Indian High Court Allows Indian Journalist to Travel Abroad to Speak About Intimidation

April 05, 2022 
Shaikh Azizur Rahman

FILE - Indian journalist and author, Rana Ayyub poses with her self published book 'Gujarat Files' during the launch event in New Delhi, May 27, 2016.

The Delhi High Court has allowed prominent Indian journalist Rana Ayyub to travel abroad, six days after she was prevented from taking a flight to Europe to speak in a series of lectures there about harassment and intimidation of journalists in the world’s largest democracy.

On Tuesday, March 29, the independent investigative journalist, who writes for The Washington Post, received an emailed summons from India’s Enforcement Directorate (ED), which investigates financial crimes, 14 minutes before her flight for London was to depart from Mumbai.

SEE ALSO:
Indian Journalist Stopped From Flying to UK, Italy to Speak About Intimidation

Known as a Look Out Circular [LOC], the summons was related to an investigation the directorate is conducting into the alleged misuse of donations that Ayyub collected for relief work during the COVID-19 pandemic.

On Monday, the court quashed the LOC, noting that it was “mala fide,” or “devoid of merits,” and infringed on the “human right [of Ayyub] to travel abroad and exercise her freedom of speech and expression.” The court has now allowed Ayyub to travel abroad on condition that she share her detailed itinerary with the ED and return to India by April 11.

Neither the EC nor the government has commented publicly on the ruling.
Ayyub is a fierce critic of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Hindu nationalist ideology of his Bharatiya Janata Party and the activities of Hindu right-wing groups and political leaders. On social media, far-right Hindu supporters of Modi regularly abuse and threaten her for her articles highlighting the harassment and persecution of Muslims in India.

Attacks against Ayyub have escalated since the ED froze her bank accounts, accused her of laundering money and launched an investigation into the case in February.

Ayyub has denied the allegation that the ED leveled against her. She has called the actions by the agency an attempt to intimidate her.

Lawyer Vrinda Grover, who represented Ayyub in the Delhi court, said that her client was being harassed by the ED because she was a critic of the government.

After Ayyub was prevented from taking the flight last week, the London programs where she was scheduled to speak on April 1 were canceled. With the Delhi court lifting the ban on Ayyub’s travel Monday, she is scheduled to take part in an event, organized by the International Journalism Festival, in Perugia, Italy.

Ayyub is to deliver a lecture titled, “When the State Attacks: journalism under fire in the world's biggest democracy,” as the scheduled keynote speaker, on Friday, April 8.

Several participants of the festival expressed joy and relief on learning that Ayyub would be at the festival.

Julie Posetti, vice president of global research at the International Center for Journalists, or ICFJ, and an expert in online attacks against women journalists, said she is “thrilled that the New Delhi High Court has delivered justice and overruled the totally unjustified ban on Rana Ayyub's right to travel to speak at international events about press freedom erosion in India and threats to women journalists online.”

“The ban slapped on her as she attempted to board a flight to London at the invitation of ICFJ and UK-based human rights lawyers at Doughty Street Chambers was a bald and ham-fisted attempt to silence her critical journalism and commentary and crush her spirit - but it ultimately failed,” Posetti, who will be the moderator during Ayyub’s lecture at the journalism festival, told VOA.

It is essential that Ayyub be able to tell her stories and speak her truth within the international journalism community if the world is to believe that press freedom and genuine democracy have a future in India, Posetti noted.

“More power to her for confronting the Indian authorities and demanding her rights be upheld,” Posetti said.

Mottley, Trudeau to co-chair UN Sustainable Development Goals Advocates group

Article by
Kendy

Prime Minister Mia Mottley (GP)

United Nations – United Nations Secretary General Antonio Gueterres Wednesday named Barbados’ Prime Minister Mia Mottley and her Canadian counterpart, Justin Trudeau as new co-chairs of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) Advocates group amidst the growing number of development crises facing the world.

“The Sustainable Development Goals are the world’s blueprint to build a healthier, greener and sustainable future by 2030.  With the clock ticking and multiple crises driving us further off track, we must do everything in our power to deliver the SDGs,” said Guterres.

“I’m pleased that Prime Minister Mottley and Prime Minister Trudeau will help lead advocacy to do just that,” he said.

Mottley said it was necessary to “seize the moment to move forward, together, to ensure the full implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development by the end of the Decade of Action and Delivery on the Sustainable Development Goals”.

Mottley has campaigned extensively for climate action and debt sustainability in middle-income countries and small states. In 2021, she was awarded the Champions of the Earth Award for her leadership.

Trudeau has been a strong advocate for climate action and nature protection, the empowerment of women and girls around the world, and ensuring an inclusive and resilient recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.

“To build a better future for people and the planet, we must all place the values of inclusion and sustainability at the heart of everything we do. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals aim to create a world that is fair, equal, and peaceful, with clean air and clean water for everyone.

