egypt, Syria, Iran, and Yemen, among others.

Pegasus: US officials call on NSO and Dark Matter to face sanctions

More than a dozen Democratic officials called on the US State and Treasury Department to sanction executives DarkMatter and NSO


Saudi Arabia has been accused of using the Pegasus software to target Middle East Eye's Turkey bureau chief Ragip Soylu and columnist Jamal Khashoggi (AFP)

By MEE and agencies
Published date: 15 December 2021 

A group of US officials is calling on the US State Department and Treasury to sanction the Israeli NSO Group and UAE-based Dark Matter cybersecurity company for helping authoritarian governments commit human rights abuses.

A letter sent late on Tuesday, seen by Reuters, called on the US to use Global Magnitsky sanctions to reprimand top executives from NSO, Dark Matter and European online bulk surveillance companies Nexa Technologies and Trovicor.


Pegasus: Saudi Arabia targets Middle East Eye's Turkey bureau chief
Read More »

Among the letter's signatories include the Senate Finance Committee chairman Ron Wyden, House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff and 16 other Democratic officials.

The letter called on the State and Treasury Department to freeze the bank accounts and ban travel to the United States of executives from the listed companies.

"To meaningfully punish them and send a clear signal to the surveillance technology industry, the US government should deploy financial sanctions," the letter noted.

It added that the companies facilitated the "disappearance, torture, and murder of human rights activists and journalists".

Earlier this week, Bloomberg reported that NSO was considering selling its entire company or shutting down its Pegasus unit as it risks defaulting on its debt.

In December, Reuters reported that the iPhones of at least nine US State Department employees were hacked by an unknown assailant using spyware developed by NSO.

In November, Apple sued the NSO group, saying that it violated US laws by breaking into the software installed on iPhones.

Israel's NSO has faced immense criticism for selling its Pegasus software to governments targeting dissidents and journalists.

Pegasus has been used by governments, including Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, to illegally access the phone data of activists and journalists worldwide.

The Pegasus software can be used to remotely access data on a user's phone once it's infected with the software.

Notable victims of the Pegasus software breach include Middle East Eye columnist and Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi, who was murdered inside the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul in October 2018 by Saudi officials.

French President Emanuel Macron was also targeted by the Pegasus software, alongside Egyptian diplomats and Roula Khalaf, editor of the Financial Times, according to reports by the Pegasus Project.

US lawmakers call for sanctions against Israel's NSO, other spyware firms


By Joseph Menn and Joel Schectman
Reuters
December 15, 2021

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A group of U.S. lawmakers is asking the Treasury Department and State Department to sanction Israeli spyware firm NSO Group and three other foreign surveillance companies they say helped authoritarian governments commit human rights abuses.

Their letter sent late Tuesday and seen by Reuters also asks for sanctions on top executives at NSO, the United Arab Emirates cybersecurity company DarkMatter, and European online bulk surveillance companies Nexa Technologies and Trovicor.

The lawmakers asked for Global Magnitsky sanctions, which punishes those who are accused of enabling human rights abuses by freezing bank accounts and banning travel to the United States.

DarkMatter could not be reached for comment. The other three companies did not immediately reply to requests for comment.

The letter was signed by the Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and 16 other Democratic lawmakers. Along with other reporting on the industry, they cite a recent Reuters article this month showing that NSO spyware was used against State Department employees in Uganda.

The lawmakers said the spyware industry relies on U.S. investment and banks. "To meaningfully punish them and send a clear signal to the surveillance technology industry, the U.S. government should deploy financial sanctions," they wrote.

The letter says the companies facilitated the "disappearance, torture and murder of human rights activists and journalists." Surveillance firms have drawn increasing scrutiny from Washington as a barrage of media reports have tied them to human rights abuses.

"These surveillance mercenaries sold their services to authoritarian regimes with long records of human rights abuses, giving vast spying powers to tyrants," Wyden told Reuters. "Predictably, those nations used surveillance tools to lock up, torture and murder reporters and human rights advocates. The Biden administration has the chance to turn off the spigot of American dollars and help put them out of business for good."

In November, the Commerce Department put NSO on the so-called Entity List, prohibiting U.S. suppliers from selling software or services to the Israeli spyware maker without getting special permission.

A number of legal challenges also threaten the industry. Last week a prominent Saudi activist and the non-profit Electronic Frontier Foundation sued DarkMatter, alleging the group hacked into her phone.

Apple sued NSO Group in November, saying that it violated U.S. laws by breaking into the software installed on iPhones.

A 2019 Reuters investigation, cited in the letter, also exposed a secret hacking unit within DarkMatter, known as Project Raven, that helped the UAE spy on its enemies. In a September settlement with the Justice Department, three members of that unit, all former U.S. intelligence operatives, admitted to breaking hacking laws.

(Reporting by Joseph Menn in San Francisco and Joel Schectman and Christopher Bing in Washington; Editing by Christopher Sanders and Lisa Shumaker)
Iraqi Kurdish students threaten more protests if government reneges on funding

After weeks of demonstrations, Kurdish authorities offer to restart financial stipends in the new year. The students are watching closely


Student protesters block the road running between Halabja 
and Sulaymaniyah on 7 December 
(MEE/Wladimir van Wilgenburg)

By Wladimir van Wilgenburg in Sulaymaniyah, Iraq
Published date: 14 December 2021 

Kurdish students at public universities halted a weeks-long protest movement after authorities promised to resume financial support in the new year, but told Middle East Eye they are ready to go back to the streets if necessary.

