Israel’s Battle Against Free Speech: The Shuttering of Al Jazeera

by Binoy Kampmark / May 7th, 2024

“Politics,” as the harsh, albeit successful German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck claimed, “is the art of the possible, the attainable – the art of the next best.”  To that hould be added the stark awareness of being prudent, gingerly wise, appropriately cautious.  Mind how you go in avoiding any foolishness on the way.

Going after the motley press and news outlets while claiming to be a card-carrying member of the democracy club is far from prudent and more than a touch foolish, bound to make the critics croak and other fellow members decry.  And this is exactly what has happened in the context of Israel’s decision to shut down the Qatar-backed station Al Jazeera.

On May 5, police raided the offices of the network at the Ambassador hotel in Jerusalem.  According to Israeli Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi, equipment had been seized in the raid.

Al Jazeera duly released a statement strongly condemning and denouncing “this criminal act that violates human rights and the basic right to access of information.”  The network went on to affirm “its right to continue to provide news and information to its global audiences.”  Oddly enough, the ban is far from being a watertight one, as the channel remains accessible in Israel via Facebook.

Al Jazeera has had a troubled relationship with Israel.  Sounding like paranoid family members who have imbibed a bit too much, accusations have frothed from various politicians accusing the network of being a Hamas front.  In a dubious honour, the network’s name became associated with a law passed by the Israeli Knesset on April 1.

The instrument authorises the Minister of Communication, with the consent of the Prime Minister and the Ministerial Committee on National Committee, to shut down foreign news outlets operating in Israel deemed a national security threat.  This entails halting broadcasts by Israeli content providers, restricting access to the relevant provider’s website, shutting down transmitters in Israel and the seizure of devices used in supplying the channel’s content, including mobile phones.  Betraying the Netanyahu government’s continued suspicion of the country’s judicial process, the law shackles the judiciary from overturning such a decision, notwithstanding any belief that it should be.

The dust had barely settled on the vote before Minister Karhi revealed plans had been hatched to shutter Al Jazeera’s operations in Israel on the grounds that it “promotes terrorism”.  According to a statement from the Israeli Communications Ministry, “There will be no freedom of expression to Hamas mouthpieces in Israel.”

Akiva Eldar, a political scribe who pushes pieces for Haaretz, suggested that the closing of the network was “a very populistic move to feed the beast of the public opinion that is very disappointed from the conduct of the government in Gaza and in the international arena”.  The tail-end of the remark did little to stir convention, as the move was designed “to please the partners from the radical right”.

The passage of the law prompted a High Court of Justice filing by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) on April 4.  The petition argues for the cancellation of “the temporary order allowing sanctions to be imposed on foreign broadcasting channels from Israel.”  On May 2, with rumours of imminent action being taken against the Qatari broadcaster, the same organisation sought an interim injunction, refused by the court, to instruct the government to refrain from issuing orders to a foreign broadcaster till the petition was decided.  The ACRI had every reason to be disappointed with the ruling, given that Al Jazeera had been refused a prior right of plea and denied effective judicial review.

On May 6, a further filing was made to join a separate proceeding in the Tel Aviv District Court regarding the sanctions imposed on Al Jazeera, with the ACRI challenging the propriety of the administrative process involved and whether there was, in fact, a “real security risk” posed by the network.

The Al Jazeera law is not a singular instance of state repression regarding matters of free speech. The signs point to a chronic ailing in the Israeli polity.  Adalah, a Palestinian-run non-profit NGO advocating for the rights of Palestinians in Israel has noted, by way of example, the “severe crackdown on the freedom of expression rights of Palestinian students seeking to suspend or even expel them for their posts on social media platforms.”  The posts in question “vary widely, ranging from expressions of solidarity with the people of Gaza, to Quranic verses, to scathingly critical views of the Israeli military’s actions, to seemingly arbitrary content unrelated to Hamas or to the war.”

On April 18, the Israeli police, in all its intimidating glory, entered the home of Professor Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian in the Old City of Jerusalem.  Shalhoub-Kevorkian, who holds the Global Chair in Law at Queen Mary University of London and a post at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, was subsequently detained for comments made the previous month on the Makdisi Street podcast.

Of particular interest to the authorities were comments purportedly calling for the abolition of Zionism and the uncontroversial call to halt the genocidal actions in Gaza.  She was strip-searched, handcuffed and interrogated, and denied access to such necessities as food, water and medication for a number of hours.  Her frigid cell also lacked blankets, while she was inadequately clothed. Her release on bail precipitated further interrogation sessions, with the police keen to tease out incriminating matters from previously published academic papers.

From targeting academics, activists and students, to drawing the covers over a network of renown, the Israeli state has made a vulgar statement against the role of free speech.  Such creeping authoritarianism, however, shows itself to be one-eyed and, eventually, self-defeating.  Ultimately, in the gallop, it is bound to fall over itself.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com. Read other articles by Binoy.

