US federal agents agree to withdraw in Portland but will remain on standby

BILLY BARR'S BULLY BOYS SOCIAL DISTANCE FROM PORTLAND

Issued on: 30/07/2020 -

Federal law enforcement officers, deployed under the Trump administration's new executive order, face off with people protesting racial inequality in Portland, Oregon, US on July 17, 2020. REUTERS - Nathan Howard

Text by:NEWS WIRES

President Donald Trump's administration on Wednesday agreed to a deal to defuse weeks of clashes in the US city of Portland with the withdrawal of federal forces whose presence enraged protesters, but the timing of the withdrawal remains in dispute.

Oregon Governor Kate Brown said the forces -- whose deployment was seen by many as part of Trump's law-and-order strategy for re-election -- would begin their phased pullout on Thursday.

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf indicated, however, that the officers will withdraw only if there are guarantees that local police can ensure the federal courthouse will be secured.

Trump's administration earlier this month sent the federal tactical teams, many wearing combat-like gear, to intervene in the western US city after weeks of protests against racism and police brutality left the federal courthouse and other buildings marred with graffiti and broken windows.

But their deployment only served to inflame the situation, especially following video footage of protesters being snatched off the street by federal forces and put into unmarked cars.

"After my discussions with (Vice President Mike) Pence and others, the federal government has agreed to withdraw federal officers from Portland," Brown tweeted Wednesday.

"They have acted as an occupying force & brought violence. Starting tomorrow, all Customs and Border Protection & ICE officers will leave downtown Portland."


After my discussions with VP Pence and others, the federal government has agreed to withdraw federal officers from Portland. They have acted as an occupying force & brought violence. Starting tomorrow, all Customs and Border Protection & ICE officers will leave downtown Portland.— Governor Kate Brown (@OregonGovBrown) July 29, 2020

In his statement, Wolf said he and Brown had "agreed to a joint plan to end the violent activity in Portland directed at federal properties and law enforcement officers."

'Increased violence and vandalism'

"That plan includes a robust presence of Oregon State Police in downtown Portland," he said, adding that "state and local law enforcement will begin securing properties and streets, especially those surrounding federal properties, that have been under nightly attack."

Wolf set no timeline for a pullout, stressing that the "current, augmented federal law enforcement personnel in Portland" would remain until being assured that federal properties "will no longer be attacked" in the city.

Trump for his part doubled down on the need for federal intervention in the city, threatening to send in the National Guard if the violence continues and calling the protesters anarchists.

"I told my people a little while ago, if they don't solve that problem locally very soon, we're going to send in the National Guard and get it solved very quickly, just like we did in Minneapolis and just like we will do in other places," he told an energy conference in Texas.

"They want to solve their problem. They've got a very short time to do it. But they'll either solve that problem or we'll send in the National Guard," he added.

In parallel with the contested crackdown in Portland, the administration has sent federal agents to supplement local law enforcement in several US cities facing a rise in gun crime such as Chicago, Kansas City and Albuquerque -- compounding public anger over the situation in Portland.

Wednesday's announcement on Portland came as Trump's administration said it was expanding the controversial "surge" of federal agents to three more US cities -- Cleveland, Detroit and Milwaukee.

In a statement, Barr said all three Democratic-run cities "have seen disturbing increases in violent crime, particularly homicides."

As part of so-called "Operation Legend," just under 100 agents will head to the three Great Lakes cities, according to the Justice Department, which said homicides were up 13 percent in Cleveland, 31 percent in Detroit and 85 percent in Milwaukee since the start of the year

The announcement on Portland came a day after officials in the neighboring state of Washington said that federal police sent to the city of Seattle last week had left the area.

Portland's Mayor Ted Wheeler welcomed the withdrawal of the officers from his city, tweeting Wednesday that their presence had sown fear in the community.

"Federal agents nearly killed a demonstrator, and their presence has led to increased violence and vandalism in our downtown core," he said.

"The Governor and I agree: Oregon resources, expertise, and values are sufficient to manage Oregon issues," he added.

(AFP)

Yazidi children freed from IS group still haunted by trauma: Amnesty International

Issued on: 30/07/2020 -

Displaced Iraqi Yazidi children stand next to a tent at a camp in Khanke, a few kilometres from the Turkish border in Iraq's Dohuk province, on June 24, 2019. AFP - SAFIN HAMED

Text by:FRANCE 24

Nearly 2,000 Yazidi children freed from the grips of the Islamic State group in recent years are still trapped by psychological and physical trauma, Amnesty International warned on Thursday. 

In a new report based on dozens of interviews in northern Iraq, the rights group found that 1,992 children who faced torture, forced conscription, rape and other abuses at the hands of IS were not getting the care they need.

"While the nightmare of their past has receded, hardships remain for these children," said Matt Wells, deputy director of Amnesty's crisis response team.

Thousands of #Yezidi children were brutalized during conflict with Islamic State.

New @Amnesty report highlights how their health must now be prioritized.

“While the nightmare of their past has ended, hardships remain for these children” - @mattfwellshttps://t.co/CT0S3GRGDW— Amnesty International (@amnesty) July 30, 2020

The Yazidis are an ethno-religious minority numbering around 550,000 in their heartland of northwest Iraq before IS swept through the rugged region in 2014.

Slamming the Yazidis as heretics, IS slaughtered thousands of men, abducted women and girls and forced boys to fight on its behalf.

Yazidi children were forcibly converted to Islam and taught Arabic, banned from speaking their native Kurdish.

To this day, child survivors suffer "debilitating long-term injuries," as well as post-traumatic stress disorder, mood swings, aggression and flashbacks.

