Category: qatar

  • The veteran LGBT+ and human rights activist took a stand in Qatar last week – and was swiftly told to leave the country. He talks about his many critics, his evangelical Christian mother and what drives him to keep putting himself in danger

    I speak to Peter Tatchell by Zoom from Sydney, where he has recently arrived after his day in Qatar, protesting against that nation’s human rights abuses. He hasn’t slept in three days but is perfectly lucid and the weariness only tells in his minute corrections: “No, let me rephrase that”; “Sorry, let me think.” He is 70 years old, wrung out, back in Australia where he was born and raised, talking to me while fielding frequent phone calls. Has he no plans just to hang out for a bit, see some cousins? He’s a bit bemused by the question: “That’d be a very fine thing. But after Qatar I’ve got two other campaigns coming up – quiet time would be a stretch. I, with many others, have contributed to so many positive changes. It’s a great motivator.”

    The protest in Qatar, which happened on 25 October, comprised only Tatchell and a colleague, Simon Harris, from Tatchell’s eponymous foundation. It featured a single placard, which they had smuggled into the country between the pages of a copy of the Daily Telegraph. “The only existing broadsheet newspaper today,” he says, pleased at the irony of the paper coming in handy, despite itself. The wording on the placard was: “Qatar arrests, jails & subjects LGBTs to ‘conversion’ #QatarAntiGay.” “I never dictated the terms,” he says. “I took the message directly from my contacts in Qatar.”

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • The kicking of the first ball in Qatar will induce a collective sporting amnesia for which the Socceroos will be complicit, argues Binoy Kampmark.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • For a time, the confused and muddled approach from Australian football (soccer to some) did much of a side-step regarding the human rights imbroglio and Qatar’s hosting of the FIFA World Cup.  There was ample cash and participation in one of the world’s biggest tournaments on the line.  There was FIFA’s reluctance that footballing sides show any political streak; such figures, it was hoped, should best focus on kicking a ball on a pitch.  And then there was the sport itself.  Here was a chance to take football to the desert reaches and build new bastions.

    Qatar, for its part, has taken a softening voice in disguising reform.  The number of deaths among the toiling workers behind the various venues and stadia for the World Cup has been calculated to be in the order of 37 between 2014 and 2020.  The Guardian report from February 2021, using records from a number of embassies, suggests that 6,500 Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Sri Lankan nationals had perished since 2010.

    A number of footballing teams, however, could not contain themselves.  While not wanting to seem totally complicit in a regime’s atrocious labour practices and archaic punishments, there was the sense that something had to be done.  But how could disagreement with Doha’s policies possibly take place alongside continued attendance?

    A stretch of air-gun salutes filled with vanilla anger has been the answer, a measure of displeasure from teams who would still be participating in Qatar 2022.  Yes, of course they would go, and never mind such silly notions as a boycott or any naff idea of staying at home.  All those contracts; all that publicity!  They would put in an appearance and keep the broadcasters happy.  Such players merely wanted to let those organising the festivities and sponsorships know about a moral awakening.

    Denmark decided to use a form of protest so stealthy as to be unnoticeable, a case of monochrome shirts freed of logos and integrity.  Such a protest was also free of sense and strength, but that did not bother the manufacturer Hummel, which had a product to promote on the world stage.

    The teams of other footballing nations, including Germany, France and England, are promising an even meeker response: wearing rainbow coloured armbands as part of anti-discrimination campaign featuring the message “One Love”.

    As has been the case before, Australia wanted to go one step further in foolishness; and mightily foolish its players turned out to be.  Sixteen were given a chance to vent at the host country, salving their troubled consciences without so much as lifting a finger.  In video recordings, the players claimed to “stand with FIFPro, the Building and Wood Workers’ International, and the International Trade Union Confederation, seeking to embed reforms and establish a lasting legacy in Qatar.”

    Policy suggestions follow. “This must include establishing a migrant resource centre, effective remedy for those who have been denied their rights, and the decriminalisation of all same-sex relationships.”  The players insist that, “These are the basic rights that should be afforded to all and will ensure continued progress in Qatar – a legacy that goes well beyond the final whistle of the 2022 FIFA World Cup.”

    Such venting came with mighty qualifications and veiled praise.  No player wanted to suggest that Qatar had not made genuine steps to improve the state of labour rights.  There was even a heaving acknowledgment that the kafala system has been dismantled, which raised the question why migrant workers have engaged in strike action, with others promising to do so during the tournament.

    The statements had their cinematic effect.  They even caught the interest of a number of Australian politicians, including the Treasurer Jim Chalmers, whose interest in football is scant relative to his enthusiasm for rugby league.  “These guys make me proud to be an Australian and they’re going to turn this rugby league tragic into someone who’s going to follow them more closely than I might have.”

    The unsavoury Piers Morgan, former host of Good Morning Britain, was unimpressed.  “Fine virtue-signalling words… presume you will now be boycotting the tournament? Or don’t you guys care THAT much.”

    The Morgan formula was one that has fallen out of favour in modern sport: the boycott.  “Either go and play football, or don’t go.  Pretending you’re outraged by a country’s morality but then actively promoting the country is hypocritical.”

    The impression left is that of a bunch of political interns schooled in the fine art of hypocrisy.  It gave Qatari officials and the tournament’s organisation committee room to co-opt the players’ collaboration.  Yes, some of the criticism might have been stinging, but not all of it.

    A spokesman for the Qatari organising committee revealed Doha’s chosen strategy: “We commend footballers using their platforms to raise awareness for important matters.  We have committed every effort to ensure that this World Cup has had a transformative impact on improving lives, especially for those involved in constructing the competition and non-competition venues we’re responsible for.”

    The “health, safety, security, and dignity of every worker contributing to this World Cup” was a priority.  And a number of government labour reforms had been implemented, as “acknowledged by the IL, ITUC, and numerous human rights organisations as the benchmark in the region.”  Their “robust implementation” was “a global challenge, including in Australia.”  From a public relations perspective, this was solid play.

    In language turned inside out to justify Doha’s own malfeasant practices and “lethargy” on the issue of labour reform, the World Cup could be blessed for leaving “a legacy of progress, better practice and improving lives”. It would be one that would “live long after the final ball is kicked.”

    Another legacy is more likely.  The kicking of the first ball will induce a collective sporting amnesia for which the Socceroos will be complibcit, their consciousness reassured.  The glitzy, environmentally depraved, humanly costly show will go on.

    The post Virtuous Hypocrisy: The Socceroos and the Qatar World Cup first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Bird encounters | Thérèse Coffey | Cop or Copout? | Open University | Boycotting Qatar

    Now I’m in my late 60s, I have started using a hearing aid, and on a recent autumnal walk was delighted to discover that the birds still sang at this time of year (Bird and birdsong encounters improve mental health, study finds, 27 October). I had become so used to hearing only the occasional twitter of a bird when almost within arm’s reach that this experience was like discovering the joy of being outdoors for the first time. I now wait for spring, when I hope to hear the cuckoo once again.
    Sue Hunter
    Brockenhurst, Hampshire

    • Thérèse Coffey has said Cop27 is “just a gathering of people”, so hardly worth the prime minister attending (Report, 28 October). Her arrogance and lack of moral concern are amazing. The only good thing about her move to the environment job is that she won’t be wrecking the NHS.
    Peter Brooker
    West Wickham, London

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • There is little evidence to back up claims that international sporting events do anything to discourage human rights abuses

    Qatar is a rich Gulf nation known for both its huge oil reserves and its flagrant human rights abuses. It is a dictatorship in which women have to seek permission from their male guardians to marry or work in many government jobs, in which being gay is criminalised and can result in a prison sentence, in which migrant workers are treated appallingly and in which journalists have been imprisoned for reporting critically on domestic politics. Yet all of this will inevitably be minimised as the world’s eyes fall on Qatar for the start of the 2022 World Cup next month.