Will a Gaza Ceasefire be as Successful as the Two-state Solution?

by Paul Larudee / May 8th, 2024

Who proposed a two-state solution? Not the Palestinians. Not Israel. It was conceived in the young United Nations, and proclaimed there in November, 1947. But it was never successfully implemented, despite on-and-off negotiations continuing for the better part of a century. The Zionist leadership briefly promoted it prior to the 1947 UN vote, but only to gain legitimacy for its intentions to implement Plan Dalet for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and its independent proclamation of the state of Israel six months after the UN vote. The closest the Palestinians came to accepting the solution was a “Roadmap“, that was never seriously pursued but which created the quisling Palestinian Authority.

Let’s be honest. The two-state solution was never proposed by either side, and never wanted by either of them. The Palestinians always wanted a single non-Zionist state from the river to the sea, and the Zionists wanted the river to the sea exclusively for their state. The two-state solution was a fantasy imposed by the colonial West to get the British off the hook and use the Zionists to their domestic advantage. Nevertheless, both the Zionists (Israel) and the Palestinians thought that they could best gain their ends by working through the post-colonial UN/Western power structure and its insistence – genuine or otherwise – on a two-state solution. It has been purposely deadlocked ever since, because the West continues to promote the two-state solution while the Palestinians and Israelis have little or no interest in actually implementing it. In fact, everyone seems to have a different idea about what the two-state solution should look like, which also changes over time.

A lot of the same applies to the idea of a ceasefire between Israel and the Palestinian resistance, led by Hamas. True, they came to a brief, temporary agreement in November, 2023, but that was for very limited objectives and was neither intended nor expected to be permanent. The idea of a permanent ceasefire, promoted by peace groups and millions of demonstrators worldwide, as well as the UN, sounds like a great idea until you get to the details of what it entails and how to implement it. Everyone agrees (or will at least pay lip service) to stopping the killing of civilians, providing massive humanitarian aid and releasing captives. But then what? The ceasefire cannot be permanent without resolving questions of the status of Gaza and the rights it will enjoy.

Those questions place the aims of Israel and the Palestinian resistance completely at odds and largely irreconcilable. Prior to October 7th, Hamas had been preparing its strategic capability for years, creating the technology and resources for a sustained, effective resistance against the Israel occupation, not merely occasional actions. The decision to finally launch the operation was due to multiple factors, but a major one was the increasing marginalization of the Palestinian cause and its potential abandonment by former ostensible supporters, such as the Arab countries that concluded “normalization” agreements with Israel. The proximate prospect of just such an agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia plus the advanced state of readiness of the resistance forces may have been the deciding factors for the launching.

As for Israel, if its intelligence was not, in fact, taken by surprise but actually expecting the revolt, it had reasons for inviting it. First, the Zionist leadership had for many years been concerned that the Palestinian population was becoming greater in number than that of Jews in what it often calls “greater Israel”, including both Israel and the occupied territories under its control: the West Bank, Golan Heights and Gaza Strip, plus small bits of Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. This was intolerable to the Zionist leadership, and interfered with their intentions to annex those territories. They would therefore welcome a pretext to reduce that population, by whatever means necessary.

Second, while Israel has been gradually confiscating Palestinian lands and establishing Jewish settlements in the West Bank, no such effort is being made in Gaza. In fact, by evacuating the Jewish settlements in 2005 and making Gaza a sealed concentration camp of 2.3 million Palestinians, it guaranteed a ferment of Palestinian nationalism and resistance. Israel would prefer to simply be rid of it – but not the land, only the people. A revolt in Gaza would offer the opportunity to expel or exterminate the population while keeping the land.

Third, the discovery and partial mapping of a large natural gas field in Gaza waters became a powerful motive for creating a means for laying claim to both the land and its resources. From a strategic as well as economic point of view, the Israeli leadership felt unsurprisingly compelled to avoid allowing the prize to fall into Palestinian hands, and to keep it for themselves.

Finally, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is highly motivated to remain in power, partly because he avoids prosecution for corruption by doing so, but also in order to become a national hero by “redeeming” another portion of “Eretz Israel” (land of Israel), through genocide and ethnic cleansing. The revolt by Hamas and the rest of the Palestinian resistance provides the pretext for implementing such a plan through genocide and ethnic cleansing, then annexation.

The potential motives of the two sides for a ceasefire are thus totally different, if they exist at all. For the resistance it is national liberation, freedom, independence and complete sovereignty, comparable to any other nation on earth. They are aware that it will require huge sacrifices for the Palestinian people, but neither the leaders of the resistance nor the people of Gaza will accept to return to the status quo ante (or worse). These aims are clear in the three-stage ceasefire proposal that Hamas accepted on May 6, 2024. That proposal culminates in a sovereign, independent Gaza, in total control of its economy, security and international relations.