“As co-Chair of the SDG Advocates group, I look forward to rallying countries, governments, the private sector, and others, to come together to accelerate our progress and continue to raise our voices – and our ambition – on the path to 2030,” said Trudeau.

The SDG Advocates are influential leaders who support the Secretary-General in raising global ambition and action to keep the promise of the SDGs.

The previous co-chairs, President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo of Ghana and former Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg have led the group since 2016 and 2014, respectively. The Secretary-General has thanked them for putting the SDGs on the global political agenda.

They will continue to stay engaged as co-chairs of the SDG Advocates Emeritus Group, a group of alumni Advocates who continue to support the achievement of the SDGs.

The following is the list of SDG Advocates.

Her Majesty Queen Mathilde of the Belgians

His Royal Highness Muhammadu Sanusi II, 14th Emir of Kano

Her Highness Sheikha Moza bint Nasser of Qatar

BLACKPINK, K-pop Girl Group

Richard Curtis, Screenwriter, Producer and Film Director

Hindou Ibrahim, Activist for Climate Action and Indigenous Rights

Graça Machel, Founder and Chair of the Board, Graça Machel Trust

Dia Mirza, Actor, UN Environment Programme Goodwill Ambassador

Valentina Muñoz Rabanal, STEM Activist

Edward Ndopu, Public Intellectual, Humanitarian and Founder of A BILLION REASONS

Jeffrey Sachs, Director, Earth Institute at Colombia University

Kailash Satyarthi, Nobel Peace Laureate, Founder of Kailash Satyarthi Children’s Foundation

Brad Smith, President, Microsoft Corporation

Forest Whitaker, Founder and CEO, Whitaker Peace & Development Initiative, UNESCO Special Envoy for Peace and Reconciliation

(CMC)

St Lucia iguana under threat

Article by
sherrylynclarke@nationnews.com

CASTRIES – St Lucia says it is taking “decisive steps” to quell the upsurge of the invasive iguana population on the island.

“The issue of hybridisation of St Lucia’s endemic iguana has been brought to the forefront by the discovery of a pregnant green invasive species of iguana in Vieux Fort,” south of here, according to a statement issued by the Ministry of Agriculture.

“This iguana belongs to a genetic group similar to the endemic St Lucia iguana, which is known to have unique bodily features including black dewlap. The invasive green iguana, on the hand, carries a greyish, orange dewlap.”

The statement said that while the species is thought to be a descendant of an escaped, smuggled pet, the recent discovery of the pregnant species indicates that alien invasive species threats have rapidly escalated in recent years.

“In this case, the invasive green iguana reproduces more quickly than the endemic St Lucia iguana, putting the native at risk of being outnumbered in the wild.”

The Ministry said that despite being classified as invasive, non-native species are protected by the Wildlife Protection Act established in 1980 and should not be harmed, but urged people to be on the lookout for these species and report any sightings of the green invasive species to the Department of Forestry. (CMC)

Q&A: The aid policy ‘limbo’ on Bangladesh’s refugee island

‘We are stuck in this situation.’

Irwin Loy
Asia Editor

Aid and Policy

Interview
5 April 2022

Rohingya refugees prepare to board a ship bound for Bhasan Char island, Bangladesh, on 29 December 2020. (Mohammad Ponir Hossain/REUTERS)

Donor reluctance to fund aid on Bhasan Char, Bangladesh’s controversial island refugee camp, is preventing basic services from scaling up and leaving refugees in limbo, says the head of a leading Bangladeshi NGO.

Authorities in Bangladesh have transferred at least 24,000 Rohingya from mainland camps to the island, where aid is provided mainly by local NGOs.

The UN’s refugee agency, UNHCR, inked an agreement to support services on Bhasan Char in October 2021. A UN-led appeal for the Rohingya response, launched in late March, calls for about $100 million in funding for Bhasan Char – the first time these annual humanitarian plans have included the island.

Foreign donors still appear split on Bhasan Char, amid long-standing concerns that Rohingya are pressured to relocate there. The UK, for example, says it will contribute funding for the first time. The United States – the largest donor to the Rohingya response – says its funding “does not currently support Bhasan Char”.

Preventing funding from being used on Bhasan Char leaves healthcare and other services missing or severely inadequate, says Asif Saleh, the executive director of BRAC Bangladesh.

“We are stuck in this limbo,” Saleh told The New Humanitarian in an interview. “We are just not moving on.”

Bhasan Char remains controversial for donors and international aid groups, years after Bangladesh first proposed sending refugees to the island.

The country hosts some 900,000 Rohingya, who have fled generations of persecution in their Myanmar homeland. Bangladesh’s government has said it intends to send up to 100,000 people to the island as part of a plan to reduce the density of mainland camps in Cox’s Bazar.