Their protests began on 21 November, with calls for a monthly stipend of around $50 per student to resume and, more broadly, over growing dissatisfaction with unemployment, nepotism, and lack of services.

'There are some mafias that govern the country. We will continue protests later, even if the protests stop now'
- Awder Mohammed Ameen, protester

Up until 2014, the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) supported the students financially. But then the region was hit with a financial crisis and, like the rest of Iraq, faced war with the Islamic State (IS) group.

But now Kurdish youth believe it’s time they were supported once again. The KRG, they point out, is benefiting from higher oil revenues than in recent years and Baghdad paid Erbil $137.2m in July after years of budget cuts.

And they appeared to have achieved a victory last Tuesday when the KRG promised to provide $5m each month to assist students at public universities starting at the beginning of the year.

While protests partially continued in Sulaymaniyah the next day, there have been no protests since.

Mera Jasm Bakr, an analyst and non-resident fellow at the German Konrad Adenauer Foundation, told MEE that protesters have temporarily stopped their demonstrations to see if the government will implement its promises.

Frustrations mount


Even before the student protests began last month, there were clear signs of bubbling dissatisfaction among young Kurds.

Many Kurdish youth boycotted the Iraqi elections on 10 October, including the Kurdistan regional vote. In November, just ahead of the protests, came the repatriation of over 400 migrants, including dozens of young people, from Belarus to Erbil after they failed to reach Europe.


Distraught Yazidi genocide survivors return from Belarus to Kurdistan
Read More »

Harun Tahsin, a 19-year-old who was at the Erbil International Airport on 19 November returning from Belarus, told MEE that he left for Europe to find a job because he saw little opportunity at home.

“If I find any safe way, I will try to go again,” he said.

Students out on the streets protesting expressed similar concerns over bleak prospects and called for reform.

Awder Mohammed Ameen, 21, a student in Halabja, was among a dozen students who blocked the road from Sulaymaniyah to Halabja last Tuesday.

He complained that the sons of Kurdish leaders in the Kurdistan region study abroad and "drive around in Mercedes, and spend thousands of dollars in Europe, but cannot give stipends to poor people".

He also blamed the KRG for failing to provide services such as electricity and water, after 30 years of rule. “There are some mafias that govern the country. We will continue protests later, even if the protests stop now,” he said.

'We will continue protests later even if the protests stop now,” said Awder Mohammed Ameen, one of the students blocking a road into Halabja on 7 December
 (MEE/Wladimir van Wilgenburg)

Mohammed, another young student from Halabja, said demonstrations would carry on until authorities acknowledged their demands.

“We came here to ask for our rights, we proposed some good demands, but our main demand has not been implemented and not taken seriously,” he said. “Until they implement this demand, we will not give up.”

Savan Abdulrahman, a university graduate who participated in the protests, said that the main issue is that young Kurds see little employment opportunities before them.

“Since 2013, no one is employed by the government,” she said, suggesting that only those with relatives in the government get jobs.

“People in general are so hopeless for change that they just want to flee abroad and have a better life.”

'The public sector cannot absorb more employees, and there is no private sector'
- Mera Jasm Bakr, Konrad Adenauer Foundation

Bakr, the analyst at Konrad Adenauer Foundation, said that most graduates know they won’t get a job in the future. “The public sector cannot absorb more employees, and there is no private sector,” he said.

Leaders of the two major parties in the Kurdish government - the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) - both met with students after the protests erupted.

On 6 December, top PUK official Bafel Jalal Talabani met with several students and vowed to support their demands, and also promised to construct a three-storey building for Said Sadiq College, PUK media reported.

The PUK also said it considers the student demands legitimate and supports peaceful protests.

Moreover, on 27 November, Kurdistan Prime Minister Masrour Barzani, from the KDP party, met students from different private universities.

"We will develop the dormitories and establish a mechanism to help the poor students," he said, Kurdistan 24 reported. "We look forward to developing the private sector in a way that people don't need government jobs anymore."

However, protesting students disavowed the meetings that fellow students had with ruling officials, a Rudaw report said.

Chiya Sharif, a member of parliament for the ruling KDP party, told MEE that the students have a right “to demand and protest for their rights in a legal and rightful manner”.

'The government is doing all its efforts to resolve all the problems of the students'
- Chiya Sharif, KDP Party MP

“When protests are conducted in a non-violent way, we stand with the students. It’s not right for any student protestors to burn political parties or government headquarters,” he said.

Sharif acknowledged that the Kurdistan region has had a financial crisis for the past few years, but said now at least there is a final decision to provide financial assistance to poor students.

“The government is doing all its efforts to resolve all the problems of the students with regards to their dormitory issues or their transportation.”

However, future protests are likely as private and public sector job markets are unable to absorb more graduates, despite attempts by Kurdish authorities to boost employment through promoting agriculture and tourism, and opening factories.

“The government does not have the capacity to fully address the demands the students have, and more students are graduating on a yearly basis,” Kurdish analyst Bakr said.

“There will be more unemployed youth with a degree, and if these people cannot get a job, they will eventually protest.”
New kind of protest

This isn’t the first time people have taken to the streets of Kurdistan in recent years.

While there were few protests during the war against IS, a year after the group’s territorial defeat in Mosul, civil servants held protests in 2018 due to unpaid wages.

Last December, thousands of teachers and civil servants protested in Sulaymaniyah over unpaid salaries.