According to the report, many child survivors return to their families having been starved, tortured or forced to endure or participate in hostilities. In many cases, these experiences have a major impact on their health.
While some children return with treatable conditions such as anaemia or scabies, others have debilitating, long-term injuries, illnesses or conditions.

As a result of their involvement in fighting, boys who were forcibly recruited by IS are especially likely to suffer from serious health conditions and physical impairments, such as lost arms or legs during fighting. Girl survivors of rape and other sexual violence suffer unique health issues, including traumatic fistulas, scarring, and difficulties conceiving, during pregnancy or giving birth to a child.

Nowhere to turn

Yazidi children interviewed by AFP last year in a displacement camp in the northwest district of Duhok played aggressively, wore all black and spoke Arabic to each other, even months after they were freed from IS.

One of them, a ten-year-old girl, had threatened to commit suicide multiple times, her mother told AFP.

A doctor who has provided medical care for hundreds of Yazidi women and girl survivors told Amnesty that almost every girl she had treated between the ages of nine and 17 had been raped or subjected to other sexual violence. Yet according to humanitarian workers and other experts, existing services and programmes for survivors of sexual violence have largely neglected girls, focusing instead on women survivors.

Sahir, a 15-year-old former IS child soldier, told Amnesty that he knew he needed mental support to cope with his trauma but felt he had nowhere to turn.

"What I was looking for is just someone to care about me, some support, to tell me, 'I am here for you'," he said.

"This is what I have been looking for, and I have never found it."

'Accept our children'

Amnesty said access to education could help ease children back into society, but tens of thousands of Yazidis still live in displacement camps where schooling is irregular.

Many have also gone into debt from paying thousands of US dollars to smugglers to free Yazidi relatives who were held by IS.

Yazidi mothers forcibly wed to IS fighters are struggling to heal their own psychological scars, while dealing with the stigma of having children born to jihadist fathers.

"I want to tell (our community) and everyone in the world, please accept us, and accept our children... I didn't want to have a baby from these people. I was forced to have a son," said 22-year-old Janan.

Many Yazidi women who were rescued from IS' last bastion in Syria over the last two years were forced to leave their IS-born children behind when they returned to their families in neighbouring Iraq.

"We have all thought about killing ourselves, or tried to do it," said Hanan, a 24-year-old Yazidi whose daughter was taken from her.


Daily newsletterReceive essential international news every morningSubscribe

As a result of IS’s policies of systematic rape and sexual enslavement, Yazidi women gave birth to hundreds of children during their captivity, say Amnesty in the report. Many of these women are in desperate situations, in some cases experiencing severe mental anguish after being forced to separate from their children, and in others, remaining in IDP camps or with IS captors in order to avoid giving up their children.

Several such women interviewed by Amnesty said they were pressured, coerced and even deceived into leaving their children behind by family members or by individuals or groups who work to reunite captured Yazidi women and children with their families. They also said they were falsely assured that they would be able to visit or reunite with their children at a later stage.

Mothers must be reunited with their children and no further separation should take place, Amnesty said.

"These women were enslaved, tortured and subjected to sexual violence. They should not suffer any further punishment," said Wells.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP)

Law enforcement behind half of all violence against African migrants, UN says

Issued on: 30/07/2020 - 17:13Modified: 30/07/2020 - 17:14

Rescued migrants disembark from a Libyan coast guard ship in the town of Khoms on October 1, 2019. © Mahmud Turkia, AFP

Text by:NEWS WIRES

Nearly half of all the violence visited on African migrants during their journey to the Mediterranean coast is perpetrated by law enforcers, the United Nations refugee agency UNHCR said on Wednesday.

According to a report by UNHCR and the Danish Refugee Council’s Mixed Migration Centre (MMC), thousands of refugees and migrants suffer extreme abuse including torture and sexual or gender-based violence, and in some cases death.

The report is based on nearly 16,000 interviews with refugees and migrants.

“In 47% of the cases, the victims reported the perpetrators of violence are law enforcement authorities, whereas in the past, we believe that it was mainly smugglers and traffickers,” Vincent Cochetel, UNHCR special envoy for the central Mediterranean, told a news conference in Geneva.

“States have a responsibility that they need to discharge in that respect.”

UNHCR reported that 1,750 people had died in 2018 and 2019 trying to reach the sea, but Cochetel said the true numbers were likely to be higher.

“That is just the visible tip of the iceberg. There are many families looking for their loved ones along the routes, and there is no answer to give them,” he said.

In recent months, hundreds of migrants have been stopped at sea and sent back to Libya despite the risk of violence there.

On Monday, Libyan authorities shot dead three Sudanese migrants trying to avoid detention as they disembarked from a failed attempt to cross the Mediterranean to Europe.

War-ravaged Libya is a major transit point for migrants seeking to reach Europe and now hosts an estimated 654,000 of them, often living in cramped conditions with little access to healthcare.

(REUTERS)

Murders of environmental activists at record high in 2019

Issued on: 30/07/2020 -

Climate change activists protest against the government of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro over the fires in the Amazon rainforest, in front of the Brazilian consulate in Cali, Colombia, August 23, 2019. AFP - LUIS ROBAYO
Text by:Marie CAMPISTRON

Last year saw a record number of environmental activists murdered while trying to protect the environment, according to a report published Wednesday by British NGO Global Witness.

At least 212 people who defended the environment were killed in 2019, the Global Witness report said – an average of four murders per week. The dead ranged from environment activists to members of indigenous tribes to farmers trying to defend their livelihood from exploitation. The previous record – at least 207 deaths in 2017 – was similarly shocking.

However, Global Witness wrote that its figures are “almost certainly an underestimate”, largely because of “reporting challenges” including “restrictions on a free press”.