Israel, on the other hand, requires the elimination of Hamas as a minimal condition for a ceasefire. But even if Hamas agreed to disband, many if not most of its adherents would refuse to do so, and continue, if only under a new name, which Israel would also seek to eliminate. It is a disingenuous requirement, because Israel merely wishes to block a ceasefire and get on with eliminating the population.

How will it end? I’m sorry to say that Israel may have its genocide, with the invasion of Rafah as the next phase, and even the trickle of food and relief supplies being closed. Other than Yemen, there is no evidence that any nation will intervene to stop the carnage or bring relief to the starving people of Gaza. But as I wrote four months ago, genocide will neither save Israel nor stop Hamas and the rest of the Palestinian resistance. Israel is a pariah state as never before, with countries abandoning it on a scale unseen since its founding. Even its support among diaspora Jews is withering, and Israeli Jews are fleeing the country by hundreds of thousands since October 7th. The settlements in the north and south have been evacuated, with many of the former inhabitants living in temporary housing in the larger Israeli cities or joining the exodus abroad. Many businesses have closed. Only the lifeline to the US keeps Israel afloat. But for how long?

Hamas, on the other hand, is at its most popular, enjoying unprecedented support in all of Palestine and beyond, and receiving more recruits than it can train. There is no sign that it is flagging, and every indication that it can carry on indefinitely.

It is unwise to underestimate either side, but if this is a fight to the finish, it may turn out to be Israel’s third defeat, after the ones in Lebanon in 2000 and 2006, and clearly more consequential. It is an open question who will be left standing at the end of Israel’s current struggle with Hamas, even if the victory is pyrrhic for the survivor

Paul Larudee is a retired academic and current administrator of a nonprofit human rights and humanitarian aid organization. Read other articles by Paul.

POSTMODERN SEANCE

‘Digital afterlife’: call for safeguards to prevent unwanted ‘hauntings’ by AI chatbots of dead loved ones

Peer-Reviewed Publication

UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

 

IMAGE: 

A VISUALISATION OF A FICTIONAL COMPANY CALLED MANANA, ONE OF THE DESIGN SCENARIOS USED IN THE PAPER TO ILLUSTRATE THE POTENTIAL ETHICAL ISSUES IN THE EMERGING DIGITAL AFTERLIFE INDUSTRY. 

view more 

CREDIT: DR TOMASZ HOLLANEK

Artificial intelligence that allows users to hold text and voice conversations with lost loved ones runs the risk of causing psychological harm and even digitally “haunting” those left behind without design safety standards, according to University of Cambridge researchers. 

‘Deadbots’ or ‘Griefbots’ are AI chatbots that simulate the language patterns and personality traits of the dead using the digital footprints they leave behind. Some companies are already offering these services, providing an entirely new type of “postmortem presence”.

AI ethicists from Cambridge’s Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence outline three design scenarios for platforms that could emerge as part of the developing  “digital afterlife industry”, to show the potential consequences of careless design in an area of AI they describe as “high risk”.

The research, published in the journal Philosophy and Technology, highlights the potential for companies to use deadbots to surreptitiously advertise products to users in the manner of a departed loved one, or distress children by insisting a dead parent is still “with you”.

When the living sign up to be virtually re-created after they die, resulting chatbots could be used by companies to spam surviving family and friends with unsolicited notifications, reminders and updates about the services they provide – akin to being digitally “stalked by the dead”.

Even those who take initial comfort from a ‘deadbot’ may get drained by daily interactions that become an “overwhelming emotional weight”, argue researchers, yet may also be powerless to have an AI simulation suspended if their now-deceased loved one signed a lengthy contract with a digital afterlife service.  

“Rapid advancements in generative AI mean that nearly anyone with Internet access and some basic know-how can revive a deceased loved one,” said Dr Katarzyna Nowaczyk-Basińska, study co-author and researcher at Cambridge’s Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence (LCFI).

“This area of AI is an ethical minefield. It’s important to prioritise the dignity of the deceased, and ensure that this isn’t encroached on by financial motives of digital afterlife services, for example.

“At the same time, a person may leave an AI simulation as a farewell gift for loved ones who are not prepared to process their grief in this manner. The rights of both data donors and those who interact with AI afterlife services should be equally safeguarded.”

Platforms offering to recreate the dead with AI for a small fee already exist, such as ‘Project December’, which started out harnessing GPT models before developing its own systems, and apps including ‘HereAfter’. Similar services have also begun to emerge in China.

One of the potential scenarios in the new paper is “MaNana”: a conversational AI service allowing people to create a deadbot simulating their deceased grandmother without consent of the “data donor” (the dead grandparent).  

