#KASHMIR IS #INDIA'S #GAZA

Kashmir conflict

"An entire people is traumatised"

Twenty-eight-year-old photojournalist Masrat Zahra documents the situation in India-administered Kashmir with her camera. In this interview with Elisa Rheinheimer, she talks about life in a state of emergency, conservative Kashmiri society and her own family's reservations about what she does

Above all, you take portraits of women and children in your homeland. Why?

Masrat Zahra: I want to give a voice and a face to those who are not heard. Every woman in Kashmir knows the feeling of saying good-bye to a father, son or husband in the morning and not knowing whether she will ever see him again. Women in Kashmir suffer the most. They lose their sons, are raped without the perpetrators have to fear repercussions, and if their men are abducted and never reappear, they are condemned to wait – for the rest of their lives.

They own nothing, cannot inherit anything and are not allowed to re-marry. Many women suffer from post-traumatic stress – as I myself do. I have seen too much blood, too many dead bodies, crying mothers and children.

You are the first female photojournalist in Kashmir. What hurdles did you have to overcome to get where you are?

Zahra: I had to break through a glass ceiling when I began working in 2016. At the time, there were no women working as photographers and journalists in Kashmir, documenting the battles between Indian soldiers and rebels. People in the villages stared at me. Initially, I pretended not to understand the local dialect, that I came from somewhere else – so that I could do my work in peace and would not have to answer so many questions. But it was particularly hard to take this path against my parents' will.

Why did your parents want to stop you?

Zahra: I come from a conservative family. My mother would have preferred to see me married. If anything, she wanted me to study medicine. In her eyes, it is far too dangerous to be a journalist. I read books about photography in secret and didn't tell them that I was doing the entrance exam for university. Luckily, I had a professor who came to our home and tried to change my parents' minds. It still took them years to accept my work.

My mother has repeatedly claimed that it is too dangerous and my brother complains that journalism is not an honourable profession for a woman because I am out and about after dark. My parents have confiscated my camera and my laptop more than once. On one occasion, we had such a huge fight that I ran away from home in the middle of the night – barefoot. I went to stay with an aunt for a while. After that, I just carried on doing what I do.

Protests in Kashmir against Indian occupation. A photo by Masrat Zahra, Kashmir's first female photojournalist, who faces considerable opposition in her work. "I had to break through a glass ceiling when I began working in 2016," says Zahra. "At the time, there were no women working as photographers and journalists in Kashmir, documenting the battles between Indian soldiers and rebels. People in the villages stared at me. Initially, I pretended not to understand the local dialect, that I came from somewhere else – so that I could do my work in peace and would not have to answer so many questions. But it was particularly hard to take this path against my parents' will"

An entire population under house arrest

In August 2019, the Indian government revoked the region's autonomous status and cut off Kashmir from the outside world for three-quarters of a year. What was life like for you during these months of lockdown?

Zahra: It was as if the entire population was under house arrest. It was a total blackout: no telephone network, no television, no internet – for eight months. Can you imagine what that meant for me as a journalist? We didn't even know where the next demonstration would be taking place; we just found out by chance. Information was passed on by word of mouth; there was no other way. While the Indian government did set up a media centre, there were just four computers for all journalists from Kashmir.

One was reserved for Indian government propaganda, two for male journalists and one for women journalists. We had just 15 minutes a day each to check e-mails and send articles or photos to editorial departments. Every day, we stood in long queues outside the building – whatever the weather. And because parts of the public transport network were out of service, anyone who didn't have a motorbike or a moped had to walk there.

You were granted a scholarship by the Hamburg Foundation for Politically Persecuted People and lived in Hamburg for a year. What surprised you most about Germany?

Zahra: I was not accustomed to seeing no soldiers in the streets. Kashmir is the most densely militarised region in the world: there is one armed soldier for every seven people in Kashmir. As a child, I touched the barrels of the soldiers' guns. It was only much later that I realised how dangerous that was. Before I came to Germany, this was the only life I knew; it was normal for me. Prior to that, I had never been outside Kashmir and India.

Here in Germany, you can walk the streets and breathe freely, without having to be afraid. In Hamburg, I once parked my bicycle in the wrong place and had to go to the police to get it back. I was really nervous. But they were friendly and polite, smiled at me and even asked me to take a seat. I had to show them my identification card; then I got my bicycle back.

During your time in Hamburg, you exhibited photos and told of the suffering in Kashmir.

Zahra: Yes, I had an exhibition at the Bucerius Law School in Hamburg and was there for the opening. On the same day, the police in Kashmir stopped a car and shot the three young men that were inside. They were unarmed. Things like that happen almost every day; people send me the news, photos and videos on Twitter and Instagram. An entire people is traumatised, but the world is just not interested. You Germans know 'cashmere', but you know nothing of the Kashmir conflict.

Tough times for journalists in Kashmir, who are repeatedly hindered in their work: "I post my photos on social media so that the whole world can see them," says Masrat Zahra. "The Indians don't like that. They want to silence us journalists so that no one will report on the atrocities that are committed in Kashmir on a daily basis. Anyone who is active on Twitter is watched very closely. In April 2020, I was summoned by the police. They told me to stop posting my photos online. I nodded. The next day I just carried on doing what I had been doing. I didn't want to allow myself to be intimidated"

"There was a time when I wanted to stop"

Two years ago, you almost ended up in prison because of your work. What happened?