One of the biggest protests was held in Sulaymaniyah in 2011, inspired by the Arab Spring protests.

But participants say the current student protests - and even the ones in recent years - are very different from those in 2011 which involved political parties.


Poland-Belarus: Iraqi Kurdish refugees reject offer to return to hardship at home
Read More »

Barham M Ali, 22, a philosophy and cultural studies student who is demonstrating, told MEE: “This protest was spontaneous, no one led this protest, but in 2011, the Gorran (Change movement party) and some opposition parties were involved in the protests.”

He also said that all of the protesters could speak on behalf of the movement to the media, as opposed to earlier protests in which there were designated media representatives.

For this reason, the protestors did not accept when opposition leader Shaswar Abdulwahid offered to join the protests. His party New Generation increased its seats from four in 2018 to nine seats in the last Iraqi elections.

According to Ali, these choices reflect a generation more politically aware than in the past.

“The new generation does not care about political parties, we have an experience of more than 30 years, we believe these political parties won’t change anything,” he said.

The protests also reflect a post-1991 generation which is very different from the older generation that suffered under the Baath regime of Saddam Hussein.

When the first Kurdish school was opened after the Baath regime was expelled from Kurdistan in 1991, teachers worked on the basis of Kurdish patriotism, also known in Kurdish as “Kurdayeti”, not salaries.

But these days, Kurdish civil servants want their salaries paid and there is a demand for government jobs. Further, said Ali, his generation no longer buys into patriotic slogans of the past.

“We no longer care about some nationalism terms that they used to manipulate us. As an example, during this protest, the young people and activists from Iraq and Baghdad showed support for students protesting in Kurdistan,” he said.

“We believe we are human before being Kurd or Arab.”
Israel used ‘abusive policing’ against Palestinians in Lod during May unrest: HRW

Human Rights Watch calls on the UN to investigate the discriminatory practices used by Israeli police against peaceful protesters in the city of Lod


Friends and relatives of Moussa Hassuna, a Palestinian resident of Lod who was shot by an Israeli ultra-nationalist in May, protest at a decision to close the case against his suspected killers, on 10 November 2021 (
AFP)

By MEE staff
Published date: 15 December 2021 

Israeli police used excessive force against Palestinians peacefully protesting against plans to forcibly remove dozens of Palestinian families from their homes in occupied East Jerusalem to make way for settlers, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said in a report released on Tuesday.

Backed by Israeli police, Jewish settlers and far-right groups attacked and intimidated Palestinians in May in the neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah, whose residents were facing imminent evictions.

As violence escalated in Jerusalem, clashes broke out in Lod, or Lydd as it is known to Palestinians, on 11 May, when Palestinians protested outside the Great Omari Mosque against the evictions. Confrontations in the city then erupted between Palestinian residents of Israel and Jewish Israelis, and a Palestinian man, Moussa Hassuna, was shot dead.

Palestinians in Israel now face far right mob violence backed by the stateRead More »

The following day, Israeli ultra-nationalists, some armed, roamed the streets of Lod, with mobs attacking the mosque ahead of a night curfew, which had been declared the previous day.

Wafa, the Palestinian Authority news agency, estimated at the time that Israel had carried out around 600 arrests in the previous few weeks, the majority in Lod, Jerusalem and Ramleh.

Between July and October, HRW conducted interviews with residents, analysed video clips posted on social media, and reviewed reports of timelines, and concluded that Israeli authorities had discriminated against Palestinians.

In addition to the violent dispersal of protests, police and armed forces had beaten up and fired live ammunition on journalists covering the events unfolding across Israel.

"The police response in Lod took place amid systematic discrimination that the Israeli government practices against Palestinian citizens of Israel in many other aspects of their lives," said Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director at HRW.

"Israeli authorities responded to the May events in Lod by forcibly dispersing Palestinians protesting peacefully, while using inflammatory rhetoric and failing to act even-handedly as Jewish ultra-nationalists attacked Palestinians.

"This apparent discriminatory response underscores the reality that the Israeli state apparatus privileges Jewish Israelis at the expense of Palestinians, wherever they live and irrespective of their legal status."

HRW called on the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory to investigate the apparently discriminatory practices of Israeli law enforcement, and whether or not "inflammatory comments" by senior Israeli officials had instigated violence.

"Human Rights Watch has found that Israeli authorities are committing the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution, based on an Israeli government policy to maintain the domination of Jewish Israelis over Palestinians wherever they live, and grave abuses against Palestinians living in the occupied Palestinian Territory," the report stated.

"The crime of apartheid is committed when these elements come together."
The denial of the Palestinian right of return is a crime as great as the Nakba

Ghada Karmi
12 December 2021 

Resolution 194 enshrines the right of return of Palestinians displaced from their homeland - but Israel has ignored it

The UN General Assembly hall in New York on 3 November 2021 (AFP)

It is that time of year when yet another anniversary of disappointed hopes looms over Palestinians. Seventy-three years ago, on 11 December 1948, Resolution 194 was passed by the United Nations General Assembly. It was of enormous legal and moral significance, enshrining the right of return of Palestinians displaced from their homeland by Israel’s creation to return home or be compensated for the loss of their property.

Coming so soon after the mass expulsion of Palestine’s population during the Nakba in May 1948, it seemed a perfect antidote to that disaster, offering a lifeline to devastated Palestinians.