Once again, around two-thirds of the people killed were in Latin America. The situation is especially worrying in Colombia – which has the highest number of environmental defenders murdered, with at least 64, more than double the figure in 2018. Fourteen of these murders were linked to the illegal substitution of coca crops, Global Witness pointed out.

“Colombia is still scarred by armed conflicts,” observed Marie-Émilie Forget, a lecturer in geography at the University of Savoie in southeastern France. “Paramilitary groups are still trying to steal resources in the countryside, despite the peace deal that famously ended the conflict with FARC.”


The Philippines comes in second, with at least 43 murders of environmental defenders in 2019. Most of them were perpetrated in the islands of Mindanao and Negros, both of which are rich in natural resources.

The situation is also deteriorating in Honduras. There were at least 14 murders related to the environment in the country in 2019 – compared to four the previous year. That makes Honduras the nation with the highest international rate of environmental murders per capita.

‘Criminalised for trying to protect the environment’

Brazil – where President Jair Bolsonaro’s insouciance towards the Amazon has repeatedly caused outpourings of despair throughout the world – is another cause for concern. Global Witness recorded 24 murders on Brazilian territory, around 90 percent of which were in the Amazon. Most of these victims were fighting against deforestation – notably as a consequence of major agricultural and mining projects. “These people are criminalised for trying to protect the environment,” Forget said. “By opposing, for example, a mining project, they’re going against the will of the state and are thus considered to be acting almost like terrorists.”

A climate of tension and violence is engendered by the development of mines and its repercussions on the health of families living nearby. Overall, opposition to mining projects was the most important reason cited for the murder of environmental activists in 2019. Following that was the agricultural industry, with at least 34 people killed in disputes connected to this domain – with killings related to the installation of palm oil, sugar and tropical fruit farms a particular problem, especially in Asia.

Across the globe, 40 percent of those murdered were members of indigenous communities trying to defend their cultures – even though they comprise just five percent of the population. “Indigenous people are claiming ancestral lands, but they don’t always have property rights,” Forget said. “Then there’s a power struggle between the state and these communities who have very little means to make their voices heard within their country,” she continued. “It’s thanks to the support of NGOs that their struggles are better known abroad.”

‘People trying to defend their land’

As well as indigenous peoples, many farmers have also been killed trying to defend their livelihoods. “You can imagine environmental activism coalescing around this idea of defenders of the environment, but it should also be said that in many cases these are just people trying to defend their land so they can live and eat,” Forget said.


Daily newsletterReceive essential international news every morningSubscribe

The Global Witness report also exposes an alarming culture of impunity for those responsible for environmental killings – pointing out that 89 percent of murders do not lead to a conviction. Political pressure on the police is a factor hindering investigative work. In Brazil, for example, the police are “poorly paid, easily corruptible and often threatened or intimdated”, geographer Hervé Théry told FRANCE 24 last year.

As the public clamour to halt the degradation of the environment grows, “governments around the world have been taking a wave of measures to close down the space for peaceful protest”, the Global Witness report said. “They are deploying tactics ranging from smear campaigns to spurious criminal charges to silence those that are standing up for the climate and humanity’s survival.”

Many people in the developed world are hopeful that a greener world will emerge after the coronavirus crisis – a pandemic that has highlighted the deadly risks involved in humans encroaching onto wildlife, while necessitating lockdowns that displayed the benefits of cities free from pollution. However, Global Witness argued that “the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown have intensified the problems land and environmental defenders face”.

This is because “governments around the world – from the US to Brazil and Colombia to the Philippines – have used the crisis to strengthen draconian measures to control citizens and roll back hard-fought environmental regulations”.

This article was adapted from the original in French.

THE ONLY TIME YOU WILL SEE THESE TWO BOZO'S WEARING MASKS 

Artists at London's Madame Tussauds check the masks on the wax figures of British PM Boris Johnson and US President Donald Trump Tolga Akmen AFP

Anti-Netanyahu protests: Is a revolution brewing?

Recent demonstration in Israel shows the radical potential of the Jewish left to push for fundamental change

A demonstrator wearing a mask of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and handcuffs takes part in a protest against Netanyahu in Jerusalem on 18 July, 2020 (Reuters)
Orly Noy
20 July 2020

The large street protest last week in front of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s compound in Jerusalem began almost like a party: drumming circles, people dancing in the streets around Paris Square - a kind of Hyde Park, where speakers spontaneously took turns on a makeshift platform to have their say.

Several hours later, before it finally wound down around 1am, the gathering had devolved into vicious struggles between protesters and police, blocking both a main Jerusalem thoroughfare and light-rail traffic for a considerable time. Police on horseback charged the crowd, while others used water cannon to try to disperse protesters, dozens of whom were arrested.


We, the Jewish public, are responsible for internalising the extent of the injustice in the present system; it is our job to work towards its replacement with a system offering equal justice for all

Protesters’ determined resistance, and their willingness to confront the police, surprised many. Some commentators suggested there had actually been two different demonstrations: a “well-behaved” protest against corruption, followed by a radical, leftist-anarchist riot that “hijacked” the original protest. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Yes, the first part of the protest was calmer and more “respectable” - but only someone blind and deaf could have failed to distinguish the intensity of the rage present in that square facing Netanyahu’s residence, right from the outset.

As a veteran leftist protestor in Jerusalem, I can’t recall ever having seen a similarly diverse profile of demonstrators in the city: young people and seniors, secular and religious, even ultra-Orthodox. At a time when the fear of coronavirus makes people think twice about joining mass gatherings, this one attracted seniors leaning on walkers and others from high-risk groups, all standing close together.

The young people who would later engage with police were not separate from the older demonstrators who congregated there at the outset, but were more like their strong arm of resistance.

There were no Palestinians at this demonstration, apart from one young man who mounted the podium and spoke about apartheid and occupation and was loudly cheered by the crowd. The next day, when I spoke to a Palestinian friend about it, she said: “This isn’t our protest.”