The hypothetical scenario sees an adult grandchild who is initially impressed and comforted by the technology start to receive advertisements once a “premium trial” finishes. For example, the chatbot suggesting ordering from food delivery services in the voice and style of the deceased.

The relative feels they have disrespected the memory of their grandmother, and wishes to have the deadbot turned off, but in a meaningful way – something the service providers haven’t considered.

“People might develop strong emotional bonds with such simulations, which will make them particularly vulnerable to manipulation,” said co-author Dr Tomasz Hollanek, also from Cambridge’s LCFI.

“Methods and even rituals for retiring deadbots in a dignified way should be considered. This may mean a form of digital funeral, for example, or other types of ceremony depending on the social context.”

“We recommend design protocols that prevent deadbots being utilised in disrespectful ways, such as for advertising or having an active presence on social media.”

While Hollanek and Nowaczyk-Basińska say that designers of re-creation services should actively seek consent from data donors before they pass, they argue that a ban on deadbots based on non-consenting donors would be unfeasible.

They suggest that design processes should involve a series of prompts for those looking to “resurrect” their loved ones, such as ‘have you ever spoken with X about how they would like to be remembered?’, so the dignity of the departed is foregrounded in deadbot development.     

Another scenario featured in the paper, an imagined company called “Paren’t”, highlights the example of a terminally ill woman leaving a deadbot to assist her eight-year-old son with the grieving process.

While the deadbot initially helps as a therapeutic aid, the AI starts to generate confusing responses as it adapts to the needs of the child, such as depicting an impending in-person encounter.

The researchers recommend age restrictions for deadbots, and also call for “meaningful transparency” to ensure users are consistently aware that they are interacting with an AI. These could be similar to current warnings on content that may cause seizures, for example.

The final scenario explored by the study – a fictional company called “Stay” – shows an older person secretly committing to a deadbot of themselves and paying for a twenty-year subscription, in the hopes it will comfort their adult children and allow their grandchildren to know them.

After death, the service kicks in. One adult child does not engage, and receives a barrage of emails in the voice of their dead parent. Another does, but ends up emotionally exhausted and wracked with guilt over the fate of the deadbot. Yet suspending the deadbot would violate the terms of the contract their parent signed with the service company.

“It is vital that digital afterlife services consider the rights and consent not just of those they recreate, but those who will have to interact with the simulations,” said Hollanek.

“These services run the risk of causing huge distress to people if they are subjected to unwanted digital hauntings from alarmingly accurate AI recreations of those they have lost. The potential psychological effect, particularly at an already difficult time, could be devastating.”

The researchers call for design teams to prioritise opt-out protocols that allow potential users terminate their relationships with deadbots in ways that provide emotional closure.

Added Nowaczyk-Basińska: “We need to start thinking now about how we mitigate the social and psychological risks of digital immortality, because the technology is already here.”   

A visualisation of a fictional company called MaNana, one of the design scenarios used in the paper to illustrate the potential ethical issues in the emerging digital afterlife industry. 

    

A visualisation of a fictional company called Stay, one of the design scenarios used in the paper to illustrate the potential ethical issues in the emerging digital afterlife industry. 

CREDIT

Dr Tomasz Hollanek

---

JOURNAL

Philosophy & Technology

DOI

10.1007/s13347-024-00744-w 

ARTICLE TITLE

Griefbots, Deadbots, Postmortem Avatars: on Responsible Applications of Generative AI in the Digital Afterlife Industry

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

9-May-2024

End Criminalization, Secure Equal Rights of Same-Sex Relationships, Secretary-General Observance Message Urges, Pointing to Worrying Surge in Opposite Direction


Following is UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ message for the International Day against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia, observed on 17 May:

On this International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia, I applaud the brave work of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex (LGBTQI+) human rights defenders fighting to outlaw discrimination and secure equality before the law. Yet there is a worrying surge in the opposite direction. New laws are codifying old bigotries, exploiting fears and stoking hate.

The theme of this year’s Day — “No one left behind: equality, freedom and justice for all” — reminds us of our obligations to respect the human rights and dignity of every person. We need action around the world to make those rights a reality. The criminalization of same-sex relationships must end, so must all violence, discrimination and harmful practices against LGBTQI+ communities.

On this and every day, let’s commit to building a world of respect, dignity and human rights for all around the world.

Buddha’s Timeless Teachings of Peace, Compassion Are Pathway to Better, More Harmonious World, Secretary-General Says in Day of Vesak Observance Message

Following is UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ message on the Day of Vesak, observed on 23 May:

Today, Buddhists across the globe celebrate Vesak Day, which marks the birth, enlightenment and passing of the Buddha.