Resolution 194 has been reaffirmed by the UN every year since 1949, attesting to its continuing relevance. But it has never been implemented, thanks to Israel’s ferocious opposition and western inaction.

It set the stage for the subsequent tolerance of Israel's continued intransigence over the right of Palestinian return

From the outset, the UN, aware of Israel’s anxieties about a refugee return, took pains to use careful language in its wording of the resolution. Its request for Israel to repatriate “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date” (emphasis added) can only be seen in that light.

Against the background of a clear international consensus on the absolute legal and humanitarian right of individual return without condition or caveat, this was an extraordinary concession to Israeli concerns. It set the stage for the subsequent tolerance of Israel’s continued intransigence over the right of Palestinian return.
Damaging consequences

The consequences have been hugely damaging to Palestinians. All the ills that have beset them since 1948 can be linked back to that denial of their right of return. Had it been allowed, there would be no Palestinian refugees (more than five million are registered with the UN today) or refugee camps (of which there are around five dozen). The UN Relief and Works Agency, set up specifically to care for Palestinian refugees in 1949, would never have existed.

No Palestinian would have to endure the limbo of statelessness, or be labelled a “terrorist” for exercising their legitimate right to resist Israel’s oppressive rule. Gaza would not be under an inhumane, 14-year siege, with no end in sight. Palestinians who sought refuge in their countries of exile would no longer have to be treated as burdens or second-class citizens. They would have retained their dignity and self-respect, safe in the knowledge that they had a homeland of their own.
Palestinian protesters wave their national flag in Gaza in October 2019 (AFP)

Nor would Palestinians have suffered the psychosocial effects of exile, even harder to reverse than physical exclusion. What before 1948 had been a cohesive society, with its own customs and norms, was comprehensively smashed by Israel’s establishment.

Worse still, Israel then set about trying to erase all traces of the Palestinian presence in the land it had taken over. Hundreds of villages were demolished, Arabic place names were replaced by Hebrew, and a new Israeli narrative wrote Palestinians out of the country’s history. The aspects of Palestinian culture not destroyed in this endeavour were appropriated as Israeli: cuisine, embroidery, even the dabka dance.
Dispersed and fragmented

How can a people dispersed and fragmented around the world for decades “return” to this altered Palestine? In each place of exile, there have been changes in culture, customs and lifestyle. Younger generations may identify more with their current surroundings than with Palestine. How will such disparate communities learn to live together again?

Seven decades after Resolution 194, why haven’t Palestinian refugees returned home?Read More »

Return has long been a common theme that united a dispersed people. But if they did return, what unifying idea would take its place? What sort of Palestine, with what type of governance and social norms, do returnees want to live in? Had Palestinians remained in their native land, they would never have faced these hard questions; their society would have evolved naturally. Rebuilding a Palestinian society today, on the other hand, entails a huge task: reversing the effects of an exile that need never have happened.

The denial of the Palestinian right of return was a crime as great as the Nakba. It started with deliberate negligence with regards to Israel’s admission to the UN in 1949: Israel’s views, then as now, were that the refugee problem was not of Israel’s making, that refugees should be resettled in neighbouring Arab countries, and that it would not offer restitution.

In principle, Israel agreed to the conditions of its UN membership in abiding by resolutions, however, in reality they acted in contradiction to these conditions. Astonishingly, the UN still pronounced itself satisfied and admitted Israel as a member state.

It was when the UN admitted Israel as a member state that one of the original sins against the Palestinian people was committed - and where it can be redeemed. Israel’s non-compliance with the conditions of its UN membership should ultimately lead to revocation of that membership, providing some justice to a long-suffering people who were exiled from their homeland through no fault of their own.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

 
Ghada Karmi is a former research fellow at the Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies, University of Exeter. She was born in Jerusalem and was forced to leave her home with her family as a result of Israel’s creation in 1948. The family moved to England, where she grew up and was educated. Karmi practised as a doctor for many years, working as a specialist in the health of migrants and refugees. From 1999 to 2001, Karmi was an associate fellow of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, where she led a major project on Israel-Palestinian reconciliation.
The link between climate change and tornadoes is unclear. Here’s what we know so far

Dec 14, 2021 
By —John Yang
By —Claire Mufson

In the aftermath of last Friday’s deadly tornado outbreak, federal emergency officials say they are bracing for more severe and more frequent weather disasters, raising questions about whether there’s a link between climate change and tornadoes. While scientists are confident that climate change is increasing natural disasters, causality is trickier in the case of tornadoes. John Yang reports.


Full Transcript

Judy Woodruff:

In the aftermath of last Friday's deadly tornado outbreak, federal emergency officials say they are bracing for more severe and more frequent weather disasters.

As John Yang reports, that is raising questions about whether there's a link between climate change and tornadoes.


John Yang:

Judy, while scientists are confident that climate change is driving an increase in some natural disasters, in the case of tornadoes, they say it's a bit trickier.

Victor Gensini is an associate professor of geographic and atmospheric sciences at Northern Illinois University.

Mr. Gensini, thanks so much for being with us.

So many superlatives being used to describe this tornado outbreak on Friday night. Help us put us — put this into perspective. How major of an event was this?


Victor Gensini, Northern Illinois University:

It's very likely to be historic.

The National Weather Service right now is still surveying the longest tornado that started just north of Little Rock, crossed into the Bootheel of Missouri, into Northwest Tennessee, and finally into Kentucky, where it did its most prolific damage.