And of course she is right: we, the Jewish public, are responsible for internalising the extent of the injustice in the present system; it is our job to work towards its replacement with a system offering equal justice for all. The main question now is whether the current protest movement seeks only cosmetic changes - or whether it has more radical potential. I think it does.
State corruption

The latest demonstration in Jerusalem took place nine years after the mass social protests of 2011. That summer, hordes of young people pitched tents along Rothschild Boulevard in downtown Tel Aviv to challenge the status quo, mainly the high cost of living and unaffordable housing. The disappointment following that wave of protest could easily raise doubts about the horizon for this current round, but there are critical differences.

Most importantly, unlike the 2011 protests - which were quite reasonably viewed as protests by privileged young Tel Avivians finding it hard to make ends meet in the highest-rent city in the country, where it was also impossible to buy a chocolate yogurt at a decent price - the current unrest is significantly broader in terms of both its base of support and its message.
A protester kneels next to police in Jerusalem on 14 July (AFP)

This is not about the price of your favourite dairy dessert cup. It’s about the corruption in, and the corrupting of, public norms. It’s not even just about Netanyahu anymore. Yes, the demand for his resignation is still central, but now Benny Gantz, the general who had been viewed as a more upright alternative to Netanyahu, has joined the latter’s bloated and corrupt government.

Evidently, more Israelis now understand that the problem is not Netanyahu himself, but something much deeper and more rotten. In the emergence of this insight, there is, I believe, great potential for radicalisation.

Another significant difference is that the 2011 protests, like many others in Israel, carefully avoided any political branding - that is, as something leftist - while the leaders of the current movement have not fallen into that delegitimisation trap, put forth yet again by the right.
No apologies

After Tuesday’s heated clashes with police and the numerous arrests, the right-wing media and rightist politicians tried to frame the protest as a leftist, anarchist riot. As proof, they noted, among other things, that some of those arrested that night were represented by prominent human rights attorney Leah Tsemel, who often defends the rights of Palestinians in Israel.

Protest organisers, wisely refraining from letting themselves be trapped that way, are offering no apologies. Among the invited speakers at the last demonstration was an outspoken Jewish member of the mostly Arab Joint List, Ofer Cassif, who spoke on stage about the connection between political corruption and the moral corruption of the occupation. Not only were Cassif’s listeners not shocked, they applauded him enthusiastically.

Israel's new government is led by a wounded Netanyahu going for brokeRead More »

On Tuesday in Paris Square, I saw signs demanding justice for Iyad al-Halak, murdered not long ago in occupied East Jerusalem - and the people holding them seemed like a perfectly natural component of this latest demonstration.

There is something else worth noting: in a smart move, rather than apologise, the organisers of the latest demonstration managed to leverage the police violence inflicted on them to bring more people to the protest. The groups of young people arrested included more than a few well-known leftist activists.

Especially noteworthy is that they were taken into police custody not at an anti-occupation demonstration in Bilin, but at a protest against corruption in the heart of West Jerusalem.

The anti-corruption protest movement is benefitting from their considerable experience in confronting authorities. They brought their leftist agenda to a podium before a diverse crowd on Balfour Street, where their prospects of being heard would otherwise have been minimal. This, too, has radical potential.
Maximum advantage

It is true that, compared with demonstrations by Palestinians on either side of the Green Line, the police response to the Balfour Street demonstrators was very gentle. Bottom line, we were Jewish demonstrators in a country founded on Jewish supremacy.

Some mounted police did gallop into the crowd, a daunting tactic that unquestionably inspires fear, but they did not shoot at us - neither live fire nor sponge-tipped bullets. They did aim water cannon at us, but it was just water, not the disgusting so-called skunk water they use on Palestinians. And most of the detainees were released within a few hours.


To see this demonstration as just another example of Jewish privilege and nothing more is to miss the radical potential of the present moment

Undoubtedly, a Palestinian demonstration would have ended quite differently. But to see this demonstration as just another example of Jewish privilege and nothing more is to miss the radical potential of the present moment. The radical potential is most certainly there.

The question at stake in relation to this protest is quite simple: whether or not overthrowing Netanyahu due to corruption charges is our political goal. The answer is yes. Not only because a society that revolts against corruption is a healthier society, but also because almost every change the Jewish left strives for begins with the removal of Netanyahu from power.

The way Netanyahu strengthened his rule in office, the identification he created between himself and the state, and his continuous attempts to incite different groups against each other are very dangerous things, making his removal a necessary task to achieve any change. Now an interesting moment has arisen in which the regime itself is turning those who are considered the "salt of the land," the privileged Jews and sworn Zionists, into political dissidents.

The most pressing question now is whether we, the Jewish left, will be wise enough to take maximum advantage of this potential in pressing ahead towards the more fundamental change we are trying to bring about.

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

Orly Noy

Orly Noy is a journalist and a political activist based in Jerusalem.

Coronavirus: World cannot afford to continue ignoring Yemen

The country's healthcare system has been decimated by five years of war, as western nations send weapons and look the other way

A Yemeni child is pictured at a makeshift camp housing displaced people on the outskirts of Sanaa in 2016 (AFP)

Belen Fernandez
22 March 2020 

Time for a pop quiz: what, according to the United Nations, is the world’s largest humanitarian crisis - one that has killed more than 100,000 people over the past five years and wrought all manner of other torment?

Hint: it’s not coronavirus.

Rather, it’s the war in Yemen, which - despite the extensive complicity of the United States and Britain - consistently eludes Western attention and concern.
Saudi weapons deals

Much of the blame for the deadly state of affairs lies with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, preferred psychopath of the Trump administration, who as defence minister in March 2015 commenced giddily bombing Yemen, with the help of the United Arab Emirates and other allies.

