Sunday, June 30, 2024

Taliban delegation attends UN meeting in Qatar on Afghanistan, women excluded • FRANCE 24 English


Afghan women emphasize inclusion of “diverse voices” in decision-making: Amiri

US special envoy Rina Amiri. File Photo.

DOHA, Qatar — Rina Amiri, the U.S. Special Envoy for Human Rights in Afghanistan, stated that she met with various Afghan human rights and women’s rights activists who underscored the necessity of including the “full diversity of Afghans,” particularly women, in future decision-making forums about Afghanistan.

Amiri noted that, over the past three weeks, she discussed concerns and recommendations with Afghan women and human rights networks both inside and outside Afghanistan.

She pledged to share the details of these discussions with envoys at the third round of the Doha meeting, which begins this evening.

Key points from her discussions include:

Human Rights Prioritization: The rights of women and girls must be prioritized.

Advocacy Spaces: Afghans, especially women, must be given opportunities to advocate for themselves.

International Pressure: The international community must continue to press the Taliban to reverse discriminatory edicts that restrict women and girls’ access to education, work, and movement, as well as other repressive policies.

Inclusive Framework: Ongoing consultations during and after Doha 3 are essential to support an inclusive framework for women and civil society participation.

Holistic Solutions: Afghanistan’s peace, security, and sustainability challenges cannot be resolved without the inclusion of diverse voices.

The exclusion of women and civil society members from the third Doha meeting has drawn strong criticism from human rights activists and women’s rights defenders

Statement on Canada’s attendance at UN meeting on Afghanistan


From: Global Affairs Canada

Statement

June 30, 2024 - Ottawa, Ontario - Global Affairs Canada

Global Affairs Canada today issued the following statement on the participation of David Sproule, Canada’s Special Representative for Afghanistan, in the third meeting of Special Envoys on Afghanistan (Doha III) hosted by the United Nations in Doha, Qatar, from June 30 to July 1, 2024:

“Canada is extremely disappointed that the UN organizers have excluded non-Taliban Afghan participants, including women's advocates, religious and ethnic minorities, and human rights groups from participating in the meeting’s main sessions.

“Canada has clearly expressed for weeks—both privately and in concert with other governments—its grave disappointment about the absence of civil society from Doha III.

“The full, equal and meaningful participation of Afghan women in the Doha meeting process is not only a core tenet of the Women, Peace and Security agenda, but fundamental to the achievement of a peaceful, stable and inclusive Afghanistan. None of the goals that Afghans are seeking to achieve are possible without the full participation of women.

“In the lead up to Doha III, Canada held consultations with Afghan civil society, human rights groups, and women to hear their concerns. Canada will use its platform at this meeting to amplify the messages of those who have courageously spoken out about the human rights abuses committed by the Taliban, but have not been invited to the main meetings.

“Since the fall of Kabul on August 15, 2021, and the subsequent closure of Canada’s embassy in Kabul, Canada has repeatedly urged the Taliban to honour Afghanistan’s international human rights obligations, lift restrictive measures on women and girls—including those measures touching on freedom of movement and rights of free speech and education—and restore women’s and girls’ meaningful participation in Afghan society.

“Canada will continue to call upon the UN to appoint, in a timely manner, a Special Envoy for Afghanistan with robust expertise on human rights and gender, who will spearhead the implementation of the roadmap as outlined in the UN Special Coordinator’s 2023 report and UN Security Council Resolution 2721.”


Activists to UN: Invitation of Taliban to Doha meeting ignores will of people

KABUL, Afghanistan — Dozens of activists and members of Afghanistan’s civil society have issued an open letter to the United Nations, asserting that the Taliban’s invitation to the Doha meeting disregards the will of the Afghan people.

“The Taliban is a terrorist group, it is criminal, and lacks any legal legitimacy. Over the past three decades, it has seized political power through military violence, spreading fear and terror,” the letter stated.

The activists argue that the Taliban does not represent the true fabric of Afghan society and lacks legitimacy within the country.

The letter calls on the international community to shift its focus from negotiating with the Taliban to engaging directly with the people of Afghanistan.