Rights groups call Bhasan Char a disaster-prone “prison”. They say government efforts to convince Rohingya to move to the island are “coercive” and “misleading”, marred by threats and intimidation. Last year, at least 11 Rohingya drowned after their boat capsized when fleeing the island, Human Rights Watch said.

Saleh says there have been government “missteps”, but also genuine efforts to improve and to invest in Bhasan Char’s flood barriers and infrastructure.

In the mainland camps, meanwhile, conditions have deteriorated and government restrictions have escalated. The national mood toward the Rohingya has become “more hostile”, Saleh said.

He spoke to The New Humanitarian about how Bhasan Char has fractured the relationship between the government and international aid agencies, why he’s pushing for donors to reverse course, and why he believes this will improve conditions for Rohingya elsewhere.

The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
The New Humanitarian: You describe an atmosphere of growing hostility toward the Rohingya. How does this affect you as a Bangladeshi NGO?

Asif Saleh: At the local level, we have to navigate the political atmosphere very carefully. The security situation has deteriorated in the camps.

For us, it’s very important that we serve the refugees wherever they are. So, from that perspective, this whole limbo situation regarding Bhasan Char – the push and pull between UN, the government, the various donors – has not really helped us.

What has happened over time has been that because of the lack of progress on this, there have been efforts to put tighter control in the camps… You have to go through a lot more approval processes and other things that require a lot of time.

It’s been three years [since] this conversation about Bhasan Char started. I think it’s really time to move on, so that everybody can start focusing on more mid-term issues. Because it’s not helping anybody. It’s not helping the people who have moved to Bhasan Char. It’s not helping the people in the rest of the camps.
The New Humanitarian: The UNHCR and government signed a memorandum of understanding on Bhasan Char last October. What do you think has gotten in the way of scaling up?

Saleh: The last six months since the MoU has been signed, the relationship between the UN and government has improved. The challenge is that the global narrative is still stuck a bit on the earlier days. As well, I think there has been some clumsy effort from the government side in terms of how some of the refugees were transferred.

Right now… we know that there have been mechanisms in place for people to visit the Cox’s Bazar camps from Bhasan Char. Government had bigger plans to move more refugees, but they are ensuring that it is completely voluntary, so the numbers have been a lot less.

But somehow there is quite a wider chatter with other human rights organisations, that has been not necessarily real-time. It’s kind of reflecting what happened in previous years.
The New Humanitarian: Let’s talk about these issues. Rights groups say recent transfers have been “coercive”, “involuntary”, and “misleading”. Fortify Rights reported refugees were threatened with aid denial. This was in January. A report in February found majhis (Rohingya leaders appointed by camp authorities) in a camp said that families would be picked randomly if there were no volunteers. That was by the International Rescue Committee, not a rights group. These and other accounts are very recent reports, all describing the same problems.

Saleh: I’m pretty sure some of the incidents that have been mentioned have happened. The question is, then, would we use this to basically completely stop this and stop the funding?

… The refugees also have mentioned to the special rapporteur [for human rights in Myanmar, Tom Andrews], when he was visiting [in December 2021], that if there were jobs and education and good healthcare available, they would actually prefer staying in Bhasan Char because the security conditions and the overall living conditions are better.

So this is becoming a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we take a slightly broader lens and ensure that we can actually make these services available, and then leave it up to the refugees – do you want to move or not? – that would be a bit fairer assessment.

… I think some of those things absolutely have happened. But the question is now do we get stuck on that, or do we take a broader view, and ensure that we look at the situation in a slightly more comprehensive manner?
The New Humanitarian: Why not wait until there are more assurances?

Saleh: Who’s going to give that certification? This situation is going on for almost two and a half years. I think there is a responsibility from all sides to ensure this happens. It’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation right now: Someone has to move first.

The global narrative that is out there is extremely hostile to Bangladesh and I think that’s not fair. The countries who are opposing – none of those countries is willing to take a single one of the refugees. So if you’re not willing to take them, but you’re very eager to impose all these restrictions on them, I think it’s slightly unfair.
The New Humanitarian: Some Rohingya have chosen to go to Bhasan Char. Others think that they have no choice but to go. Others are going only because the security situation in the mainland camps has become so bad. And I know others who simply do not want to go, and they say there are people who are still being forced. Are you confident that everyone who is on Bhasan Char wants to be there?

Saleh: No. I’m not confident that everybody wants to be there. But what I’m confident of is that we can make a different story in Bhasan Char by investing in it.

We are looking at the mid- to long-term. This issue is not going away any time soon. We clearly see that there is donor fatigue coming in. There’s the Ukraine refugee crisis that has started now. So this money is going to dry up sooner than later.

… Bhasan Char can be an interesting model where [Rohingya refugees] can self-sustain by taking livelihood opportunities. So once those opportunities are created, I feel confident that a lot more refugees will look at it and see – living condition-wise and opportunity-wise – this makes sense. Right now, that investment needs to happen for that to happen.
The New Humanitarian: The government already has strict limits and restrictions on livelihoods, education, even on building materials. Why would the government allow things on Bhasan Char that they have not in the mainland camps?