We think the tornado right now has a path length somewhere near 250 miles. That would put it at first place, if you will, the most historic tornado path length in history, only to surpass the infamous Tri-State Tornado of March 18, 1925. That tornado had a path length of 219 miles.


John Yang:

And to put that in perspective, I mean, the — a tornado track is generally — I mean, a long one could be 50 miles.

And tornadoes generally lose their energy pretty quickly.


Victor Gensini:

Most tornadoes are under five miles. It's pretty hard to get a tornado 50 miles, let alone talking about one that was on the ground for 200 miles.

So, yes, as I was watching this tornado unfold on Friday evening, I got a pit on my stomach watching radar. I knew exactly what was happening at the surface. And it was just a matter of time until we saw some of those devastating pictures on Saturday morning.


John Yang:

Help us understand, what do we know and, maybe more important, what do we not know about the link between climate change and tornadoes?


Victor Gensini:

Right now, the link is still muddy.

There have been studies that have shown a mean increase in overall severe weather in the future, but also an increase in the variability. I think the best analogy right now is honestly Major League Baseball during the steroids era. We couldn't say for certain if a home run was due to steroids, but when you look at the batting averages and the number of home runs over the season, it becomes pretty clear that steroids was having, right, an impact during the season.

I think the same thing can be said here about tornadoes. We're just not sure right now if something like Friday evening was the direct result of climate change.


John Yang:

Why is that? Why don't we know yet?


Victor Gensini:

It's mostly due to the small scale. Tornadoes are actually on a very small scale relative to things like hurricanes or wildfires or drought.

And that link, when you start to go down really small to the storm scale vs. the large climate scale system, makes these types of questions very, very hard to unpack from a scientific perspective.


John Yang:

When you talk about sort of looking backward to try to figure it out, what have we seen? What changes have we seen in tornadoes in recent years?


Victor Gensini:

Great question.

Really, the only thing that we can hang our hat on right now is a pretty significant downward trend in the Great Plains of the United States. So, you think of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, your colloquial Tornado Alley, they have actually seen a decrease in the number of significant tornadoes that are over the last 40 years.

And there's been a significant increase in places in the mid-South, like Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, some of these areas that are — have been hit hard recently.

And I think that's a really important thing, because we have a lot more assets, a lot more people as you get east of the Mississippi River, due to the increased population density.


John Yang:

Any idea what that tells us or what that suggests, why that might be, that shift?


Victor Gensini:

We think it's due — partly due to climate change and partly due to natural variability.

To what extent? What percentage of that shift is being caused by climate change? These are all questions that are really good, and that research groups like us at NIU are still trying to unpack.


John Yang:

And what are the implications for the future, from your research and what you're learning from your research?


Victor Gensini:

Well, I think there's two things.

I think we want to understand what the future holds for these extreme events, like those of Friday evening. And on the flip side, we also want to understand the changing footprint of society. Both of those go hand in hand in understanding the future of tornado disasters like what we witnessed last week.

And I'll tell you, looking ahead, even here tomorrow, it looks like another significant severe weather event possible across the Siouxland area. It only takes one event, right, to make your day, one tornado event to make your day a very bad day. And I think there's going to be a lot of questions about what happened to that Amazon warehouse and what happened to that candle factory on Friday evening.


John Yang:

Victor Gensini of Northern Illinois University, thank you very much.


Victor Gensini:

Thanks, John.
COP26: Syria is a warning of climate disaster that region cannot ignore

Haian Dukhan, Gianluca Serra
13 December 2021 

There is a real risk that the current global crisis could evolve into dangerous regional wars over dwindling resources


A dam in Syria’s Idlib province is affected by drought on 9 November 2021 (AFP)


The COP 26 summit in Glasgow that ended last month has seen world leaders attempt (quite unsuccessfully, again) to discuss and agree on measures to combat the climate threat and ensure our children’s future.

This dire situation reminds us of the time, not so long ago, when the Syrian government was being urged by international aid organisations to address a mounting ecological crisis. The government’s lack of response fuelled extreme poverty, which ultimately triggered the domestic social unrest that led to the Syrian war.

We personally witnessed instances of heavy over-exploitation of the steppe, both through over-grazing of livestock and the intensification of agriculture

Rural areas were most affected by the ecological crisis, which might explain why the rebellion grew stronger initially in these derelict and forgotten parts of the country. Based on our long-term experience working with both international organisations and the government in Syria, we know what is at stake if world leaders fail to act on the global climate crisis.

Between 2000 and 2010, we worked with government and non-government agencies and institutions on issues related to the conservation of biodiversity and local development. In the historic city of Palmyra, in the centre of Syria’s semi-arid steppe (“al-Badia” in Arabic), we witnessed the final stages of an ecological crisis that had been looming for at least three decades.

Throughout history, al-Badia had supported the livelihoods of nomadic and indigenous Bedouin herders, along with the sedentary agricultural population. Across millennia, al-Badia proved to be resilient to droughts, enabling the development of several extraordinary ancient civilisations.

Yet, during the 2000s, we reached a tipping point. We personally witnessed instances of heavy over-exploitation of the steppe, both through over-grazing of livestock and the intensification of agriculture. The Syrian government viewed the maximisation of agricultural yields to be of the utmost importance, despite warnings that the fragile ecosystem would not be able to cope in the long term.
Reduced crop yields

During the 2000s, the country began suffering prolonged droughts, exacerbated by advancing climate change, ultimately forcing the Syrian government to resort to requesting urgent international food aid for the first time in its history.