Signed by 20 civil institutions and organizations, as well as thousands of female protesters, independent human rights activists, academics, writers, artists, and Afghan citizens worldwide, the letter will be sent to all international human rights institutions, countries, and prominent global figures.

The activists and civil rights organizations also urge recognition of “gender apartheid” in Afghanistan, accusing the Taliban of systematically pursuing genocide by denying and suppressing other religions and sects.

The letter recommends international sanctions against the Taliban, maintaining its leaders on terrorist watchlists, and criticizes the travel of Taliban leaders to various countries, warning that it could facilitate the expansion of global terrorism.

The UN is hosting a meeting of special envoys on Afghanistan today, with the Taliban delegation in attendance—a development that has sparked strong reactions among Afghan civil rights activists.


Three woman activists refuse to attend Doha meeting

DOHA, Qatar — Three prominent representatives of women’s rights and civil society in Afghanistan have declined to participate in the third round of the Doha meeting, citing the exclusion of women’s rights from the main agenda.

Habiba Sarabi, a member of the former government’s negotiating team; Nabila Musleh, former deputy minister of women’s affairs; and Zubaida Akbar, a human rights activist, announced they would not attend the meeting. They argued that the presence of women at the event is not meaningful and that human rights issues, particularly women’s rights, are not prioritized.

Five individuals representing women and civil society were invited to the Doha meeting. However, they have not been included in the primary discussions scheduled for the first two days. Instead, their meeting with the UN Under-Secretary-General and some special representatives of various countries will occur on the third day of the event.

This sidelining of civil society representatives has provoked strong reactions from women’s advocates. Sarabi criticized the decision, stating, “The meeting with civil society representatives has been moved to a sideline session, which contradicts the principle of full and meaningful participation of women in this process.”

Akbar echoed this sentiment, expressing her frustration: “I will not be attending the meeting because Afghan women deserve to be at the main meeting table in Doha, shaping the agenda and prioritizing women’s rights.”

Some women’s rights activists argue that the engagement of international envoys with the Taliban amounts to appeasement, disregarding women’s rights. They have called for a boycott of the Doha meeting, asserting that those who do attend cannot represent all Afghan women.

“The meeting with the Taliban is boycotted and incomplete for protesting women because we have no demands from terrorists, and it is clear to us that the Taliban are not flexible,” said one protestor.

The list of women representatives at the Doha meeting has not been made public. According to the plan, the UN Under-Secretary-General and special envoys from various countries will meet with representatives of women and civil society on the sidelines of the event.

Posted by at No comments:

Assange’s Freedom Is Also Ours: To Tell the Truth

After 12 years – including five years of solitary confinement at Belmarsh Prison in London – Julian Assange is free. God bless America! He wasn’t extradited to the U.S. to stand trial, where he faced a sentence of 170 years in prison for violating the so-called Espionage Act.

Instead, he took a plea deal with the U.S. government, pleading guilty to one count of violating that act – you know, threatening America’s freedom – for which he had paid by his time already served. He was officially pronounced free at a U.S. federal court in Saipan, capital of the Northern Mariana Islands (a U.S. territory), after which he flew home to his wife and two children in Australia.

My emotional relief at his escape from the clutches of this government far outweighs my feelings about the broader implications of the guilty plea, which has justifiably stirred concern and controversy. The government got its little triumph: a “legal” acknowledgment of its right to keep monstrous secrets about what it does and punish any unauthorized spilling of the beans as “espionage.”

“He’s basically pleading guilty to things that journalists do all the time and need to do,” according to Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, quoted by the New York Times.

And Matt Taibbi said the decision “will remain a sword over the heads of anyone reporting on national security issues. Governments have no right to keep war crimes secret, but Assange’s 62-month stay in prison is starting to look like a template for Western prosecutions of such leaks.”

While such concerns are no doubt worrisome, I don’t think the legal system is a mechanism for seriously addressing them. Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, was hardly an equal in this hellish controversy. He was in the legal crosshairs of the most powerful country on the planet, which he had had the nerve to defy, by publishing an enormous amount of “classified” – that is to say hidden – data, given to him by government-employed whistleblowers.