Last October, I had the privilege of travelling to the Buddha’s birthplace of Lumbini, Nepal. This deeply inspiring visit re-affirmed my conviction that the Buddha’s timeless teachings of peace, compassion and service to others are the pathway to a better, more understanding and harmonious world for all.

Today and every day, let us be guided by the spirit of Vesak and by a renewed faith in what we can accomplish as a united human family. Let’s work as one to build a more peaceful and sustainable future.

Happy Vesak Day.

9 May 2024

Sky News wins Amnesty award for coverage of Myanmar civil war

Chief correspondent Stuart Ramsay and his team spent a month living in the jungle with the rebels, with the conflict raging - and found people brave enough to share their harrowing stories of survival and resistance against the army.


Thursday 9 May 2024 

46:49 Special programme: Inside Myanmar

Sky News's reporting of the civil war in Myanmar has been recognised at the Amnesty International UK Media Awards.

The channel was the winner in the Broadcast News category for Myanmar's Hidden War.
Sponsored link

Chief correspondent Stuart Ramsay and his team spent a month last year living in the jungle with the rebels, with the conflict raging - and found people brave enough to share their harrowing stories of survival and resistance against the army.

Stuart Ramsay with his crew in Myanmar

Reflecting later on his time in the country, Ramsay wrote: "The jungle of Myanmar was to be our home for a month as we reported on a war that has been so rarely witnessed by outsiders.

"Our job was to gather the evidence of a conflict the junta denies and record the testimony of thousands of civilians forced from their homes by wave after wave of airstrikes, artillery shells, and infantry attacks."


Ramsay added: "We were always on the move, and changed camp frequently because you couldn't stay anywhere for too long because of the likelihood of spies spotting us and reporting back to the authorities.

"But we felt it was a risk worth taking, to bear witness to the incredible bravery of the volunteers, medics, doctors and nurses, working in horrendous and dangerous conditions - and to record the resilience of families, surviving and even thriving in an atmosphere of daily danger, death and destruction.

Related Topics: Myanmar

"Most of those we spoke to told us how instead of breaking their resolve, in many ways the Myanmar military is actually making that resolve even stronger."

Read more:
Inside Myanmar's secret jungle hospital
As war ravages Myanmar, locals have given up any hope of help

Amnesty says the annual awards highlight excellence in human rights journalism, as well as the bravery of journalists who risk their lives to uncover human rights abuses around the world and hold power to account.

Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UK's chief executive, said: "The events of this year serve as a potent reminder that journalists and media workers continue to be threatened, prosecuted and even killed for speaking truth to power.

"It is clear that nowhere is truly safe for a journalist speaking truth to power right now.

"However, amid the global threats to press freedom, tonight's Media Awards winners and finalists have all proven that we will not be silenced."


He added: "Their tireless efforts truly make an impact on the world, and if brave media workers continue to document, investigate, and share the stories of those who often have no voice, change will happen."

 

Fighting in Rakhine state townships displaces 40,000 Rohingyas

They now face a humanitarian crisis.

By RFA Burmese
2024.05.09

Rohingya people protest in Buthidaung township, Rakhine state, Myanmar, March 19, 2024.

 Han Nyein Oo

At least 40,000 ethnic Rohingyas have been forced to flee intense clashes between junta troops and the rebel Arakan Army in two townships in western Myanmar’s Rakhine state since the start of the week, and are now facing a humanitarian crisis, the displaced told RFA Burmese on Thursday.

The fighting in Maungdaw and Buthidaung townships came amid widespread gains in Rakhine state by the Arakan Army, or AA, that prompted the junta to implement a draft to shore up depleted troop losses.

As part of its efforts, the military has reportedly forcibly recruited Rohingyas into pro-junta militias which it says must be formed to protect their Muslim faith in majority Buddhist Rakhine state. 

But observers say the junta is trying to stoke ethnic tensions in the region to slow the Arakan Army’s advance.

Nay San Lwin, a Rohingya rights activist who is monitoring the situation, said that the 40,000 first began to flee on Monday and hail from more than 10 villages, including Buthidaung’s Ka Kyet Bet, Ah Lel Chaung and Ba Gon Nar villages, and Maungdaw’s Paung Zar and Hla Baw Zar villages – all of which are located in close proximity to the fighting.

“Rohingyas are not allowed to take shelter at IDP [internally displaced people] camps, so they will not receive humanitarian aid,” he said. “Between 40,000 and 50,000 Rohingyas – including women, children, the elderly and the disabled – have been forced to flee from the villages in Buthidaung and Maungdaw.”

Nay San Lwin said that the number of displaced was confirmed after speaking to Rohingyas from the villages by phone over the last three days.

Rohingya sources say the situation in Rakhine state has grown increasingly complex in recent weeks and that members of their ethnic community are being exploited and oppressed by both the military and the AA.