We personally witnessed massive queues of people waiting for basic food items, and spoke with herders of sheep and camels who had lost significant portions of their herds because they could not supply sufficient food and drink. Sandstorms increased in frequency, with massive negative impacts on the agricultural sector and reduced crop yields.


COP26: Middle East faces huge challenge as region seeks to wean itself off oil and gas  Read More »


As such, the environmental crisis gradually and inexorably started affecting the quality of life of a critical mass of rural Syrian people. In his book Revolt in Syria: Eyewitness to the Uprising, journalist Stephen Starr described a visit to Palmyra in 2009, during which he noticed that children in al-Badia were visibly malnourished, sitting in rags on street pavements, while young men with no jobs or entertainment would drive motorbikes aimlessly around town for hours.

In Palmyra, which joined the 2011 protest movement shortly after the initial uprising in Daraa, young university students and impoverished farmers demonstrated alongside destitute Bedouin herders. But rather than trying to calm protesters or meet some of their demands through reforms in the development sector, the Syrian government led a harsh crackdown.

What we witnessed in Palmyra was a microcosm of similar dynamics unfolding across Syria’s rural areas. The ecosystem of al-Badia, which had been sustainable for millennia, had been over-used in just a few decades and reached a tipping point. Its resilience withered in the face of the massive tide of climate change.
Warnings ignored

The recommendations and warnings of science were ignored by the Syrian government for decades. Piles of documents developed during workshops and conferences ended up in drawers, covered in dust.

Is the Syrian story not applicable and extendable on a larger scale?

During our work in the country, we experienced the government’s determination to deny any responsibility for the disaster, alongside a complete lack of awareness in forecasting the consequences. Officials would typically justify losses as being simply due to extreme droughts and climate change, even when we provided evidence to the contrary.

Today, on a global scale, we are confronted by a deepening ecological and climate crisis affecting the entire planet - and blatant inaction from most world governments, who, much like the Syrian government, appear to be in a state of denial.

Is the Syrian story not applicable and extendable on a larger scale? How much longer will we have to wait before the current global crisis morphs into dangerous regional wars over dwindling resources?

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Haian Dukhan
Haian Dukhan is a Syrian British Academic. He is a Research Fellow at the Central European University and the author of "State and Tribes in Syria: Informal Alliances and Conflict Patterns".

Gianluca Serra
Gianluca Serra is an ecologist and conservation biologist.
US report reveals lack of transparency in counterterrorism operations

Washington has often failed to describe its counterterrorism operations around the world, finds Costs of War project


US President Joe Biden has openly signalled that it is "time to end the forever wars"
 (AFP/File photo)

MEE staff in
Washington
Published date: 14 December 2021

The United States has often failed to accurately describe its counterterrorism operations around the world, according to a new report from Brown University's Costs of War Project, in many cases relying on the wide-ranging 2001 Authorisation for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to formally justify its actions.

The report, published on Tuesday and using data from the Congressional Research Service, found that out of the 85 countries where the US undertook what it labelled as “counterterrorism” operations, it cited the 2001 AUMF for 22 of those countries.

However, even within those countries, there were an "unknown" number of US operations, revealing a lack of transparency over how the AUMF was used.

"Executive branch reporting to Congress in reference to the 2001 AUMF fails to specify the number of operations conducted in each of the 22 countries involved," the report said.

"In many locations of US military activities, the executive branch has inadequately described the full scope of US actions."

In one example referenced by the report, the US administration of former President Barack Obama reported in 2013 that its forces captured a member of al-Qaeda, but "made no reference to a continued US airstrike campaign, even though the US conducted three strikes against militants in Libya that same year

The AUMF was passed just a week after 11 September 2001, and gave Bush the authority to wage war and use "appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines" were involved in the attacks.

The open-ended and broad nature of the AUMF has allowed successive presidents to wage war against a number of groups, including al-Qaeda, the Taliban, al-Shabab, and the Islamic State (IS).

The 2001 AUMF was also used by the Obama administration to kill former al-Qaeda propagandist and US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in 2011. It has been applied in countries including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.

The report found that the US often used vague language to describe the locations of its counterterrorism operations, and when citing the 2001 AUMF, it referenced regions, not countries, where it was operating.

It reported there was evidence that the US conducted air strikes in Mali and Tunisia, but Washington did not report them to Congress or reference the military authorisation.

“There are several cases of combat and airstrikes since 2001 that various presidents have not reported to Congress," Stephanie Savell, co-director of the Costs of War Project and author of the analysis, said in a press release.

In some cases, the US only cited the AUMF after it was revealed that its personnel were killed, such as the case in 2017 in Niger when four American service members were killed in an ambush as they attempted to carry out a raid on a militant compound.
Efforts to repeal 2001 AUMF

US President Joe Biden has openly signalled that it is "time to end the forever wars", and his administration has made several moves this year in support of this.

The US has withdrawn its troops from Afghanistan, announced that it would withdraw troops from Iraq, and has stated its goal of closing the detention centre at Guantanamo Bay by the end of the president's term in office.

The president has also backed congressional efforts to repeal the 2002 AUMF for the Iraq war, which the administration said "has outlived its usefulness and should be repealed".

Still, while the Biden administration has said it supports narrowing war authorisations, it has not been explicit about the 2001 AUMF and how it should be re-written.