This is called journalism, no matter that part of the U.S. case against Assange was that he doesn’t count as a real journalist. Mainstream, corporate journalists know how to behave themselves, I guess. They’re far more likely to “respect” the do-not-cross lines the government establishes.

As I wrote in 2010, at the beginning of the WikiLeaks controversy:

“In a time of endless war, when democracy is an orchestrated charade and citizen engagement is less welcome in the corridors of power than it has ever been, when the traditional checks and balances of government are in unchallenged collusion with one another, when the media act not as watchdogs of democracy but guard dogs of the interests and clichés of the status quo, we have WikiLeaks, disrupting the game of national security, ringing its bell, changing the rules.”

As long as “national security” includes the waging of war, honest – a.k.a., real – journalism will be a nuisance to those in charge, because it includes actual reportage, not simply press-releases and public-relations blather. In the real world, war equals murder. War is not an abstract game of strategy and tactics. War itself is a “war crime” – especially when it’s waged not to gain freedom from an oppressor but to maintain control over the oppressed.

WikiLeaks releases were outrageous acts of espionage – from a war-waging government’s point of view – because the data was raw, real and unsanitized. They included 90,000 classified documents on the US war in Afghanistan and nearly 400,000 secret files on the Iraq war, which… uh, bled beyond the official propaganda and, among other things, showed that civilian deaths in the two wars were, according to Al-Jazeera, “much higher than the numbers being reported.”

In addition, WikiLeaks released data that, as Al-Jazeera noted, “unearthed how the Geneva Conventions were being violated routinely in the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba. The documents, dating from 2002 to 2008 showed the abuse of 800 prisoners, some of them as young as 14.”

And then, of course, there was the infamous “collateral murder” video, which showed a U.S. helicopter firing at people on a street in Baghdad, killing seven of them, including a Reuters journalist, and wounding a number of others, including two children, who were sitting in a van that had pulled up to aid the wounded people in the street. And all this happened as helicopter crew members snickered about the deaths. This was the United States in full view, waging its “war on terror” by unleashing terror at the level only a superpower could commit.

Showing snippets of truth about the war on terror is Julian Assange’s crime: his act of espionage. And I get the government’s point of view. Assange put war itself into the forefront of collective human awareness – as a hideous reality, not a political abstraction. What he did bears striking similarity to what Emmett Till’s mother did. She exposed the raw horror of Southern racism by insisting that her son, a 14-year-old boy who was beaten and drowned by Mississippi racists for allegedly speaking to a white woman, have a public funeral with an open casket, so the whole world could see what had been done to him. This was in 1955. Not long afterward, the Civil Rights Movement was fully underway.

Human evolution isn’t a legal issue, decided by the courts. It involves humanity facing and transcending its own dark side, which can be a messy and chaotic process. This is the nature of truth.

Robert Koehler (koehlercw@gmail.com), syndicated by PeaceVoice, is a Chicago award-winning journalist and editor. He is the author of Courage Grows Strong at the Wound, and his newly released album of recorded poetry and art work, Soul Fragments.


Julian Assange is finally free – but it is far from the end of the story

Nimo Omer
THE GUARDIAN
Tue, 25 June 2024 


WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange arrives at a United States District Court in Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands, US.Photograph: Kim Hong-Ji/Reuters


After 12 years of confinement, seven in the Ecuadorian embassy and five in a high-security prison in south London, Julian Assange has been freed. The WikiLeaks founder, who faced 18 charges for helping and encouraging Chelsea Manning to leak military files, has pleaded guilty to one criminal count of conspiring to obtain and disclose classified US national defence, as part of a plea deal struck with the US justice department. Assange was sentenced by Judge Ramona V Manglona to time served on the island of Saipan in the Northern Mariana Islands and is now on a flight back to Australia. The US ambassador to Australia, Caroline Kennedy, said his return “brings this longstanding and difficult case to a close”. Assange’s wife said she is “elated” at the news of her husbands’ release.