Zahra: I also post my photos on social media so that the whole world can see them. The Indians don't like that. They want to silence us journalists so that no one will report on the atrocities that are committed in Kashmir on a daily basis. Anyone who is active on Twitter is watched very closely. In April 2020, I was summoned by the police. They told me to stop posting my photos online. I nodded. The next day I just carried on doing what I had been doing. I didn't want to allow myself to be intimidated.

After that, your name appeared on a list that usually contains the names of terrorists ...

Zahra: Yes, the Indian government claimed that I was violating Indian sovereignty and integrity. According to the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, this is punishable by several years in prison. I had to go to the police again. When I said goodbye to my mother, I hugged her and said "see you soon". I didn't tell her where I was going. It took all my strength not to cry; I thought I would never see her again. I was sure they were going to arrest me. I was very scared.

What happened next?

Zahra: The Association of Journalists in my homeland supported me. Suddenly I had 24,000 new followers on Twitter. This is how I came to the attention of Amnesty International, which worked on my behalf. A few weeks later I was nominated for the Anja Niedringhaus Courage In Photojournalism Award (an award given annually to a woman photojournalist whose work reflects courage and dedication – ed.), which I won in 2020. The international recognition helped me in that the Indian government dropped the charges. It was then that my parents finally understood that what I am doing is important. During this time, my mother said to me: "You are no longer my daughter. You are the daughter of all of Kashmir."

Nevertheless, you still face considerable danger. Have you ever considered stopping?

Zahra: Yes, I did at one time. Because my family and I are Shia Muslims, which means we belong to a minority. Most people in Kashmir are Sunnis. The Indian government spread a rumour that Shias are opposed to the Kashmiris' liberation struggle. There was also a rumour that I was an Indian police informer. I received awful threats from normal people, mostly via the Internet. "You'll be raped. You're a whore. Your family's house will be burned down." That kind of thing.

I found that very traumatic. It was at that point I thought about stopping. My brother supported me and went with me to the police so that I could file charges. In the end, I dropped them because I know what they do to people in prison. They are severely mistreated. And I thought to myself: if that man goes to jail, there will be a mother at home, crying.

The most densely militarised region in the world: "There is one armed soldier for every seven people in Kashmir," says Masrat Zahra. She thought that was normal until she visited Hamburg and found there were no soldiers on the streets. Since the ceasefire agreed between India and Pakistan in 2019, the situation has worsened for Kashmir's population. "Even before 2019, the Indian occupiers killed people, but at least the families were able to give them a dignified funeral. Today, not even the bodies of their loved ones are returned to the families"

No detente for Kashmir

In March of last year, India and Pakistan surprised the world by agreeing a ceasefire. Did this lead to a period of detente?

Zahra: Not at all! The situation has worsened since the summer of 2019. People are abducted or arbitrarily shot by Indian soldiers almost every day. A growing number of journalists and human rights activists are being put in prison, like an acquaintance of mine, Khurram Parvez. I'll never see him again. Even before 2019, the daily lives of us Kashmiris were characterised by terror. But now the conflict has reached a level where it is no longer about justice, but about at least getting back the bodies of loved ones. Before 2019, the Indian occupiers killed people, but at least the families were able to give them a dignified funeral. Today, not even the bodies of their loved ones are returned to the families.

You talk a lot about India. But what is Pakistan's role in all this?

Zahra: I don't want to talk about that. Yes, I also receive threats from the Pakistani side. A photo of me was posted on the social media profile of a Pakistani terrorist group – together with a death threat. However, the Islamists informed me that it was a fake. They told me that the Indian government was probably behind it and wanted to blame it on the Pakistanis. They told me I should take care.

The Indian police have offered you protection ...

Zahra: ... which I turned down. I live in a minefield. Indian bodyguards would simply call my independence into question. Then everyone would think I was on India's side.

What do you think has to happen for the political situation to improve?

Zahra: The international community has to exert more pressure on the Indian government so that the human rights violations against us Kashmiris stop. There should at last be a referendum, just like the United Nations promised us. We've been waiting for a referendum for over 70 years. We demand our right to self-determination. It's not just about the land. It's about identity. I have an Indian passport, because otherwise I would be stateless, but I don't feel like an Indian. I am a Muslim Kashmiri. I dream of a Kashmir that belongs neither to India nor to Pakistan, but is independent.

Interview conducted by Elisa Rheinheimer.

© Qantara.de 2022

Masrat Zahra is a photojournalist in Indian-controlled Kashmir. She received the International Women's Media Foundation's Anja Niedringhaus Courage in Photojournalism Award in 2020 and the Peter Mackler Award for Courageous and Ethical Journalism, also in 2020, for her images of the consequences of the conflict, especially for women and children. Her work has appeared in the Washington Post, Al Jazeera and The New Humanitarian, among others.

 

Middle East

Ukraine overshadows Ramadan 2022

Ahead of Ramadan, most Middle Eastern countries have eased restrictions to near pre-pandemic times. However, increases in prices and food shortages due to the war in Ukraine are casting new shadows on the Holy Month. Jennifer Holleis reports

In the run-up to Ramadan, which began on 2 April in most countries, city centres across the Middle East were transformed. Streets and shops have been decorated with the symbol of the crescent moon, lanterns and banners are emblazoned with well-wishing words like "Ramadan Kareem" or "Ramadan Mubarak.".