Rohingya activists estimate the Rohingya population of Buthidaung to be around 200,000 and of Maungdaw to be some 80,000, totaling nearly 300,000 people. Those who have fled since Monday account for nearly 15% of the Rohingya population in the two townships.

Warned to flee by AA

A Rohingya resident of Maungdaw township who, like others interviewed for this report, spoke on condition of anonymity due to security concerns, told RFA that his escape was prompted by warnings of impending clashes from the AA. 

"The AA told us that there would be a fight here, so we fled," he said, adding that the ethnic rebels advised seeking shelter in urban areas to avoid junta heavy artillery and airstrikes. “The AA didn’t attack us, they urged us to flee.”

Attempts to contact AA spokesperson Khaing Thukha about the situation in the two townships went unanswered Thursday.

Destroyed homes in Wai Thar Li village, Rakhine state, Myanmar, May 7, 2024. (Citizen Journalist)

Armed conflict escalated in Maungdaw in May, and the Rohingya resident said that while the junta has bombarded the township, the pro-junta No. 5 Border Guard Police Force, based in Maungdaw’s Myo Thu Gyi village, has “opened fire every day.” 

A Rohingya from Buthidaung called the situation there “life-threatening.”

"We are not safe at all and have already been targeted in an airstrike,” he said. “I have fled with all of my family members from the conflict areas. People from six or seven villages have run away … Now we are facing difficulties getting food.”

He went on to say that Rohingyas from Maungdaw and Buthidaung had been unable to flee to urban areas and were forced to take shelter in nearby villages.

Ethnic Rakhines also at risk

Other residents told RFA that ethnic Rakhines have also been fleeing Maungdaw and Buthidaung townships.

On Tuesday, RFA reported that junta troops and their pro-junta Rohingya militias set fire to nearly 50 houses in Maungdaw’s Shwe Yin Aye and Wai Thar Li villages from May 6-9. 

RFA was unable to reach Attorney General Hla Thein, the junta’s spokesperson for Rakhine state, for comment on the situation in Maungdaw and Buthidaung on Thursday.

In a message posted to the social media platform Telegram on Wednesday, AA spokesperson Khaing Thukha accused the junta of forcibly recruiting Rohingya from camps for the displaced in neighboring Bangladesh, where nearly 1 million languish after fleeing ethnic violence in Rakhine state in recent years.

He also condemned insurgent groups the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, the Arakan Rohingya Army and the Rohingya Solidarity Organization for claiming that they had aligned with the AA to fight junta troops.

Fatima Khatun, a Rohingya survivor of a capsized refugee boat, cleans her temporary shelter in Meulaboh, Indonesia, on Wednesday, April 3, 2024. (Reza Saifullah/AP)

The same day, Rohingya refugees told RFA that the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army and the Rohingya Solidarity Organization had forcibly recruited “at least 500 people” for military service from camps for displaced Rohingyas in Bangladesh’s Cox’s Bazar between April 29 and May 8.

The Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, the Arakan Rohingya Army and the Rohingya Solidarity Organization have not made any announcement about recruitment at the camps.

Residents of Rakhine state say that more than 2,000 Rohingyas have been forcibly taken for conscription from the capital Sittwe, and the townships of Kyaukphyu, Buthidaung and Maungdaw since February, when the junta announced it was implementing the military service law.

More than 166,000 people have fled their homes amid the conflict in Rakhine state, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. The fighting began in November, when the AA ended a ceasefire agreement that had been in place with the military since it seized power from Myanmar’s democratically elected government in a February 2021 coup d’etat.

Translated by Aung Naing. Edited by Joshua Lipes and Malcolm Foster.

Why the UAW is Winning Workers in the South

The UAW has been able to make gains in the south because of its new leadership and closer cooperation with VW workers in Germany.

BY STEPHEN J. SILVIA

MAY 9, 2024

The UAW succeeded on its third attempt to unionize the VW plant in Chattanooga, TN. (Image Credit: Harrison Keely)

Workers at two Mercedes plants near Tuscaloosa, Alabama, will soon vote for the first time on whether they want to join a union.

Until recently, it would have been safe to presume that a majority of the 5,200 people eligible to participate in this election — scheduled to run May 13-17, 2024 — would reject this opportunity to join the United Auto Workers.

The UAW, which has about 150,000 members employed by Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis, made eight failed attempts to unionize foreign-owned auto plants in the South over the past 35 years. Two of those drives aimed to organize the entire Volkswagen factory in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

But the third time the UAW tried to organize the VW plant, it prevailed, winning 73 percent of all ballots cast in an election held there in April.