Over the past two decades, there have been multiple congressional efforts to repeal the AUMF, but not one of them has proven to be successful.

In August, the House Committee on Appropriations passed an amendment introduced by Congresswoman Barbara Lee that would sunset the 2001 AUMF after a further eight months. But it is unclear whether this amendment will move forward. Similar pieces of legislation in recent years have been discarded in negotiations with the Senate.



Avoiding the Worst in Ukraine and Taiwan

Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images

Dec 15, 2021
PROJECT SYNDICATE

No global structure of peace can be stable and secure unless all parties recognize others' legitimate security interests. If the brewing crises over Ukraine and Taiwan are to be resolved peacefully, the major powers will need to pause and consider the strategic perspectives of the other side.

NEW YORK – Two dangerous flashpoints, in Europe and Asia, could bring the United States, Russia, and China into open conflict. The crises over Ukraine and Taiwan can be resolved, but all parties must respect the others’ legitimate security interests. Acknowledging those interests objectively will provide the basis for a lasting de-escalation of tensions.

Consider Ukraine. Although it undoubtedly has the right to sovereignty and safety from a Russian invasion, it does not have the right to undermine Russia’s security in the process.

The current Ukraine crisis is the result of overreach by both Russia and the US. Russia’s overreach lies in its 2014 annexation of Crimea and occupation of Ukraine’s industrial heartland in Donetsk and Luhansk; and in its ongoing efforts to keep Ukraine dependent on it for energy, industrial inputs, and markets. Ukraine has a legitimate interest in integrating more closely with the European Union economy, and it has signed an association agreement with the EU for that purpose. The Kremlin, however, fears that EU membership could be a stepping stone for Ukraine to join NATO.

The US, too, has been overreaching. In 2008, US President George W. Bush’s administration called for Ukraine to be invited to join NATO, an addition that would establish the Alliance’s presence on Russia’s long border with that country. This provocative proposal divided US allies, but NATO nonetheless confirmed that Ukraine could eventually be welcomed as a member, noting that Russia has no veto over who joins. When Russia violently annexed Crimea in 2014, one of its objectives was to ensure that NATO could never gain access to Russia’s Black Sea naval base and fleet.

Judging by the public transcripts of discussions between US President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin this month, NATO enlargement to Ukraine remains on the table. Although France and Germany might well maintain their longstanding threat to veto any such bid for membership, Ukrainian and NATO officials have both reiterated that the choice to join lies with Ukraine. Moreover, a high-ranking Estonian parliamentarian has warned that walking back Ukraine’s right to join NATO would be tantamount to Britain’s appeasement of Hitler in 1938.

Yet American leaders who argue that Ukraine has the right to choose its own military alliance should reflect on their country’s own long history of categorical opposition to outside meddling in the Western hemisphere. This position was first expressed in the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, and it was on full display in the violent US reaction to Fidel Castro’s turn toward the Soviet Union after the 1959 Cuban Revolution.


Back then, US President Dwight D. Eisenhower declared that “Cuba has been handed over to the Soviet Union as an instrument with which to undermine our position in Latin America and the world.” He ordered the CIA to devise plans for an invasion. The result was the Bay of Pigs fiasco (under President John F. Kennedy), which lit the fuse for the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

Countries cannot simply choose their military alliances, because such choices often have security implications for their neighbors. Following World War II, Austria and Finland both secured their independence and future prosperity by not joining NATO, as that would have provoked Soviet ire. Ukraine today should show the same prudence.

The issues in Taiwan are similar. Taiwan has the right to peace and democracy in accord with the concept of the “One China” policy, which has been the bedrock of China’s relations with the US since the days of Richard Nixon and Mao Zedong. The US is right to warn China against any unilateral military action toward Taiwan, as that would threaten global security and the world economy. Yet, just as Ukraine does not have the right to join NATO, Taiwan does not have the right to secede from China.

In recent years, however, some Taiwanese politicians have flirted with declaring independence, and some US politicians have taken liberties with the “One China” principle. Then President-elect Donald Trump started the US’ backsliding in December 2016, when he said, “I fully understand the ‘One China’ policy, but I don’t know why we have to be bound by a ‘One China’ policy unless we make a deal with China having to do with other things, including trade.”

Then, President Joe Biden provocatively included Taiwan in his Summit for Democracy this month, following US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s recent advocacy for Taiwan’s “robust participation” in the United Nations system. Such US actions have greatly aggravated tensions with China.

Again, those US security analysts who argue that Taiwan is within its rights to declare independence should reflect on America’s own history. The US fought a civil war over the legitimacy of secession, and the secessionists lost. The US government would not tolerate Chinese support for a secessionist movement in, say, California (nor would European countries such as Spain, which has faced the real thing in Basque Country and Catalonia).

The risks of military escalation over Taiwan are compounded by NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg’s recent announcement that the alliance’s future rationale will include countering China. An alliance created to defend Western Europe from invasion by a now-defunct European power should not be repurposed as a US-led military alliance against an Asian power.

The Ukraine and Taiwan crises can be resolved peacefully and straightforwardly. NATO should take Ukraine’s membership off the table, and Russia should forswear any invasion. Ukraine should be free to orient its trade policies however it sees fit, provided that it abides by World Trade Organization principles.

Similarly, the US should make clear once again that it steadfastly opposes Taiwan’s secession and does not aim to “contain” China, especially by reorienting NATO. For its part, China should renounce unilateral military action against Taiwan and reaffirm the two-system principle, which many Taiwanese believe to be under imminent threat following the crackdown in Hong Kong.