In Lebanon's capital Beirut, however, much of the decoration on sale for private homes remained unsold this year. "I remember the times when I used to buy decorations for Ramadan and invite my siblings over for a large meal in the evening," said Randa Mohsen, a nurse and mother of four in Beirut. "This year, we can't even afford to pay for our own iftar meal that breaks the fast after sunset."

In order to prepare fattoush, a traditional iftar salad, Mohsen would have to buy ingredients for around €3.60, she says. Given that the family income is around €75, this is simply out of reach. "For us as a family, it doesn't matter whether the pandemic restrictions are removed or not, we don't have money to go out anyways, we can barely afford to eat," she said. "At least COVID-19 was an excuse to stay home."

Almost like 2019

For the past two years, or in other words, since the beginning of the pandemic, Ramadan traditions – such as meeting family and friends for meals after sunset – have been restricted or banned throughout the region. However, as of this Ramadan, only masks remain, as well as occasionally reduced prayer periods and social distancing inside mosques.

"Ahead of this Ramadan, most governments in the Middle East have removed or eased restrictions almost to a pre-pandemic level," Simon Wolfgang Fuchs, a lecturer of Islamic and Middle East Studies at the University of Freiburg, Germany, explained.

The origins of Ramadan: also spelled Ramazan and Ramzan, the month of fasting – one of the five pillars of Islam – is observed by about 1.6 billion Muslims globally. Adults who are physically and mentally healthy are required to not drink, eat or smoke from sunrise to sunset for 30 days. Muslims believe God revealed the first verses of the Koran to the Prophet Muhammad during the ninth month of the Islamic calendar around 1,400 years ago. The word Ramadan derives from "al-ramad" which means intense heat or fire and symbolises the hardship of fasting and the burning of sins

Sheikh Mohammed Abu Zaid, Chairman of the Sunni Court and imam of the largest mosque in Saida, near Beirut, confirmed the new freedom. "In Lebanon, all mosques are open and people are welcomed to gather and pray. Imams are free to ask for social distancing or to request wearing masks," said Abu Zaid. "However, most imams agreed to advise old people and those who have chronic diseases to not attend mosques."

For Ramadan's extended morning and evening prayers in his mosque, Abu Zaid decided to advise the faithful to wear masks.

Problems emerging

And yet, with the end of many pandemic-related restrictions, new problems are casting their shadows on the Holy Month. "Inflation and food insecurity have started to affect many countries in the region at an unprecedented level," Fuchs said.

Egypt, in particular, has suffered from price hikes and a devaluation of the currency ahead of this Ramadan. "We expect Ramadan to be extremely hard as a soar in prices happened just a few days before the Holy Month," admitted Haitham El-Tabei, CEO of the Abwab Elkheir NGO in Cairo.

On Friday, a day before the beginning of Ramadan, around 20 volunteers met in the early hours at the NGO's headquarter in Cairo's Mokattam neighbourhood, to prepare food baskets with meat and dates. During Ramadan, they expect that more families than ever come by and pick up the food donations. "This year, the situation is exacerbated by a decrease in donations and a stark increase of prices," said El-Tabei.

So far, though, the NGO has been able to cover the extra costs. "In such a tough period, we cannot let families down during the Holy Month," he added.

Holy month overshadowed by war in Ukraine: "Inflation and food insecurity have started to affect many countries in the region at an unprecedented level," explains Simon Wolfgang Fuchs, a lecturer of Islamic and Middle East Studies at the University of Freiburg, Germany. This comes on top of searing economic crises, poignantly expressed by Lebanese mother-of-four Randa Mohsen: "This year, we can't even afford to pay for our own iftar meal that breaks the fast after sunset." For fattoush, a traditional iftar salad, Mohsen would have to buy ingredients for around €3.60. With a family income of €75, this is simply out of reach. "For us as a family, it doesn't matter whether the pandemic restrictions are removed or not … we can barely afford to eat"

Crescent moon in Saudi Arabia

Ramadan, also spelled Ramazan and Ramzan, is observed by about 1.6 billion Muslims globally. Adults, who are physically and mentally healthy, are required to not drink, eat or smoke from sunrise to sunset for 30 days. The annual month of fasting and praying is considered one of the five pillars of Islam.

Muslims believe that God revealed the first verses of the Koran to Prophet Muhammad during the ninth month of the Islamic calendar around 1,400 years ago. The word Ramadan derives from "al-ramad" which means intense heat or fire and symbolises the hardship of fasting and the burning of sins.

The exact beginning of Ramadan, however, depends on the first glimpse of the rising moon, and therefore differs from country to country. Traditionally, the day and time are calculated by astronomy experts in the Saudi Arabian village of Hautat Sudair.

In 2022, Ramadan begins on 2 April for Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, Egypt and Bahrain. In Lebanon, Morocco and Syria, Ramadan begins on Sunday, 3 April.

After two years and in line with most other countries in the region, Saudi Arabia has also lifted most of its restrictions in the run-up to this Ramadan. However, pilgrims are required to wear masks and use either the Tawakkalna or Eatmarna app when signing up for a prayer slot in Mecca and Medina. Using the governmental Tawakkalna apps became mandatory for Saudi citizens during the pandemic.