    Qatar’s leaders know this and this is why they have paid through the nose – estimates put it at $220bn (£190bn), by far the most expensive World Cup of all time – to host the competition, including lavishing money on efforts to lobby British politicians, as we report today. And so football teams, international supporters, the world’s media and foreign dignitaries will duly head to Qatar for an international sporting tournament that has serious environmental implications and will, some predict, leave a huge carbon footprint. At a conservative estimate, at least 6,500 migrant workers have lost their lives n Qatar since it was awarded the World Cup in 2011.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Tesla CEO Elon Musk completed his $44 billion purchase of Twitter on Thursday after a chaotic, months-long buyout process, leaving the richest man on the planet in control of one of the world’s most widely used social media and communication platforms.

    Musk wasted no time imposing himself on the company, swiftly firing several top executives including CEO Parag Agrawal.

    “The bird is freed,” Musk tweeted late Thursday.

    A self-described free speech absolutist who has proven in practice to be anything but, Musk has yet to fully detail his vision for Twitter, but critics of the takeover fear that the billionaire’s suggestions thus far — including reversing the permanent bans of former President Donald Trump and potentially other figures such as the hate-spewing conspiracy monger Alex Jones — could further deluge the platform with disinformation ahead of key elections in the United States and Brazil.

    As The New York Times observed, “Twitter said it would prohibit misleading claims about voting and the outcome of elections, but that was before Mr. Musk owned it.”

    “Elon Musk’s plans for Twitter will make it an even more hate-filled cesspool, leading to irreparable real-world harm,” said the Stop the Deal Coalition, an alliance of groups that includes Accountable Tech, Friends of the Earth, Public Citizen, and the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism. The coalition has urged Congress to investigate Musk’s acquisition of Twitter. (The purchase is reportedly already facing an investigation by federal regulators.)

    “Musk’s plans will leave the platform more vulnerable to security threats, rampant disinformation, and extremism just ahead of the midterm elections,” the coalition said. “Elon Musk has a thirst for chaos and utter disregard for anyone other than himself and should not own Twitter.”

    The coalition noted that, to fund the Twitter purchase, Musk is “accepting financing from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Al Saud and the sovereign wealth fund of Qatar — two countries run by repressive regimes.” Saudi Arabia and Qatar are hardly bastions of free speech: Earlier this month, the Saudis sentenced 72-year-old U.S. citizen Saad Ibrahim Almadi to 16 years in prison over tweets criticizing the regime.

    Almadi’s son told The Washington Post that the kingdom has tortured his father in prison.

    “Elon Musk owning one of the world’s most powerful communication platforms is dangerous for us all,” the Stop the Deal Coalition continued. “As Musk runs Twitter to the ground, let this serve as a warning to other platforms that they will be held accountable for ignoring public safety and dismantling the guardrails designed to protect our information ecosystem.”

    In a statement posted to Twitter Thursday morning, Musk said the reason he purchased the company “is because it is important to the future of civilization to have a common digital town square, where a wide range of beliefs can be debated in a healthy manner, without resorting to violence.”

    But Musk’s stated openness to free expression appears not to apply to his employees, Tesla customers, or journalists covering his companies.

    “In November 2020, former Tesla employee Stephen Henkes said he was fired from his job at Tesla on August 3, 2020 after raising safety concerns internally then filing formal complaints with government offices, when the company failed to fix and communicate accurately with customers over what he said were unacceptable fire risks in the company’s solar installations,” CNBC reported Thursday.

    “Musk and Tesla have also sought — not always successfully — to silence customers,” the outlet added. “For example, Tesla used to compel customers to sign agreements containing non-disclosure clauses as a prerequisite to have their vehicles repaired,” the outlet added. “In 2021, Tesla asked customers to agree not to post critically to social media about FSD Beta, an experimental driver assistance software package that some Tesla owners could test out using their own cars and unpaid time to do so.”

    “Musk is the face of 21st-century tech-based, extreme capitalism.”

    Musk, like other billionaire CEOs, is also a union-buster.

    Last year, the National Labor Relations Board upheld a judge’s ruling that Tesla unlawfully fired an employee involved in union organizing. The labor board also affirmed the finding that Musk illegally threatened workers “with the loss of their stock options” if they decided to form a union.

    David Nasaw, emeritus professor of history at the CUNY Graduate Center, wrote in a column for the Times on Thursday that “Musk is the face of 21st-century tech-based, extreme capitalism, just as the robber barons, who built our railroads, and Andrew Carnegie, who supplied those railroads and the builders of modern American cities with steel, embodied the exuberant and expansive industrial capitalism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.”

    “Mr. Musk has exploited the opportunities emerging in a rapidly disintegrating regulatory state apparatus and acquired a small army of investors and a fleet of lobbyists, lawyers, and fanboys (known as Musketeers),” Nasaw continued. “He has sought to position himself as a tech genius who can break the rules, exploit and excise those who work for him, ridicule those who stand in his way, and do as he wishes with his wealth because it benefits humanity.”

    “It is not unreasonable to expect that a Musk-owned and controlled Twitter will, in the name of free speech, allow disinformation and misinformation to be tweeted ad infinitum so long as it discredits his political opponents and celebrates and enriches himself and his allies,” Nasaw added. “Elon Musk is a product of his — and our — times. Rather than debate or deride his influence, we must recognize that he is not the self-made genius businessman he plays in the media. Instead, his success was prompted and paid for by taxpayer money and abetted by government officials who have allowed him and other billionaire businessmen to exercise more and more control over our economy and our politics.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Group running tournament praises Socceroos for raising awareness of human rights but does not address issue of same-sex relationships

    Qatari organisers of the 2022 World Cup have responded to the Socceroos’ criticism of the country’s human rights record, praising the group of players for raising awareness of issues ahead of the tournament while admitting that “no country is perfect”.

    Sixteen Australian players raised their concerns about the “suffering” of migrant workers and the inability of LGBTQ+ people in Qatar “to love the person that they choose” in a collective video released on Thursday.

    Sign up for our free morning newsletter and afternoon email to get your daily news roundup

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Advertisers trim budgets amid jitters over World Cup host’s human rights record and appearing ‘tone-deaf’ to austerity

    There will be no Christmas TV advertising boom this year as jitters over associating with the World Cup host Qatar’s human rights record and the cost of living crisis put paid to the annual battle of the big-budget extravaganzas that traditionally bombard the public over the festive season.

    UK companies will still spend a record £9.5bn in the run-up to Christmas, known as the “golden quarter”, when many retailers make the lion’s share of their annual profits and sales, but the amount targeted at traditional TV, newspaper and radio outlets will decline this year.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Incident outside National Museum in Doha comes less than a month before start of men’s football World Cup

    The human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has been stopped by police in Qatar while staging a protest against the Gulf state’s criminalisation of LGBTQ+ people.

    Tatchell’s protest outside the National Museum of Qatar in the capital, Doha, comes less than a month before the start of the Fifa World Cup, which is expected to attract 1.2 million visitors from around the world.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Sports stars are often adored like dumb show animals, suitably pretty, happily disposed to the cause they are paid for.  For the FIFA Men’s World Cup being held in Qatar next month, football can count on the face of former English star David Beckham as its prized animal.  This month, the principle-free player signed a 10-year contract worth £150 million to be the state’s culture and tourism ambassador.

    For a Gulf state with an appalling human rights record, be it in terms of mistreating migrant workers, discriminating against women and criminalising homosexuality, this was quite a coup.  In a promotional advert wearily lasting 30 minutes, Beckham happily does what he is paid to do.  “People in Qatar are very proud of their culture,” he states.  Tacky observations abound.  “The modern and traditional fused to create something really special.”  The video also gives him a chance to strut any number of fashion labels.

    In Blighty, this did not go down too well, at least in some quarters of chat land.  The breakfast talk circuit lit up with claims from Good Morning Britain presenter Robert Rinder that Beckham’s conduct had put “money before morals”.  (When was it different?)  “There should be basic requirements before you are entitled to [host such tournaments] and that’s not just about LGBTQ.  It’s about the 6,500 workers who died, it’s about the fact that Beckham’s daughter Harper would not be able to continue with her education [if she was Qatari] without the permission of a male relative.”

    Fine stuff indeed, except that the organisation behind football, FIFA, was never one to quibble about the ethics and governing principles of the host nations.  The perennial hope of its officials is that moral ill-temper eventually cools off and loses interest.  Once the ball starts to move, the ethicists go on leave.  The fans, television networks and dignitaries will turn up, wolf down and guzzle what’s on offer.