It is the latest twist in the story of Assange, who spent years leaking documents that exposed government and military secrets, as well as less obvious targets like the actor Wesley Snipes, the Church of Scientology and the Church of the Latter-day Saints.

For today’s newsletter I spoke with writer and journalist Duncan Campbell about the final chapter of his legal drama.

In depth: ‘It’s good news for Assange … but not particularly good news for journalism’

Julian Assange, who was an expert hacker by the age of 16, has always had a bit of a rebel streak. In the late 80s he was accused of stealing half a million Australian dollars from Citibank.

But it was the website WikiLeaks that brought him to international attention. Major news outlets including the Guardian published leaks about Guantanamo Bay and classified Pentagon documents in collaboration with Assange. And in 2010 (when the picture above was taken) WikiLeaks published a video titled “Collateral Murder”, showing two US helicopter gunships in Iraq shooting Iraqi Reuters journalists. That devastating footage was followed by the publication of hundreds of thousands of documents, many in collaboration with numerous mainstream media outlets from the wars in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, and Democratic party operatives in the run up to the 2016 election.

What followed were claims of dealings with Russian intelligence services, allegations of sexual assault in Sweden – which were ultimately dropped – and relentless calls for his imprisonment and even execution by US politicians. For years, prosecutors in America grappled with how to get a hold of Assange and prosecute him – the impulse to squash Assange became so strong that in 2017 senior CIA officials reportedly discussed plans to kidnap or assassinate him.

Journalists, human rights groups and press freedom organisations have been criticising the US for years, arguing that the pursuit of Assange represents a huge assault on freedom of expression. Amnesty International said prosecution could have a chilling effect on journalists who might self-censor for fear of punishment.

***

Years of pursuit

In 2010, the Swedish authorities put out an arrest warrant for Assange over separate allegations of rape and molestation – Assange has always denied the allegations. To avoid extradition, Assange requested political asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy in 2012, stating his fear that he would be sent to the US through Sweden, where he could face a lifetime in prison or death. His claim was granted and specific diplomatic laws protected him from arrest in the UK, as long as he stayed inside the building, which is where he remained for seven years. During this time he was visited by a host of celebrities – Lady Gaga, John Cusack and Pamela Anderson among them. He was also visited by Nigel Farage, in secret, on a number of occasions.

In 2017, Sweden dropped its allegations stating that “at this point, all possibilities to conduct the investigation are exhausted”. Eventually Ecuador rescinded its asylum offer, paving the way for Assange to be arrested and sent to Belmarsh prison where he has been held ever since.

***

Why has he been released?

After so long avoiding extradition, his supporters and loved ones will no doubt be relieved at the end to this saga. It makes sense that he accepted the deal, Campbell says, “given the appalling conditions that he’s been held in, the fact that he has been deprived of seeing his two small children and wife for five years, often left in a cell for 23 hours a day. I think it’s shocking that the United States have insisted on that when he has not breached the Espionage Act.” His family have also said that his physical and mental health were deteriorating for a number of years.

For the US, and Joe Biden’s administration, it makes sense to wrap things up. In April Biden said that he was “considering” dropping the charges and extradition attempt against Assange, avoiding the complications and potential loss of a court case in the UK that could drag on through the most crucial part of the election race. Pursuing the charges against Assange was becoming damaging for Biden when a big part of his platform this campaign has been about providing a guard-rail against Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy and freedom of speech.

The quiet but forceful diplomatic pressure from Australia has also played a significant role in securing the release of Assange. Australian politicians have long expressed their opposition to the extradition charge and lobbied for a plea deal.

***

Press freedom

As noted by Trevor Timm, a plea deal is less troubling than a conviction and appeals court ruling, which could have created an official precedent that potentially binds other courts to rule against journalists in future cases. But he adds that it is certainly not the best case scenario for press freedom.

Campbell echoes this sentiment. “It’s good news for Assange and his family, but it’s not particularly good news for journalism as a whole,” he says. “It still means that the US believes that if a journalist, who is not American or in the United States, publishes damaging information about them they can issue an extradition order and seek to have people from different countries stand trial in America.”