 

The Saudi Data and Artificial Intelligence Authority (SDAIA) developed the app to monitor the movement of citizens during curfew hours. However, Simon Fuchs sees the prolonged mandatory use of these applications as a pretext. "The pandemic has given authoritarian regimes new tools to control their population under the pretext of health," he said.  

Despite its efforts to become a new hotspot for tourists and foreign investment, Saudi Arabia has also been in the spotlight for neglecting human rights and sentencing or killing dissidents – like Loujain al-Hathloul or Jamal Khashoggi – in the past years.

Kuwait and Morocco

However, it is not only Saudi Arabia that is keeping an eye on its citizens, other countries in the region have decided to uphold restrictions and limits. In Kuwait, iftar gatherings remain banned inside and outside mosques. Only distributing free pre-cooked meals is allowed.

And Morocco's government has just extended the ongoing state of emergency until 30 April, due to fears of a new COVID-19 surge, despite current low levels of infection. Moreover, the kingdom has been battling a severe drought and the situation is exacerbated by worries about food security due to the reduction of wheat imports as a consequence of the war in Ukraine.

So far, however, the state of emergency ends on 30 April. If not extended, the Eid ul Fitr celebration, which marks the end of Ramadan, could therefore be celebrated with friends and family on 3 May.

Jennifer Holleis

© Deutsche Welle 2022

Missile, bomb market to surge 73% by 2030 amid conflict
CGTN

A view of a U.S. Defense Department's ground-launched cruise missile test at San Nicolas Island, California, U.S., August 18, 2019. /Reuters


As the Russia-Ukraine conflict spurs military spending, the global market for missiles and bombs should surpass $126 billion within 10 years, up nearly 73 percent from 2020 levels, according to a report released by Allied Market Research on Monday.

The value of the market would jump 72.6 percent from the Portland-based research firm's estimate of nearly $73 billion in 2020, when COVID-19 pandemic delays and reallocation of funds to support the health crisis "severely affected" the defense sector.

An increase in geopolitical conflicts and bigger military budgets would likely push the figure up at an annual compounded rate of 5.4 percent until 2030, the report said.

It predicted that demand for small nuclear warheads, which can be easily deployed through aircraft and land-based missiles, would fuel faster growth in these segments, although submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) accounted for a quarter of the market in 2020.

While North America dominated more than half of the global market in 2020, the report predicted the fastest growth would come from the Asia-Pacific region to bolster their nuclear arsenals.

"However, international treaties and consortiums discourage nuclear testing," the firm said in a report summary. "This hampers the market growth."

The report predicted that the rising influence of non-nuclear proliferation treaties and national efforts should increase the number of warheads in storage or awaiting dismantlement.

Active weapons, however, accounted for the "lion's share," more than two-thirds, of the market in 2020, it said, due to investment in nuclear arsenals and new warhead purchases.

Britain, China, France, Russia and the U.S. at the start of the year issued a joint statement saying there could be no winners in a nuclear war and it must be avoided.

(With input from Reuters)

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

 

Article Review 156- “White Supremacy, Terrorism, and the Failure of Reconstruction in the United States.”

APRIL 5, 2022 BY JASON M. BLAZAKIS·

The United States is inexorably linked to the stain of white supremacy. It is a stain that has been difficult to erase despite multiple inflection points and opportunities to reckon with America’s racist past. The Reconstruction Era of 1865 to 1877 that followed the Civil War provided the first opportunity for the United States to achieve some semblance of racial equality, and witnessed the adoption of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. The passage of these amendments, on paper, banned slavery and gave citizenship and the right to vote to Black Americans. Other important laws were also adopted, such as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) Act of 1871, which were deemed necessary by Congress given that the KKK was carrying out wanton acts of brutality to stifle measures to provide civil and political rights to Blacks. Vigilantism and acts of terrorism perpetrated upon the Black population that killed thousands in the United States post-Civil War made the paper advances, in the form of the Reconstruction Era Amendments and other laws (like the KKK Act), seem aspirational.

H-Diplo | ISSF

Article Review 156

issforum.org

Editor: Diane Labrosse
Commissioning Editor: Seth Offenbach

Production Editor:  George Fujii

Daniel Byman, “White Supremacy, Terrorism, and the Failure of Reconstruction in the United States.” International Security 46:1 (Summer 2021): 55-103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00410.

Published by ISSF on 5 April 2022

https://issforum.org/to/iar156

PDF Version

 

Review by Jason M. Blazakis, Middlebury Institute of International Studies

The United States is inexorably linked to the stain of white supremacy. It is a stain that has been difficult to erase despite multiple inflection points and opportunities to reckon with America’s racist past. The Reconstruction Era of 1865 to 1877 that followed the Civil War provided the first opportunity for the United States to achieve some semblance of racial equality, and witnessed the adoption of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. The passage of these amendments, on paper, banned slavery and gave citizenship and the right to vote to Black Americans. Other important laws were also adopted, such as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) Act of 1871, which were deemed necessary by Congress given that the KKK was carrying out wanton acts of brutality to stifle measures to provide civil and political rights to Blacks. Vigilantism and acts of terrorism perpetrated upon the Black population that killed thousands in the United States post-Civil War made the paper advances, in the form of the Reconstruction Era Amendments and other laws (like the KKK Act), seem aspirational.