As New York Times Beirut bureau chief Ben Hubbard notes in his new book, MBS: The Rise to Power of Mohammed Bin Salman, the war constituted a departure from business-as-usual for the Saudi military, which had traditionally abstained from action and simply “served to employ large numbers of Saudi men and enabled princes to sign massive weapons contracts with the United States and other Western countries to underpin alliances and enrich networks of middlemen”.


Beyond ripping innocent people to shreds, the US-backed Saudi war effort has helped spawn numerous other forms of suffering

Of course, massive weapons contracts come in handy in battle, too, and - comfortably backed by hundreds of billions of dollars in US weapons sales and other assistance - the Saudi-led coalition has succeeded in slaughtering thousands of Yemeni civilians.

Among the more publicised manifestations of the gruesome partnership was the 2018 coalition massacre of some 40 Yemeni children on a school bus by a US-supplied bomb.

When a journalist asked then-US Defence Secretary James Mattis whether the fact that such strikes were carried out with “US training, US targeting information, US weapons” was causing him “to rethink the US role in that coalition”, Mattis coherently replied: “There, I would tell you that we do help them plan what we call - what kind of targeting? I’m trying to trying of the right word.”
Blockade and sanctions

The word was never found, but the defence secretary stressed that the US was “not engaged in the civil war”, and proceeded to further obliterate logic with his pronouncement that “we will help to prevent, you know, the killing of innocent people”. This from the country known for conducting drone attacks on Yemeni wedding parties.

Beyond ripping innocent people to shreds, the US-backed Saudi war effort has helped spawn numerous other forms of suffering - including, as may be of particular interest in the context of the coronavirus panic, the worst cholera epidemic in modern history.

The health crisis in Yemen, which has seen thousands die of treatable diseases, has obviously been exacerbated by the Saudi blockade and sanctions. To be sure, the coalition’s habit of bombing hospitals and other medical facilities hasn’t exactly helped matters, either.
People inspect the rubble of a building hit by an air strike of the Saudi-led coalition south of Sanaa in September 2019 (AFP)

And that’s not all. Recall the “conservative estimate” by the aid organisation Save the Children that, between 2015 and 2018, 85,000 Yemeni children under the age of five might have died of starvation.

Writing in The Guardian in December 2018, Alex de Waal - executive director of the World Peace Foundation - suggested that bin Salman be prosecuted in an international court for “causing starvation” in Yemen: “Mass starvation may not have been Bin Salman’s initial intent, but it soon became evident that this would be the outcome.”

In addition to the economic blockade and other methods that “had the predictable effect of depriving millions of people of food, clean water, medicine and other basic necessities”, de Waal emphasised, there was also a “systematic targeting of agricultural and fishing infrastructure”.
Complicity in war crimes

Indeed, Human Rights Watch reports that more than 20 million people in Yemen are currently suffering from food insecurity and that 10 million are “at risk of famine.”

But, hey, as long as the US arms industry doesn’t go hungry, who cares about millions of starving mortals?

Yemen demystified: An unwinnable war of plunder that could bring down the SaudisRead More »

In an essay debunking the narrative that the Saudi-Emirati slaughter in Yemen is somehow a “proxy conflict” with Iran, University of Richmond professor and Yemen scholar Sheila Carapico stresses that “big petrodollar spending around DuPont Circle systematically produces a story-line that exonerates the murder and starvation of Yemenis” in the name of a supposedly existential battle with the Islamic Republic.

Ultimately, Carapico contends, the real victims of coalition aggression have nothing to do with Iran, and are instead “starving children under attack by filthy-rich monarchies wielding the most advanced weapons Britain and the United States have to sell”.

US President Donald Trump, of course, is a fan of the Iranian proxy storyline, and has vetoed congressional efforts to end US involvement in Yemen. After all, no need to worry about complicity in war crimes when your country has appointed itself above the law.
Interconnected world

Now, as we mark five years since the Saudi-led intervention, the Yemeni conflict appears to be re-escalating - and in mid-February, 31 civilians were massacred in US-backed Saudi air strikes.

But coronavirus hysteria has rendered the global populace even more immune to coverage of the ongoing horrors in Yemen - despite the fact that both crises expose the existential dangers of capitalist systems, in which elite profit is prioritised over the wellbeing of the masses.

It's worth recognising that - in an irreversibly interconnected world - we literally can't afford to fixate on certain catastrophes at the expense of others

According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, more than 80 percent of the population of Yemen “lacks food, fuel, drinking water and access to health care services, which makes it particularly vulnerable to diseases that can generally be cured or eradicated elsewhere in the world.” The Yemeni healthcare system has furthermore been “decimated” by years of war.

As for what happens when you add coronavirus to this mix, only time will tell. In the meantime, though, it’s worth recognising that - in an irreversibly interconnected world - we literally can’t afford to fixate on certain catastrophes at the expense of others.

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

Belen Fernandez

Belen Fernandez is the author of Exile: Rejecting America and Finding the World and The Imperial Messenger: Thomas Friedman at Work. She is a contributing editor at Jacobin magazine.

Yemen war: Why supporting MBS is driving UK's unethical foreign policy

Tories have failed to take action to bring the Saudi-led war in Yemen to an end, instead fuelling it through weapons exports

Protesters demonstrate against UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia in London in 2018 (AFP)

Emily Thornberry
19 March 2020 

When you look at the footage of so-called Yemeni “special security forces” attacking Aden airport five years ago today - gaunt young men in sandals and shorts gingerly approaching their target - the only thing that appears to match their billing is their military hardware.

Creeping behind powerful armoured cars, with machine guns and rocket launchers slung over their shoulders, they wait to break cover and storm the gates.