The criminalisation of Assange’s conduct through a guilty plea of the Espionage Act before a potential Trump presidency is particularly troubling given that Trump has repeatedly suggested that he would use the courts to retaliate against the media. In his opinion piece, Campbell notes that all over the world, journalists are facing unprecedented threats to their safety.

“From Haiti to Hong Kong, from Russia to Saudi Arabia, journalists are faced with pressures similar to those placed on Assange. That specious argument that Assange was ‘not really a journalist’, and thus not worthy of media support can surely now be finally buried.” Assange may be free, and Campbell understands why he has accepted the deal after so long behind bars, but “the situation for journalists is not great right now and the decision to release Assange doesn’t make it much better”.

Posted by at No comments:

Kamala Harris scores poll boost to replace Joe Biden

Kamala Harris scores poll boost to replace Joe Biden

TEHRAN, Jun. 30 (MNA) – A new poll has found Vice President Kamala Harris is the top choice to replace President Joe Biden should he abandon his reelection campaign.

A new poll has found Vice President Kamala Harris is the top choice to replace President Joe Biden should he abandon his reelection campaign, News Week reported.

Biden's recent shaky debate performance has led some Democrats to consider whether he should be replaced on the ballot before November.

The Biden campaign has said the president is not dropping out. If he did, Harris, his vice president and running mate, would most likely join other top Democrats looking to replace him at the top of the ticket.

A Date for Progress flash poll, conducted on Friday, found Harris was the most popular choice to replace Biden. The poll surveyed 1,011 U.S. likely voters, including 387 Democratic likely voters, and has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

Asked who should be picked if the Democratic Party holds a convention among party members to choose a replacement for Biden, 39 percent of Democrat respondents chose Harris.

The Biden campaign has been contacted for comment. Seth Schuster, a Biden campaign spokesman, previously told Newsweek: "Joe Biden is not dropping out."

MNA


Kamala Harris Is Top Choice To Replace Joe Biden


NEWSWEEK
Published Jun 30, 2024
By Khaleda Rahman
National Correspondent

Anew poll has found Vice President Kamala Harris is the top choice to replace President Joe Biden should he abandon his reelection campaign.

Biden's recent shaky debate performance has led some Democrats to consider whether he should be replaced on the ballot before November.


The Biden campaign has said the president is not dropping out. If he did, Harris, his vice president and running mate, would most likely join other top Democrats looking to replace him at the top of the ticket.

A Data for Progress flash poll, conducted on Friday, found Harris was the most popular choice to replace Biden. The poll surveyed 1,011 U.S. likely voters, including 387 Democratic likely voters, and has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.


Asked who should be picked if the Democratic Party holds a convention among party members to choose a replacement for Biden, 39 percent of Democrat respondents chose Harris.

The Biden campaign has been contacted for comment. Seth Schuster, a Biden campaign spokesman, previously told Newsweek: "Joe Biden is not dropping out."

NEWSLETTERThe Bulletin
Your Morning Starts Here
Begin your day with a curated outlook of top news around the world and why it matters.
I want to receive special offers and promotions from Newsweek
By clicking on SIGN ME UP, you agree to Newsweek's Terms of Use & Privacy Policy.You may unsubscribe at any time.

Vice President Kamala Harris on June 24, 2024, in College Park, Maryland. A new flash poll found Harris is the most popular possible option to replace President Joe Biden at the top of the Democratic... More KEVIN DIETSCH/GETTY IMAGES

California Governor Gavin Newsom was the second most popular option, with 18 percent of Democrats picking him as their choice to replace the incumbent.

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg got 10 percent of the vote, Senator Cory Booker received 7 percent and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer got 6 percent.

Senator Amy Klobuchar, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro each garnered only 2 percent.

Another 6 percent said their choice would be someone not on the list, while 9 percent said they were not sure.

"The real problem with swapping out Biden is that Democrats will be venturing into the great unknown," Thomas Gift, an associate professor of political science and director of the Centre on U.S. Politics at University College London, told Newsweek.