Saleh: They are a lot more open when it comes to Bhasan Char. They are a lot more open about livelihoods – what they’re willing to allow in Bhasan Char.

So that’s one. The second thing: There is a lot of closing down of policy negotiation exactly because of this Bhasan Char limbo. Once this gets resolved, I think we will have a lot more opening to negotiate with the government on some of these issues.

… I think there are windows of opportunities to work with the government and negotiate with the government on all of these issues. That is why it is very essential to move past this, so that we can start those negotiations: The donors can start those negotiations; UN can start those negotiations with the government. Otherwise, we are stuck in this situation.

Related articles

Aid and Policy
Why we Rohingya want to save our refugee-run schools
First person
17 January 2022

Conflict

As violence soars in refugee camps, Rohingya women speak up
News
2 August 2021

At key Geneva meet, US and allies to be pushed on urban warfare restrictions

PUBLISHED April 5, 2022
WRITTEN BY Sanjana Varghese
Web link



Crucial UN-brokered talks begin on restricting heavy explosive weapon use in populated areas

State delegates from around the world will meet this week in Geneva for UN-backed crunch talks, working towards a political declaration on restricting the use of wide area effect explosive weapons in urban conflict. If successful, the move could help save thousands of civilian lives.

Representatives from more than 60 countries will meet from April 6th-8th in the Swiss city of Geneva to try and hammer out the wording of a protocol, or political declaration, on restricting the use of wide area effect explosive weapons in populated areas (EWIPA).

As wars have increasingly moved from open battlefields to urban environments, weapons designed for the former are being deployed in heavily populated areas – sharply increasing the risks of harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure.

UN and civil society reports have repeatedly found that civilians and civilian infrastructure are at most risk when heavy explosive weapons are used in populated areas. This has been clearly demonstrated in recent weeks in Ukraine as Russian forces have pounded civilian neighbourhoods with devastating results, but has also been documented in other recent conflicts across the globe.

Research by Action On Armed Violence indicates for example that around 90 percent of those killed and injured by explosive weapons in populated areas are civilians.

“Ukraine puts a spotlight on the devastating consequences civilians face when towns and cities are bombed. But this is a pattern of harm that we see elsewhere too: Ethiopia, Gaza, Iraq, Yemen, and Syria are all recent examples,” said Laura Boillot, coordinator for the International Network on Explosive Weapons, which is leading civil society efforts to restrict EWIPA use.

To highlight the EWIPA talks, the campaigning group Humanity & Inclusion has installed a tank made of balloons outside the United Nations in Geneva (Credit: Megan Karlshoej-Pedersen/Airwars)

“This week, states have an opportunity to reduce civilian harm and agree a new international declaration that commits states to avoid the use in populated areas of explosive weapons with wide area effects.”

In 2019, Ireland convened the first EWIPA negotiations, inviting delegates from every country to join and shape a resolution to change how explosive weapons are used in populated areas.

In the years since, delegates have continued to gather to discuss the text of the declaration – which will be finalised and ratified by states this summer.

While not a United Nations process, the EWIPA proceedings are backed heavily by the UN; and Secretary General Antonio Guterres has repeatedly called for countries to adopt a strong protocol.

US, UK, France in focus

During three days of talks in Geneva, representatives from attending countries will pore over the draft resolution and try to agree on key sections of text.

Much of the focus will likely be on winning the support of those states which have previously attempted to water down the declaration’s language, including the United States, the United Kingdom and France. While some states argue that abiding by international humanitarian law (IHL) is enough, others like Britain also claim that limiting explosive weapon use in cities “would reduce the UK’s ability to operate legitimately and responsibly.”

Critics say that adherence to IHL alone is not sufficient to protect civilians during attacks on cities – a point recently supported by a major Pentagon-published study into the ferocious 2017 Battle of Raqqa, which noted that the US-led Coalition caused “significant civilian harm despite a deeply ingrained commitment to the law of war.”

Efforts by the US, UK and others to water down the political declaration would make it effectively useless critics warn – and crucially, would not lead to changes in the way that states actually approach the use of explosive weapons in cities.

Detailed negotiations

The draft resolution being discussed at Geneva consists of two parts – a preamble, which lays out the framework and overall considerations; and the operative section, which effectively compels states to act. For example, the value of tracking civilian casualties in real-time are currently mentioned in the preamble, but aren’t in the operative section – though some states are pushing for it to be moved there.

Broadly speaking, those attending the political declaration talks can be split into two camps: those states that argue the resolution should use weaker language; and those nations – backed by the UN – arguing that the declaration should be as strong as possible.

Other key states, including Russia and China, are not expected to attend this round of talks.