That morning, they lost the battle, but the war they started continues to rage, albeit under new management.
Power struggle

Originally, those special forces were fighting alongside Houthi rebels to oust President Abd Rabbuh Mansour Hadi and reinstall his predecessor, Ali Abdullah Saleh.

That seems a world away now. Saleh’s double-dealing eventually got him killed in 2017. Hadi is exiled and largely irrelevant in Riyadh.

If the last five years in Yemen have taught me anything ... it's the need to take other people's power struggles out of our equations, and take politics entirely out of our arms trade

Now what matters is the power struggle between the megalomaniacal Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, keen to add “military genius” to his list of precocious talents, and the fanatical Houthis, who’d rather see Yemen destroyed than surrendered.

That explains both the longevity of the Yemen war, and also the sheer level of devastation it has caused. Put simply, neither side cares.

For Mohammed bin Salman, his indiscriminate air strikes and crippling blockades are yet to force a surrender, but not for the want of effort. As for the thousands of civilians blown to bits in the bombing, and the millions of children suffering malnutrition and disease, his Western allies don’t seem bothered, so why should he?

The Houthis have their own long record of war crimes - child soldiers, torture, human shields, and random missile strikes on Riyadh. But the PR war has never bothered them; only the real one. And if you said it would last another five years, they’d probably count that a success.
Coronavirus threat

So do we think either Mohammed bin Salman or the Houthis care about the imminent spread of coronavirus among a severely weakened population with an already shattered healthcare system?

If I sound in despair, forgive me. But what really gets me about Yemen is the sheer amount our Tory government actively chooses not to do when it comes to bringing the war to an end.

As the official UN penholder on Yemen, we could demand a comprehensive, nationwide ceasefire to allow proper peace talks and the mass distribution of humanitarian aid. We could demand a full, independent UN investigation into all alleged war crimes, and impose - with no exemptions - a total ban on all UK arms sales for use in Yemen until that investigation is complete.
Yemenis shelter at a makeshift camp for displaced people in Hajjah province in August 2019 (AFP)

I’ve made those three demands of all four Tory foreign secretaries I’ve faced, and everyone has refused - not for reasons of high principle or substantive policy, but just because of the naked politics that Mohammed bin Salman is in a power struggle, and they must be seen to back him up.

Watching all that across the dispatch box has changed me. It has taught me to hate the Catch-22 contortions of an unethical foreign policy - one where we accept that British arms have enforced blockades used to starve Houthi-held areas into submission, and deny children essential medical treatment.

They’ve been used to bomb weddings, funerals, school buses, food markets, homes, schools and hospitals. An impartial observer might therefore conclude there is a “clear risk” UK arms are being used to commit war crimes, and block their export accordingly.
Crazed Tory logic

But not the UK government. Instead, they applaud Saudi authorities for taking these concerns seriously and investigating all allegations, both - they argue - clear examples of good intent, and signs of positive UK influence.

Furthermore, because these investigations have supposedly only revealed a series of unfortunate accidents, not deliberate war crimes, the Tories say Riyadh deserves praise for admitting the former, not an unjustified arms ban to prevent the latter.

We must stop outsourcing UK foreign policy to Donald TrumpRead More »

That, the Tories conclude, is consistent with the licensing rules put in place by former foreign secretary Robin Cook, even though Cook would have been appalled to see them applied in this way.

It was after hearing this crazed Conservative logic that I told Labour colleagues it would not be enough for us to simply operate the current arms export regime more stringently. I said we should scrap it entirely and introduce a Bank of England-style model, removing politicians from the decision-making process entirely.

Instead of ministers, an independent panel would make objective assessments of each export application, based solely on the risk to international law, free from any external interference, lobbying or personal prejudice.

Anything short of that, I argued, would allow a future Tory government simply to return to the old system, in a way they could never do on bank independence.
Force for peace

But my proposal met with resistance from some quarters. After all, some people like a bit of political subjectivity, so long as they’re the ones making the decisions - and especially if there are jobs at stake represented by our arms manufacturing unions.

I accepted a temporary compromise at the time, but vowed not to let it rest, and I won’t do so under the new Labour leader.

Because if the last five years in Yemen have taught me anything - especially watching Tory ministers over that time - it’s the need to take other people’s power struggles out of our equations, and take politics entirely out of our arms trade. Only then can Britain conduct itself as an unequivocal force for peace.

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

Emily Thornberry

Emily Thornberry, formerly a lawyer, became the Labour Member of Parliament for Islington South and Finsbury in 2005. Having shadowed the government posts of Attorney General, Defence Secretary and Brexit Secretary, she became Shadow Foreign Secretary and Shadow First Secretary of State in June 2016

How the wars in Libya and Syria are strangely intertwined

Amid ongoing instability, foreign intervention and regional brinksmanship, reverberations from one conflict are inevitably felt by the other

Syrians protest against Turkish and Russian military patrols southeast of Idlib on 15 March (AFP)

Christopher Phillips
22 July 2020 

When Egypt recently threatened to intervene in Libya’s war, Cairo received the wholehearted support of Damascus.

That the embattled Syrian regime, itself still fighting a gruelling civil conflict that has drawn in a myriad of foreign intervention, would so enthusiastically back similar interference elsewhere might seem odd. But it serves a wider purpose for Assad, ingratiating him to Egypt and its allies.

It also fits a pattern that has been present since the beginning of both the Syrian and Libyan civil wars in 2011. Though the two conflicts have taken different paths, the Libya war has frequently impacted events in Syria, with reverberations felt in unexpected ways on the other side of the Mediterranean.