    Beckham, for his part, is playing the role of a cultural trainee, a vessel keen to be filled with the profound revelations of his hosts.  “David believes,” the insufferable Sun reports, “in Qatar’s commitment to progress and that the World Cup – the first to be held in the Arab world – can effect significant positive change.”  Not only did he believe “in the power of football to bridge differences but, crucially, has seen the progress on issues that matter.”

    The paper also reports that the former player consulted his wife, Victoria, before signing the contract, which is about as banal as you can get.  The only thing of interest there is that Victoria was a member of The Spice Girls, who “famously sung about ‘girl power’”.

    What, then, has been done in terms of actual protest?  At the coal face – or, in this case, the stadium face – are the workers who have every right to demand their wages and to protest maltreatment that has been a habitual feature of the kafala system.  It is them who face to lose the most.

    Strikes have taken place protesting wage theft or the late payment of wages.  More are scheduled to take place. These tend to come in stages, with workers initially refusing to leave their accommodation and go to work, followed by protests on the street, sometimes in front of government buildings or the headquarters of the relevant company.

    Human Rights Watch has noted the retaliation of the Qatari authorities to such measures.  A number of those participating in a strike that took place on August 14 were detained and returned – voluntarily, of course.  They had violated “Qatar’s public security laws”.

    Other forms of protest are not quite so convincing.  Some seem to resemble a form of crude marketing, a case of booming self-promotion.  Instead of glossy, Qatar standard bearer Beckham, Denmark prefers the most modest of objections.  Their team uniforms will go monochrome.  The manufacturer, Hummel, offers a choice of three. One is black.  “The colour of mourning,” we are told by the company.  “We support the Danish national team all the way, but that isn’t the same as supporting Qatar as a host nation.”

    On its Instagram account, the company expressed its wish to “send a dual message”.  The kits were inspired by Euro 92, when Denmark won the European Football Championship, and a desire to “protest against Qatar and its human rights record.”  In a scarcely credible assertion, Hummel did not wish “to be visible during a tournament that has cost thousands of people their lives.”  Only, they will be, in the form of supplying kit to the Danish national team.

    The response from the bombastically named Qatar Supreme Committee for Delivery and Legacy fumed at Hummel’s measures, disputing the assertion that “this tournament has cost thousands of people their lives.”  The Committee also rejected “the trivialising (of) our genuine commitment to protect the health and safety of the 30,000 workers who built FIFA World Cup stadiums and other tournament projects.”

    Committee members need not worry.  Whatever the grumbling, attendance from country teams is bound to be comprehensive and complete.  Gone are the days when the sporting boycott, albeit unevenly applied, was used.  In its modern iteration, such protest, as sports columnist Cathal Kelly observes, is mightily nuanced and ineffectual.  “You don’t like how something is done?  Then find a way to turn a sad situation into an opportunity for self-aggrandizement.”

    Kelly, after discussing the Danish example, notes the even more feeble response from Dutch manager Frank de Boer.  The Dutch team, de Boer promises, will wear “One Love” rainbow armbands during the matches.  “This is the biggest statement we can make.”  This does little to remove the stigma of complicity and collaboration: after the disagreement, the show continues as hypocrisy reigns in majesty.

    Having done their bit to express stroppy disagreement, the Danish team and other competitors will still grace the stadia built in near-slave labour conditions; participate in activities supported by conditions tantamount to much the same; and enjoy the receptions and hospitality of a state with a brutal penal system.  The games will still be broadcast, the stream of revenue uninterrupted.  As with church attendees happy to part with a coin donation after a service, all can leave happy that a troubled conscience can rest as the world continues along its dark, unchanging way.

    The post Feeble and Invisible: Sports Protests at the Qatar FIFA World Cup first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Prime minister Liz Truss has indicated she will court Qatar as an energy partner to counter the UK’s energy crisis. The authoritarian regime, known for its long list of human rights violations, is already closely aligned to the UK and will host the World Cup in December. Doha News reported that the Qatari and British energy ministers had spoken on Tuesday 5th October. But at the centre of these new plans, there is a gaping contradiction.

    Because Truss herself told Tories in her conference speech the following day that the UK had been reliant on gas from authoritarian regimes – meaning Russia – as Declassified UK were quick to point out:

    Presumably Qatar isn’t an authoritarian regime to Truss’s mind. Though quite a few people would disagree…

    Qatari regime

    Qatar is an authoritarian monarchy, like many of its Gulf neighbours. And like them, Qatar is the recipient of massive amounts of British military equipment.

    As the Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) explains:

    Qatar is an authoritarian state with strict judicial constraints on freedom of expression. Detainees are subject to beatings and cruel treatment while a great many immigrant workers are trapped in conditions of forced labour.

    Also according to CAAT, Qatar was the 10th largest importer of arms globally between between 2015 and 2019. With UK arms exports licenses accounting for £384mn of the national total. In 2018 BAE Systems and Qatar signed a deal for Eurofighter underwritten by the government to the tune of £4.5bn. Meaning if Qatar defaults, BAE gets paid by the taxpayers.

    The World Cup

    These deals, and now any energy agreement which is reached, are conducted under the shadow of Qatar’s various human rights abuses. Of acute importance in 2022 is the treatment of migrant workers who have prepared Qatar to host the World Cup.

    Amnesty’s detailed 2020/21 report lists Qatar’s terrifying record on LGBT rights, women’s rights and trade unions. It also details the ‘kafala’ system to which many workers have been subjected. Kafala is, in effect, a system of indentured servitude which stops workers, for example, leaving the country or switching jobs.

    Human Rights Watch has said:

    the kafala system remains in place and continues to facilitate the abuse and exploitation of the country’s migrant workforce.

    Many migrant workers come from places like India and Bangladesh and have been forced to live and work in squalid conditions. Some estimates put the death toll for south Asian migrant labourers since Qatar won its bid for the World Cup at 6750.

    Human rights disaster

    Truss is well known for her clangers. And her latest plan to wean Britain off gas from a hardline regime, by getting it from a different hardline regime is another in a long of line of transparently stupid decisions. The energy crisis is very real, but it’s also the right time to start transitioning away from fossil fuels and towards more sustainable energy.

    Given she is literally the prime minster of the country, she clearly has the power. It’s time to stop being a moral vacuum on the matter of workers rights for the sake of resources.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/US Ambassador to the UK, cropped to 770 x 403

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on Canary Workers’ Co-op.

  • The FIFA World Cup, due to begin in Qatar in November, will be stained by one of the highest casualty rates amongst workers in the competition’s history, reports Binoy Kampmark.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • A sordid enterprise, nasty, crude and needless.  But the World Cup 2022 will be, should anyone bother watching it, stained by one of the highest casualty rates amongst workers in its history, marked by corruption and stained by a pharisee quality.  The sportswashers, cleaning agent at the ready, will be out in force, and the hypocrites dressed to the nines.

    From the start, the link between the world’s premier football (or soccer) competition and the gulf state was an odd one.  Qatar and the World Cup are as connected in kinship as gigantic icebergs and parched desert sands.  But money was the glue, prestige the aim, and there was much glue to go around when it came to securing the rights to host the competition.  What was lacking was a football tradition, an absence of sporting infrastructure, and the presence of scorching weather.

    The central figure in this effort of bald graft over distinguished merit was Mohamed Bin Hammam, Qatar’s football grandee and construction magnate.  From his position as a member of the executive committee of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), he is said to have acted, on occasion, more like “the head of a crime organisation” than a mere board official.  All the time, he risibly claimed that he was a fan of reform, calling for “more transparency in FIFA.”

    There was little evidence of transparency when it came to Doha’s bid.  With manoeuvring and cash incentives, the votes fell Qatar’s way in December 2010.  FIFA’s own comically named ethics committee cleared the country’s officials of any misdemeanour (it was “verified internally” that no secret plots had been made leading up to the award), while also having harsh words for other bidders, notably England.

    The body also commissioned a 430-page report from lawyer and ethics investigator Michael Garcia that put the officialdom of both Russia and Qatar at ease.  For one thing, Garcia seemed mild in noting that, “A number of executive committee members sought to obtain personal favours or benefits that would enhance their stature within their home countries or considerations.”  With specific reference to Qatar, Garcia mentioned the country’s Aspire sports academy, alerted to it being used to “curry favour with executive committee members”.  This gave “the appearance of impropriety.  Those actions served to undermine the integrity of the bidding process.”  But not enough, it would seem, to invalidate the choice.

    In all the scrounging, haggling and dealing, the fate of tens of thousands of migrant workers have fallen into the void, showing that sporting choices, even if nourished by a grossly unethical base, will still be tolerated.  Despite this, the reports about the appalling treatment Qatar affords its imported labour have not stopped coming.  For one thing, 2 million workers retained to build the various stadia, a new airport, roads, the metro system, not to mention providing a range of other services (restaurants, transport, in some cases, even security), would generally count as indispensable.  The problem with modern trafficking and slave practices lies in the fact that they will, when the time comes, be dispensable.  The pool is large and constantly replenished.

    The years since Qatar was awarded the right to host the World Cup have seen a degree of ugliness that would make the hair stand on the back of any labour and human rights activist.  Much of this predates the commencement of work upon the facilities needed for the sporting event, a legacy shaped by the Kafala system.  The system of sponsor-based employment effectively indentures the worker to the employer, or kafeel, trapping the employee by restricting mobility, choice of employment and visa status.

    In 2017, Qatar reluctantly signed an agreement with the International Labour Organisation (ILO) giving an undertaking to combat labour exploitation and “align its laws and practices with international labour standards”.

    Despite such undertakings, The Guardian revealed in February 2021 that 6,750 migrant workers hailing from India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka had perished in Qatar since December 2010.  Such a total would be further inflated were it to account for other source countries of migrant labour, including Kenya and the Philippines.

    The circumstances behind each death vary from suicide to being killed in shoddy worker accommodation.  But the authorities have done their best to relay the causes in murky terms, often aided by a reluctance to conduct autopsies.  “Natural deaths” tops the list as a favourite, with respiratory and acute heart failure featuring strongly.

    In May this year, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, FairSquare, and a number of international migrant rights groups, labour unions, business and rights groups, along with football fans and abuse survivors, made a plea to FIFA.  In a letter addressed to its President Gianni Infantino, the collective writes of “hundreds of thousands of migrant workers” who had yet to receive “adequate remedy, including financial compensation, for serious labour abuses they suffered while building and servicing the infrastructure essential for the preparation and delivery of the World Cup in Qatar.”

    In urging Infantino to work with the Qatar government, trade unions, the ILO and other relevant bodies to address labour abuses, the collective acknowledges various modest improvements.  But minor labour reforms and the Supreme Committee for Delivery and Legacy Initiatives came “too late”.  The various reforms have also been unevenly enforced.  Many workers essential to the World Cup enterprise also fall outside the remit of the Supreme Committee’s initiatives.

    This whole endeavour, in short, remains plagued and blotted by institutional callousness.  But a good deal of this will be forgotten come the opening ceremony and lost among the hordes of politically illiterate fans.  The sporting show will go on, and anyone wishing to protest its merits will risk five-year prison sentences and a fine of 100,000 Qatari riyals (US$27,000) for “stirring up public opinion”.  That’s mightily sporting of the authorities.

    The post Deadly Games: The Labour Casualties of Qatar’s World Cup first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The FA and the England team should back proposals to safeguard migrant workers’ rights after the World Cup in November

    From the Beijing Winter Olympics to the Saudi-funded LIV golf tournament, 2022 has already offered ample evidence of the value of sportswashing to states with a global image problem. The forthcoming football World Cup in Qatar, now only five months away, will complete a hat-trick of events designed to augment the soft power of authoritarian regimes.

    The decision to award World Cup hosting rights to a searingly hot Gulf state with a poor human rights record provoked widespread bafflement, suspicion and dismay. Last November, the US Department of Justice alleged that officials working for world football’s governing body, Fifa, had been bribed ahead of the decisive vote in 2010. But since then the global spotlight on Qatar has provided an opportunity for human rights campaigners. Lobbying on behalf of a vast migrant labour force, which has historically been subjected to brutally exploitative practices, has yielded tangible results. A minimum wage has been introduced, albeit at a very low rate. The abusive kafala system – which tied workers to a single employer – has been largely dismantled, and in most cases exit permits are no longer required to leave the country.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Few events in recent years have proved to be as transformative of international relations as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the resulting imposition of sanctions on the Russian economy. The war and sanctions have sundered or sharply curtailed most remaining trade and diplomatic relations between Russia and the West, forcing Western firms to suspend their operations in Russia and plan for a world divided into highly segmented trade blocs.

    Every major industry will be battered by these seismic shifts, but none more so than energy: Prior to the invasion, Russia was Europe’s principal supplier of imported oil and natural gas, so European efforts to replace those imports with supplies acquired elsewhere will have a powerful impact on the global trade in both commodities.

    This impact has already been evident in the petroleum realm, where increased European demand for non-Russian supplies has contributed to rising gasoline prices everywhere, including the United States. Its greatest long-term effect, however, is likely to be seen in the market for liquefied natural gas (LNG), once a relatively minor factor in the global energy equation that is gaining ever-increasing prominence. As Europe turns away from Russian gas, it will become increasingly reliant on LNG imports to satisfy its needs — and this, in turn, will result in new trading partnerships and an accompanying transformation of global energy geopolitics.

    All this has come about because European leaders, over the course of many decades, chose to rely on the mammoth oil and gas reserves of Russia (and before that, the Soviet Union) to supply their countries with affordable energy for industry, home heating and electricity generation. Russian gas imports have become especially important in recent years as the European Union (EU) has sought to reduce its reliance on coal (because of its high carbon content) and nuclear power (out of a fear of accidents). By 2020, Europe obtained about 30 percent of its imported oil from Russia and a whopping 57 percent of its imported natural gas.

    Prior to Russia’s invasion, plans were in place to further increase Europe’s reliance on Russian natural gas, largely through construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Nord Stream 1, opened in 2011, runs under the Baltic Sea from Vyborg in northwestern Russia to Lubmin in Germany; a parallel conduit, Nord Stream 2, was begun in 2018 and completed in late 2021. Many prominent figures in the U.S. and Europe had protested construction of Nord Stream 2 on the grounds that it would increase Europe’s dependence on Russian energy and thereby give Moscow greater sway over European decision making in a crisis. German officials were still debating whether to give it their final approval in early February when Vladimir Putin began amassing forces for the invasion, at which point the new German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, suspended the certification process.

    The cancellation of Nord Stream 2, and other measures being undertaken to wean Europe off Russian oil and gas, will severely disrupt the energy equation in Europe and force it to find alternative sources for both primary fuels. The Europeans are, of course, also trying to increase their reliance on renewable sources of energy, and some — like France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom — plan to renew their reliance on nuclear power. But their economies have long been structured around access to abundant inputs of oil and gas, and it will not be easy for them to eliminate their thirst for them any time soon. Searching elsewhere for additional supplies of these resources will, therefore, constitute a major policy priority in the months and years ahead.

    Securing additional imports of oil and natural gas will be no easy task. Finding more oil will be tough enough — the major suppliers are now producing at near-maximum capacity — but acquiring more gas will prove even more difficult. Petroleum has the advantage of being a liquid, and so can readily be transported by tanker ship from suppliers located anywhere on the planet. Europe possesses many ports and refineries for unloading and processing crude oil, so even if it will be forced to pay higher prices to compete with consumers in Asia and elsewhere, it should be able to obtain adequate supplies to meet its basic needs in the months ahead.

    Obtaining additional gas imports, however, will pose a greater challenge. Natural gas can be delivered by pipeline, but most of Europe’s piped gas comes from Russia, and the construction of alternative conduits, say from North Africa or the Caspian Sea area, will take many years. Gas can also be delivered by sea in the form of LNG, but that requires an elaborate infrastructure for liquefication on the supplier’s part and for regasification at the receiving end — infrastructure that is only available in certain parts of the world. Europe now possesses 28 large-scale LNG import facilities and is building more, but will need a much larger number if it is to increase its reliance on LNG. On the other side of the equation, it faces stiff competition for access to the relatively small number of gas producers with the liquefication facilities needed to export LNG.

    These challenges were brought into sharp relief on March 28 when President Joe Biden and the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyden, announced a joint plan to eliminate the EU’s reliance on Russian gas entirely by 2027. To achieve this ambitious goal, the U.S. pledged to double its LNG shipments to Europe, from about 25 to 50 billion cubic meters per year, while the EU agreed to acquire additional amounts from other sources and to build dozens of new regasification facilities. With Russia playing a diminished role in supplying Europe’s energy, the handful of major LNG suppliers are thus set to enjoy increased geopolitical clout.

    A comparison of the top five oil and natural gas producers is useful in highlighting this power shift. To begin with, the LNG trade is highly concentrated: While the top five exporters of oil (in rank order) — Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, the United States and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) — account for approximately 50 percent of global exports, the top five suppliers of LNG — Qatar, Australia, the U.S., Russia and Malaysia — account for 70 percent of such exports. Expand these groups to the top 10, and the extent of concentration is even more pronounced: While the leading oil exporters command 70 percent of the global marketplace, the leading LNG suppliers control an astounding 89 percent.

    The comparison between oil and LNG exporters is revealing in another sense. While rosters of the top 10 in each category include several overlaps, including Nigeria, Russia and the United States, there are many discrepancies. Saudi Arabia, long considered the epicenter of global oil production and the dominant force in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), doesn’t appear on the LNG list, which is led by its arch-rival Qatar. Similarly, Australia, never before thought of as an energy superpower, occupies a prominent place on the LNG list.

    As Europe comes to rely on LNG for an ever-increasing share of its natural gas, those few major exporters of this resource are bound to acquire greater clout in world affairs, just as the major oil producers have long exercised disproportionate influence. With this in mind, it is worth looking more closely at some of the leading LNG exporters.

    Qatar

    Occupying a small peninsular attached to Saudi Arabia’s Persian Gulf coast, Qatar possesses the world’s third-largest reserves of natural gas (most of it found in offshore areas) and is the world’s leading exporter of LNG. It is a member, along with neighboring oil-producing states, of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), a multilateral military arrangement backed by the United States. But Qatar’s rulers have sought to pursue a more independent stance than its fellow GCC members, supporting rebel groups in Libya and Syria that were opposed by Saudi Arabia, and retaining cordial relations with Iran. In 2017, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE cut off diplomatic relations with Qatar and denied its planes access to their airspace; relations were only restored in 2021, after Qatar contributed troops to the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen. Despite these squabbles with its neighbors, Qatar has come to play a singular role in the Gulf region, hosting the Al Jazeera media network and hosting delicate negotiations, such as the peace talks between the Taliban and the United States. With Qatar likely to remain the world’s leading supplier of exportable gas, it is poised to play an even more pivotal role in the years ahead.

    Australia

    Often thought of as an outlier in global politics — noted in particular for its loyalty to the U.K. and well-established military ties with the U.S. — Australia has begun to play a more autonomous and muscular role in world affairs. The country has, of course, long been a major exporter of vital resources, including iron ore, bauxite and coal. It was not known, however, as an oil supplier, and it is only recently, with the development of mammoth fields discovered off the country’s northwest coast, that it has emerged as the world’s second leading supplier of LNG. Most of this gas now goes to China, Japan and South Korea; in fact, Australia is China’s leading supplier of LNG. But as China has begun to play a more assertive role in the Asia-Pacific region — for example, by militarizing small islands in the South China Sea — Australia has become leery of overreliance on the Chinese market. To afford itself greater autonomy, Australian leaders have increased their military spending and drawn closer to the United States, a move given formal substance with the recent signing of the Australia-U.K.-U.S. (AUKUS) security pact and the acquisition of nuclear submarine technology from the United States. With its increased income from LNG exports, Australia will be able to further enhance its military capabilities and play a more prominent role on the world stage.

    The United States

    For decades, the U.S.’s energy politics have largely been governed by its dependence on fossil fuel imports, not exports. Up until the onset of the 21st century, the U.S. was highly reliant on imported petroleum, and this dependency played a significant role in shaping its foreign policy, particularly toward the Middle East. But the introduction of advanced drilling technologies — notably hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking” — has allowed the U.S. to exploit its vast shale reserves and largely eliminate its reliance on imported oil. Moreover, fracking has resulted in an explosion in natural gas production, permitting both the replacement of domestic coal plants with gas facilities and, for the first time, the large-scale export of gas. Whereas the U.S. possessed no functioning LNG export terminals as recently as 2015, it now has seven in operation, with a dozen more awaiting government approval and financing. Under the joint U.S.-EU plan announced on March 28, the Biden administration will speed up the approval process for these added facilities and otherwise help Europe to wean itself from Russian gas. This move is being welcomed by those on both sides of the Atlantic who seek to terminate Russia’s dominance of the gas trade, but has raised concern among those who fear it will perpetuate Europe’s reliance on fossil fuels and so slow the transition to a green energy future.

    These few vignettes demonstrate how the world’s growing reliance on LNG — now being accelerated by Europe’s drive to reduce its reliance on Russian gas — is upending the global energy equation and enabling new actors to assume leading roles. How all this will play out in the years ahead remains to be seen, but it is already evident that political analysts’ tendency to equate “energy geopolitics” with a certain lineup of familiar players now needs to be reconsidered, allowing for the incorporation of major LNG exporters into our calculations.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

    • England striker wants lasting impact on human rights
    • Kane admits to ‘conflicting emotions’ over tournament

    Harry Kane is determined to shine a light on human rights abuses in Qatar with the help of captains from other national teams after expressing misgivings at the Gulf state hosting the World Cup at the end of the year.

    The England captain mentioned his Tottenham teammates Hugo Lloris and Son Heung-min – who captain France and South Korea respectively – and also former clubmates such as Gareth Bale – the captain of Wales, who hope to qualify – as he looked to rally strength in numbers to drive lasting social change.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • As Russia continues its onslaught against Ukraine, people in Russia are protesting and people in Ukraine are resisting. The latest UNHCR (UN refugee agency) data says over two million people have fled to neighbouring countries for safety. And the dominant international response, so far, has been economic sanctions against Russia and its oligarchs.

    Additionally, various countries and organisations have imposed a sports and cultural boycott on Russia. These sanctions and boycotts began with remarkable speed given boycotts against other acts of brutality don’t seem to receive the same support.

    The sporting boycott against Russia bans it from the football World Cup in Qatar this year. Russia is appealing that ban. But given the human rights, restrictions on freedom of expression and corruption concerns about the Qatar World Cup, banning any team from such a tournament could hardly be considered a punishment at all. Moreover, it highlights the unbridled hypocrisy of sanctioning one aggressor while letting others completely off the hook.

    Qatar gets the World Cup despite controversy

    When FIFA awarded Qatar the Word Cup in 2010, it was the surprise winner. It faced competition from South Korea, Japan, the USA, and Australia. And it was a somewhat controversial decision following allegations Qatar had bribed FIFA executives. Though, to be fair, Qatar is hardly the first country hosting a World Cup to be accused of that.

    Additionally, the World Cup usually takes place in the middle of summer, when temperatures can reach 50 degrees celsius in Qatar. Accordingly, some thought this was too dangerous for supporters and players. So the tournament will now take place during the somewhat cooler four-week period from 21 November until 18 December.

    Women’s rights

    Unfortunately, the controversy doesn’t end there. The employment system in Qatar has a particularly discriminatory impact on women. It exposes them to abuse and sexual violence. Qatar has even imprisoned women for the ‘crime’ of extramarital sex, when in fact the woman had been raped. Earlier this year Human Rights Watch released its 2021 report on Qatar. It found:

    Women in Qatar continued to face severe discrimination and violence due to abusive male guardianship policies.

    And that:

    Women in Qatar must obtain permission from their male guardians to marry, study abroad on government scholarships, work in many government jobs, travel abroad until certain ages, and receive some forms of reproductive health care.

    And possibly even more worryingly, while the law does prevent a husband from “physically or morally” hurting his wife:

    Qatar has no law on domestic violence or measures to protect survivors and prosecute their abusers. No law explicitly prohibits corporal punishment of children either. Women can be forced to return to their families by the police if they leave their home, including when fleeing abuse. In January, a Yemeni woman was killed by her former Qatari husband outside a family court that had ruled in her favor in a dispute concerning their child.

    Migrant worker abuses

    There have also been other allegations of other human rights abuses related to the World Cup. And those allegations are in addition to reports of thousands of migrant worker deaths as they built the stadium and infrastructure. In 2019, when examining migrants workers’ rights in the lead up to the World Cup, Amnesty International reported:

    While Qatar has finally begun a high-profile reform process promising to tackle widespread labour exploitation and ‘align its laws and practices with international labour standards’, workers still continue to be vulnerable to serious abuses including forced labour and restrictions on freedom of movement.

    Up until recently, Qatar operated the Kafala system for migrant workers. The Institute of Policy Studies’ Thalif Deen called this system “modern day slavery”. This system binds each worker to the employer, who sponsors their visa, and gives the employer enormous power over the worker. This leaves “workers acutely vulnerable to abuse and exploitation”.

    And while Qatar repealed many aspects of the Kafala system in 2020, “insidious elements” of it remain. Employers can still control migrant workers’ legal status and migrant workers don’t have full protection against “abusive sponsors”.

    Amnesty’s 2020 report said Qatar had made progress in facilitating the freedom of movement and introducing a new minimum wage. In March 2021, the International Labour Organization confirmed Qatar had introduced a “new non-discriminatory minimum wage”. However, it also found “weak implementation and enforcement of other reforms introduced in recent years”. Which in turn:

    left thousands of workers at the mercy of unscrupulous employers who have been allowed to commit abuses with impunity. Today, despite improvements to the legal framework, these migrants often still face delayed or unpaid wages, work excessively long hours, and struggle to access justice.

    LGBTQIA+

    Qatar imposes discriminatory policies against its LGBTQIA+ community. According to the Human Rights Watch 2021 report:

    Qatar punishes consensual sexual relations between men above sixteen…with up to seven years imprisonment

    Additionally, it has penalties of one and three years:

    for any male who ‘instigates’ or ‘entices’ another male to ‘commit an act of sodomy or immorality.’ A penalty of ten years’ imprisonment…is also imposed on anyone who engages in consensual sexual relations with a person above sixteen, outside marriage, which could apply to consensual same-sex relations between women, men, or heterosexual partners.

    Fans boycott and protests

    While Qatar rejects a number of the allegations against it, some football fans in Europe said they’d boycott the tournament. In fact, a group of football fans in Germany decided to organise their own amateur football tournament at the same time as the World Cup. These fans said:

    we don’t want to have any part of it. That’s not what sport should be about. So we thought, ‘let’s organise our own tournament over the same four weeks’.

    In May 2021, Forbes reported that a Danish survey said almost 60% of fans of the US men’s team believed their team should boycott the Qatar World Cup, should it qualify. These fans said this was “due to Qatar’s human rights record”. 60% of those fans also believed the World Cup should be removed from Qatar. That same survey also showed that around 70% of fans, “from other parts of the world”, believed their team should boycott the Qatar World Cup.

    Some national football teams have also made their feelings clear. In March 2021, the Danish, German, Dutch and Norwegian men’s national teams all protested Qatar’s human rights record before playing their World Cup qualifier matches.

    Consistency is a minimum demand

    So, if the international community is to take action against Russia, surely it should be taking the same action at the same speed elsewhere against other nations or groups of people guilty of oppression? Instead, it appears as if we’re rewarding them with arms deals, lucrative sporting competitions or by turning a blind eye. So in taking action against Russia the international community is sending the right message. But in rewarding or ignoring other transgressors it’s doing something contradictory and dangerous.

    Featured image via – YouTube – Soccer Stories – Oh My Goal & DW News – YouTube Screengrab

    By Peadar O'Cearnaigh

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • In the last decade, the Middle East has become the happy hunting ground for Fourth Plus-generation fighter aircraft manufacturers. It began in 2007 when Saudi Arabia signed a $5.9 billion (£4.4 billion) contract with BAE Systems for 72 Eurofighter Typhoons. They are operated by the Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF) Wing 2 at King Fahad […]

    The post Chasing the Middle East Top Guns appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • Gulf states have been investing defence budgets in to recapitalise naval power as well as indigenous shipyards. Disputes in the Gulf and wider Middle East over recent years has been the main driver for a rise in defence expenditure and efforts to enhance the capability of military forces. Rivalry between Islamic Republic of Iran and […]

    The post Gulf Naval Recapitalisation appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • Ambassadors, Defence and Commercial Attachés, and Military Representatives Apprised of Key DIMDEX Features. As the countdown begins for the seventh edition of  the Doha International Maritime Defence Exhibition and Conference (DIMDEX), the organising committee provided an update on the preparations and an overview of the event at a diplomat briefing session at Sharq Village and […]

    The post High-level Delegates Receive Event Updates at DIMDEX 2022 Official Diplomat Briefing appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • RNZ News

    A leading epidemiologist says New Zealand’s managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) is serving its purpose.

    The system has come under increasing criticism recently as people struggle to return to New Zealand through the MIQ lottery or on emergency grounds.

    Professor Michael Baker of the University of Otago said that while MIQ had done its job, it had come with some tough trade-offs.

    New Zealand journalist Charlotte Bellis this week revealed she was one of those who had been unable to secure an emergency MIQ space.

    Bellis, who previously worked for Al Jazeera in Qatar, is pregnant and unable to stay in Doha, because it is illegal for unmarried women there to be pregnant.

    After failing to gain an MIQ spot, she was granted permission by senior Taliban officials in Afghanistan, where she had previously reported from, to instead go there.

    Border restrictions key to low mortality
    Professor Baker said that while he did not have any involvement or expertise in the emergency MIQ system, Bellis’ case would seem to justify her being a high priority.

    “I think this is the really hard aspect of managing our borders tightly and limiting the numbers of people coming into New Zealand to a few thousand a week.”

    Bellis said other countries were now offering their support but she felt let down by the system.

    “I think they [MIQ] have such a narrowly-defined set of categories that there’s really no pathway if you’re pregnant because you’d have to have a time-critical, scheduled treatment,” she told RNZ’s Sunday Morning today.

    Professor Baker said border restrictions had put a huge personal strain on many New Zealanders but they had also been a key part of the country’s covid-19 strategy and had helped to keep the mortality rate low.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • On 30 August 2021, the United States’ 20-year military occupation of Afghanistan came to an end when the removal of American forces was completed. Although the withdrawal was botched, it was the correct move. The withdrawal is ignominious because it turns out that the much ballyhooed US fighting forces were, in the end, defeated by Afghan peasants. Has the US learned anything from its debacle in Afghanistan? One might gain an insight into that question by observing the debacle still ongoing in Syria.

    Author A.B. Abrams provides an in-depth analysis on the US-led war in Syria in his excellent book World War in Syria: Global Conflict on Middle Eastern Battlefields (Clarity Press, 2021). WW in Syria documents the lead up to war in Syria, the precursors, the ideologies, the tactics, who the combatants are and who is aligned with who at different stages of the war, the battles fought, the impact of sophisticated weaponry, adherence to international law, the media narratives, and the cost of winning and losing the war in Syria for the warring parties. Unequivocally, every side loses in war. People are killed on all sides, and each death is a loss. But a victor is usually declared, and Syria with its allies has been declared as having won this war, albeit at a great price. However, the finality and clarity of the victory is muddled because Turkey and the US are still occupying and pillaging northern areas of Syria where they provide protection for Islamist remnants (or recklessly guard Islamist prisoners; as I write, the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and US are fighting to defeat an Islamic State (IS) assault on a prison in northeastern Syria). In addition, apartheid Israel continues to periodically attack war-ravaged Syria.

    Abrams asks why the West and Israel were bent on “regime changein Syria. As Abrams explains, with several examples, nations that do not put themselves in thrall to the US will be targeted for overthrow of their governments. (chapter 1) “Syria was increasingly portrayed as being under some kind of malign communist influence — the only possible explanation in the minds of the U.S. and its allies for any party to reject what the West perceived as its own benevolence.” (p 10)

    What is happening in Syria must be understood in a historical perspective. (p 55) Abrams details how imperialist information warfare brought about violent overthrows of socialistic governments in Indonesia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Libya. That tested template has now been applied to Syria. (chapter 2)

    Abrams identifies four casus belli for attacking Syria: (1) being outside the Western sphere of influence, (2) to isolate Syria from Hezbollah and Iran, which would appease Israel and the Gulf states, (3) to remove Iran and Russia as suppliers of natural gas to Europe, (4) to isolate Syria geo-politically from China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, and (5) a new base for foisting Islamist (“Islamist” is used to refer to a political ideology rather than the faith of Muslims) groups against Western-designated enemies.

    So Syria found itself beset by a multitude of aggressive foreign actors: key NATO actors Britain, France, the US, and Turkey. Jordan, Cyprus, Turkey, and Israel were staging grounds for attacks. (p 99) The Sunni regimes of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates were also arrayed against Syria. At first, the mass protests — given fuel by Bashar Al Assad’s neoliberalism schemes (p 35) — served as a shield for covertly supported military operations. (p 107)

    These state actors supported several Islamist entities. Abrams, who is proficient in Arabic, adroitly elucidates the complex and realigning web of Islamist proxies. Among these groups are Al Qaeda, Fatah Al Asram, Absay Al Ansar, the Free Syrian Army (FSA), and IS.

    Syria would not be completely alone as fellow Axis of Resistance members Iran and Hezbollah would come to the aid of Syria. Hezbollah directly joined in the spring of 2013 and it played an important role in the pivotal capture of Al Qusayr. (p 132) Thereafter, Iran would step up its involvement in defense of Syria. (p 134)

    What will be a surprise to most people is the solidarity shown by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) toward its longtime partner Syria. (Albeit this is no surprise to readers of another of A.B. Abram’s excellent books, Immovable Object: North Korea’s 70 Years at War with American Power. Review.) Gains made by the invading forces would be substantially rolled back with the entry of Russia, an event deplored by some leftists. Among the reasons for a Russian entry was fear of Islamist terrorism approaching its frontier.

    With the advancing tide of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies, Westerners reacted by pressing for the establishment of a no-fly zone in Syria. However, having learned from Western manipulation of such a United Nations Security Council resolution during the war on Libya, in which Russia and China had abstained, Russia and China would veto any such attempt this time.

    The enemies of Syria would engage in manufactured gas attacks abetted by disinformation. This pretext led the US and allied attackers to grant themselves the right to bomb Syria. Abrams responds, “It is hard to find a similar sense of self-righteousness and open willingness to commit illegal acts of aggression anywhere else in the world.” Abrams connected this extremism to “the ideology of western supremacism.” (p 174) Syria would relinquish the deterrence of its chemical weapons in a futile effort to forestall any future opposition-contrived chemical attacks attributed to it.

    Although Hezbollah, Iran, the DPRK, and Russia were invited by the government of Syria, the western nations (without UN approval) were illegally attacking Syria. Among them were Australia, Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, and the Netherlands, and Middle Eastern actors which included Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. (p 197) Israel was abetting Al Nusra. (p 199) The Syrian borders with Jordan and Turkey were supply conduits for the Islamists. (p 203)

    The US planned to create safe zones in Syria with an eye to dismemberment of Syria. (p 204-207) Russia would up the ante, killing 150 CIA-backed Islamists in airstrikes, which the US criticized. (p 221) In apparent reprisal, an IS terrorist attack would down a civilian airliner over Egypt killing 219 Russian civilians. War is a dirty endeavor. Among their other crimes, Islamists used civilians as shields, poisoned water supplies, and carried out beheadings. American war crimes included using depleted uranium and white phosphorus (p 301).

    With the US and Turkey competing to occupy land from the collapsing IS, the SAA was pressured to advance as quickly as possible in its lands.

    Aside from internecine fighting among the Islamists, there were puzzling complexities described between different combatants. Turkey and the US were sometimes aligned and sometimes at loggerheads; the same complexities existed between Russia and Turkey (“a highly peculiar situation reflecting [Turkey’s] pursuit of both war and rapprochement separately but simultaneously.” p 348), and between Russia and Israel. Of course, given past and current history, any enemy-of-my-enemy alliance between Israeli Jews and Arabs against a fellow Arab country will certainly cause much head shaking.

    Despairingly, the UN was also condemned for bias and being complicit in the western attempt to overthrow the Syrian government. (p 334)

    Abrams criticized the American arrogation of the right to attack. He warned, “This had potentially highly destabilizing consequences for the global order, and by discarding the post-Second World War legal prohibition against crimes of aggression the West was returning the world to a chaotic order that resembled that of the colonial era.” (p 383)

    In toto, Abrams finds, “Even though Syria prevailed, the West was able to achieve its destruction at very little cost to itself … meaning the final outcome of the war still represents a strengthening of the Western position at Dasmascus’ expense.” (p 384)

    Israel’s War

    A book review can only cover so much, and there is much ground covered in WW in Syria. Particularly conspicuous is the annex at the end of the book entitled “Israel’s War.” (p 389-413) This annex leads one to ask why there are no annexes on America’s War, Turkey’s War, Qatar’s War, Saudi Arabia’s War, UAE’s War, NATO’s War, or even the terrorists’ War. Why does Israel stand out? Prior to the recent invasion of Syria, it was only Israel that was occupying Syrian territory: the Golan Heights, annexed following the 1967 War, and recognized as a part of Israel by president Donald Trump in 2019 (quite hypocritical given US denunciations of Crimea’s incorporation into Russia). Syria does not recognize Israel, and it has not reached a peace agreement with Israel. Of Syria’s Middle Eastern allies, Iran does not recognize Israel; Lebanon signed a peace treaty with Israel under Israeli and American pressure, but Lebanon never ratified it. Hezbollah regards Israel as an illegitimate entity. Hezbollah is noted for the first “successful armed resistance on a significant scale to the Western-led order after the Cold War’s end” in 2006. (p 39) Thus, Israel views the arc from Iran through Iraq and Syria to Lebanon as a security threat. Since Israel is regarded by some foreign policy wonks in the US as its aircraft carrier in the region, that reason among others secures US “aid” and military support. That Syria will not bend its knees to US Empire is also a source of consternation to imperialists. After Egyptian president Anwar Sadat treacherously broke Arab solidarity, (p 21-26) Syria would find itself increasingly isolated. Given the rapacious nature of imperialism, Israel and its lobby have faced no serious opposition from within the imperialist alliance, allowing the Jewish State to pursue its plan for a greater Israel to which Syria, a country that does not threaten any western nation, is an impediment. Israel, writes Abrams, will continually seek to degrade the military capabilities of countries it designates as enemies. (p 406)

    Closing

    The situation in Syria still simmers. Those who scrupulously read the dispassionate account of WW in Syria will gain a wide-ranging insight into what underlies the simmering. It will also be clear why any attempt by western imperialists and their terrorist or Islamist proxies will not succeed in a coup against the elected Syrian government. Syrians will put up a staunch defense. Hezbollah and Iran will stand in solidarity, as will the DPRK. Having Russia, a first-rate military power, presents a powerful deterrence. In addition, China, no pushover itself, stands steadfast in support of its Russian partner. Thus the western imperialists’/proxies’ main goal has been thwarted; they have been shamelessly reduced to pillagers of oil and wheat and occupiers of small pockets of a sovereign country.

    The post The Imperialists’ and Proxies’ War against Syria first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • A screenshot of Noof Al-Maadeed from her YouTube video entitled “The Return of #Noof_AlMaadeed to Qatar 2021”, posted on October 6, 2021

    Khalid Ibrahim, executive director of he Gulf Center for Human Rights posted on 29 December 2021 the case of Noof Al-Maadeed, a 23-year-old Qatari woman.

    When she faced domestic violence from members of her family, including her father, and government institutions failed to provide her with any protection, she fled her country to Britain after using her father’s phone without his knowledge to obtain permission to travel. In a television interview on August 4, 2020, she spoke of her November 26, 2019 escape from Qatar to Britain, via Ukraine.

    Upon arriving in Britain, she applied for asylum. During her stay in Britain, Al-Maadeed introduced herself as a defender of Qatari women’s rights and explained how male guardianship prevents women from working or traveling without a male family member’s consent, as well as how women victims of domestic violence are left with little protection.

    Al-Maadeed withdrew her application for asylum in Britain after receiving assurances from the Qatari authorities that she would be protected if she returned to her home country. On October 6, this year, Al-Maadeed posted on her Instagram account a video in which she explained the details of her return from London on September 30 to the capital, Doha, where she arrived the following day.

    What happened next is incomprehensible. Qatari authorities, who pledged to protect her, as it should with to all citizens, reneged on all their promises and left her alone trying to survive domestic abuse. In a video posted on her Twitter account on October 12, Al-Maadeed said that she had been subjected to three failed assassination attempts by her family. She also described her father’s coming into the lobby of the hotel where she was staying, despite being one of her main opponents and the reason for her running away from home. Perhaps the following tweet, dated October 12, honestly sums up the torments she suffered upon her return: https://platform.twitter.com/embed

    My family, and those who I count as my own, want to slaughter me.

    Shortly thereafter, she posted the following tweet: “Sheikh Tamim is the only one who can stop the danger to my life with his own hands.” On October 13, Al-Maadeed completely disappeared from social media, and her whereabouts have not yet been known. The Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad, on whom Al-Maadeed relied for protection and pleaded for support, was not able to provide the necessary protection for a citizen who did not commit any violation and voluntarily returned to her country based on many promises from the authorities that they’ll keep her safe.

    Since her disappearance, there have been conflicting reports, with regards to what has happened to the 23-year-old. According to some reports, Al-Maadeed was killed by her family, while others reported her forcible detention in a psychiatric hospital under heavy sedation, Meanwhile, the Qatari government refuses to provide documented information to prove that she is alive, which raises many suspicions.

    The Gulf Center for Human Rights cannot confirm any of the above-mentioned reports but holds the authorities, who have pledged but failed to protect Noof Al-Maadeed, responsible for any harm done to her. At present, all information indicates that Al-Maadeed is facing serious risk to her life and freedom. If not killed, then it is a fact that she may be facing a lengthy incommunicado detention, which puts her life at imminent risk.

    The GCHR, once again calls on the international community, particularly UN institutions, and governments with influence in Qatar—including members of the European Union—to take immediate action to pressure the Qatari authorities to ensure that Al-Maadeed is safe and can live freely in Qatar.

    The government of Qatar cannot continue to ignore international opinion that is searching for the truth, and its absolute silence will be a sure condemnation, as it bears full responsibility for preserving the safety of its citizens, including Nouf Al-Maadeed.

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

    • Human Rights Watch and FairSquare have written to Fifa
    • Former Qatar’s World Cup employee is on hunger strike

    Fifa has been urged to intervene in the case of Abdullah Ibhais, a former employee of Qatar’s World Cup committee who is on a 21-day hunger strike after being detained by police in Doha, otherwise its human rights policy will not be “worth the paper it is written on”.

    The warning comes from Human Rights Watch and FairSquare, who have written to Fifa for a second time to say they believe Ibhais’s confession was coerced and that he has been singled out because of his support for migrant workers in Qatar.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • A roundup of the struggle for human rights and freedoms, from Pakistan to Poland

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

    • World champion speaks out as Qatar prepares for first F1 GP
    • Mercedes driver says of venues: ‘These places need scrutiny’

    Lewis Hamilton believes sportspeople are duty bound to speak out on human rights matters in the countries they visit. With Qatar hosting its first Formula One Grand Prix this weekend and facing new allegations of worker exploitation and abuse in its preparations for next year’s football World Cup, Hamilton insisted he would hold the sport to account for the places it chooses to race.

    F1 is making its debut at the Losail circuit in Doha with the championship fight between Mercedes’ Hamilton and Red Bull’s Max Verstappen finely poised. However focus in Qatar once more fell on human rights issues. Workers within the state have claimed that reforms to the country’s restrictive kafala labour sponsorship system have been ineffective while human rights groups continue to highlight oppressive male guardianship policies as well as discriminatory laws against women and LGBTQ+ individuals.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

    • Labour abuses are ongoing despite changes in law last year
    • ‘Thousands of workers are at risk,’ Amnesty International warns

    Reforms in Qatar have stalled with a year to go before the World Cup, leaving thousands of migrant workers trapped and exploited, according to a damning new report by Amnesty International.

    Last year Qatar passed two laws to end restrictions on migrant workers leaving the country or changing jobs without their employer’s permission, which were widely welcomed. However, Amnesty has accused the authorities of “complacency” in applying the laws and says it has led to the worst elements of the kafala system, which binds workers to their employer, resurfacing.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • On October 12 I referred the report Freedom on the Net [see: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2021/10/12/report-freedom-on-the-net-2021/ and on 24 April to the latest RSF report [see: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2021/04/24/world-press-freedom-index-2021-is-out/]. Now my attention was drawn to another tool to measure internet censorship:

    Nearly 60 percent of the world’s population (4.66 billion people) uses the internet. It’s our source of instant information, entertainment, news, and social interactions.

    But where in the world can citizens enjoy equal and open internet access – if anywhere?

    In this exploratory study, our researchers have conducted a country-by-country comparison to see which countries impose the harshest internet restrictions and where citizens can enjoy the most online freedom. This includes restrictions or bans for torrenting, pornography, social media, and VPNs, and restrictions or heavy censorship of political media. This year, we have also added the restriction of messaging/VoIP apps.

    Although the usual culprits take the top spots, a few seemingly free countries rank surprisingly high. With ongoing restrictions and pending laws, our online freedom is at more risk than ever.

    We scored each country on six criteria. Each of these is worth two points aside from messaging/VoIP apps which is worth one (this is due to many countries banning or restricting certain apps but allowing ones run by the government/telecoms providers within the country). The country receives one point if the content—torrents, pornography, news media, social media, VPNs, messaging/VoIP apps—is restricted but accessible, and two points if it is banned entirely. The higher the score, the more censorship. https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/IBnNS/3/

    The worst countries for internet censorship

    1. North Korea and China (11/11) – No map of online censorship would be complete without these two at the top of the list. There isn’t anything either of them doesn’t heavily censor thanks to their iron grip over the entire internet. Users are unable to use western social media, watch porn, or use torrents or VPNs*. And all of the political media published in the country is heavily censored and influenced by the government. Both also shut down messaging apps from abroad, forcing residents to use ones that have been made (and are likely controlled) within the country, e.g. WeChat in China. Not only does WeChat have no form of end-to-end encryption, the app also has backdoors that enable third parties to access messages.
    2. Iran (10/11): Iran blocks VPNs (only government-approved ones are permitted, which renders them almost useless) but doesn’t completely ban torrenting. Pornography is also banned and social media is under increasing restrictions. Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube are all blocked with increasing pressures to block other popular social media sites. Many messaging apps are also banned with authorities pushing domestic apps and services as an alternative. Political media is heavily censored.
    3. Belarus, Qatar, Syria, Thailand, Turkmenistan, and the UAE (8/11): Turkmenistan, Belarus, and the UAE all featured in our “worst countries” breakdown in 2020.  But this year they are joined by Qatar, Syria, and Thailand. All of these countries ban pornography, have heavily censored political media, restrict social media (bans have also been seen in Turkmenistan), and restrict the use of VPNs. Thailand saw the biggest increase in censorship, including the introduction of an online porn ban which saw 190 adult websites being taken down. This included Pornhub (which featured as one of the top 20 most visited websites in the country in 2019).

    https://comparite.ch/internetcensorshipmap

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • The organising committee of the Doha International Maritime Defence Exhibition & Conference (DIMDEX) has announced the return of Fincantieri as Diamond Sponsor for DIMDEX 2022. Held under the patronage of HH Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, the Amir of the State of Qatar, and proudly hosted and organised by Qatar Armed Forces, preparations continue […]

    The post Fincantieri Reaffirms Commitment to DIMDEX, Returns as Diamond Sponsor for Seventh Edition appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • The organising committee of the Doha International Maritime Defence Exhibition and Conference (DIMDEX) has announced the return of missile systems developer MBDA as ‘Gold Sponsor’ for the seventh edition of the eagerly awaited event. Held under the patronage of HH Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, Amir of the State of Qatar, and hosted and […]

    The post MBDA Returns to DIMDEX 2022 as Gold Sponsor appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.