"Although there may be an alternative with a larger potential upside, a Biden replacement is just as easy to take a beating in his or her favorability after being vetted on the national scene."

The Data for Progress poll found that only around half (51 percent) of Democrats and 35 percent of all likely voters think Biden should remain the Democratic presidential candidate.

A Morning Consult poll conducted after Thursday's debate also found that 47 percent of Democratic voters and 59 percent of independent voters think Biden should be replaced as the Democratic Party's presidential candidate.

Biden responded to critics at a rally in North Carolina on Friday.

"Folks, I don't walk as easy as I used to. I don't speak as smoothly as I used to. I don't debate as well as I used to. But I know what I do know: I know how to tell the truth. I know right from wrong. And I know how to do this job," he said. "I would not be running again if I didn't believe with all my heart and soul I can do this job."

Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution think tank, a Democratic National Committee member, and author of the book Primary Politics about the presidential nominating process, told Reuters that there are several scenarios regarding how Biden could be replaced as the Democratic Party's presidential candidate.

Biden could decide to step aside before he is officially nominated at the convention in August, she said. He could also be challenged by others who try to win over the delegates he has accrued, or he could withdraw after the convention, leaving the DNC to elect someone to run against Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, in his place.
Posted by at No comments:

 

Turkish airport workers refuse to refuel El Al plane after emergency landing

Flight makes emergency landing in Antalya to get passenger medical attention, is forced to fly to Rhodes to refuel before heading to Tel Aviv

By TOI STAFF30 June 2024, 

El Al airplanes on the tarmac at Israel's Ben-Gurion International Airport, October 4, 2022. (Moshe Shai/ Flash90/ File)
El Al airplanes on the tarmac at Israel's Ben-Gurion International Airport, October 4, 2022. (Moshe Shai/ Flash90/ File)

An El Al flight from Warsaw en route to Tel Aviv was not allowed to refuel after making an emergency landing in Antalya, Turkey, on Sunday to evacuate a passenger in need of medical attention.

Turkish workers at Antalya airport refused to refuel flight LY5102 before it could take off for Israel, El Al said in a statement.

“Local workers refused to refuel the company’s plane, even though it was a medical case,” it said, adding that the passenger was evacuated.

The plane then took off to Rhodes in Greece, where “it will refuel before taking off to Israel,” the airline said.

Turkish diplomatic sources confirmed the plane was allowed to make an emergency landing to evacuate a sick passenger.

“Fuel was to be provided to the plane due to humanitarian considerations, but as the relevant procedure was about to be completed, the captain decided to leave of his own accord,” a Turkish diplomatic source said.

Hebrew media reports said the Foreign Ministry had been assured by the Turkish authorities that the plane would be allowed to refuel, but in practice, it did not happen. Since the plane was burning fuel on the tarmac to keep air conditioning and other systems functioning, it was decided to take off for Rhodes, a 40-minute flight away, and refuel there, before even that short flight became impossible.

The plane was expected to land at Ben-Gurion Airport later Sunday.

Passengers were told that they were expected to spend several hours on the ground in Turkey, without permission to leave the plane, according to Hebrew media reports.

All direct flights between Israel and Turkey were canceled shortly after the war against the Hamas terror group broke out on October 7, when thousands of terrorists invaded southern Israel from the Gaza Strip, killing some 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has backed Hamas in the  war, in which Israel has sought to topple Hamas as Gaza’s de facto government, to secure the release of the hostages taken on October 7, and to prevent the Gaza Strip from posing a security threat to Israel going forward.

Erdogan hosted Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Istanbul in April, and in May, he said that more than 1,000 members of Hamas were being treated in Turkish hospitals.

In May, Turkey cut off all trade with Israel — a dramatic move for Israel’s fifth-largest source of imported goods, and one that was expected to result in price increases in Israel, at least in the short term.

AFP contributed to this report.






































Air India Express accused of unfair labor practices by union

The union now seeks labor commissioner's intervention

ByAkash Pandey

Jun 30, 2024
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)