Whereas once knock-on effects from Libya reverberated in Syria, now, Syria's war is having consequences in Libya

One key way in which the Libya war has impacted Syria has been to inspire some opposition actors to take up arms in the first place. When Syria’s uprising began in March 2011, the early opposition movement against President Bashar al-Assad was consciously peaceful, taking its cues from the successful bloodless revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt months earlier.

Yet, when this failed to achieve the rapid success seen elsewhere and Assad responded with brutal violence, some looked instead to the Libyan model of revolution, where armed rebels had toppled Muammar Gaddafi. While this prompted heated debate among Syrian opposition members, by March 2012, the opposition in exile, the Syrian National Council, had formally endorsed the armed strategy that rebel fighters on the ground were already taking.

Libya had already become a source of Syrian rebel arms and finance. As early as November 2011, Syrian rebels were reportedly negotiating with the new post-Gaddafi government in Tripoli about providing weapons. After a leading Libyan rebel, Abdul Hakim Belhaj, travelled to Turkey, the Libyan government made a $100m donation to the Syrian rebels.

A regular supply of weapons was sent from Libya to Syria’s rebels via Turkey. Also, Qatar was inspired in Syria by its apparent success in backing rebels against Gaddafi. It is an interesting question as to whether Doha would have been so enthusiastic were it not for events in Libya.
'The intervention is coming'

A similar question could be asked on the importance of Libya in impacting western views of the Syria crisis, and the Syrian opposition’s expectations of western intervention. After Nato directly intervened against Gaddafi, Syrian opposition groups increasingly expected something similar against Assad.

The rebels’ strategy in 2011-12, encouraged by their allies in Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, was geared towards taking territory and holding out long enough until the inevitable western intervention. One opposition figure, Bassma Kodmani, later recalled regional powers frequently telling the opposition: “It is coming definitely, the intervention is coming.”
People wave Libyan and Turkish flags during a demonstration in Tripoli on 21 June (AFP)

Yet, the Libya campaign paradoxically deterred similar western intervention in Syria. Former US President Barack Obama had reluctantly agreed to attack Gaddafi, under pressure from interventionists in his administration and his international allies. When Libya then descended into civil war, leading to the murder of US ambassador Christopher Stevens in September 2012, Obama’s initial caution returned to the fore, and he became even more unwilling to intervene in Syria.

This was seen in 2013, when he found a way to avoid striking Assad, despite Damascus defying Obama’s “red line” of using chemical weapons, to the outrage of the Syrian opposition and its allies. Obama and the anti-Assadists took different lessons from the Libya intervention, impacting their approach to the Syria war.
Turkey-Russia rivalry

More recently, as Libya’s civil war has heated up, it has begun playing a new role in Syria’s conflict. Whereas once knock-on effects from Libya reverberated in Syria, now, Syria’s war is having consequences in Libya.

Libya conflict: Turkey is looking for a 'third way' in SirteRead More »

The clearest example of this is the rivalry between Turkey and Russia. They back opposing sides in both conflicts, though Ankara and Moscow have both invested more in Syria. In recent years, however, each has increased their presence in Libya, seemingly as a means to boost their regional leverage in general and, at times, in Syria specifically.

It has become common at bilateral meetings between Russia and Turkey for both Syria and Libya to be under discussion. Setbacks in Syria have led to an increased presence in Libya. This was seen recently after Turkey’s comparative defeat to Russia and Assad in Idlib in March, precipitating a massive and decisive increase in Ankara’s support for the government in Tripoli.

A further Syria connector is their use of Syrians to fight in Libya. Turkey transported soldiers from its Syrian rebel proxies, the Syrian National Army, to fight in Libya, while Russia has used former Syrian rebels as mercenaries to fight for its Libyan ally, General Khalifa Haftar.
Sad pattern

Though less consequential than either Turkey’s or Russia’s actions, Assad’s own involvement in Libya is similarly expedient. His endorsement of Haftar, including by recently giving him Libya’s embassy in Damascus, carries ideological components. Both are autocrats who loathe the Muslim Brotherhood, are allied to Russia and are opposed by Turkey.


With both states likely to remain unstable for some time, it is unlikely that this will be the last time that events in Libya and Syria impact one another

Despite these commonalities, Assad did not weigh in on Haftar’s side for several years. His move now comes more from a desire to woo Haftar’s key external allies, the UAE and Egypt. A desperate need for Abu Dhabi’s economic support, especially, to prop up his floundering, sanctioned economy - rather than ideological solidarity - seems his primary motivation.

With both states likely to remain unstable for some time, subject to intervention and influence from the international powers that have helped drive and prolong the conflicts, it is unlikely that this will be the last time that events in Libya and Syria impact one another.

For almost a decade, Syria’s tragic war has been strangely interwoven with the equally grim conflict unfolding in Libya - and this sad pattern seems unlikely to end soon.

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

Christopher Phillips

Christopher Phillips is a Reader in International Relations at Queen Mary, University of London, where he is also a Deputy Dean. He is author of The Battle for Syria: International Rivalry in the New Middle East, available from Yale University Press.

'Isolated incidents': The legal absurdity of UK arms sales for Saudi war in Yemen

The British government will use the ostensible stamp of legal approval to continue selling arms to Saudi Arabia for its brutal campaign in Yemen

Stop The War Coalition stages a protest against the war in Yemen and UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia outside the Saudi Arabian Embassy in London on 25 October 2018 (Reuters)

Anna Stavriankis
23 July 2020 

The UK government’s announcement of the resumption of arms export licensing to Saudi Arabia and its allies may well prove to be the nail in the coffin for thousands more Yemenis, as the war in their country extends into its sixth year.

Declaring that potential breaches of international humanitarian law by the Saudi-led coalition amounted only to "isolated incidents", Secretary of State for International Trade Liz Truss announced herself to be satisfied that Saudi Arabia has a "genuine intent and capacity" to comply with international law and that there is therefore no clear risk of the misuse of weapons.