Among the strongest advocates for an effective political declaration is Ireland, which has led the process. UN Secretary-General Antonio Gutteres has also called for “strong” wording. “The Secretary-General supports the development of a political declaration, as well as appropriate limitations, common standards and operational policies in conformity with, and further to existing requirements under, international humanitarian law relating to the use of explosive weapons in populated areas,” he said in a recent statement.

Some countries, such as Belgium, have already passed their own parliamentary resolutions indicating that they will be signing the declaration, although it is still unclear how this would be implemented in practice.

While these negotiations were originally planned to be the final in a series of discussions, there may still be a further round ahead of final ratification in the summer. In the meantime, supporters of controls on explosive weapon use in cities believe that Russia’s extensive use of indiscriminate large weapons on Ukrainian cities – and the horrific civilian toll associated with such attacks – may help sway wavering countries.

Airwars

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY 

FACT FILE

What is carbon capture and storage?

The technology could help ‘neutralise’ emissions from power plants, according to UN report on climate change

THE WEEK STAFF
5 APR 2022

A carbon capture facility in Longanet, Scotland
Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images

Carbon dioxide should be removed from the air and stored underground as part of a raft of urgently needed measures to tackle global warming, a landmark report by UN scientists has advised.

The latest review by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found that technologies including carbon capture and storage (CCS) were “likely to be necessary” to ensure that any “temperature overshoot” beyond the maximum 1.5C above pre-industrial levels required to limit climate change was “temporary”, The Guardian’s environment correspondent Fiona Harvey reported.

However, the UN body “was also clear that they cannot substitute for ending our dependence on fossil fuels now”, she added.
Capturing carbon

Countries worldwide are “planning far too many new coal-fired power plants, gas installations and other fossil fuel infrastructure to stay within the carbon budgets needed to meet the 1.5C goal”, said The Guardian’s Harvey.

But the UN’s climate change panel said that while the only long-term solution was to phase out coal use, CCS could help to “neutralise emissions from new power plants”.

CCS is the process in which harmful carbon is caught from “concentrated industrial emissions at their source, preventing them from entering the atmosphere at all”, explained The Independent’s environment correspondent Harry Cockburn. The gas is then “liquified” and pumped underground for long-term storage at sites such as depleted oil or gas fields.

CSS has been “discussed for two decades”, said The Guardian’s Harvey, but is “currently only used at a small scale”.

Another similar technology is also being developed. Known as greenhouse gas removal (GGR) or carbon dioxide removal (CDR), the process “involves removing carbon from the atmosphere by chemical means”, wrote Harvey.

According to The Independent’s Cockburn, “there is a consensus that investing and utilising these technologies needs to be rapidly scaled up to have the impact required to keep the targets of the Paris Climate Agreement in sight”.

But critics have suggested “that industries and processes which already emit greenhouse gases could, or already are, using the burgeoning technology as a kind of get-out-of-jail-free card”, he added. Sceptics reportedly fear that businesses and political leaders may “​​pin their future carbon reduction targets on installing or investing in GGR or CCS technology”.
Fix for the future?

The International Energy Agency (IEA) reported last November that the strengthening of climate goals and new investment incentives was “delivering unprecedented momentum for CCS, with plans for more than 100 new facilities announced in 2021”.

These new technologies “will play an important role in meeting net zero targets, including as one of few solutions to tackle emissions from heavy industry and to remove carbon from the atmosphere”, the Paris-based intergovernmental organisation said.

CSS has also been backed by Robert Gross, professor of energy policy at Imperial College London and director of the UK Energy Research Centre. “We will need not just net zero but to start to remove CO2 from the air,” he told The Guardian.

“We cannot do one instead of the other, but we have reached the point where it is likely that humanity will need to do both to avoid dangerous climate change.”
False dawn

While interest in CCS is growing, some critics have claimed that “most schemes to capture and reuse carbon actually increase emissions”, New Scientist reported.

Research has found that carbon capture technologies typically “emit more carbon than they remove”, said the magazine, which suggested that such “projects, which have attracted billions of dollars in investment, won’t do much to achieve the Paris Agreement’s emission targets”.

Current efforts to roll out CCS are also “dwarfed by the size of the challenge” of combating emissions, said Sky News’ economics and data editor Ed Conway. The UK “is littered with pilot projects that fell by the wayside”, reported Conway, who questioned whether the technology can “fulfil its promise”.

The Independent’s Cockburn pointed out that even the world’s largest “direct air-capture” machine, at Iceland’s Orca plant, “is capable of sucking up just 4,000 tonnes of CO2 a year – a tiny fraction of global emissions, which totalled 31.5 billion tonnes in 2020”.

All the same, many governments “plan to rely heavily on still-developing carbon capture technologies, or tree-planting over massive areas of land, in order to offset emissions”, Time reported.

But the IPCC has repeatedly warned that “​​they should not be considered a substitute for cutting fossil fuel use”, the magazine added.

Climate change: the cities most at risk

Will climate change lead to war?