These aspirations of the Reconstruction Era were not achieved, as terrorism scholar Daniel Byman recently noted in International Security. Byman argues that “Reconstruction failed because white supremacists reversed Black political gains after the Civil War through violence and that the federal government was unable, and at times, unwilling to stop them” (56). By offering a comparative perspective to political violence during the Reconstruction Era, the article explains why racist white Southerners were able to delay the constitutional advances that were designed to provide political and social equality to Black Americans. The author of multiple books on insurgencies and terrorism, Byman is well positioned to examine America’s Reconstruction missteps. In large part, this is because the Reconstruction Era was pock-marked with acts of terrorism that are of equal horror as those that have been observed in the recent conflicts of Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, and Yemen.

Byman’s analysis contains five sections but this review will focus on two primary components. The first section evaluated in this review is an assessment of the primary factors that explains the failures of the Reconstruction Era. In this regard, Byman examines structural and policy issues that may have contributed to the failures. The second portion evaluated in this review is Byman’s counterfactual analysis of key structural challenges and the missteps made by policymakers during the post-Reconstruction era. Byman’s article also includes a short history of the Reconstruction period; a section on lessons that can be derived from studying Reconstruction; and, a section that looks at historical hypotheses that attempt to explain why efforts to reshape society after civil catastrophes often fail.

Byman explains that structural challenges, such as geography, economic status or other immutable factors can doom counterinsurgency initiatives no matter the policy or leadership choices made by policy-makers (59). In making this point he points to the structural strengths that may have contributed to Germany and Japan’s ability to create conditions inhospitable to insurgencies. In contrast, citing terrorism scholar Seth Jones, groups like al-Qa’ida and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) have been able to take advantage of structural and governmental weaknesses to foment violence (60). Yet, in comparing these factors to policy factors, it is clear that Reconstruction largely failed due to policies (or absence thereof) made at the federal, state, or local levels. It is also at these three governmental levels where Byman’s counterfactual analysis is instrumental to understanding why and how white supremacy was able to thrive in the aftermath of the Civil War.

Among the key counterfactuals Byman explores is the decision by the federal government to pull troops from the southern states as part of an 1877 compromise – resulting in fewer troops that were dedicated to protecting the civil rights of Black Americans (84). This was one of many promises and compromises left unfilled and Byman ponders how the course of U.S. history would have change if the federal government had maintained a longer-term troop deployment. He readily acknowledges that doing so could have extended deadly exchanges and eroded wavering public support, citing specifically President Ulysses Grant’s reluctance to reject the popular sentiment of the time in the North for an indefinite troop presence (90). Decades later such reluctance to use federal troops would become an enduring feature of U.S. political responses even in the face of violent upheaval, including the staged coup by white supremacists in Wilmington, North Carolina in 1898 as brilliantly told by David Zucchino in his Pulitzer Prize winning book, Wilmington’s Lie. Zucchino explains that when President William McKinley, who was raised an abolitionist, was apprised of the November coup in Wilmington that resulted in the extrajudicial deaths of Black Americans and the rise of a white supremacist-led government, he did nothing (292-293).[1] Further, in examining the Reconstruction Era troop deployment level counterfactual, Byman’s also draws useful contemporary parallels that document the quickly diminishing American appetite for using troops in counterinsurgencies overseas, such as in Iraq. Byman does this in part to document how critical support is to any counterinsurgency effort – whether at home, as during the post-Civil War period, or abroad. Byman’s other counterfactuals, such as the need to thwart cleavages leveraged by white supremacists to sow discontent, ramping up economic pressure, and empowering Black Americans are important “what-if” questions within the context of the Reconstruction Era, but the lessons learned from thinking about these questions arguably holds even greater value within the current American political landscape.

Byman’s analysis is relevant to contemporary policymakers who now must grapple with a rise of white supremacy in the United States. This may not seem intuitive given that more than 150 years has passed since Reconstruction. Yet, some of the proximate challenges that faced decisionmakers in the years following the Reconstruction Era remain omnipresent today. Several academic institutions, like the University of Maryland,[2] and think tanks like New America,[3] have documented that right-wing ideologically motivated acts of violence have increased significantly over the past two decades. White supremacy falls within that category. A 2021 Anti-Defamation League report highlighted that the year 2020 witnessed a significant spike in neo-Nazi graffiti and deployment of other white supremacist hate symbols.[4] At the same time, media outlets like One America News Network provide platforms for conspiracy theorists to perpetuate toxic notions. Others, like Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson attempt to normalize white supremacist theories like the Great Replacement in order to stoke fear. This is not new and is emulative of newspaper reporting following the Reconstruction Era. In 1898, the Wilmington newspaper, the Messenger, celebrated the white “master race” deposing of Black lawmakers while another local paper, the Morning Star claimed that no Black people had been harmed in the Wilmington coup. These outlets, and larger ones with statewide reach like the News and Observer, spread disinformation, perpetuated white supremacy ideas, and engaged in race-baiting (265-273). Just as in the Reconstruction Era, today’s politicians, like Republican Members of Congress, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Paul Gosar, and many others have resorted to demagoguery to incite the masses to impede the democratic transfer of power. Indeed, the 6 January 2021 insurrection’s similarity to local coups d’état of the Reconstruction Era merit mention. For example, Zucchino’s Wilmington’s Lie outlines how Colonel Waddell’s rhetorical powers inspired and, worse, provided the bases for Red Shirts (a white supremacist group similar to the KKK) to terrorize Blacks and Republican politicians who were duly elected officials (3-352). The same ingredients of the 1898 Wilmington coup – problematic media, white supremacy violence, and political demagoguery was of course also present, albeit not at the same scale, on 6 January 2021.