I conduct research about organized labor in the United States and other countries. My most recent book, “The UAW’s Southern Gamble: Organizing Workers at Foreign-owned Vehicle Plants,” highlights the big challenges workers and the UAW have long faced when trying to organize auto plants in the South. In my view, the union was finally able to succeed in Chattanooga because of its new leadership and closer cooperation with VW workers in Germany.


A Successful Model

As I explain in my book, one reason it took the UAW so long to score its first plantwide win was that an employer playbook for discouraging unionization had worked according to plan.

The automotive companies operating in the American South had largely located their plants in rural areas with little union membership. They screened out hires who might be sympathetic to unions and divided the workforce by using temp agencies to fill a significant share of positions. They deployed television monitors throughout the plant to run pro-company and anti-union messaging. And they donated lavishly to local churches, charities, and politicians to undercut local support for unionization.

At the same time, Southern political and business leaders sought to attract investment — especially from foreign-owned manufacturers — by offering massive subsidies, low taxes, lower labor costs, and a largely compliant workforce.

Southern autoworkers get paid less than their Northern peers and have, until now, had little say over what happens in their workplace.

This model succeeded. Today, roughly 30 percent of U.S. auto workers are in the South, up from around 15 percent in 1990.

Whenever the UAW has sought to unionize the industry throughout the region, the Southern political establishment, which the Republican Party dominates, has pushed back.

Most recently, six Southern GOP governors encapsulated that tradition in a joint letter shortly before the VW vote. In it, they denounced the UAW’s organizing drive as “special interests looking to come into our state and threaten our jobs and the values we live by.”

Strong Leadership

The UAW’s win in Tennessee suggests that this model has begun to break down. Three factors can explain why it may no longer work.

First, the election of Shawn Fain as UAW president in March 2023 marked a turning point. The charismatic electrician from Kokomo, Indiana, whom MotorTrend recently named “Man of the Year,” wasted no time shifting the UAW away from its prior accommodation with automakers.

Fain used forceful rhetoric and innovative tactics to score wins at the bargaining table throughout the UAW’s concurrent strikes at Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis in the fall of 2023.

The new contracts that followed gave workers substantial pay and benefits increases and restored cost-of-living adjustments. Those deals also eliminated a two-tier wage structure that paid workers hired since 2007 significantly less for doing the same job than colleagues with more seniority.

By the end of 2023, the UAW had shown Southern autoworkers that it could deliver gains that their employers were unlikely to grant on their own. More autoworkers throughout the region became interested in joining the union as a result.
Report Ad

New Organizing Approach

Second, the UAW revamped its approach to labor organizing.

Out went its top-down approach, led by union staffers who weren’t necessarily the most skilled at organizing. Under Fain’s leadership, the UAW hired Brian Shepherd — a proven organizer from the Service Employees International Union — to take charge.

Shepherd has empowered the automotive employees who were supportive of unionization to tailor the organizing drive to what they thought would work best.

For example, at the Mercedes plant, committed employees began to distribute union authorization cards far earlier than UAW had previously recommended, and it dispensed with visiting undecided workers at their homes because they thought that tactic would be counterproductive in the South.

Shepherd has hired professional organizers to back up his team, and he’s promoted the creation of much more highly structured networks within plants than the voluntary organizing committees the UAW had traditionally used.

These changes have paid off. More Southern workers have signed cards authorizing the UAW as their collective bargaining agent than ever before.

German Solidarity

Third, the UAW’s relationship with Volkswagen’s German works council leadership, which represents employees in the workplace, has dramatically improved. A works council is an elected body of employees anchored in German law that represents employee interests at the workplace and company levels. It is distinct from the German metalworkers union, IG Metall, which has always been supportive of unionization at German-owned auto plants in the American South.

Ties between the UAW and the works council were strained during the 2014 and 2019 organizing campaigns. But the works council leadership changed in 2021.

This time, the German works council intervened in several instances to soften VW management’s resistance to unionization and to urge Chattanooga employees to vote for the UAW.

Tougher Territory

Just because the UAW won by almost a 3-to-1 margin in Chattanooga doesn’t mean that victory at Mercedes in Alabama or elsewhere is a sure thing.

Both the Alabama political establishment and the factory’s management have fought this labor organizing campaign much harder at Mercedes than Volkswagen executives and Tennessee officials did ahead of the vote at the Chattanooga plant.

Forging a close relationship between Mercedes’ German works council and the UAW has proved elusive. On the other hand, a core of Mercedes Alabama employees has proved particularly adept at organizing. They set up a dense network in the plant based on “walkers” — that is, people whose jobs require them to move about the plant.

They have also summarized their circumstances with snappy lines that have gone viral. For example, longtime Mercedes employee Jeremy Kimbrell declared “We are going to end the Alabama discount” — a reference to the lower pay they receive compared to their peers in Michigan and other more established automotive manufacturing hubs.