Climate change: the worst offenders

THE REALITY IS THAT CCS IS NOT GREEN NOR CLEAN IT IS GOING TO BE USED TO FRACK OLD DRY WELLS SUCH AS IN THE BAKAN SHIELD IN SASKATCHEWAN
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-myth-of-carbon-capture-and-storage.html

ALSO SEE https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/search?q=CCS

Ukrainian-Americans hold protest outside Tucker Carlson event over his pro-Putin comments

‘He needs to show the world he has empathy’

Gino Spocchia

Tucker Carlson calls support for Ukraine ‘largest political flashmob in American history’

Demonstrators assembled outside a venue in California at the weekend in protest against Tucker Carlson and his views on Russia.

The group took a stand outside the Awaken Church in San Marcos, near San Diego, where Carlson was holding a live event on Sunday evening.

Demonstrators held Ukrainian and American flags as well as placards with statements attacking Carlson for his comments on Russia and Ukraine in recent months. Children and adults were at the protest.

The conservative talk show host has long been accused of sympathising with Russian president Vladimir Putin and his war against Ukraine, after alleging that Ukraine is “not even a democracy”.

“Why would we take Ukraine’s side and not Russia’s side? It’s a sincere question,” Carlson asked in November amid the Russian build-up of troops on the border with Ukraine. “Why would we take Ukraine’s side? Why wouldn’t we be on Russia’s side? I’m totally confused.”

Recommended

Russia state TV calls Gabbard ‘our friend Tulsi’ as Tucker Carlson interview aired

Carlson, who said in 2019 that he was “rooting” for Russia, has also attacked Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky and described support for the country as “the largest political flash mob in American history” after war began on 24 February.

“He needs to change, he needs to show to the public and to the world and to himself that he is for life, for humans, for people, and [that] he has empathy and decency to take a right side,” one protester told reporters outside the Awaken Church.

“Your heartless message to [the] American people, who are the cradle of democracy, home of the brave, land of the free, is completely unacceptable, is completely unacceptable to anyone,” another argued.

Children’s shoes and baby strollers were displayed outside the San Marcos venue to represent the more than 150 children confirmed killed in the war by Russia, although analysts suggest that toll could be higher.

One sign read “Stop defending Putin’s lies”, while another said: “Zelensky is not a dictator”.

“A lot of the victims of this war are actually children,” another protester said, arguing: “Just last week we had more than 300 children that perished in this war and lost their lives, but this week is much more, we cannot even quantify.”

Of the four million or more Ukrainians who have fled their homes since war began on 24 February, more than half are children. Many have made their way to Poland.

A protester with a Ukrainian flag and shoes repressing those confirmed killed by Russia
(CBS 8 San Diego)

“I’ve been watching Tucker quite a while now and I just feel his viewpoints are, you know, spot on”, said a woman attending the Awaken Church event in defence of the Fox News host.

Carlson has been forced to roll back some criticism of Ukraine and last month described Mr Putin as somebody who “seems to be evil”.

Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, has meanwhile praised Fox News for its coverage of the conflict and said: “If you take the United States, only Fox News is trying to present some alternative points of view”.

The Independent has approached Fox News for comment.

ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M
Piracy, sea robberies in the Singapore Strait on the rise: Anti-piracy group

The Singapore Strait recorded 17 cases of sea robberies between January and March this year. ST PHOTO: KUA CHEE SIONG

Osmond Chia
PUBLISHED
3 HOURS AGO

SINGAPORE - Cases of piracy and sea robberies among trading ships and oil tankers have been on the rise in major shipping lanes near Singapore, which have been flagged as areas of concern by sea crime watch group Recaap.

The Singapore Strait, which is one of the world's busiest shipping lanes, recorded 17 cases of sea robberies between January and March this year - more than double that of the same period in 2021.

The increase was likely due to the economic impact of Covid-19, which may have led people to resort to crime on the high seas, said Recaap Information Sharing Centre (ISC) assistant director of research Lee Yin Mui on Tuesday (April 5).

Piracy and armed robbery cases in the Singapore Strait hit a six-year high in 2021 when 49 incidents were reported.

Ms Lee was speaking at the Piracy and Sea Robbery Conference conducted by Recaap, which is the Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia.

These incidents were relatively low between 2016 and 2019, but reports of sea robberies and piracy started to climb in 2020.

According to the official definition, piracy refers to attacks in international waters, while armed robbery refers to attacks within a state's territorial waters.

She said to some 150 audience members who attended online: "The pandemic has also made enforcement more challenging, which is why there must be greater cooperation during this time."

Ms Lee said perpetrators were armed with knives in six of the cases in the Singapore Strait. She added that no crew were harmed in any of the incidents, which involved mainly tankers and carriers.

Items stolen included engine parts and welding equipment, though some left empty-handed.

There were no serious incidents, such as cases that involved guns or resulted in serious injuries, among the 17 incidents reported, Ms Lee added.