In sum, Byman’s analysis is inventive and draws upon a diverse array of scholarship, to include the work of historians, military historians, political scientists, and counterterrorism and insurgency experts. His research reflects an understanding of the Reconstruction Era, citing the works of renowned historians like Eric Foner. At the same time, counterinsurgency experts like Seth Jones, Ben Connable, Martin Libicki, Mark Moyar,[5] and many others have shaped Byman’s insights. While Byman’s narrative could benefit from a few modestly more detailed discussions regarding specific incidents (e.g., Wilmington coup, Colfax massacre) that occurred during the Reconstruction or post-Reconstruction Era to provide more color to his narrative, this is a quibble.

To conclude, one of Byman’s primary lessons from his review of Reconstruction Era missteps is that while compromise may be expedient, it is often unsatisfying and can create entrenched problems (103). This lesson is an important one that today’s policymakers would do well to heed. On 15 June 2021 the Biden administration released the first-ever National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism. The strategy acknowledges that, “violent white supremacy…and anti-government ideologies are responsible for a substantial portion of today’s domestic terrorism” (27). As the administration begins to implement the four pillars of the strategy designed to counter white supremacy and other forms of racially and ethnically motivated extremism, it would do well to consider the lessons learned that are identified by Byman and to think carefully about pursuing half-measures based on compromise.

 

Jason Blazakis is a professor of practice at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies where he also serves as the director of the Center on Terrorism, Extremism, and Counterterrorism. He is working on a forthcoming book, tentatively titled, “Counterterrorism Finance: Follow the Money,” to be published by Cambridge University Press.

©2022 The Authors | Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License

 

Notes

[1] David Zucchino, Wilmington’s Lie: The Murderous Coup of 1898 and the Rise of White Supremacy (New York: Grove Press, 2020).

[2] Countering Domestic Terrorism: Examining the Evolving Threat, Before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs United States Senate, 116th Congress, page 5 (2020) (William Braniff, Director, Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) And Professor of Practice, University of Maryland). Also see the University of Maryland’s Global Terrorism Database at https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/.

[3] Peter Bergen and David Sterman. “Terrorism in America After 9/11,” New America, September 10, 2021, https://www.newamerica.org/international-security/reports/terrorism-in-america/.

[4] Anti-Defamation League. “White Supremacist Propaganda Spikes in 2020,” Anti-Defamation League, 2021, https://www.adl.org/white-supremacist-propaganda-spikes-2020.

[5] For instance, see Seth Jones’ In the Graveyard of Empires, Mark Moyar’s Strategic Failure, and Ben Connable and Martin Libicki’s How Insurgencies End.

Twitter as Enforcer of the Geneva Conventions

Written by Marko Milanovic

Yesterday Twitter announced a change in its content moderation policies regarding the war in Ukraine. In response to the widespread dissemination of videos and images on the platform of Russian prisoners of war in Ukraine – a reasonably straightforward violation of Article 13(2) of Geneva Convention III, which prohibits exposing PoWs to public curiosity – Twitter adopted the following policy:

In the development and enforcement of our rules, we remain focused on enabling public conversation, and protecting the safety of people both online and offline. We are guided by international humanitarian law, specifically Article 13 of Geneva Convention III (on protecting prisoners of war (PoWs) from any physical or psychological abuse or threat thereof, and encompasses a prohibition on humiliating them) and do not want Twitter to be used by state actors to infringe this law. Our work to protect the conversation is informed by consultation with a wide range of trusted partners, including international human rights organizations, to ensure our approach considers the number of factors at play.

To that end, we will now ask government or state affiliated media accounts to remove any media published that features prisoners of war (PoW) under our private information and media policy.

We will also add a warning interstitial to media published by government or state affiliated media accounts featuring PoWs, that has a compelling public interest. 

Lastly, we will now require the removal of any Tweets, regardless of who posts them, if there is PoW content shared with abusive intent, such as insults, calls for retaliation, mocking/taking pleasure in suffering of PoWs, or for any other behavior that violates the Twitter rules. 

This is clearly the right call, although it will be particularly interesting to observe how Twitter manages any exceptional deviations from the policy on matter of public interest. But it’s even more interesting to observe how a private corporation is here acting as an enforcer of international law against states, and particularly against Ukraine. For years scholars and activists have been arguing that digital platforms should rely on international human rights standards in developing and applying their content moderation policies, in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and this is what the platforms have increasingly been doing. The platforms have also been urged (e.g. notably by David Kaye) to rely on human rights to resist unjustified demands and regulatory interventions by states. They have also acted at least to some extent to prevent and mitigate harms to human rights by states, e.g. through the spread of disinformation.