Mercedes management in Alabama has also made a series of moves that have enraged and emboldened the workers at that plant. It let pay stagnate for many years and instituted a deeply unpopular two-tier wage structure in 2020, which management quickly undid last year after the UAW’s successful strikes.

Mercedes management judged the anti-union campaign to be going so badly that it fired the plant’s chief executive officer, Michael Göbel, and replaced him with the current vice president of operations, Federico Kochlowski, just two weeks before voting was set to begin.

Sacking an unpopular plant manager is a common union-avoidance tactic, much like firing the head coach of a poorly performing sports team to appease fans. VW did it in 2019.
An Outcome That’s Hard to Predict

The outcome of the vote at the Mercedes plant is harder to predict than it was for the Volkswagen factory because Mercedes has never had a union recognition election before. One thing is certain, however: The UAW’s organizing campaign is not ending there.

Fain has repeatedly declared that the UAW intends to get all U.S. autoworkers to join the union — potentially doubling the ranks of its members in the industry.

There are about a dozen more campaigns underway that could follow the vote at Mercedes. At least 30 percent of the workers at Toyota’s Missouri engine plant and Hyundai’s factory in Alabama have already embraced the UAW — a key first step toward a formal election.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

 

What’s behind the wave of recent incidents on Boeing planes?

Boeing has been under scrutiny since January 5, when a Boeing 737 MAX 9 operated by Alaska Airlines made an emergency landing after a fuselage panel blew out, somehow avoiding serious injuries in an incident that safety officials say could have been catastrophic.  — AFP pic

Friday, 10 May 2024 

NEW YORK, May 10 — Boeing has been in the headlines lately following a series of problems with its aircraft, with the most recent incidents in Turkiye and Senegal.

The episodes, which follow a near-disastrous panel blowout on an Alaska Airlines jet in January, point to production and maintenance issues, say experts, who don’t see an obvious pattern behind the myriad incidents.

Rash of incidents

The US plane maker has been under scrutiny since January 5, when a Boeing 737 MAX 9 operated by Alaska Airlines made an emergency landing after a fuselage panel blew out, somehow avoiding serious injuries in an incident that safety officials say could have been catastrophic.

United Airlines has experienced recent issues on various flights involving Boeing planes, as has Southwest Airlines, which in early April had an engine fire on one flight.

Yesterday, a Boeing 737-300 skidded off a runway in Senegal, resulting in 11 injuries, including four that were serious.

That followed a Wednesday incident in Istanbul in which a Boeing 767 cargo plane belonging to FedEx landed on its nose after its front landing gear failed to deploy.

Such a confluence of incidents is “pretty rare” within air travel, said aviation expert Bertrand Vilmer, who described the myriad “abnormal” problems as reflecting “an alignment of unfavourable planets.”

Alternative causes

Aviation experts usually look to three possible explanations for problems.

There can be a design defect, as with the two fatal crashes on 737 MAX jets in 2018 in Indonesia and 2019 in Ethiopia that involved a flaw in a flight stabilising system.

Aviation watchers have pointed to a production defect as the likely source of the Alaska Airlines incident, which entailed a Boeing 737 MAX 9 that had only been delivered in October.

A preliminary report by the National Transportation Safety Board published in February found that four bolts meant to help secure the panel that blew off were missing.

A third possible cause would be insufficient maintenance.

While design and production are the responsibility of the plane maker, the airline is in charge of keeping up the plane once it receives it.

“Once the aircraft is delivered, Boeing has nothing to do with it anymore” in relation to maintenance, said Richard Aboulafia of AeroDynamic Advisory.

Safest form of transport?

Notwithstanding the recent spate of incidents, aviation experts point to a strong safety record overall.

“We haven’t had a single casualty in the entire US airline industry in way over a decade, despite millions of people flown,” said Aboulafia. “That’s incredible.”

Aboulafia calls modern flying “the safest form of transport ever created by people,” noting that “everyday, hundreds of people get killed on the roads.”

Boeing’s rival, Airbus, has not been completely spared of difficulty. Hundreds of planes produced by the European company are being taken out of service to check for microscopic “contamination” of metals in engines made by Pratt & Whitney.

Airbus also had a public dispute with Qatar Airways involving the degradation of exterior plane surfaces.

But there have been fewer such issues at Airbus and not one incident that drew a comparable level of attention as Alaska Airlines, experts said.

“Every incident that has occurred on Boeing airplanes this year has made headlines, suggesting that Boeing airplanes are unsafe,” said a note from equity research firm Bernstein.

“The reality is that the number of incidents in the US on Airbus and Boeing airplanes so far this year is proportional to the number of airplanes in the fleets of US carriers.”

The US commercial fleet currently has about 4,800 planes, with about 60 per cent Boeing planes, according to Cirium, an aviation analytics firm. 

— AFP