She urged nearby states to increase patrols and share surveillance findings with their neighbours as part of a collective effort to fight sea crimes.

The Malacca Strait was also flagged as an area of concern by the secretary-general of the International Maritime Organisation, Mr Kitack Lim, in his keynote address, with 69 cases of piracy and robbery reported last year, compared with 48 in 2020.

In his presentation on safety measures against piracy and sea robberies, general manager of the tanker management team of HMM Ocean Service Joo Sung-kuk urged shipping companies to have a security plan before their ships enter areas prone to sea crimes.

He advised shipping companies to monitor piracy-related websites and to report incidents and findings to Recaap and other databases promptly.

Ship masters should also brief the crew and conduct drills to prepare for emergencies, he said.

Vessels should be designed with multiple layers of defence, including hardened doors, gates and comprehensive surveillance camera coverage and communications, said Mr Joo.

He recommended that Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia strengthen cooperation over maritime security to tackle the problem.

Recaap ISC executive director Krishnaswamy Natarajan said the fight against sea crimes against ships is a shared responsibility and that cooperation among countries surrounding the Singapore Strait is key to reducing piracy and sea robbery.

When asked about the possibility that sea robberies were being over-reported, Ms Lee said Recaap does its part to verify with sources such as the ship master.

Although many cases were considered "petty thefts", the situation could get worse if it is not dealt with, she added.

Said Ms Lee: "If it is unreported, perpetrators could become bolder over time. Even if nothing is stolen, it is one incident too many."

MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Piracy and armed robbery cases in Singapore Strait hit 6-year high in 2021

Pirate attacks at 27-year low in 2021: Watchdog

CIA & CHINA=UNITA VS CUBA & MPLA

20 years after Angola peace treaty, Unita not happy with state of country

NEVER WERE 

Lenin Ndebele

Joao Lourenco (File: AFP)

Former rebel force turned political party, Unita, accused the MPLA government of being corrupt.

Unita is challenging government to ratify peace agreements, especially the social inclusion of ex-rebels.

Angola is set for general elections in August 2022, and is expected to test João Lourenço's presidency.

On 4 April, the Day of Peace and National Reconciliation, Angola celebrated two decades of peace.


However, some former National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (Unita) rebels, who fought under the late Jonas Savimbi, complained that the socio-political and economic status of the country had declined.

In a statement, Unita's Standing Committee of the Political Commission said it was concerned about "the vertiginous rise in the prices of basic food products, endemic corruption and the systemic and degradation of moral and civic value and the abuse and violation of human rights".

Unita also added that "after 20 years, the balance is mitigated as Angolans are experiencing a serious economic, financial and social crisis".

Angola, like most African countries, is resource rich. Its economy hinges on diamonds, natural gas and oil.

READ | Angola opposition protests 'unfair' poll law reforms

However, opposition parties as well as political analysts said corruption in these sectors had risen under President João Lourenço.

Rajen Harshe, from the Observer Research Foundation, said the poverty gap had widened in Angola.

He said:
Unsurprisingly, the gap between the rich and the poor, amongst [the] 33 million Angolan population, has been growing and an overwhelming majority of the people in Angola live with an average income of less than $2 per day.

On 1 March, Unita leader Adalberto Costa Júnior met with Lourenço to encourage him to "persist in this path that is absolutely salutary and exemplary for the citizens and institutions of the country".

With Angola set for the polls in August, the rebel veterans said the People's Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) government had been in power since independence from Portugal in 1975, and was failing to uphold all peace treaties agreed upon at the ceasefire after 20 years of civil war.

Costa took with him the grievances of Unita's civil war veterans who said peace was their leader Jonas Savimbi's wish.

Unita said in a statement:
To this end, Dr Savimbi took several diplomatic initiatives and spared no physical and other sacrifices, to the point of donating his own life.

As Angola marked 20 years of peace, Unita said it would press ahead with seeing all peace treaties ratified mainly for the social inclusion of ex-combatants and the return of their material heritage.

Savimbi, Unita's founder and revolutionary politician cum rebel military leader, died in battle on 22 February 2002 against government forces. He was 67.

His storied life became an enigma, having been reported dead at least 15 times and having survived numerous assassinations. His eventual death signalled a new chapter in the history of Angola as a peace agreement between Unita and MPLA was signed eight weeks after.

Kurdish infighting could undermine a sovereign Iraqi government

BY DAVID SCHENKER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 04/05/22 
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT OF THE HILL

Associated Press/Anmar Khalil

Populist Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, speaks during a press conference in Najaf, Iraq, Nov. 18, 2021.