But here, interestingly, Twitter is acting to enforce IHL, not human rights as such. In doing so it is replicating the structure of the relevant international legal rules, in particular the divide between state and non-state actors. Thus, states are categorically prohibited by Twitter from disseminating content in violation of Article 13(2) GC III, and Twitter’s express basis for doing so is that it does ‘not want Twitter to be used by state actors to infringe this law.’ (Weirdly, this rule becomes a part of Twitter’s private information policy, as if the problem here was an infringement on the human right to privacy and not that of a specific wartime rule of IHL.)

However, when it comes to non-state actors, including private individuals, Twitter will remove such content only if it is shared with abusive intent, in violation of some other rules and policies. The distinction drawn here between state and non-state accounts makes sense in that Article 13 imposes obligations on the states parties to the Conventions and not on other entities, even though media companies clearly may be instrumental in exposing PoWs to public curiosity (note how the ICRC’s new commentary on the Conventions, at paras 1630-1632, is precisely for that reason somewhat coy in (not) saying that the addressees of the relevant obligations are only states). But again it is somewhat strange to say, as Twitter has effectively done, that the videos and images of PoWs contain private information that should not be disclosed on the platform, but only if this is being done by state agents – it’s akin to saying that medical records are private but that Twitter will only remove them from platform if they are being disseminated by state actors, and not by private individuals, or that doxxing is impermissible only if done by states and not by non-state actors. That said, again Twitter clearly did the right thing here (if belatedly), and should be commended for doing so.

Marko Milanovic

Dr Marko Milanovic is Professor of Public International Law at the University of Nottingham School of Law. He is co-editor of EJIL: Talk! and a member of the EJIL's Editorial Board.

CEDAW’s Landmark Decision on the Criminalisation of Same Sex Conduct Between Women

Written by Christine Chinkin and Keina Yoshida

Rosanna Flamer-Caldera (RFC v Sri Lanka), is a human rights activist and the Executive Director of Equal Ground which campaigns for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) rights in Sri Lanka. Ms Flamer-Caldera is a lesbian, and is open about her sexuality. Her activism on these issues is well-recognised both inside and outside of the country where she has worked for decades to ensure human rights for members of the LGBTI+ community. On 23 August 2018, acting under Article 7(1) of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the author submitted a claim to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (‘CEDAW Committee’). The applicant complained that same sex activity between consenting adults is a criminal offence under the Sri Lankan Penal Code. By its 1995 amendment to Section 365A of the Penal Code of 1883  Sri Lanka extended the criminalisation of ‘acts of gross indecency between persons’ to include sexual conduct between women, replacing the previous wording ‘male person’ with ‘person’. The author set out in her complaint how she has been subjected to discrimination, harassment, stigmatisation, threats, high profile attacks on her character and threats of violence, additionally her organisation was placed under surveillance and raided by the Criminal Investigation Department for ‘spreading homosexuality’. She complained that she was targeted by State officials and members of the public due to her openness about her sexual orientation, her wearing of ‘masculine attire’, her activism for LGBTI+ rights, and her failure to conform to gender stereotypes. The author argued for the first time in an individual communication before the CEDAW Committee that the criminalisation of same sex conduct between women meant that discrimination, violence and harassment faced by the LGBTI+ community continues with impunity in Sri Lanka in violation of her rights under the Convention.

On the 23 March 2022 the CEDAW Committee handed down a landmark opinion finding that the state had violated a number of the Convention’s provisions. In this post, we set out the findings of the Committee with a short conclusion on its significance for international human rights law. The Committee’s opinion is significant for a number of reasons, most obviously as the first finding by a UN human rights treaty body that the criminalisation of same-sex lesbian conduct is a human rights violation. It is the second case ever by a UN human rights treaty body in relation to decriminalisation of consensual same-sex conduct, after Toonen v Australia. According to the Human Dignity Trust, ‘most of the 40-plus countries that currently criminalise same-sex intimacy between women have voluntarily signed up to the Convention and are now in clear and blatant violation of its binding legal obligations’. The opinion is also significant for emphasising the inclusive nature of CEDAW with the recommendations in particular directed to the protection and rights of lesbian, bisexual trans and intersex women.

Criminalisation of Same Sex Conduct under CEDAW

In Flamer-Caldera the CEDAW Committee found violations of articles 2(a), (c)-(g), 5 (a), 7 (c), 15 and 16 in conjunction with article 1, and in light of general recommendations no. 19, 33 and 35 of the Convention. The Committee found that the State party had subjected the author to direct and indirect discrimination ‘emanating from the Penal Code of 1883 as amended’. The Committee contextualised this within the broader discriminatory environment in which women live, stating that ‘certain groups of women, including lesbian women, are particularly vulnerable discrimination through civil and penal laws, regulations and customary laws and practices’. The Committee also noted that Ms Flamer Caldera was a well-known in Sri Lanka for being a lesbian and activist for LGBTI rights and that this put her ‘under constant risk of arrest, detention and investigation of her private life’ given that the law continues to be enforced. For these reasons the Committee found violations of Article 2(a) and (d)-(g) of the Convention which inter alia calls on states to repeal discriminatory laws and to take appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination.

Discriminatory Laws and Gender Stereotyping

The Committee held that the State party had also violated Article 2 (c)-(f) of the Convention in conjunction with general recommendations no 19 and 35 of the Convention for failing to respect and protect the author’s right to life free from gender-based violence. The Committee drew attention to how gender-based violence against women, takes multiple forms and that states should repeal provisions that allow, tolerate or condone forms of gender-based violence against women (echoing the words of general recommendation no 35). The decision thus contributes to the Committee’s growing jurisprudence on gender-based violence against women including lesbians following their earlier decision of ON and DP v Russia (2020). Further the Committee held that Article 15(1) of the Convention had been infringed since ‘criminalisation is incompatible with the author’s right to complain of the abuse and threats to which she has been subjected’ since it makes her vulnerable to arrest and prosecution for approaching the police or law enforcement to file complaints of threats or harassment.

Article 5(a) of the Convention places an obligation on State parties to eliminate prejudicial stereotypes. With respect to this case the Committee noted that ‘decriminalization of consensual same sex relations is essential to prevent and protect against violence, discrimination and harmful gender stereotypes’. The Committee found the State to be in violation of this article as it had not effectively refuted or indicated any measures taken to eliminate the prejudices to which the author had been exposed as a woman, lesbian and activist.

The Right to Participate as a Human Rights Defender and LGBTI Activist

Significantly, the Committee held that article 7(c) of the Convention which ensures women’s participation in civil society organisations had been violated. This finding is the second time in two years that the Committee has held that states have violated the rights of human rights defenders and their right to participate in activism (see also Abaida v Libya, CEDAW/C/78/D/130/2018 decided April 2021). The Committee held that the State in this case had ‘failed to protect the author against, and [has] partaken in, harassment, abuse and threats against the author’s work’ promoting LGBTI communities’ rights in Sri Lanka.  

Protecting Non-Heterosexual Relations

One of the key findings in this case, which will be of particular interest to scholars who are ‘queering international law’ and to those who work on LGBTI rights is the finding in paragraph 9.7 that the criminalisation of same sex sexual conduct between women breaches the rights under article 16 of the Convention which relates to marriage, family relations, autonomy and choice. The Committee states that the ‘rights enshrined in the Convention belong to all women, including lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex women’ and that it applies to ‘non-heterosexual relations’. The Committee in this way underlines its inclusive nature and responds to criticism that under CEDAW ‘women’s experience of “family life” is assumed to be married and heterosexual … ’ (Otto, in International Human Rights Law, Moeckli et al, eds. p. 357). Dianne Otto’s contribution to the case as an amicus curiae is recognised in the body and footnote of the opinion, which is a rare acknowledgment in the jurisprudence of the Committee on the role of third party interventions.

Recommendations

Following its finding that Sri Lanka had violated the author’s Convention rights, in line with its usual procedure, the Committee made a number of specific recommendations to redress the individual’s situation and some more general recommendations that seek to have transformative impact within the state. The Committee made 11 recommendations in total. Individual recommendations looked to redress the situation of the complainant and to ensure her personal security as well as that of her organisation. The Committee also recommended criminal procedures to hold those responsible for threats and harassment to account. The general recommendations seek to bring about social change through such measures as legal and policy reform. Foremost, the Committee recommended that Sri Lanka ‘decriminalise consensual same-sex conduct between women having passed the age of consent’. Other recommendations covered the provision of effective protection against gender-based violence against women; of protection, support systems and remedies for lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex women who are victims of discrimination; and access to effective civil and criminal remedies.

NB: the authors of this blog were counsel in the case alongside Karon Monaghan QC. We were instructed by Human Dignity Trust and DLA Piper. These views represent our own.

Christine Chinkin

Christine Chinkin, FBA is Emerita Professor of International Law, Professorial Research Fellow and Founding Director of the Centre of Women Peace & Security at LSE. She is a barrister, a…

---

Keina Yoshida

Dr Keina Yoshida is a barrister specialising in international human rights law at Doughty Street Chambers. They are also a research officer at the Centre for Women, Peace and Security…

---

Dozens of artifacts discovered in Iraq’s Diyala province

 Mustafa Shilani 2022/04/05 

Some of the artifacts found in Diyala province. 

(Photo: Diyala’s Antiquities Inspectorate)

ERBIL (Kurdistan 24) – The Diyala Antiquities and Heritage Inspectorate announced the discovery of 141 ancient artifacts on Tuesday.

In a statement, Ahmed Abdul-Jabbar, the department’s director, said that an excavation team found 91 artifacts from the Seleucid and Parthian eras west of the Baquba district. They were found on an archaeological hill recently discovered during a field excavation for a housing complex project in the Katoun area, west of Baqubah.

The artifacts consist of jars, lamps, various pots, beads, ornaments, and silver coins, Abdul-Jabar explained.

He also announced the discovery of 50 artifacts at the al-Zindan archaeological site in the Muqdadiya district, including lamps, spears, jewelry, coins, and dolls from the Sassanid era and others from the Islamic periods.

Diyala province includes more than 800 archaeological sites spanning numerous different eras, some of which are more than 5,000 years old, dating back to the civilization of Eshnunna and the Sumerians. A mere 5 percent of them have been subjected to excavations by exploration teams, while the rest remain buried under the soil.

Several archaeological sites in Diyala province suffer from neglect and abuse, especially in agricultural and remote areas.