It is unclear how the government got from a starting point that treats all potential breaches as breaches, to a conclusion that there is only a 'small number' of possible breaches

How did the government reach this conclusion in the face of ongoing attacks on civilian targets and infrastructure in the war?

In June last year the Court of Appeal found the government’s arms export policy to be unlawful, as it failed to assess whether the Saudi-led coalition had committed violations of international humanitarian law in Yemen. The court ordered the government to re-take its decisions, this time lawfully.

After more than a year of silence on the matter, the government announced that its revised methodology now takes into account past allegations of violations and treats all potential breaches as actual breaches for the purposes of assessment.

So far so good: UK policy is based on the risk that weapons might be misused, and risk-based analysis is supposed to be preventive, so a position that treats potential breaches as breaches is a welcome start. However, the government engaged in two steps of legal and political manoeuvring to reach a conclusion that there is no pattern of potential breaches, and therefore no clear risk, meaning that arms licences could resume.

First, it is unclear how the government got from a starting point that treats all potential breaches as breaches, to a conclusion that there is only a "small number" of possible breaches.
What's a possible breach?

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) says that on 4 July 2020 it holds details of more than 500 "alleged instances of breaches or violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in Yemen". If the MoD has knowledge of more than 500 alleged breaches, and the government treats all potential breaches as actual breaches, then that means that the vast majority of these 500-plus alleged instances of violations have not been "assessed as a possible breach".


The government has constructed a position that allows it to both facilitate ongoing arms exports and claim adherence to international law

Significant definitional work has gone into narrowing the category of what constitutes a "possible breach" and putting distance between "allegations that are assessed as likely to have occurred" and those that are "assessed as a possible breach". If this sounds like pedantic wordplay, that’s because it is, albeit wordplay with deadly serious ramifications for the population of Yemen.

The government has constructed a position that allows it to both facilitate ongoing arms exports and claim adherence to international law. Second, it is unclear how the government reached the conclusion that these potential breaches constitute "isolated incidents". The government was required by the Court of Appeal to assess whether past incidents were part of a pattern.
Qaboul Mabkhout Marzouq, 11, lies on a stretcher at a hospital in Sanaa after she was injured in an air strike in the northern province of al-Jawf, Yemen on 15 July (Reuters)

On the basis that the possible violations "occurred at different times, in different circumstances and for different reasons" the government has concluded they were isolated. But one can just as easily – in fact, much more persuasively – conclude that this is evidence of widespread and systematic attacks over a long time period.
Ample evidence

There is a wide range of evidence in the public domain that indicates widespread and sustained attacks on civilian targets and infrastructure. One of the most recent reports is a collaborative effort between Mwatana for Human Rights, a Yemeni human rights organisation, and the Global Legal Action Network intended to “give the government everything it needed to accurately assess the risk of future violations".

See no evil: How the UK government tries not to know about bombing civilians in YemenRead More »

Yet the government has routinely failed to engage in any meaningful way with the evidence provided by civil society actors. There are challenges to identifying patterns and making decisions about whether attacks are systematic or indiscriminate – and the myriad organisations working on civilian harm could have provided lessons in how to identify patterns if the government was so minded.

The point is, the government did not want to find a pattern – because that would mean they had to suspend arms sales – and so they didn’t. Instead, they have declared themselves satisfied “that there is not a clear risk that the export of arms and military equipment to Saudi Arabia might be used in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law” and issued a seemingly blanket statement about the resumption of licensing, which itself flies in the face of the commitment to undertake a case-by-case assessment of every licence application.

These machinations are all compounded by the ongoing reliance on secrecy. The secretary of state apparently considered "the full range of information", some of which is "necessarily sensitive and confidential". This is old ground and it served as a staple of the government’s defence in the legal proceedings.
Whitewashing Saudi Arabia

It was not persuasive then, and it is not persuasive now. The government’s policy is based on risk assessment, which is supposed to be preventive – so if there is evidence indicating a potential breach, it should be factored in in a preventive manner.

The government has refused to engage with, let alone refute, the wide range of credible allegations in the public domain that indicate violations of international law, instead relying on ostensibly superior secret information that the public is not entitled to engage with.

Why the UK must rethink its support for Saudi ArabiaRead More »

And it is now refusing to publish the information on which it has based its revised methodology – stating that it has published the criteria for decision-making and the quarterly lists of licences granted.

However, what is missing is any substantive explanation of the rationale for decisions actually taken: there is frequently a glaring gap between the government’s publicly stated position and its actual licensing practice, a gap that the stock repetition that the UK has "one of the most robust control regimes in the world" does not address.

And while the quarterly lists provide data on licences granted, the codes do not match those used by HM Revenue and Customs to report on actual deliveries, reports that anyway only cover a subset of all weapons exports. This makes it impossible to know what was actually transferred and when, especially in the case of so-called open licences that allow repeat transfers to multiple destinations.

The government’s announcement means that arms licensing to the Saudi-led coalition can resume and the legal case falls away. The government will undoubtedly use the ostensible stamp of legal approval to continue whitewashing Saudi Arabia’s reputation and attempt to deflect continued criticism.

It was recently announced that the Committees on Arms Export Controls will be re-established, with MP Mark Garnier in the Chair. The Committees' role is to scrutinise government policy and practice. They have not published a report in the past two years; and with the merger of the Department for International Development into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, development actors' voices are even less likely to be heard at the table.

The new Committee members will have their work cut out for them.

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

Anna Stavriankis

Anna Stavrianakis is professor of International Relations at the University of Sussex, UK. Her research focuses on UK arms export policy, the international arms trade and arms transfer control, militarism and security.