For Washington and other supporters of a sovereign and prosperous Iraq, the October 2021 Iraqi parliamentary elections were a success. Contrary to expectations, Iranian-backed Shiite Islamist parties and their militias known as the Popular Mobilization Forces, or Hashd, were defeated at the ballot box. The Hashd lost not to Western-oriented candidates but to another credible local Shiite party whose leader’s hashtag, #NeitherEastnorWest, was an unambiguous call for an Iraq dominated by neither Tehran nor Washington. The election results mitigated toward the establishment of a new, majoritarian government — the first since the 2003 U.S. invasion — capable of pursuing better governance and an independent Iraq.

It’s cruel irony that this potential outcome, a longstanding U.S. aspiration for Iraq, appears to have been undermined in part by Washington’s best friends in Iraq: the Kurds.

The big winner in the electoral contest was Muqtada al-Sadr, a Shiite cleric whose Sairoun political party won a plurality of the seats in the Iraqi Council of Representatives. In the aftermath of the 2003 invasion, Sadr’s “Mahdi army” emerged as a leading adversary of the U.S., and the firebrand was nearly targeted by U.S. forces. More recently, however, Sadr, an unabashed populist who tapped into the electorate’s resentment of Iranian overreach in Iraq, has developed into a somewhat more responsible politician. 

Sadr is no panacea, but he has advocated — at least rhetorically — for fighting endemic corruption in the state, criticized Iranian missile attacks on Iraq, and called for an end of “the military actions of the [Hashd] resistance” against the U.S. presence in Iraq. Along these lines, unlike other Iraqi politicians, Sadr doesn’t treat Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps chief Ismail Qaani, a frequent visitor to Iraq, with obeisance. While he remains a vocal critic of Washington, Sadr appeared in the aftermath of his election to want to chart a different course.

Sadr moved to establish a majoritarian government composed of a coalition of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. Theoretically, this so-called tripartite alliance — which excluded the Iranian-backed militias and promised to return pro-West premier Mustafa al Kadhimi to office — would have been able to make the kind of difficult decisions on corruption and reform required to change Iraq for the better.

Not surprisingly, Iran’s allies in Iraq considered Sadr’s initiative as a threat and acted quickly to undermine the effort and resume a consensus-based, gridlocked government in Baghdad. The Hashd has engaged in a campaign of violence to intimidate members of the alliance. Iran’s allies also weaponized an increasingly Iranian-aligned judiciary to mire the alliance in court proceedings, further delaying government formation.

While these tactics were effective, the biggest impediment by far to formatting a majoritarian Iraqi government has been the Kurds. The Kurdish Regional Government KRG autonomous region long has been beset by divisions between the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) Barzanis based in the capital Erbil and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) Talibanis in Sulaymaniyah. These clans, which fought a civil war in the 1990s, remain determined political and economic rivals.  

Had the Kurds voted en bloc with Sadr, the alliance would have attained a quorum in the Council of Representatives sufficient to elect the Kurdish president, who in turn would designate a prime minister to form a majoritarian government. At least initially, it appeared that Sadr and the Sunni contingent supported the reelection of President Barham Salih and Prime Minister al Kadhimi — a slate backed by Washington. Instead of throwing their support behind the alliance, however, the Kurds squabbled over PUK affiliated Salih, and after his nomination was scuttled, fought about his proposed replacement, KRG Minister of Interior and KDP stalwart Rebar Ahmed. A Kurdish boycott of the March 29 parliamentary session — the third to date — prevented a quorum.

Should Kurdish intransigence persist and a president is not selected by April 6, Iraq may move to new elections. This time, however, having learned from their mistakes campaigning under a novel electoral system, the Hashd likely will perform better. Sadr appears to understand the enormity of the moment. On March 30 he tweeted, “Consensus [government] means the end of the country.” However, rather than putting aside parochial internecine differences and becoming part of a majority government in Baghdad that could better serve KRG interests, Kurdish leaders apparently remain unapologetically obstinate.                

Could insurgency offer Ukraine a decisive edge?Russia’s war in Ukraine means the end of counterterrorism consensus

Absent a last-minute Kurdish about-face, Iraq’s best opportunity to date to push back on Iranian meddling and exert sovereignty likely will be lost. Washington’s ambassador to Iraq, Matthew Tueller, no doubt conveyed the urgency to his Kurdish interlocutors when he delivered a letter from President Biden to KDP President Masoud Barzani reportedly encouraging greater Kurdish unity vis-à-vis government formation. It may be too little, too late.

For years, the Kurds have been a reliable partner for Washington and the U.S. has been a consistent supporter of the KRG, paying $240 million per year in salaries to the federal region’s Peshmerga forces and pressing the region’s interests with Baghdad. The KRG correctly complains that its close relationship with Washington makes it a target of Iran, but the ties clearly have helped to make the region Iraq’s most prosperous. It’s now time for the Kurds to do their part to ensure that Iraq succeeds. It would be a shame if they helped to perpetuate Iran’s domination of Iraq.   

David Schenker is a senior fellow and director of the Program on Arab Politics at the Washington Institute and a former assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs during the Trump administration.