No global structure of peace can be stable and secure unless all parties recognize others’ legitimate security interests. The best way for the major powers to begin to achieve that is to choose the path of mutual understanding and de-escalation over Ukraine and Taiwan.


JEFFREY D. SACHS
Writing for PS since 1995
348 Commentaries
Jeffrey D. Sachs, University Professor at Columbia University, is Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. He has served as adviser to three UN Secretaries-General, and currently serves as an SDG Advocate under Secretary-General António Guterres. His books include The End of Poverty, Common Wealth, The Age of Sustainable Development, Building the New American Economy, A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism, and, most recently, The Ages of Globalization.
COMMENTARY
Fine-tuning the doomsday machines:

Understanding the nuclear-missile dispute
America's ICBMs — nuclear missiles in underground silos — are not a "deterrent."

They're a holocaust in waiting

By NORMAN SOLOMON
PUBLISHED DECEMBER 15, 2021 5:30AM (EST)
Minuteman Missile (US Government Military Air Force)

Nuclear weapons are at the pinnacle of what Martin Luther King Jr. called "the madness of militarism." If you'd rather not think about them, that's understandable. But such a coping strategy has limited value. And those who are making vast profits from preparations for global annihilation are further empowered by our avoidance.

At the level of national policy, nuclear derangement is so normalized that few give it a second thought. Yet normal does not mean sane. As an epigraph to his brilliant book "The Doomsday Machine," Daniel Ellsberg provides a chillingly apt quote from Friedrich Nietzsche: "Madness in individuals is something rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs, it is the rule."

Now, some policy technocrats for the U.S. nuclear arsenal and some advocates for arms control are locked in a heated dispute over the future of ICBMs, or intercontinental ballistic missiles. It's an argument between the "national security" establishment — hell-bent on "modernizing" ICBMs — and various nuclear-policy critics, who prefer to keep the current ICBMs in place. Both sides are refusing to acknowledge the profound need to get rid of them entirely.

RELATED: Norman Solomon on what the media won't say: "The American people live in a warfare state"

Elimination of ICBMs would substantially reduce the chances of a worldwide nuclear holocaust. ICBMs are uniquely vulnerable to effective attack, and thus have no deterrent value. Instead of being a "deterrent," ICBMs are actually land-based sitting ducks, and for that reason are set up for "launch on warning."

As a result, whether a report of incoming missiles is accurate or a false alarm, the commander in chief would have to quickly decide whether to "use or lose" the ICBMs. "If our sensors indicate that enemy missiles are en route to the United States, the president would have to consider launching ICBMs before the enemy missiles could destroy them; once they are launched, they cannot be recalled," former Defense Secretary William Perry wrote. "The president would have less than 30 minutes to make that terrible decision."

Experts like Perry are clear as they advocate for scrapping ICBMs. But the ICBM force is a sacred cash cow. And news reports currently feature arguments over exactly how to keep feeding it.

Last week, the Guardian reported that the Pentagon has ordered an external study of options for ICBMs. Trouble is, the two options under consideration — extending the life of the currently deployed Minuteman III missiles or replacing them with a new missile system — do nothing to reduce the escalating dangers of nuclear war, whereas eliminating the nation's ICBMs would greatly reduce those dangers.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

But an enormous ICBM lobbying apparatus remains in high gear, with huge corporate profits at stake. Northrop Grumman has landed a $13.3 billion contract to proceed with developing a new ICBM system, misleadingly named the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent. It's all in sync with automatic political devotion to ICBMs in Congress and the executive branch.

The sea-based and air-based portions of the "nuclear triad" (submarines and bombers) are invulnerable to successful attack — unlike ICBMs, which are completely vulnerable. The subs and bombers, able to destroy any and all targeted countries many times over, provide vastly more "deterrent" than anyone could ever reasonably want.
Advertisement:

In sharp contrast, ICBMs are the opposite of a deterrent. In effect, they're prime targets for a nuclear first strike because of their vulnerability, and for the same reason would have no "deterrent" capacity to retaliate. ICBMs have only one foreseeable function — to serve as a "sponge" to absorb the start of a nuclear war.

Armed and on hair-trigger alert, the country's 400 ICBMs are deeply entrenched — not only within underground silos scattered across five states, but also in the mindsets of the U.S. political establishment. If the goal is to get big campaign contributions from military contractors, fuel the humongous profits of the military-industrial complex, and stay in sync with the outlooks that dominate corporate media, those mindsets are logical. If the goal is to prevent nuclear war, the mindsets are unhinged.

As Ellsberg and I wrote in an article for The Nation this fall, "Getting trapped in an argument about the cheapest way to keep ICBMs operational in their silos is ultimately no-win. The history of nuclear weapons in this country tells us that people will spare no expense if they believe that spending the money will really make them and their loved ones safer — we must show them that ICBMs actually do the opposite." Even if Russia and China didn't reciprocate at all, the result of U.S. closure of all its ICBMs would be to greatly reduce the chances of nuclear war.

On Capitol Hill, such realities are hazy and beside the point compared to straight-ahead tunnel vision and momentum of conventional wisdom. For members of Congress, routinely voting to appropriate billions of dollars for nuclear weaponry seems natural. Challenging rote assumptions about ICBMs will be essential to disrupt the march toward nuclear apocalypse.

More from Norman Solomon on military spending and corporate power: