Category: saudi arabia

  • Party figures have voiced concerns that next month’s visit will be dominated by the PM seeking investment

    Keir Starmer is being urged to speak up for human rights and push for cooperation over a Middle East peace deal when he travels to Saudi Arabia next month, amid concerns on Labour’s left that his efforts to attract investment will dominate the trip.

    The prime minister’s visit is seen as his latest attempt to secure the inward investment necessary for the economic growth that is the central aim of his government. It is expected that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s de facto leader, will also visit London next year.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Saudi Arabia has embraced technology and digital advancements, promoting itself as a hub for innovation, yet this progress often stands in stark contrast to its strict control over online discourse and dissent. Authorities often employ extensive surveillance, censorship, and punitive measures against those who express criticism or share information deemed unacceptable. This situation harms digital rights and freedom of expression while highlighting the Kingdom’s hypocrisy.

    The UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which will take place in Riyadh from 15 to 19 December 2024, has presented the topic “Advancing human rights and inclusion in the digital age” as one of its thematic focuses, yet Saudi Arabia continues to prosecute people for their online expression.

    Manahel al-Otaibi, a 29-year-old fitness instructor and women’s rights activist, has been sentenced to 11 years in prison because of her choice of clothing and her support for women’s rights on social media. The verdict against her took place only a few months after Saudi Arabia was confirmed as host of the IGF. Also the women’s rights defender Loujain al-Hathloul, who was detained and tortured still remains subjected to a travel ban despite its expiration in November 2023.

    Moreover, the data protection laws permit the entities that control data to share personal data to state agencies based on vague security reasons which are not formally defined. This has given the government extensive powers to access personal data and monitor political dissidents online.

    Saudi authorities managed to infiltrate X and significantly invested in automated ‘bots’ to spy on dissidents and target human rights defenders with sophisticated digital surveillance technology. The Kingdom has also purchased Pegasus spyware which allows it to secretly hack into a user’s phone and spy on their location and communications in real time.

    Moreover, the IGF’s theme ‘Enhancing the digital contribution to peace, development, and sustainability’ has also been questioned. The NEOM project has not only raised concerns about its privacy violations due to the extensive surveillance infrastructure and its massive quantities of personal data that are collected, but it shows the contradictions in Saudi Arabia’s sustainability narrative. The project in fact relies on unproven technologies, highlighting the government’s attempt to shift the attention from the nation’s ongoing environmental exploitation.

    Another example of Riyad’s hypocrisy is shown by Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 plan, which seeks to diversify the economy and encourage modernization. However, this objective is overshadowed by widespread human rights violations, notably regarding the 2030 World Expo infrastructure. This latter has mainly relied on migrant workers who are frequently exposed to exploitative conditions such as miserable salaries, forced work, and insufficient safety precautions.

    Therefore, the tension between Saudi Arabia’s digital ambitions and its authoritarian practices raises concerns about its commitment to human rights and sustainability. By hosting the IGF, Saudi Arabia attempts to whitewash the systematic violations of human rights and unsustainable practices.

    ADHRB urges the Saudi authorities to release the citizens who have been arbitrarily detained solely for their online expression ahead of the UN Internet Governance Forum as it features the promotion of human and digital rights. Finally, the ADHRB calls on the international community to denounce the violations of the right to information and expression and warns the international community to not prioritise the economic and strategic interests over the commitment to human rights.

    The post Saudi Arabia’s Hypocrisy: Digital Promises Amidst Human Rights Violations appeared first on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.

    This post was originally published on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.

  • Saudi Arabia has put in practice repressive measures that have allowed for the imprisonment of dissidents, arbitrary detentions, and abuses of prisoners. Among the inhumane practices, the death penalty is still a matter of concern, with 198 executions this year, the highest number since 1990 according to Amnesty International.

    Despite repeated promises to limit the use of the death penalty, Saudi authorities have forced imprisoned individuals to confess the untruth and boosted executions while routinely failing to comply with international standards.

    Also, the Saudi Human Rights Commission (SHRC), which was created to independently promote and protect human rights in the country, has been questioned for aligning with the government’s interests and covering up gross abuses.

    Reprieve and the European Saudi Organisation for Human Rights reported that since the crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman came to power with his father King Salman in 2015, the annual rate of executions has doubled with at least 1,456 people executed.

    In March 2023, Hussein Abo al-Kheir was executed for drug-related crime after he had been on death row since 2015. During his pretrial detention he was kept in isolation, deprived of legal counsel, and subjected to torture to extract a confession and after his execution, the authorities did not return his body to his family. Since May 2024 Saudi Arabia has executed 28 people on drug-related charges.

     Although the draft Penal Code sets out the punishments for crimes it defines, it still allows judges to decide which punishment to apply as dictated by sharia. However, the conditions under sharia are not clarified, thereby the judge is free to determine the punishment. Death penalty is one of the original punishments together with imprisonment and fines. Yet, while the draft code outlines the conditions of imprisonment and fines it does not explain on which basis executions are pronounced.

    Death sentences have also concerned cases of individuals who were children at the time of their alleged crimes if their acts were criminalized under sharia. In this regard, ESOHR has reported that since 2011 Saudi authorities have executed at least 12 persons who allegedly committed the offences as minors. Although Saudi authorities claimed that the Juvenile Law prohibits the death penalty for children, this law has actually permitted the execution of child offenders accused of crimes whose punishments are recognized by the sharia.

    An alarming example of this is Jalal Labbad, who was sentenced to death in August 2022 based on his confessions which he claimed were obtained through torture for alleged offenses committed when he was just 16 and 17.

    Authorities have also used the death penalty to silence political dissent, for example to punish citizens engaging in the pro-democracy protests between 2011 and 2013. This is what happened last August to Abdulmajeed al-Nimr, a retired traffic police officer, who was sentenced to death for terrorism-related offenses while his court documents reported that he was charged for supporting democratic protests.

    Despite assurances from Saudi authorities to reduce the use of the death penalty, the draft Penal Code establishes execution as one of the primary punishments and allows judges large discretion to impose death sentences. Not only is the use of the death penalty persistent but also now that the global focus has shifted away towards the tensions in the Middle East, the urgency of violations of human rights by Saudi authorities might become less relevant. Consequently, executions could further escalate.

    ADHRB urges the Saudi authorities to provide precise and clear information to the prisoners about the status of their case and guarantee a fair trial. ADHRB further calls on the government to ensure that all punishments such as the death penalty are determined in line with international standards and calls on the international community to advocate for the abolishment of the death penalty in Saudi Arabia, particularly for minor offenses and for non-violent acts.

    The post The Persistent Use of the Death Penalty in Saudi Arabia appeared first on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.

    This post was originally published on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.

  • South Korean defence prime Hanwha Aerospace announced on 6 November that it had demonstrated its latest weapons systems to a high-level delegation from Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of National Guard (MNG) at a Republic of Korea Army firing range the day before. According to Hanwha Aerospace, the delegation was led by Prince Abdullah bin Bandar bin […]

    The post South Korea steps up Saudi engagement appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • Sources say key people at Clifford Chance were not consulted, as it emerges another company refused job due to reputational concerns

    When the Saudi crown prince locked nearly 400 of his country’s most powerful people in a luxury hotel in 2017 and stripped them of their fortunes, a UK law firm allegedly played a significant role.

    On the orders of Mohammed bin Salman, Clifford Chance – a “magic circle” legal giant with headquarters in London – was reported to have facilitated the forced transfer of assets from a Saudi TV station to the government.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Two years ago, Western media and academics reported that Iran was about to begin a new revolution in order to abolish the current political system, a legacy of the 1979 revolution. They dubbed this ‘new revolution, Woman, Life, Freedom,’ and described it as a feminist and democratic revolution. But as the Iranian public saw that the so-called leaders of this “new revolution” couldn’t organize a few thousand Iranians in a street demonstration and realized that the so-called leaders were not sovereign individuals who were dedicated to Iran, but Western-Israeli puppets, this “revolution” disappeared. The Iranian public soon found out that this “new revolution” was nothing more than riots whose main participants were thuggish elements who killed members of the police force and burned public assets, encouraged, instigated, and sponsored by western governments. Even though the so-called new revolution in Iran died a few months after its inception, Western governments and especially the Norwegian government were still hoping until October 6, 2023, for the revival of this fascist revolution to topple the government. In order to revive this alleged revolution, the Norwegian government awarded the Nobel Prize to Narges Mohammadi, a female political prisoner in Iran, whose invitation to any street protest in Iran, if she ever did, was unable to summon ten demonstrations.

    However, this seemingly great opportunity to restart the ‘new revolution’ in Iran did not last long. On the morning of 7 October 2024, the American aspiration of a feminist and democratic revolution or regime change in Iran, which was also shared by its Western allies and West Asian client regimes, was transformed into a nightmare when a few hundred Palestinians carried out the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation in the occupied Palestine. The political landscape of West Asia has been altered by this military operation in such a way that American political projects, such as the Iranian regime change and the Abraham Accords, have faded away. To the surprise of the United States and its Western allies, such as Norway, and thanks to the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation, 8 October 2023 became the day of the revival of the ideals of the 1979 revolution, such as freedom and independence from Western Imperialism. The liberation of Palestine from occupation was one of the particular ideals of the Iranian revolution and the political system it generated. As the Iranian revolutionaries of 1979 comprehended Palestine until its liberation in a state of revolution, they coined the slogan “Wake up people, Iran has become Palestine” which became one of the most popular slogans of the revolution. Several days before the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation,  Western media outlet were reporting on the latest developments of the Abraham Accord and the excitement of the leaders of the slave-states of the Persian Gulf, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirate, for signing the Accord. However, the leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, cautioned the leaders of these Arab regimes about the futility of their efforts to normalize relations with the apartheid regime of Israel. He described their efforts as “betting on a losing horse” because, in his opinion, the Palestinians were more capable than ever in their struggle for liberation from occupation.

    In preparation for the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s decision to give the 2023 Nobel Peace Prize to Narges Mohammadi, a political activist with zero political influence in Iran, Norway organized a large gathering of Norwegian academics/imperialist agents and Iranian academics in diaspora who functioned as native informers. The Norwegian hosts were evidently interested in evaluating the degree to which the American regime change project coincided with the ‘new revolution’ in Iran. The conference persuaded the Norwegian Nobel Committee that Narges Mohammadi would be an ideal candidate for the Nobel Prize, as it would position her as a potential leader of the “new feminist and democratic” revolution in Iran. Because she is prone to repeating statements from Western masters about almost everything and remaining silent when they want her to be silent. The fact that she did not speak out regarding the Israeli genocide in Palestine explains, to a certain extent, why she was selected by the Nobel Committee as the winner of the 2023 Nobel Prize. Norway’s desire to play a role in the American regime change project in Iran was not a thoughtless decision, but a continuation of its effort in enhancing its own position in the American foreign policy strategy in the West Asia formulated in its foreign policy strategy document published in 2008. The document reveals that Norway’s foreign policy is merely an adjunct to the American foreign policy in West Asia and elsewhere. In accordance with the Norwegian foreign policy document and in the name of humanitarian intervention, Norway took an active role in the bombing of Libya in 2011. Many years later, as late as 2018, the Head of the Middle East Studies at the University of Oslo, who has been so dedicated to this foreign policy document, signs an open letter to the UN asking for humanitarian intervention in Syria. The letter to the United Nations states that Syrian sovereignty should not be viewed as a hindrance to protecting the Syrian people, as Kofi Anan, the former Secretary General of the United Nations, stated in one of his reports. According to Kofi Anan, “no legal principles — even sovereignty — can ever shield crimes against humanity.”

    The Norwegian political elite was under the impression that by giving the Nobel Prize to a nobody of Iranian politics, they could either contribute to a regime change in accordance with the American plan or transform Iran into a new Syria and a target for humanitarian intervention. However, I doubt that any European academic would have the courage to ask the United Nations for humanitarian intervention in Palestine after the Israeli genocidal response to the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation. The unconditional support of the United States and other Western governments for the Israeli genocide against the defenseless Palestinian civilians for a year and now against Lebanese civilians has led people in the Global South to realize that the real meaning of democracy, human rights, and women’s rights that Westerners have been trying to bring them was genocide. After the 7th of October 2023, people from the Global South became aware that Israel, the state that Westerners have attempted to portray as the sole democracy in West Asia, is in fact a genocidal, racist and apartheid regime. They have discovered that the sole democracy in West Asia is a remnant of the colonial settler regimes of the past. This is the reason why its conduct cannot be distinguished from the avaricious and ruthless colonial powers of the past, and its survival and future depend on the persistence of American global dominance. The al-Aqsa Flood Operation not only succeeded in bringing to the attention of global public opinion the appeal of the oppressed and ethnically cleansed Palestinians, but also in defeating the American regime change project in Iran. Furthermore, the al-Aqsa Flood Operation revealed that Iran and the Axis of Resistance were the only forces that supported the Palestinian struggle for liberation from the Israeli occupation, as part of their own struggle against Western imperialism and in defense of their national sovereignty and independence in the region. The question is: How have Iran and its allies, in the Axis of Resistance, been able to liberate or protect themselves from the ideological deceptions and political traps, introduced and created by Western imperialism and their native informers, which would divide them and put them against each other?

    Divide to Conquer and Rule

    The methods Western governments use to promote their political and economic interests in the West Asia region are rarely examined by scholars and journalists who are specialized in the region. The scholars and journalists who work in the region are interested in the ethnic, religious, social and political dividing lines, cleavages or fault lines within the states and societies to enable Western governments led by the United States to exploit these dividing lines, cleavages and fault lines to their advantage. Recently, the Middle East Eye published a critical article on the preoccupation of Western governments, media, and academia with such dividing lines, whereas this publication has been preoccupied with such fault lines since its inception. While Saudi Arabia, in collaboration with the United States and Britain, was bombing noncombatant population and civilian infrastructure in Yemen for many years, the Middle East Eye was saying that the Iranian-backed Shia Houthi positions were the targets of the bombings. This publication would happily report that the Palestinian Hamas movement issued a statement supporting the ‘constitutional legitimacy’ of the Saudi collaborator, Yemeni President Abd Rabbuh Mansour Hadi. According to the Middle East Eye: “This statement is considered Hamas’s first tacit message of support for an ongoing Saudi-led military campaign against the Shiite Houthi group in Yemen, even as the Palestinian group did not clearly mention the campaign in its statement.” The Middle East Eye and outlets similar to it are the culmination of the American-Western declared plans for promoting democracy, human rights, stability and peace in West Asia. They are specialized in causing internal divisions and conflicts in the region. These media outlets typically exhibit empathy for the suffering of Palestinians and advocate for justice in the face of Israeli brutality. However, they hold Iran and the Axis of Resistance as the primary causes of instability in the region. This is why its editors, correspondents, and contributors hold an anti-Iranian position, while Iran has demonstrated that it is the only state in the entire world that sincerely supports the Palestinian struggle for liberation from the Israeli occupation. They downplay, dismiss, or criticize the Iranian position on the Palestinian issue. To create division within the Axis of Resistance, Middle East Eye spread lies about the Iranian Commander of the Qods Force’s role in the assassination of Seyed Hassan Nasrollah, the leader of Hezbollah. Qods Force is, in fact, the principal architect of the Axis of Resistance against Western imperialism and Israel in West Asia.

    There are thousands of educated individuals from the West Asia region who have been working as native informers or imperialist propagandists for the United States and its Western allies since the early 1990s. These native informers and imperialist propagandists have been recruited as academics, NGOs, or political activists. While native informers have been elaborating on social, religious, ethnic, political, and cultural divisions within the region, imperialist propagandists have been attempting to turn these divisions into actual conflicts. However, the fact that a highly respected scholar of the West Asia region told the world that the 2023 fascist riots in Iran were a revolution against internal colonization demonstrated that native informers can easily turn into imperialist propagandists when the imperialist employer says so. “Woman, Life, Freedom is a movement of liberation from this internal colonization. It is a movement to reclaim life. Its language is secular, wholly devoid of religion. Its peculiarity lies in its feminist facet.”  A decade ago, this scholar argued that the security and economic interests of Western imperialism in West Asia were compatible with the political democratization of the region and considered the so-called Arab Spring to be the expression of the union between Western governments and Arab, Iranian and Turkish democrats under the leadership of Turkey. But since he has not learned anything from the failure of the Arab Spring, he has turned from being a native informer into an imperialist propagandist who refuses to learn from his logical inconsistencies and experiences. This is the reason why, years after the failure of the “Arab Spring” and months after the morally and politically justifiable suppression of the fascist riots in Iran, this native informer-imperialist propagandist cautions those he believes to be the genuine agents of the revolutionary movement that if they are unwilling or unable to assume power, others will. In his view, it was the unwillingness of the revolutionaries or those who had initiated and carried the uprisings forward in Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen to assume power that allowed the free-riders, counterrevolutionaries, and others to assume power in the “Arab Spring”.

    Before addressing the question of who are the protagonists and free riders of the “Arab Spring” in these countries, it is worth noting that the Bahraini Uprising, which was by far the most genuine uprising among the so-called “Arab Spring” uprisings, has been omitted from the narratives about the uprisings. Almost simultaneously with the brutal suppression of the Bahraini uprising by the Saudi Arabian and Emirati military, the terrorist campaigns against the Syrian government commenced. While Saudi Arabia and Qatar provided funding for the terrorist campaigns in Syria, Turkey provided logistical support for the terrorist campaign, and Western governments provided political cover by tying it to the Arab Spring. Western governments, their academia, and media, which were totally uncaring about the bloody suppression and murdering of Bahraini political activists, stood firm behind the terrorist organizations active in Syria as the only advocates of democracy and human rights. Contrary to the claims of this native informer and imperialist propagandist, almost nothing happened in Iraq and Lebanon during the ‘Arab Spring.’ After the anti-corruption demonstrations in these countries in 2019-2020 were hijacked by pro-Western and anti-Iran and anti-Hezbollah forces with the active support of American embassies, these two countries were added to the ‘Arab Spring.’

    The Arab Spring 2 was an attempt to weaken and marginalize the Axis of Resistance, which included Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, the Iraqi Popular Mobilization forces, and the Yemeni Ansarullah. In fact, the same political forces and states that supported the Israeli war against Hezbollah in 2006, the ISIS and the Saudi-Emirati war against Yemen lauded the Arab Spring 2. Arab Spring failed because the United States and its Western allies did not recognize the sovereignty of the very nations whose democratic aspiration they claimed to support. By the term “democracy,” the United States and its allies refer to political regimes in the region that adhere to their directives and follow their advice irrespective of their national interests or deliberations. The political regimes that follow the American order in the region share one thing in common: their opposition to and animosity toward the Axis of Resistance. This has paralyzed them to express their opinion of their people and condemn the Israeli genocide in the region. Since the stability of these regimes depends on how useful they are for the Axis of Western Domination led by the United States in the region, they cannot do otherwise. Nevertheless, a significant fracture has emerged among the educated Arabs, Iranians, and Turks who have come to the realization that the true essence of the entire Western discourse on democracy, human rights, and women’s rights is genocide. The fact that Israel has been committing genocide against the Palestinian people with the direct assistance of Western governments and their media, in violation of the Genocide Convention, makes the latter an accomplice in the Israeli genocide. As per article III of the Genocide Convention, both the act of committing and complicity in genocide are punishable offenses. According to article IV: “Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.”

    With Israeli genocide and the unconditional support of all the members of the Axis of Western Domination led by the United States in West Asia, this Axis has been turned into an Axis of Genocide. It is noteworthy that all members of this supported the ‘new revolution’ in Iran. Israel was the most prominent sponsor of the fascist riots, with which Norway had the illusion of competing through the 2023 Nobel Prize. From 2001 to 2011, the Axis of Western Domination bombed any state or nation that hesitated to accept their submission peacefully, provided they were defenseless. They bombed and invaded Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya because they realized that these states and nations were defenseless. Due to the failure of the Axis of Western Domination in the region to subjugate Hezbollah, Syria, and Ansarullah through the Israeli war against Lebanon in 2006, the terrorist campaigns against Syria since 2011, and the Saudi-Emirati war against Yemen since 2015, the Axis of the Resistance has been formed. The Iraqi Popular Mobilization, whose main components emerged as a response to the American occupation of Iraq in 2003, joined the Axis of Resistance to fight the Western-Israeli phenomenon known as ISIS in Iraq and Syria. ISIS succeeded in controlling large parts of these two countries in 2014 through acts of genocide against all those they deemed to be unbelievers, especially Shia Muslims. Western governments and Israel hoped that an ISIS Khalifat in Syria and Iraq would end Iranian political influence in these two countries, which they viewed as a bridge to Hezbollah in Lebanon. It is the same story with Ansarullah, who were ruling the 80% of the Yemeni population. Saudi Arabia and its Western and regional backers accused Ansarullah of being an Iranian proxy but failed to defeat it after a decade. The Western backed Saudi-Emirati war against the Ansarullah movement made the movement stronger and its ties with Iran friendlier because Iran was the only state that supported them against foreign powers politically, economically and militarily. Hamas and Islamic Jihad joined the Axis of Resistance because they realized that the Axis was the only political and military force they could rely on to free Palestine from Israeli occupation. What is common between the Lebanese, Syrian, Iraqi and Syrian and Yemeni and Palestinian experience is that they had to defend their sovereignty against states and terrorist organizations that were supported by the United States, other Western governments and Israel. The Axis of Resistance is not a result of the decisions made by governments, but rather a result of the convergence of states and movements that have been fighting for their sovereignty and independence from the former Axis of Western Domination and the current Axis of Genocide in the region for several decades. Iran learned from its experience fighting alone against an enemy who had the support of Western powers in the 1980s that it was important to form an alliance against Western intervention in the West Asia region. This is why, while trapped in a devastating war, Iran helped the formation of Hezbollah, which has become the most effective resistance organization against the Israeli occupation of Lebanon since the 1980s. Iran went on to support Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which started their Armed Struggle in the 1980s and 1990s, and at the same time supported Islamic and anti-imperialist forces in Iraq and Yemen, which are now known as the Yemeni Ansarullah and Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq.

    Each member of the Axis of Resistance has experienced the impacts of the Axis of Western Domination in their own country and in the region, and their actual resistance against such impacts has qualified them as constituting components of the Axis of Resistance. This is why each member of the Resistance raises the universalizing character of the Axis. If the slogan “one for all and all for one” has any meaning, it can be found in the practice and experiences of solidarity of the Axis of Resistance. While the Axis of Resistance was forming against the forces of Western Domination in the region, including Israel, not only Arab autocracies and Turkey, but also an army of native informers posing as academics and journalists argued that the people of the region could escape from the suffering of imperialist injustice if they are accustomed to it and contributed to its continuity. The terms of acceptance of imperialist injustice in the region and of contributing to its continuity were democracy, human rights, and women’s rights or moderation.

    While Turkey represented democracy, human rights, and women’s rights for a while, especially during the Arab Spring, Saudi Arabia represented moderation. Therefore, the entire discourse regarding the politics of West Asia oscillated between moderation and democracy.

    Although numerous scholars promoted Turkey while advocating for the objective of ‘Making Islam Democratic,’ the responsibility of promoting Saudi Arabia was delegated to Thomas Friedman and his like-minded people. The result was a fierce competition between the leaders of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Turkey for the consolidation of American hegemony in the region and for the normalization of Israeli apartheid in occupied Palestine. These leaders believed that their contribution to the imperialist injustice in the region and their collaboration with the Axis of Western Domination would safeguard them from harsh treatment in the ongoing injustice.

    The efforts to make themselves a darling of the imperialist dominance in the region might explain the animosity of the imperialist clients against Iran and the Axis of Resistance expressed in their countless English and Arabic media outlets. A glance at the seemingly progressive and reliable outlets such as Aljazeera and Jadaliyya, Middle East Eye, and TRT will reveal the extent of their anti-resistance and anti-Iranian posture, not to mention the media owned by Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The majority of regional analysts appearing in these media outlets appear to be pro-Palestinian. Convinced of the enduring nature of the dominance of Western imperialism, led by the United States in the region, they refer to the members of the Axis of Resistance as the “proxies of the Iranian regime” to remind their audience of the temporary nature of the Iranian state. It appears that these analysts are unaware of the fact that all small and large Western governments constitute the primary obstacle to Palestinian liberation in any meaningful manner. These outlets do not mention that Iran has been subject to murderous economic sanctions for several decades because of its loyalty to its allies in the Axis of Resistance. While the Saudi-Emirati war against Ansarullah was supported by all Western governments, Iran was the only state to support the Ansarullah movement. Iran has provided support to the Yemeni Ansarullah, the Lebanese Hezbollah, the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Force, the Palestinian freedom fighters such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, as well as the Syrian government, as they all represent forces of sovereignty who defend their independence and freedom from Western dominance.

    The United States and its Western allies have imposed economic sanctions on Iran due to their assertion that it has committed three unforgivable sins. They claim that Iran interferes with the affairs of other countries in the region, which implies that Iran does not accept the rulers imposed by the United States on the region. Thus, it supports forces that resist American interference in the region. According to American rules in the region, Palestinians must be prevented from fighting for their rights and for their liberation from Israeli bondage, and that Israel must preserve its military and technological supremacy regardless of the costs for other states and nations in the region. Iran not only regards Israel as an illegal state in the region that needs to be dismantled, but it also seeks to end American omnipotence and tyrannical power in the region, since it is the United States and its allies that allow Israel to commit genocide against the Palestinian and Lebanese people with impunity. According to American rule, Saudi Arabia on behalf of the United States should determine who should govern in Yemen, something Iran rejects and says that every state and nation must be the master of its own destiny. The second reason Iran is the target of American and Western sanctions is its advancing military technology, especially its advanced missile program, which the United States and other Western powers want to be dismantled. The real meaning of this Western demand is that Iran ceases its missile program and disarms itself so that it would not be able to reach enemy targets beyond its borders. This makes it easier for the United States and its allies to wage war against it. Iran not only succeeded in developing its military technology and accomplishing advanced missile and drone programs to secure its territorial integrity and national sovereignty against American threats, but it also succeeded in boosting the military technology of its allies in Yemen, Lebanon, Iraq and Palestinians to be more effective against the Axis of Western Domination and Genocide in the region. Ultimately, Iran has been subjected to demonization and economic sanctions and has become a target of Israeli terrorism due to its alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons. The United States wants Iran to prove that it is not seeking nuclear weapons in return for easing economic sanctions against it. According to this American logic, it is not the accuser who must demonstrate through the presentation of evidence that the accused has committed a wrong, but rather the accused who must demonstrate against evidence that is not present that he or she has not committed the wrong. To satisfy the American demand and demonstrate that Iran has no intention of making nuclear weapons, Iran must dismantle its entire nuclear program and refrain from developing nuclear technology. Iran does not accept this because it is a violation of its national sovereignty. Furthermore, Iran does not wish to be deprived of all options whenever it encounters an existential threat from either Israel or the United States. Therefore, it possesses all the necessary technology to produce nuclear weapons; however, it refrains from producing such weapons as it is not currently confronting an existential threat. Recently, Iranians are reminding Western powers that if they create a threatening condition for Iran, Iranians may reconsider their nuclear policy in a matter of days.

    The rationale behind the economic sanctions, media war and regime change projects against Iran was that such measures would either install a Western friendly regime or convince Iran to change its behavior and give up its sovereignty. The United States and its allies were hoping that, even if all regime-change attempts and attempts to change Iran’s behavior fail, it would become so fragile that it could not hold the Axis of Resistance together and assist its allies in the region when they needed it most. Despite economic sanctions and technological embargo imposed by the Axis of Domination and Genocide in the region on Iran, Iran has proved to be more economically prosperous, technologically advanced, ideologically and politically influential, and militarily stronger than anticipated. Iran not only helped the Axis of Resistance economically and militarily, but also helped them achieve a high degree of technological sophistication and military self-sufficiency that no power could take from them, despite its own economic difficulties. Every member of the Axis was convinced by this that Iran believes in their talent and strength and wants them to be strong, self-sufficient, dignified, sovereign and equal members of the Axis. It suffices to compare the reverence of the Iranian leaders to that of Seyed Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, with the contemptuous treatment of Saad Hariri, the former Prime-Minister of Lebanon, by the leaders of Saudi Arabia. Iran and Saudi Arabia have treated these two Lebanese political leaders differently, demonstrating who is considered a sovereign ally and who is a dependent proxy.

    Iran comprehends that in the event that the Axis of Domination and Genocide defeats the apparent weaker links within the Axis, it will not be content with anything less than Iran’s complete surrender. Imperial agents and their native informers interpreted almost every Western aggression or any Western political project as a means of regime change in Iran. This included the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Israeli War on Lebanon, the Arab Spring, and finally the fascist riots in Iran. The fascist riots in Iran, entitled Woman, Life, Freedom, were the last misinformation and disinformation attempt by the imperialist agents and their native informers. They created the illusion for Western governments, as their employers, that Iran was on the brink of collapse and would be forced to submit to American conditions in the region. These imperialist agents and their native informers, who have been functioning as academics, journalists, political activists, and NGO activists, have failed miserably in their last attempt. All the efforts carried out by these imperialist agents and native informers who have constructed religious, political, ethnic, and gender divisions in West Asia have been guided by the principle of divide and rule. They explained that political and economic underdevelopment, conflicts, and wars in the region were related to these divisions. These epistemological assumptions serve as a guideline for Western media and pro-Western media in the West and the region, but they also serve as a point of departure for social scientists and historians in the region. What follows from the knowledge produced based on these epistemological assumptions requires the active intervention of Western governments in the region. Western governments thus finance, initiate, and establish organizations which call themselves non-governmental organizations as instruments of interference in the social and political affairs of various societies in the region. Without the financial support of their government, Western NGOs in the region will disappear. This indicates that non-governmental organizations serve to divert the local populace from the fact that Western imperialism and Western elite are the main responsible for the social, religious, and political divisions and conflicts in the region.

    Since unity, solidarity, and fraternity in the region challenge American imperialism regionally and globally, movements that promise unity, solidarity, and fraternity in the region are designed as Iranian proxies that conspire against peace and stability in the region. The imperialist agents and native informers who accuse Iran of interfering in Iraqi affairs never mention the fact that the United States has taken Iraq’s entire oil revenue hostage to impose its will on the Iraqi state. The United States and its Western allies use every political means, terrorism, mass murder and even genocide to reshape the region according to their insatiable interests. Naturally, the imperialist agents and their native informers become preoccupied with Iran’s nuclear ambitions, expansion, and influence, as well as its proxies, as the main causes of political disputes and social conflicts in the region. The anti-government and anti-corruption demonstrations in Iraq and Lebanon during the period of 2019-2020 were referred to as the Arab Spring 2 by the imperialist agents and their native informers, as they turned anti-Iran and anti-Hezbollah.

    The Struggle for Sovereignty

    Iran managed to build and strengthen a regional front known as the Axis of Resistance against the alliance of the Axis of Domination and Genocide, while every regional analyst believed that the collective West and Israel were going to shape the West Asia region according to their own security and economic interests. In his last speech, Iran’s leader said that the only reason the U.S. and other Western powers support the Israeli apartheid regime is because it lets them control the natural resources of the region. He explained that by controlling the region’s resources, the West, led by the United States, would be more confident in their future conflicts with other world powers such as China and Russia. Western powers have become the accomplices of the Israeli genocide because not only their security and economic interests, but their supremacist attitude toward non-Westerners is indistinguishable from those of the Israeli regime, according to Iran’s leader. This is the reason why, rather than focusing on the racist and genocidal nature of the Israeli regime, the Western media places emphasis on its military might and portrays it as the most powerful entity in the region. According to the leader of Iran, the combination of Israel’s fictitious military might with the American aspiration of transforming this regime of apartheid and genocide into a hub for both energy export from the region to the West and for importing Western products and technology to the region prompted several regimes in the region to normalize their relations with this regime. But the Palestinians and other members of the Axis of Resistance are fighting for their freedom and independence from Israeli and American dominance in the region, which has turned this Western dream into a nightmare.

    Iran was, in fact, the first member of this resistance and was able to anticipate its formation since the 1979 revolution. The Iranian revolution transformed the country from a client of American imperialism into a sovereign and self-governing state. According to the section on foreign policy of the constitution of this sovereign state specified in articles 152, 153, and 154, Iranian governments have a duty to reject any forms of imperialist domination or interference in Iranian internal politics. Moreover, it obligates the Iranian governments to demonstrate active solidarity with all nations that oppose imperialist dominance and interference in their internal affairs. Here, the key concept is the sovereign right of nations and states to shape their societies according to their own will, aspirations, ideas, deliberations, and decisions. According to Article 152 of the Iranian constitution, The Islamic Republic of Iran is mandated to reject any form of foreign dominance within its territory, to preserve its independence and territorial integrity, and to defend the rights of all Muslims and the oppressed peoples of the world against superpowers. Article 153 prohibits any agreements that give any form of foreign control over the Iranian natural resources, economy, army, or culture. Finally, according to the Article 154, “The ideal of the Islamic Republic of Iran is independence, justice, truth, and felicity among all people of the world. Accordingly, it[the Islamic Republic] supports the just struggles of the Mustad’afun (oppressed) against the Mustakbirun (oppressors) in every corner of the globe.” During the first year of the revolution in Iran, there was a universal consensus among all revolutionary tendencies on these ideals declared by the Iranian Constitution. These articles of the Iranian constitutions are the guiding lines of the Iranian struggle to defend its state sovereignty and to support other nations in their struggles for sovereignty and independence from imperialist powers. Iran has supported the Palestinian struggle for liberation from Israeli apartheid for the same reason it supported South African struggles against apartheid. Iran stands in solidarity with Hezbollah, the Syrian government, Yemeni Ansarullah, and Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces as they fight for the same independence and sovereignty that it enjoys itself. Iranian independence and sovereignty prevent it from joining the Axis of Western Domination and Genocide in the region. Iran is aware that without aiding and defending the sovereignty of others, it is unable to safeguard its own sovereignty. For a long time, the imperialist agents and their native informers have argued that the Iranian nation does not endorse Iran’s interventions in Western imperialist affairs in the region. However, recent opinion polls conducted by imperialist agents and their native informers indicate that, the majority of Iranians “are invested in the idea of providing military support to Iran’s proxy groups in the Middle East, the so-called “Axis of Resistance” (Jebhe Moqavemat). Sixty percent are in favor of this policy and 31 percent are against it.”  Western governments’ academic and media mouthpieces accuse Iran for two contradictory reasons. They blame Iran for using its financial resources to assist and empower its proxies who cause instability in the region instead of using those resources to elevate the prosperity of its own people or accuse it of using other members of the Axis of Resistance for its own interests. While the first claim assumes Iran to be a nefarious but a rational and pragmatic player in the region, the latter claim assumes Iran to be an ideological, fanatic and dogmatic actor. Iran must be contained, moderated, or subject to constant demonization, economic sanctions, terrorism, and regime change since it is the cause of instability in both cases. However, despite the numerous criminal plots against the Iranian state and nation since the revolution, Iran has steadfastly upheld the revolutionary principles of sovereignty and independence against Western imperialism and demonstrated genuine solidarity with the oppressed people who fight for their own sovereignty and independence.

    Even though the Soviet Union collapsed, which made the United States the global sovereign or consolidated its global hegemony, supported and facilitated by its various Western allies and regional clients, and to which Russia and other members of the former socialist block in Europe and Central Asia surrendered, Iran did not relinquish its sovereignty and independence. Iran faced two choices: either surrender to American global hegemony and its “new world order” or face American wrath in the form of regime change or land invasion, as it happened in Afghanistan and Iraq, Libya and Syria. Iran realized that it was impossible to protect its own sovereignty without promoting the principle of sovereignty and practicing a genuine practice of solidarity with all forces that resisted American domination and Israeli aggression in West Asia.

    This is how the Axis of Resistance as we know it today came into being.  Iranians had to resist not only the military, economic, and political consequences of American global dominance in the region, but also the circulation of its ideology by contemporary political philosophers, historians, political scientists, sociologists, and anthropologists, who theorize, justify, and normalize the American order. The Aristotelian theory of rulership and governance is at the heart of the new world order. According to this theory, the soul, composed of the rational and expedient components of the world, is destined to reign over the physical, passionate, and natural components of the world. The American world order ideology assumes that the West, led by the U.S., represents the former and the rest of the world represents the latter in the contemporary world. This theory argues that the United States and its allies represent the human elements that must rule the animal elements of the world because both men and animals are better off when animals are tamed and ruled by men. This theory assumes that, since it is always the superior who discovers this principle of ruling, he must make sure that the inferiors understand this principle. This theory makes the inferior believe that he is a slave who must obey the superior as his master and execute his orders unquestionably. According to this principle of rulership, while the task of the slave is the administration of things and production of the necessities of life, the task of the master is the administration of the slaves. Russia, which consented to being administered by the West, led by the United States, attempted to fulfill the duties of a slave and fulfill the master’s demands, however, it was unsuccessful. However, China, which has achieved great success in the administration of things and production of necessities of life, has come to the realization that as a nation, they have high expectations and desire to safeguard their sovereignty and independence. At the same time, Russia realized that their success in the administration of things and the production of the necessities of life depended on them protecting their sovereignty and independence from Western interventions in the affairs of their nation. Aristotle advised superior men to do philosophy and politics because they were the kind of science that enable the superior to command the slave who produces the necessities of life. Modern imperialism, from an Aristotelian perspective, would not be possible without modern philosophy, social sciences and humanities that have persuaded the rest of the world of their inferiority. As Aristotle argued that plants exist for the sake of animals, and animals exist for the sake of men, and the slave exist for the sake of the master, modern human and social sciences argue that non-Westerners exist for the sake of Westerners. Imperial agents and their native informers are practitioners of the social and human sciences, whose failure to convince the inferior people of their inferiority could result in the inferior people refusing to be governed by their superiors. When this occurs, the Americans and their Western allies attempt to coerce the inferior populace into submission by means of economic sanctions, intimidation, and threats. Whenever these measures fail, and the superior Westerners find the inferior people defenseless, they turn into wild beasts by indiscriminate killing of civilians, murdering babies, women, and elderly people, and destroying their homes. The Israeli Genocide of Palestinian and Lebanese people is the last example of such crimes.  While the United States, with the help of its Western allies, attempts to dominate the world by demonstrating Western superiority and the inferiority of the rest of the world, Israel fails to dominate West Asia despite all the political, economic and military help it receives from America and Europe. In 2006, Israel attempted to replicate what the United States and its Western allies accomplished in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003, but it fell short. Since the so-called Arab Spring, the United States and Israel have worked together to kill as many Libyan, Syrian, Yemeni people as they can and destroy as much of their infrastructure as they can because according to the imperialist principle, the superiors can either subjugate the inferiors or destroy them. However, Iranian revolutionary foreign policy has rejected this Western superiority complex and has tried to minimize its political consequences in the region. Iran has been trying to convince the people of the region that their struggle for sovereignty and independence from imperialist domination is impossible without the formation of a united front to resist American and Western intervention in the region. From an Iranian perspective, the resistance against the imperialist dominance in the region is intrinsically linked to the Palestinian struggle for liberation from the Israeli occupation. Iran supports the Palestinian struggle for sovereignty and independence, as an unfree Palestine would make the future of its own sovereignty and independence uncertain. Because an unfree Palestine means supremacy of the Western Axis of Domination and Genocide in the region. This may explain the moral high ground held by Iran when it comes to the Israeli genocide and its Western and regional accomplices.

    According to Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics, book VIII, it is with friends that men are more able to think and to act because the impacts of friendship are so significant that it can hold states together. Whereas men with friends do not have a need for justice, just men need friendship because justice has a friendly quality. But true friendship is about reciprocal goodwill, since friends wish what is good for one another for their own sake. It is the mutual recognition of goodwill between people that makes them friends. According to Aristotle, there are people who love each other for their utility and in virtue of some good which they get from each other. There are also those who love for the sake of pleasure because they find each other pleasant. Hence, those who love others for the purpose of their utility, do so for the sake of their own well-being, whereas those who love for the sake of pleasure do so for the sake of their own pleasure. If the parties don’t stay what they are to each other, their friendship will be easily broken up. For instance, when an individual ceases to be pleasant or useful to the other, the latter ceases to love them. Friendship is perfect when men are good and equal because they wish well for their friends for their own sake. Such friendships last as long as the parties remain good, and goodness is a lasting thing. Friendships such as these are not instrumental because they are not based on how useful friends are to each other. Since true friendship is rare and infrequent, it requires time and familiarity. The imperialist agents and their native informers fail to understand that Iran and the Axis of Resistance are the only true friends in Asia because they founded their friendship on mutual recognition of their sovereignty, equality, and struggle for justice. The familiarity with such virtues in each other took time, but the time was not wasted. The time was used to discover what is good in each other.

    The post Iran and the Axis of Resistance first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Law firm AS&H Clifford Chance failed to include alleged abuse of migrant workers in assessment for Fifa 2034 bid, say rights groups

    A report by the Saudi arm of a global law firm on Saudi Arabia’s 2034 Fifa World Cup bid has “whitewashed” the Gulf kingdom’s record of exploiting and suppressing the rights of migrant workers, rights groups have claimed.

    AS&H Clifford Chance was commissioned to independently assess the human rights implications of the bid, but the report “contains no substantive discussion of extensive and relevant abuses in Saudi Arabia”, according to a statement released by 11 organisations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Two Democratic members of Congress are calling on U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint a special counsel to investigate Jared Kushner’s political advice to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS). Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland), the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), the chair of the Senate Finance Committee…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB) participated in the 57th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC), held from 9 September to 11 October 2024.

    ADHRB delivered eight oral interventions under four items during these sessions, highlighting various human rights violations in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. It also organized a panel discussion on the sidelines of the HRC, in partnership with other human rights organizations and activists, during which the misuse of INTERPOL Red Notices and its implications for human rights were raised.

    ADHRB delivered seven interventions related to the human rights situation in Bahrain under items 2, 3, 4, and 5. Under item 5, it delivered an eighth intervention, highlighting the issue of executions in Saudi Arabia.

    Item 2

    Under Item 2, ADHRB delivered two interventions during the General Debate on 12 September 2024.

    ADHRB delivered its first intervention during the General Debate under Item 2, highlighting the ongoing detention of elderly Bahraini opposition leaders and human rights defenders. These individuals have been imprisoned since 2011 for their peaceful opposition to the autocratic rule in the country. The intervention noted that, despite the issuance of three recent royal pardons, none of the opposition leaders or prominent human rights defenders were included. Among those excluded were Mr. Hasan Mushaima, Dr. AbdulJalil AlSingace, and AbdulHadi AlKhawaja. ADHRB called on the Bahraini authorities to immediately and unconditionally release all elderly opposition leaders and prominent human rights defenders.

    Under the same item, ADHRB and partner organizations delivered an intervention during the General Debate, drawing the Council’s attention to the ongoing impunity of Bahraini officials responsible for torture and other human rights violations in Bahraini prisons. The intervention noted that despite the three recent royal pardons, none of the perpetrators of rights abuses have been held accountable and that, the same violations persist. ADHRB also held Bahrain’s King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, Crown Prince Salman, and Interior Minister Sheikh Rashed bin Abdulla Al Khalifa responsible for the growing culture of impunity. ADHRB urged the Council to pressure Bahrain to end impunity for rights abusers.

    Item 3

    Under Item 3, ADHRB delivered two interventions on 13 and 20 September 2024 during the General Debate and Interactive Dialogue with the Independent Expert on the enjoyment of all human rights by older persons.

    In the intervention delivered during the Interactive Dialogue with the Independent Expert on the enjoyment of all human rights by older persons on 13 September 2024, ADHRB and its partner organizations addressed the ill-treatment and human rights violations faced by elderly human rights defenders in Bahrain. It noted that elderly prisoners of conscience have been held in Bahraini prisons since 2011, some serving life sentences. All these individuals have faced numerous violations, documented by UN experts, including arbitrary detention, torture, ill-treatment, and denial of medical care. Among them are 76-year-old opposition leader Hasan Mushaima, prominent human rights defender Dr. AbdulJalil AlSingace, who is over 62 years old, and human rights defender AbdulHadi AlKhawaja. ADHRB concluded by addressing the Independent Expert on the enjoyment of all human rights by older persons, asking: When will Bahrain implement its obligations, address the recommendations, and allow UN delegations to monitor prison violations?

    In the intervention delivered during the general debate under Item 3 on 20 September 2024, ADHRB affirmed that there can be no reform without releasing political prisoners and human rights defenders, securing justice, and ensuring accountability. It also drew the Council’s attention to the rising numbers of summons, arrests, and trials related to freedom of expression, occurring alongside the recent releases in Bahrain.

    ADHRB pointed out that with the onset of demonstrations in support of Gaza in October 2023, Bahrainis are living in a new and dangerous escalation of repression. Widespread arrests targeted participants in popular movements, including over 50 minors, some of whom remain detained and on trial. The crackdown extends into the digital space, where dissenting opinions are criminalized.

    It also drew attention to the systematic arrest campaigns and summonses launched by the Bahraini Ministry of Interior last March, targeting the families of detainees and many who expressed solidarity with the political prisoners’ strike. ADHRB also stressed that despite promises to the contrary, Bahraini authorities have yet to demonstrate a genuine commitment to a new chapter for those released. Instead, they insist on restricting their civil liberties and re-arresting or summoning anyone demanding these rights.

    Item 4

    Under Item 4 during the General Debate, ADHRB delivered two interventions on 25 and 26 September 2024.

    On 25 September 2024, ADHRB delivered an intervention during the General Debate under Item 4, in which it emphasized the need to end impunity in Bahrain starting with dismissing the  Minister of Interior. ADHRB stressed impunity for rights abuses in Bahrain keeps true reform beyond reach. It also pointed out that since 2011, 19 political prisoners have died due to medical negligence while in government facilities but unfortunately, their killers have yet to be held accountable.

    Complaints against Prince Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa were filed for his involvement in the torture of detainees, but he continues to enjoy high-ranking positions, authority, and impunity. It also mentioned that since 2004, the Ministry of Interior has been held by Rashid bin Abdulla Al Khalifa, who has been implicated in torture yet remains unprosecuted.

    ADHRB renewed its call to implement the Bassiouni Commission’s recommendations, end impunity, and remove the Ministry of Interior’s control over security and judicial bodies. This begins with dismissing the Minister of Interior, prosecuting violators, and compensating victims.

    On 26 September 2024, ADHRB and partner organizations delivered an intervention during the General Debate under Item 4, in which they urged the Council to pressure Bahrain to ensure transitional justice for former prisoners. ADHRB also highlighted the hardships faced by recently released political prisoners in Bahrain as they attempt to rebuild their lives. It noted that despite their release, these individuals have received no compensation for their years of detention or the violations they endured, including torture and medical neglect. Instead, they continue to face restrictions under Bahrain’s political and civil isolation laws. At the end of its intervention, ADHRB and partner organizations urged the Council to pressure Bahrain to end these arbitrary restrictions, repeal political isolation laws, and ensure reintegration and transitional justice for former prisoners.

    Items 3 and 5

    During the Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples under Items 3 and 5, held on 27 September 2024, ADHRB and partner organizations delivered an intervention. They drew the HRC’s attention to the discrimination against the indigenous people in Bahrain. ADHRB noted that, despite their distinct cultural and historical backgrounds, both the Baharna and Ajam communities face significant economic disparities, social and political exclusion, and are disproportionately denied access to public services. It also highlighted the severe repression of the pro-democracy movement in 2011 and the revocation of citizenship for hundreds of Baharna and Ajam since 2012. These actions, coupled with unjustified deportations, reflect an alarming attempt to alter Bahrain’s ethnic balance, further marginalizing these groups both socially and economically. Considering this, ADHRB asked the HRC: How can we ensure that the Bahraini government will end the systemic discrimination against these indigenous groups and comply with international standards?

    Item 5

    On 1 October 2024, ADHRB and partner organizations delivered an intervention during the General Debate under Item 5, expressing deep concerns over the sharp increase in executions in Saudi Arabia. This rise underscores alarming human rights conditions in the kingdom, especially considering the lack of transparency and widespread distrust in the judicial system.

    ADHRB further highlighted Saudi Arabia’s use of the death penalty to criminalize freedom of expression and retaliate against activists, as well as for offenses that do not qualify as the most serious under international standards. It urged the Council to condemn the Saudi judiciary’s use of anti-terrorism laws to criminalize free expression, as well as the use of torture to extract confessions and the execution of individuals convicted of non-serious offenses under international law. ADHRB also demanded the abolition of all such executions, including those of political prisoners and individuals convicted of non-serious offenses.

    Panel on the Sidelines of the Council:

    On 17 September 2024, ADHRB hosted a panel on the sidelines of the HRC discussing “INTERPOL Red Notices and Human Rights.” The event examined how Red Notices are misused to target activists and explored potential solutions to address this issue. The panel also featured case studies from the field.

    During its participation in the 57th session of the Human Rights Council, ADHRB successfully highlighted some of the most serious human rights violations in Bahrain, particularly the conditions of political prisoners. It also raised concerns about the alarming rise in execution rates in Saudi Arabia, emphasizing the urgent need for intensified efforts toward their immediate abolition.

    The post An Overview of ADHRB’s Participation in the 57th Session of the Human Rights Council appeared first on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.

    This post was originally published on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.

  • At the 57th Human Rights Council session, civil society organisations share reflections on key outcomes and highlight gaps in addressing crucial issues and situations. Full written version below:

    States continue to fail to meet their obligations under international law to put an end to decades of Israeli crimes committed against the Palestinian people, including the genocide in Gaza, and most recently Israel’s war on Lebanon. States that continue to provide military, economic and political support to Israel, while suppressing fundamental freedoms such as expression and assembly, as well as attacking independent courts and experts, and defunding humanitarian aid (UNRWA), are complicit in the commission of crimes. We urge the Council to address the root causes of the situation as identified by experts and the ICJ, including settler-colonialism and apartheid, and to address the obligations of third States in the context of the ICJ’s provisional measures stressing the plausible risk of genocide in Gaza and the ICJ advisory opinion recognising that ‘Israel’s legislation and measures constitute a breach of Article 3 of CERD’ pertaining to racial segregation and apartheid. The General Assembly adopted the resolution titled “The Crime of Genocide” in December 1946, which articulates that the denial of existence of entire human groups shocks the conscience of mankind. We remind you of our collective duty and moral responsibility to stop genocide.

    States have an obligation to pay UN membership dues in full and in time. The failure of many States to do so, often for politically motivated reasons, is causing a financial liquidity crisis, meaning that resolutions and mandates of the Human Rights Council cannot be implemented. Pay your dues! The visa denials to civil society by host countries is a recurring obstacle to accessing the UN; and acts of intimidation and reprisals are fundamental attacks against the UN system itself. The right to access and communicate with international bodies is firmly grounded in international law and pivotal to the advancement of human rights. In this regard, we welcome the action taken by 11 States to call for investigation and accountability for reprisals against individually named human rights defenders. This sends an important message of solidarity to defenders, many of whom are arbitrarily detained for contributing to the work of the UN, as well as increasing the political costs for perpetrators of such acts. We welcome progress in Indigenous Peoples’ participation in the work of this Council as it is the first time that they could register on their own for specific dialogues.

    We welcome the adoption of the resolution that renews the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change by consensus. 

    We also welcome the adoption of the resolution on biodiversity sending a clear call to take more ambitious commitments at the sixteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity  and acknowledging the negative impact that the loss of biodiversity can have on the enjoyment of all human rights, including the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. We welcome that these two resolutions recognize the critical and positive role that Environmental Human Right Defenders play. We also welcome the adoption by consensus of the resolutions on the rights on safe drinking water and sanitation; and the resolution on human rights and Indigenous Peoples. 

    We welcome the adoption of the resolution on equal participation in political and public affairs which for the first time includes language on children and recognises their right to participation as well as the transformative role of civic education in supporting their participation. We also welcome the recognition that hate speech has a restrictive effect on children’s full, meaningful, inclusive and safe participation in political and public affairs.

    We welcome the adoption of the resolution from rhetoric to reality: a global call for concrete action against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. The resolution contains important language on the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action as well as the proclamation by the General Assembly of a second International Decade for People of African Descent commencing in 2025. We welcome the inclusion of a call to States to dispense reparatory justice, including finding ways to remedy historical racial injustices. This involves ensuring that the structures in society that perpetuate past injustices are transformed, including law enforcement and the administration of justice. 

    We welcome the adoption of a new resolution on human rights on the internet, which recognises that universal and meaningful connectivity is essential for the enjoyment of human rights. The resolution takes a progressive step forward in specifically recommending diverse and human right-based technological solutions to advance connectivity, including through governments creating an enabling and inclusive regulatory environment for small, non-profit and community internet operators. These solutions are particularly essential in ensuring connectivity for remote or rural communities. The resolution also  unequivocally condemns internet shutdowns, online censorship, surveillance, and other measures that impede universal and meaningful connectivity. We now call on all Sates to fully implement the commitments in the resolution and ensure the same rights that people have offline are also protected online. 

    Whilst we welcome the attention in the resolution on the human rights of migrants to dehumanising, harmful and racist narratives about migration, we are disappointed that the resolution falls short of the calls from civil society, supported by the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights of Migrants, for the Human Rights Council to set up an independent and international monitoring mechanism to address deaths, torture and other grave human rights violations at borders. Such a mechanism would not only support prevention and accountability – it would provide a platform for the people at the heart of these human rights violations and abuses to be heard. The study and intersessional mandated in this resolution must be used to enhance independent monitoring and increase access to justice.

    We welcome the adoption of the resolution on Afghanistan renewing and strengthening the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. Crucially, the resolution recognises the need to ensure accountability in Afghanistan through “comprehensive, multidimensional, gender-responsive and victim-centred” processes applying a “comprehensive approach to transitional justice.” However, we are disappointed that the resolution once again failed to establish an independent accountability mechanism that can undertake comprehensive investigations and collect and preserve evidence and information of violations and abuses in line with these principles to assist future and ongoing accountability processes. This not only represents a failure by the Council to respond to the demands of many Afghan and international civil society organisations, but also a failure to fulfil its own mandate to ensure prompt, independent and impartial investigations which this and all previous resolutions have recognised as urgent.

    We welcome the renewal of the Special Rapporteur on Burundi

    We welcome the renewal of the Special Rapporteur’s mandate on the human rights situation in the Russian Federation. The human rights situation in Russia continues to deteriorate, with the alarming expansion of anti-extremism legislation now also targeting LGBT+ and Indigenous organisations being just the latest example of this trend. The Special Rapporteur has highlighted how such repression against civil society within Russia over many years has facilitated its external aggression. The mandate itself remains a vital lifeline for Russian civil society, connecting it with the Human Rights Council and the broader international community, despite the Russian authorities’ efforts to isolate their people.

    We welcome the resolution on promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka renewing for one year the mandate of the OHCHR Sri Lanka Accountability Project and of the High Commissioner to monitor and report on the situation. Its consensual adoption represents the broad recognition by the Council of the crucial need for continued international action to promote accountability and reconciliation in Sri Lanka and keeps the hopes of tens of thousands of victims, their families and survivors who, more than 15 years after the end of the war, continue to wait for justice and accountability. However, the resolution falls short in adequately responding to the calls by civil society. It fails to extend these mandates for two years which would have ensured that the Sri Lanka Accountability Project has the resources, capacity and stability to fulfill its mandate. 

    We welcome the renewal of the Fact Fin­ding Mission on Sudan with broader support (23 votes in favor in comparison to 19 votes last year, and 12 votes against in comparison to 16 votes last year). This responds to the calls by 80 Sudanese, African, and other international NGOs for an extension of the man­date of the FFM for Sudan. We further reiterate our urgent calls for an immediate ceasefire and the prompt creation of safe corridors for humanitarian aid organisations and groups, and to guarantee the safety of their operations, as well as our call on the UN Security Council to extend the arms embargo on Darfur to all of Sudan and create effective monitoring and reporting mechanisms to ensure the implementation of the embargo. 

    We welcome the renewal of the mandates of the Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela (FFM) and of OHCHR for two more years. The deepening repression at the hands of government forces following the fraudulent Presidential elections in July has made evident the vital importance of continued independent documenting, monitoring and reporting by the FFM and its role in early warning of further human rights deterioration. We are pleased that OHCHR is mandated to provide an oral update (with an ID) at the end of this year. This will be key ahead of the end of the term of the current presidency on 10 January 2025. This resolution is an important recognition of and contribution to the demands of victims and civil society for accountability.  

    We regret that the Council failed to take action on Bangladesh. We welcome Bangladesh’s cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights including by inviting the Office to undertake investigations into allegations of serious violations and abuses in the context of youth-led protests in July and August, as well as positive steps by the interim government. However, we believe that a Council mandate would provide much needed support, stability and legitimacy to these positive initiatives at a time of serious political uncertainty in the country.

    The Council’s persistent inaction and indifference in the face of Yemen’s escalating human rights crisis is deeply troubling. Since the dissolution of the Group of Eminent Experts, and despite years of mounting atrocities, we have yet to see the type of robust, independent international investigation that is desperately needed. Instead, the Council’s approach has been marked by half-measures and complacency, allowing widespread violations to continue unchecked. Despite the precarious humanitarian situation, the recent campaign of enforced disappearances and arbitrary detention by the de facto Houthi authorities and recent Israeli bombardments, Yemen has increasingly become a forgotten crisis. The current resolution on Yemen represents this failure. Technical assistance without reporting or discussion is an insufficient response. The decision to forgo an interactive dialogue on implementing this assistance is an oversight, undermining the principles of accountability and transparency. We welcome the inclusion of language in the resolution recognizing the vital role of NGO workers and humanitarian staff who the Houthis have arbitrarily detained. We call for the immediate and unconditional release of those who continue to be detained for nothing more than attempting to ensure the rule of law is respected and victims are protected. We urge this Council to act decisively, prioritize the creation of an independent international accountability mechanism, and place civilian protection at the forefront of its deliberations on Yemen. 

    We continue to deplore this Council’s exceptionalism towards serious human rights violations in China committed by the government. On 17 August, the OHCHR stressed that ‘many problematic laws and policies’ documented in its Xinjiang report remain in place, that abuses remain to be investigated, and that reprisals and lack of information hinder human rights monitoring. We welcome the statement by the Xinjiang Core Group on the second anniversary of the OHCHR’s Xinjiang report, regretting the government’s lack of meaningful cooperation with UN bodies, the rejection of UPR recommendations, and urging China to engage meaningfully to implement the OHCHR’s recommendations, including releasing all those arbitrarily detained, clarifying the whereabouts of those disappeared, and facilitating family reunion. It is imperative that the Human Rights Council take action commensurate to the gravity of UN findings, such as by establishing a monitoring and reporting mechanism on China as repeatedly urged by over 40 UN experts since 2020. We urge China to genuinely engage with the UN human rights system to enact meaningful reform, and ensure all individuals and peoples enjoy their human rights. Recommendations from the OHCHR Xinjiang report, UN Treaty Bodies, and UN Special Procedures chart the way for this desperately needed change.

    Finally, we welcome the outcome of elections to the Human Rights Council at the General Assembly. States that are responsible for atrocity crimes, the widespread repression of civil society, and patterns of reprisals are not qualified to be elected to this Council. The outcomes of the election demonstrate the importance of all regions fielding competitive slates that are comprised of appropriately qualified candidates.  

    Signatories:

    1. International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
    2. Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
    3. CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation 
    4. FIDH 
    5. Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies

    https://ishr.ch/latest-updates/hrc57-civil-society-presents-key-takeaways-from-the-session

    see:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/11/us-un-human-rights-israel

    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/oct/08/rights-activists-urge-un-reject-abusive-bid-saudi-arabia-bid-join-human-rights-council

    Following a concerted campaign led by ISHR together with other civil society partners, Saudi Arabia was just defeated in its bid to be elected to the UN Human Rights Council!

  • On Oct 1st, 2024, ADHRB delivered an intervention at the United Nation Human Rights Council session 57 under item 5 during the General Debate. ADHRB raised concerns about the doubling rate of executions in Saudi Arabia.

     

     

    We express deep concern regarding the doubling rate of executions carried out in Saudi Arabia this year, with 181 executions recorded between January 2024 and 10 September, including 15 for politically motivated charges.

     

    This sharp rise in executions highlights alarming human rights conditions in the kingdom, especially amid the lack of transparency and widespread distrust in the judicial system.

     

    At least 69 individuals, including 9 minors, currently face execution. The actual number is likely higher due to the absence of transparency, with no disclosure of the legal process, timing, or manner of the executions.

     

    More troubling is Saudi Arabia’s use of the death penalty to criminalize freedom of expression and retaliate against activists, alongside executions for offenses not considered among the most serious like drug crimes, with 42 executions for such cases since the start of this year.

     

    We urge the council to condemn the Saudi judiciary’s use of anti-terrorism laws to criminalize free expression, as well as the use of torture to extract confessions and executions for non-serious offenses under international law. We demand the abolition of these executions.

    The post ADHRB at #HCR57: We raise concerns about the doubling rate of executions in Saudi Arabia appeared first on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.

    This post was originally published on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.

  • The country had faced a campaign from rights groups who accused it of being ‘unfit to serve on the Human Rights Council’

    Saudi Arabia narrowly failed in its bid to win a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council, a blow to Riyadh’s efforts to boost the country’s rights reputation abroad, four years after it was rejected in a 2020 bid to join the 47-member body.

    Saudi Arabia is spending billions to transform its global image from a country known for strict religious restrictions and human rights abuses into a tourism and entertainment hub under a plan its Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, launched known as Vision 2030.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Salah El Din – Salah El Din El Ayoubi – Saladin and Richard the Lionheart

    Jerusalem’s hard-fought liberation, now in process, is a recapitulation of the Christian Crusades of the 11th-13th centuries, this time, not by the knight on a white horse of legend, but through the long march of guerilla warfare by the much maligned Shia. This follows on the liberation of Iran from its Judeo-Christian yoke in 1979 and Iraq 25 years later, ironically by the US, forming the second Shia majority state. But it is the Shia minority of Lebanon that holds the keys to Jerusalem. Their 40% of the Lebanese population punches well above their weight in a fractious country split among Christians, and Sunni and Shia Muslims.

    Hezbollah was forged in the heat of Israeli occupation of Lebanon in the 1980s. The then-rag-tag militia killed over 600 Israeli soldiers, forcing Israel to retreat in humiliation, its first such defeat ever, and by a nonstate actor, a very bad omen, which Israel’s almost daily murder of Palestinians every since cannot erase, and which culminated in 10/7, Israel’s own private 9/11, bringing us to Israel’s carpeting bombing of Lebanon.

    It is the Shia of Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen we have to thank for preventing Israel’s genocide against the Palestinians from proceeding smoothly. Sunnis will have to wake up if they don’t want to be left behind by their Shia brothers, their self-satisfied Sunni hegemony cracked open, exposed as the ‘sick man’ of the Middle East, i.e., undermined by imperialism, the same compromised role that destroyed the Ottomans, created post-Ottoman puppet Sunni states, and planted in Palestine a cursed tree, the Quran’s poisonous zaqqum, rooted in the center of Hell, aka the Jewish state.

    The Saudis long ago were compromised through a voluntary pact with first British then US imperialism but, until the rise of Muhammed Bin Salman (MBS), were at least keeping up the trappings of Islamic ritual, jealously guarding the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. The quietist Saudis effectively blackmailed the Palestinians into accepting an interminable Israeli murderous occupation and creeping (now galloping) theft of their lands, financing Palestinian refugees, but with no promise of liberation, effectively working with not against the enemy.

    Now MBS has let the westernizers loose in his kingdom, discarding the hijab, promoting concerts of trashy western rock music, buying British football teams (Newcastle United in 2021). Trump’s Abraham Accords were supposed to lead to a new Middle East with Israel and Saudi Arabia as the kingpins. With October 7 (10/7), the bottom fell out of MBS’s fantasy of a Saudi-Isreali hegemony over the Middle East, leaving the Palestinians in permanent limbo or exile. It didn’t seem to matter to the Saudis and Gulf sheikhs, who long ago lost interest in Palestine. In thie face of this complete betrayal of the Palestinians, of Islam itself, the Shia are the only Muslims to resist the sacrilege of permanent Jewish rule over Palestine and the destruction Islam’s holy sites to build a Third Temple.

    Orthodox Sunni Muslims have always feared the moral purity which Shiism was founded on, in opposition to the more worldly, pragmatic Sunni majority. This very productive, though at times deadly, stand-off between the two strands of Islam began with Muhammad’s young cousin Ali being the first convert to Islam after the Prophet’s wife Hadija, Ali’s heroic military career defending the religion during the early, perilous battles immortalized in the Quran, through to the murder of him and his family by power-hungry rivals. The draw of idealism and justice has kept Shiism alive, and from what we see today, it is the saving grace of Islam, pushing back today against deadly secularism. Ultimately, the Sunni will have to admit that the Shia are not just an inconvenient footnote (like MBS et al would have liked to make of the Palestinians).

    20th century ummah challenges

    All Muslims will agree that the unity of the ummah is the first, most urgent, priority. The Shia, though outliers, strive for this even more, as they face hardline Sunnis who consider them apostates and would be happy to cut them loose or wipe them out. The official Sunni position has wavered over the centuries, but generally grudgingly accepts them. The imperialists of course were happy to use ‘divide and rule’, and they quickly turned a peaceful ummah into quarreling sectarians in India, Pakistan, Iraq, wherever they had the chance.1 This only really worked for post-Ottoman Iraq and Lebanon, both with large Shia communities mixed (peacefully) with Sunni. But the 20th century was one of increasing division, chaos, everywhere in the ummah. It is still on life support, held together now by the Shia thread, the ‘Shia crescent’, the only link the ummah has to Jerusalem and the Palestinians as they face annihilation, their Sunni brothers helpless or unwilling to save them.

    The British official who fashioned the new Iraq in the 1920s, Gertrude Bell, had no time for Shia, who were the majority then as now, but Gertrude had no time for democracy for the dark-skinned. I don’t for a moment doubt that the final authority must be in the hands of the Sunnis, in spite of their numerical inferiority; otherwise you will have a mujtahid-run, theocratic state, which is the very devil. She knew how the ulama in Iran had defeated the Shah on his westernizing mission, the famous tobacco fatwa of 1890 that forced the shah to cancel the British concession, and supported the constitution movement for democracy in 1905. The British had no interest in creating a radical Shia majority state and put in place a Sunni puppet king.

    Iraq’s long and violent history since then finally undid Gertrude’s machiavellian scheming in 2003, bringing to an end a truly disgusting Sunni dictatorship, and the advent of the first Shia-majority state, the positive effects of which are still being discovered. We can thank the US imperialists (even a broken clock is right twice a day) for stumbling on a winning formula for Islam (and for themselves, for the world). By genuinely promoting electoral democracy (along with opening Iraq to foreign exploitation of Iraq’s oil), it started the ball rolling on Sunni-Shia relations everywhere, including US client number one, the Saudi dictator-king, with his truly downtrodden Shia, who sit on Saudi oil and get only repression, disenfranchisement and lots of beheadings as thanks.

    The 20th century path that brought us to our present apocalyptic scenario was long and tragic. The Ottoman ‘sick man of Europe’ collapse at the end of WWI, invaded by the British and French (their Russian allies had already collapsed leaving more spoils for the victors). The end of the caliphate? For atheist Turkish dictator Mustafa Kemal that would have been fine. The Muslim ummah, both Sunni and Shia, anticipated this and had already rallied in its defense with the Khilafa Movement in 1919-1920, supported by other anti-imperialists, including Gandhi and India’s Hindus, who saw the British divide-and-rule as the poison that kept Indians subjugated.

    Kemal got his way in 1924, accusing Indian Muslim leaders, who came all the way to Ankara to beg the Turkish strongman to maintain the caliphate, of foreign election interference. As if the caliphate was a Turkish plaything The shock wave reverberated around the world culminating in the World Islamic Congress in Jerusalem in 1931 at the behest of Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, bringing together Muslim leaders from around the world. A truly historic moment in the history of the ummah. But the caliphate was already a pipe dream, with growing Jewish immigration to British Palestine, the intent being to create a Jewish state, an imperial outpost to control the Middle East.

    Everywhere, the Muslim world was occupied now by nominally Christian world empires, British, American, French, Dutch, the House of War (vs the ummah, the House of Peace), the the financial strings predominantly in Jewish hands, accounting for the plum Palestine being selected as a future Jewish state, purchased by the elite Jews who financed the British empire. Except for Shia Iran, which was never fully occupied and given an imperial make-over. But Iran also had its atheist modernizer, Reza Shah, who, having tricked the ulama into giving him their blessing initially, left them alone though marginalized. Though he weakened the religious establishment, outlawed the veil, and built industry and infrastructure, he was not so fanatically anti-Muslim He was anti-imperialist, and when WWII broke out, he was deposed by the British to prevent the shah from sending oil to the Germans. That occupation wrankled, and all the foreign devils, British, Russia, American were given the boot when the war ended.

    It was the Shia ulama of Iran who were the only ulama to resist imperialism,2 supporting the first genuinely independent prime minister, Mossadeq, in 1951 in his effort to kick the British out and take control of the economy. The normally quietist, conservative religious elite had been radicalized despite themselves. When the US moved in to foment a coup in 1953, the invaders were able to get a few religious leaders to bless their scheming, but this blatant imperialist act galvanized all Iranians, and eventually led to the overthrow of the second and last Pahlavi shah in 1979. Newly religious Iran was joined by newly religious Turkey with the coming to power of Recep Erdogan in 2000, who refers to his followers as ‘grandchildren of the Ottomans’. Traditional Sunni-Shia rivals, Turkey and Iran are far from bosom buddies, but the current crisis of the ummah means that differences are put aside.

    The second stumbling block for Muslims was the secular reaction to imperialism, Arab nationalism, now competing with Turkish and Persian nationalisms, fashioned as secular identities, undermining a united Islamic identity, central to the ummah. Egypt’s Nasser and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein are the two most notorious nationalist leaders, who led their countries in a death spiral of violent repression of Islam, corruption and failed military ventures.

    Nationalism was foreign to Muslims, never the defining ideology, and these nationalist movements failed, with chauvinistic Sunni radicals morphing into violent pseudo-Islamic movements – al-Qaeda, ISIS and Islamic State–Khorasan Province.

    With the current US-Israeli genocide of Palestinians, the ummah is coming together again, realizing this is the make-or-break moment for Islam, and that these nationalisms are evaporating in the heat of crisis. Even the perfidious MBS casually announced that there would be no Israeli-Saudi new order until the Palestinians have a real state. The ice is cracking, moving, as Palestine’s spring takes shape out of the Israelis’ ashes and rubble.

    Turkey and Iran had secular capitalism imposed from the top to keep the imperialists at bay. Egypt had a brutal British occupation until the 1950s, creating the same secular capitalism as Turkey and Iran, but then came socialistic dictator Nasser in 1951, injecting a new political element. Sadly, he too refused to acknowledge Islam as the bedrock of society, a more genuinely socialistic way of life, his secular vision collapsing with Israeli invasion, leaving Egypt, the largest Middle East country, far weaker now than either of its two Middle East rivals. The Arab states have all remained puppets of imperialism and remain cool to, even resentful of the new Shia vitality and presence. But the Arab masses support the Shia defiance of US-Israel, despising their Quisling leaders.

    Puppets and fledging actors

    Iran’s revolution in 1979 was bad news for the Saudis, leading to even greater repression of its Shia. Saudi suspicions and fear of Shia have been a terrible ordeal for the 10% of Saudis who are Shia, and a powerful Shia state would naturally push for justice. So instead of making peace with their Shia (and thus, with the new Iran), in the 1980s, Saudi Arabia (and Kuwait) spent $25b (i.e., gave US weapons producers $25b) in support of the brutal, mad thug, Saddam Hussein in the Iran–Iraq War (1980–1988). When Saddam invaded Kuwait, cashing his US-Saudi IOU for sacrificing half million Iraqi Sunnis-Shia to kill a half million Shia Iranians, Saudi Arabia was unhappy. Not only had Saddam failed to crush Shia Iran, his defeat would mean an angry Shia state next door, which could easily invade and overthrow him.

    So King Fahd invited the US forces into the kingdom to invade Iraq and keep the Saudi kingdom as head honcho of the Muslim world. I repeat: King Fahd allowed American and coalition troops to be stationed in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabian forces were involved both in bombing raids on Iraq and in the land invasion that helped to ‘liberate’ Kuwait, the so-called Gulf War (1990-1991). The ummah, the House of Peace, invaded and occupied by the House of War. MBS’s current free and easy secularism makes sense after all, but not for the ummah.

    Why would the US have gone to all the trouble to invade Iraq as part of ‘liberating’ Kuwait, and then leave the (truly odious) dictator Saddam in power? Ask weakling King Fahd, whose fear of a Shia-majority Iraq next door was even greater than his fear of a cowed, murderous Saddam. Pan-Arab nationalism – RIP.

    This enduring Sunni-Shia stand-off is the imperialists’ trump card. All the Arab countries are in varying degrees still US puppets, and persecute their Shia because they, the so-called rulers, are weak and fear the implicit critique of their weakness that the morally uncompromised Shia represent. Nigeria, Bahrain, Indonesia, Malaysia have all driven wedges between Sunnis and Shias when it was politically useful. The Sunni masses, looking for a way out of the imperialist straitjacket but educated to despise Shia, looked not to solidarity with all Muslims to fight the looming imperial enemy, but inward to past Sunni experience, the early four Rightly Guided Caliphs, for their inspiration. They downplay the fact that the finally one was Ali, the inspiration of the Shia as sole legitimate caliph of the whole lot. In the 1980s-1990s, frustrated Sunnis coalesced around radical Saudi Bin Laden and his al-Qaeda, various ISIS caliphate dreamers in central Asia, the Caucasus, Africa, internationally, with an unIslamic jihad condoning mass civilian deaths as a key tactic.

    This element continues to plague the Sunni world, the whole world. It has undermined the efforts to rebuild Iraq after the 2003 invasion. The Ba’thists were outlawed, leaving the minority Sunni with nothing, so they preferred chaos and road bombs, but Shia long-suffering patience grudgingly brought together ‘good’ Sunni and all the Shia to fight the latest (Sunni) terrorists, ISIS et al.

    10/7 was an earthquake, not just for Israel but for Islam, the Sunni-Shia tremors finally syncing on that explosive day, pushing the Sunni establishment into Shia arms. All people of goodwill now rout for the Shia Hezbollah in their battle with Israel to protect the heart and soul of Islam. Paradoxically, this challenge was anticipated by the renewal of relations between the Saudis and Iran in March 2023, anticipating 10/7, an admission that Shia power could not be ignored in the new world order taking shape under China and Russia, quite apart from the central role Iran was now playing in protecting the Palestinians from total annihilation, with the Saudis watching with alarm from the sidelines as their position at the head of the Muslim world was being usurped by events on the ground, including from its own despised 10% Shia, now demanding the same rights as citizens that the Sunnis have.

    Democracy really is the answer

    It’s finally clear: Arab nationalism has been a flop, as has been Pakistan nationalism, where the 20% Shia must constantly fight Sunni chauvinists. Indian nationalism is worse, following the path of Israel, a racist Zionized Hindutva ideology that exclused all Muslims, Sunni or Shia. Sunni chauvinism under imperialism, taking refuge in nationalism, always undermines the ummah, unless the Shia are a sizable minority or majority, and the government is sufficiently representative. I.e., democratic.

    In hindsight, I would argue the road to the liberation of Jerusalem began with Iran’s revoluton in 1979, which put Palestine liberation at the top of its international agenda. The war launched by Iraq was supposed to steamroll through a weakened Iran, as ordered by Saddam’s backers Saudi Arabia, the Soviet Union, the US and Europe. (What a cynical, bizarre coalition!) Ayatollah Khomeini was brilliant and charismatic, but a poor politician, refusing to end the war when Saddam offered, hoping to liberate Iraq, leading to 100,000s more deaths and seriously weakening and tarnishing the revolution. His hubris was immortalized in telling anecdotes. My favorite: Pakistani dictator Zia had urged the shah in 1977 to crack down even harder on the rebels. When Zia met Khomeini as the shah’s successor a few years later, Khomeini merely asked politely for Zulfikar Bhutto’s life (Zia was Bhutto’s successor) to be spared. No dice. On the contrary, Zia advised Khomeini not to tangle with a superpower. Khomeini retorted he would never do such a thing and in fact always relied in the superpower. Ouch! That only made Zia persecute his Shia even more.

    Arab secular states can’t unite when they are headed by dictators like Assad, Nasser, the Jordanian and Saudi king-dictators. Corrupt dictatorships don’t make good allies. The need for democracy is obvious. Iraq hopefully can be the model for Sunni and Shia learning to work together again under a robust electoral democracy. Sunni and Shia lived more or less till Saddam and sons really began their madness.3

    The end of Saddam moved the Shia-Sunni ‘battle lines’ 200 miles west, now running through Baghdad, which was precisely what Gertrude Bell, Saddam and the imperialists had all tried to prevent. History takes its revenge. The chauvinistic Sunni hegemony of the Muslim world is finished. The Sunni hegemons tried to overthrow Khomeini and failed. The same battle took place 12 years later in Iraq and failed again due to Shia patience in the face of Sunni-inspired terror. Thousands of Saudi and Jordanian youth went to Iraq after 2003 to fight the occupation (and looming Shia hegemony) and die, just like they did in their misguided jihad in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Their violent self-sacrifice only digging the Sunni world deeper into a state of humiliation. 85% of ISIS in Syria working alongside the US imperialists are Saudi. They are there solely to fight the ‘sons of al-Alqami’, referring to the Shia vizier when the Mongols razed Baghdad in 1258.

    Now the Sunni are exposed as helpless in the face of Israeli genocide of the Palestinians, are actually helping ‘protect’ US-Israel from Iranian bombs intended for Israel. The Sunni world is humiliated, betraying Islam, kowtowing to not just the US but US-Israel. To defeat (Sunni-inspired) ISIS, the ‘good’ Iraqi Sunnis even had to welcome help from not just Iraq Shias (the army) but also Iran. It is high time to bury the hatchet of envy and suspicion, and join the Shia, if only because they hold the fate of the ummah in their hands.

    The ‘bad’ Sunnis (regime elites) are still supporting the US-led war on terror. Their goal is still to wreck the new, Shia-led Iraqi state and keeping the lid on their own pressure-cookers, looking over their shoulders at the (failed) Arab Spring of 2011. The Sunni elites do US-Israel’s work for it. At the same time, they are angry with the US for complicity in Shia revival, undermining House of Saud, contributing to the decline in its religious legitimacy. MBS’s secular turn is more a parody of soft power, which only undermines (Sunni) Islam. The Saudi treatment of its own Shia mirrors Israeli treatment of Palestinians.4 Sadly, it is only because Palestinians have some shred of legal independence as part of the post-WWII internationally agreed policy of decolonization that this instance of apartheid is being fought openly. Anti-Muslim apartheid is actually alive and well but hidden behind national borders (China, Myanmar).

    What remains of the insurgency in Iraq today is an alliance of Jordanians, Saudis and Iraqi Ba’thists. Syria and Saudi are both ripe for change, with Iraq and Iran as their models, but especially Iraq, with its more open, competitive elections and its large Shia population. The main legacy of the Iraq invasion was to make the Shia case, which means fighting Sunni extremism and terrorism, exposing the US Global War on Terror (GWOT) as a fraud (produced more (Sunni) terror), cementing Shiism as the adult in the room, holding the Islamic faith secure by a string, open to democracy.

    21st century the Shia century?

    This is already happening. Islamic Iran from the start allied with all anti-imperialist countries. Its revolution echoes the idealism of the Russia revolution of 1917, both of which were met by invasions by western powers and/or proxies, and both succeeding against all odds, based very much on ideological zeal for the good of mankind. Both also became authoritarian states, with elections but with limited choice. Iran’s elections are much more credible, and the election of reformers like Khatami and now Pezeshkian show there is room for real public debate. As with all countries victim to US ire, survival trumps all finer nuances, which are put on hold. Show me who your friends are, and I’ll tell you who you are. Iran’s allies are the anti-imperialist good guys.

    In contrast to the Arab states, with their muddled Islamo-nationalisms, which have failed to fashion a Sunni identity independent of imperialism, and which still exclude Shia. A shame that Shia find better allies on the secular left, with largely common political, economic and cultural goals, above all peace. Like the Jews at the heart of Bolshevism, Iraq’s Communist Party was full of Shia intellectuals (e.g., poet Muzaffar al-Nawwab). The Iraqi town Shatra in the Shia south was nicknamed Little Moscow. The Shia have a natural affinity for the secular left, supporting the underdog. The Iraqi Communist Party was reorganized after the Iraq war and its leader Hamid Majid Musa was part of the governing body the US set up. The communists wanted peace as do all communists, Islamic Iran and Iraq want peace (salam) more than anything. Neither the communists nor the ummah were/are aggressive, expansionist. Both offer(ed) a way of life that doesn’t have war built in as its engine. The communist alternative was social/state ownership and planning. The Islamic alternative is a mix of state direction/ownership and limited capitalism. There are no billionaires who aren’t emigres already. That kind of money lust is alien to a devout society or a communist one.

    Iran and Hezbollah are suffering Israel’s truly Satanic war crimes alongside their Palestinian brothers. Meanwhile the Gulf and Saudi sheikh-dictators, the Egyptian no-pretense-dictator, the Jordanian British-installed-king sit on the sidelines cursing the Palestinians for disturbing their sleep. They actually come to Israel’s aid – Egypt and Jordan are official allies of Israel – when Iran tries to hurt poor little Israel, as they already did in April 2024. The US is well aware that the Jordanian and Egyptian masses are very unhappy, but it relies on its local puppet dictators to keep the lid on the pressure-cooker, and is very cautious about exporting one-man-one-vote after its painful and expensive experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq, the former once again Taliban, the latter in league with Iran against the Great Satan, which just happens to include itself, US-Israel. So don’t hold your breath for US pressure to make its dictators relinquish power. 2011 was a close call, not to be repeated.

    As for the Palestinians, they were completely left out of the negotiations about their future following the 1973 Egypt-Israel war. Sold out by (atheist, Sunni) Sadat with an empty promise. The past half century has been unremitting hell for the Palestinians, who were kicked out of Jordan in the 1970s, many ending up in southern Lebanon, living with the Shia there. This is the origins of Musa al-Sadr’s Amal and after his assassination, Hezbollah. This happened during Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982, forging of a new force to confront Israel, which was given a huge boost with the Islamic revolution in Iran. Suddenly there was a ‘Shia crescent’, a genuine quasi-state opposition to Israel that functioned outside the imperial constraints.

    Musa al-Sadr represented the best of the Shia tradition, an activist cleric engaged in the life of his community, unafraid to speak truth to power. He earned a law degree from (shah-era) Tehran university. His Amal militia ran social services and acted as a political organization, a challenge to the fiction of pan-Arab unity and the unyielding reality of Sunni hegemony. Iran’s IRGC was organized by veterans of Amal training camps. Amal represented a political threat to the Arab and Palestinian establishment, and his assassination by Gaddafi was clearly a Sunni move to quash a Shia upstart.5 But he (and Israel’s brutal occupation of Lebanon in the 1980s) inspired the formation Hezbollah, which killed 654 Israeli soldiers in a few years and pushed a humiliated Israel out of Lebanon in 1985.

    ‘Good’ Sunnism is reviving but more in the emigre communities, largely in the US/Canada, Europe, Australia/ New Zealand, where there are now communities of mainstream Sunni and Shia as well as sects (Ismaili, Yazidi, Ahmadiya, Bahai’s). This young, well educated, assertive diaspora radically challenges the Sunnia world, as a new generation of Muslims takes electoral democracy for granted, and were able to gain equal rights as citizens in the ‘House of War’, which meant fight for Palestine against Israel. Effectively the need for young, educated workers to fuel its capitalist machine ended up importing the ‘enemy’ to the heart of imperialism. As these mostly Sunni Muslims spread their message of ‘goodwill to all men’, colonized, persecuted Palestine has gradually gained the edge over colonizer, persecutor Israel. They are joined by a growing community of converts, as people find out about Islam from friendly, law-abiding neighbors. Islam is the fastest growing religion everywhere.

    The Shia are Islam’s ‘wandering Jews’ but without the usury, so they have a presence on all continents, mostly persecuted (or just ignored) by Sunni majorities (but not everywhere). The Sunni too are like the Jews with their world network, a persecuted minority (but not everywhere). In fact, Sunni emigres are free to criticize Israel and their own native Muslim-majority countries in the West, where, say, in Egypt or Pakistan that could land them in jail or worse. As with the Jews, the spread of both Sunni and Shia presence virtually everywhere creates a powerful network for mutual support, to ensure both Shia and Sunni, emigre and domestic, are vital parts of the ummah, all devoted to defending Palestine and liberating Jerusalem. A kind of benign Judaism.6 Democracy brings power to Shia majorities and give voice to minorities, resisting Sunni terrorists. The goal remains the liberation of Jerusalem, but the center of gravity has shifted from Saudi Arabia, Egypt to Iran and Iraq, now stretching from Lebanon and Syria along the Shia axis of resistance.

    The US allies with the pragmatic Sunni dictators, hates, targets Shia, but they are the best defense against real terrorists (Saudi/ Jordanian ‘jihadists’, ISIS, US-Israel). Standing up to tyranny is never popular with tyrants. By overthrowing Saddam, the US unwittingly paved the way for the Shia revival. Ayatollah Sistani brilliantly used the opening to guarantee democratic Shia hegemony in Iraq as a model for a renewed Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, in short, the Muslim ummah. The Iraqi Shia proved that it is possible to work with the US and not compromise. Sistani refused to meet with US officials: Mr Bremer, you are American I am Iranian. Leave it up to the Iraqis to devise their constitution. He challenged US plans to hand power to Allawi, Chalabi. Insisted on one-person, one-vote. When the US refused, he called for large demos over five consecutive days until the US relented.7

    Iraqi Shia abandoned the Iraqi nationalism of Saddam. The renewed nationalism is firmly nonsectarian, uniting the ummah. This is a powerful message to the other Arab states. It is fitting that Palestine has brought the Sunni to the Shia-led defense of Jerusalem. Israel can be defeated only by a united ummah which acts wisely, with restraint, indefatigable. It is also a message to Israel and the Palestinians about inventing a new nationalism based on peace and reconciliation.

    ENDNOTES:

    The post Inconvenient Truths: The Shia Salah al-Din and 10/7 first appeared on Dissident Voice.
    1    To give the US occupiers of Afghanistan 2001–2022, they made sure Afghan Shia, the Hazars, were given full rights in the new constitution, where the state was carefully dubbed Islamic, reflecting the new identity-politics imperialism.
    2    Sunni Sufis resisted imperialism (Algeria, Caucasus) but never the Sunni establishment. Grand Mufti of Egypt Muhammad Abduh (d. 1905) was a westernizing reformer. His legendary friend (Shia) Jamal al-Afghani was anti-imperialist but didn’t manage to do much.
    3    Democracies are not immune from this as Biden’s pathetic defense of his son shows how family concerns can seriously undermine any legacy of good the leader accomplishes.
    4    They have no public voice, all 300 Shia girls’ schools have Sunni headmistresses, they sit on the oil wealth and get only low paid jobs, scholars get their heads chopped off, etc.
    5    Probably out of jealousy, as he saw himself as the savior of Palestine. See Vali Nasr, The Shia Revival, 2006, p 113.
    6    This could be why Israel so detests Iran. Initially, Israel was admired by Iranian intellectuals. Jalāl Āl-e-Ahmad visited Israel in 1962 and recorded his experiences in The Israeli republic (1962). But when he observed the treatment of Palestinians, he soured and Iranians broadly criticized ‘westoxification’, anticipating the revolution’s clear anti-imperialism. Only Iran really ‘gets’ imperialism.
    7    Vali Nasr, op.cit., p175.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Pen used in assault on Manahel al-Otaibi, who has been imprisoned for 11 years for ‘terrorist’ tweets after secret trial

    A Saudi Arabian fitness instructor and influencer has been stabbed in the face in prison after being jailed in January for promoting women’s rights on social media.

    Manahel al-Otaibi, 30, was sentenced to 11 years in prison for “terrorist offences” in a secret trial that generated widespread criticism, with activists saying it showed the “hollowness” of Saudi progress in human rights.

    Continue reading…

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

  • On July 31, Chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau Ismail Haniyeh attended the inauguration of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. Hours later, he was reported killed in an “Israeli strike” along with his bodyguard in Tehran.

    Simultaneously, Israel claimed it had killed senior Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr in an airstrike in Lebanon’s capital, Beirut, and that its intelligence had confirmed that another top Hamas leader Mohammed Deif was also killed in a July 13 Israeli strike in Khan Younis, Gaza.

    The reason the manipulative Zionist regime cunningly plotted to assassinate Ismail Haniyeh during his visit to Iran is two-fold. Firstly, the Islamic Republic over the years has established the reputation of being the torchbearer of the Palestine cause, particularly in the Islamic World.

    While the craven Arab autocracies, under the thumb of duplicitous American masters enabling the Zionist regime’s atrocious genocide of unarmed Palestinians, were pondering over when would be the opportune moment to recognize Israel and establish diplomatic and trade ties, the Iran-led resistance axis, comprising Iraq, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Ansarallah in Yemen, has claimed stellar victories in battlefields against Israel.

    It’s worth pointing out, however, that Hamas’ main patrons are private donors in oil-rich Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Egypt, not Iran, as frequently alleged by the mainstream disinformation campaign. In fact, Hamas as a political movement is the Palestinian offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. And by mainstream media’s own accounts, the Shiite leadership of Iran and Hezbollah weren’t even aware of the Sunni Palestinian liberation movement Hamas’ October 7 assault.

    Secondly, the treacherous murder of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran was clearly designed to inflame the sectarian conflict. Lately, it has become a customary propensity of Orientalist apologists of Western imperialism to offer reductive historical and theological explanations of Sunni-Shi’a conflict in the Middle East region in order to cover up the blowback of ill-conceived Western military interventions and proxy wars that have ignited the flames of internecine conflict in the Islamic world.

    Some self-anointed “Arabists” of the mainstream media posit that the sectarian division goes all the way back to the founding of Islam, 1400 years ago, and contend that the conflict emerged during the reign of the fourth caliph, Ali bin Abi Talib, in the seventh century A.D. Even though both sects of Islam peacefully coexisted during the medieval era in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Mughal India, where several provinces, particularly the glorious State of Awadh, were governed by benevolent Shiite nawabs.

    One wonders what the Western-led war on terror’s explanation would be of such “erudite historians of Islam” – that the cause of purported “clash of civilizations” between Christians and Muslims is to be found in the Crusades when Richard the Lionheart and Saladin were skirmishing in the Levant and exchanging courtesies at the same time.

    Fact of the matter is that in modern times, the Sunni-Shi’a conflict in the Middle East region is essentially a political conflict between the Gulf Arab autocrats and Iran for regional dominance which is being presented to lay Muslims in the veneer of religiosity.

    Saudi Arabia, which has been vying for supremacy as the leader of the Sunni bloc against the Shi’a-led Iran in the regional geopolitics, was staunchly against the invasion of Iraq by the Bush Administration in 2003.

    The Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein constituted a Sunni Arab bulwark against Iran’s meddling in the Arab world. But after Saddam was ousted from power in 2003 and subsequently when elections were held in Iraq which were swept by Shi’a-dominated politico-religious parties, Iraq has now been led by a Shi’a-majority government that has become a steadfast regional ally of Iran. Consequently, Iran’s sphere of influence now extends all the way from territorially-contiguous Iraq and Syria to Lebanon and the Mediterranean coast.

    Moreover, during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Bush Administration took advantage of the ethnic and sectarian divisions in Iraq and used the Kurds and Shi’as against the Sunni-led Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein. And during the occupation years from 2003 to 2011, the once dominant Sunni minority was politically marginalized which further exacerbated ethnic and sectarian divisions in Iraq.

    The Saudi royal family was resentful of Iran’s encroachment on the traditional Arab heartland. Therefore, when protests broke out against the Shia-led Syrian government in the wake of the Arab Spring uprisings of 2011, the Gulf States along, with their regional Sunni allies, Turkey and Jordan, and the Western patrons gradually militarized the protests to dismantle the Iran-led resistance axis, comprising Iraq, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Ansarallah in Yemen.

    Similarly, during the Libyan so-called “humanitarian intervention” in 2011, the Obama administration provided money and arms to myriads of tribal militias and Islamic jihadists to topple the Arab-nationalist Gaddafi government. But after the policy backfired and pushed Libya into lawlessness, anarchy and civil war, the mainstream media pointed the finger at Egypt, UAE, Saudi Arabia and Russia for backing the renegade general, Khalifa Haftar, in eastern Libya, even though he had lived for more than two decades in the US right next to the CIA’s headquarter in Langley, Virginia.

    Regarding the Western powers’ modus operandi of waging proxy wars in the Middle East, since the times of the Soviet-Afghan jihad during the eighties, it has been the fail-safe game plan of master strategists at NATO to raise money from the oil-rich emirates of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE and Kuwait; then buy billions of dollars’ worth of weapons from the arms markets in the Eastern Europe; and then provide those weapons and guerilla warfare training to the disaffected population of the targeted country by using security agencies of the latter’s regional adversaries. Whether it’s Afghanistan, Libya or Syria, the same playbook was executed to the letter.

    More to the point, raising funds for proxy wars from the Gulf Arab States allows Western executives the freedom to evade congressional scrutiny; the benefit of buying weapons from unregulated arms markets of Eastern Europe is that such weapons cannot be traced back to Western capitals; and using jihadist proxies to achieve strategic objectives has the advantage of taking the plea of “plausible deniability” if the strategy backfires, which it often does. Recall that al-Qaeda and Taliban were the by-products of the Soviet-Afghan jihad, and the Islamic State and its global network of terrorists were the blowback of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the proxy war in Syria.

    Apart from Syria and Iraq, two other flashpoints of Sunni-Shi’a conflict in the Middle East region are Bahrain and Yemen. When peaceful protests broke out against the Sunni monarchy in Bahrain by the Shi’a majority population in the wake of the Arab Spring uprisings in 2011, Saudi Arabia sent thousands of troops across the border to quell the uprising.

    Similarly, as the Arab Spring protests toppled longtime dictators of the Arab World, including Ben Ali in Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Yemenis also gathered in the capital’s squares demanding removal of Ali Abdullah Saleh.

    Instead of conceding to protesters’ fervent demand of holding free and fair elections to ascertain democratic aspirations of demonstrators, however, the Obama administration adopted the convenient course of replacing Yemen’s longtime autocrat with a Saudi stooge Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi.

    Having the reputation of a “wily Arabian fox” and being a Houthi himself, Ali Abdullah Saleh wasn’t the one to sit idly by and retire from politics in ignominy. He colluded with the Houthi rebels and incited them to take advantage of the chaos and political vacuum created after the revolution to come out of their northern Saada stronghold and occupy the capital Sanaa in September 2014. How ironic that Ali Abdullah Saleh was eventually killed by Houthis in December 2017 because of his treacherous nature.

    Meanwhile, a change of guard took place in Riyadh as Saudi Arabia’s longtime ruler King Abdullah died and was replaced by King Salman in January 2015, while de facto control of the kingdom fell into hands of inexperienced and belligerent Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman.

    Already furious at the Obama administration for not enforcing its so-called “red line” by imposing a no-fly zone over Syria after the false-flag Ghouta chemical weapons attacks in Damascus in August 2013 and apprehensive of security threat posed to the kingdom from its southern border along Yemen by Houthi rebels under the influence of Iran, the crown prince immediately began a military and air warfare campaign against Houthi rebels with military assistance from the crown prince of Abu Dhabi and de facto ruler of UAE, Mohammad bin Zayed al-Nahyan, in March 2015.

    Mindful of the botched policy it had pursued in Libya and Syria and aware of the catastrophe it had wrought in the Middle East region, the Obama administration had to yield to the dictates of Saudi Arabia and UAE by fully coordinating the Gulf-led military campaign in Yemen not only by providing intelligence, planning and logistical support but also by selling billions of dollars’ worth of arms and ammunition to the Gulf States during the conflict.

    Now, when the fire of inter-sectarian strife is burning on several different fronts in the Middle East and the Sunni and Shi’a communities are witnessing a merciless slaughter of their brethren in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Bahrain, then it would be preposterous to look for the causes of the conflict in theology and medieval history. If the Sunni and Shi’a Muslims were so thirsty for each other’s blood since the founding of Islam, then how come they managed to survive as distinct sectarian groups for 1400 years?

    Fact of the matter is that in modern times, the phenomena of Islamic radicalism, jihadism and consequent Sunni-Shi’a conflict are only as old as the Soviet-Afghan jihad during the 1980s when the Western powers with the help of their regional allies trained and armed Afghan jihadists to battle the Soviet troops in Afghanistan.

    More significantly, however, the Iran-Iraq War from 1980 to 1988 between the Sunni and Baathist-led Iraq and the Shi’a-led Iran after the 1979 Khomeini revolution engendered hostility between the Sunni and Shi’a communities of the region for the first time in modern history.

    And finally, the conflict has been further exacerbated in the wake of the Arab Spring uprisings in 2011 when the Western powers and their regional client states once again took advantage of the opportunity and nurtured militants against the Arab nationalist Gaddafi government in Libya and the Baathist-led Assad administration in Syria.

    The post Was Hamas Leader Killed in Iran to Inflame Sectarian Conflict? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Are you an artist passionate about human rights and social justice? We’re looking for talented creators to develop original art pieces for our 2024 Write for Rights campaign. This is your chance to use your creative skills to fight injustice and show your solidarity with people who are advocating for change. 

    What We’re Looking For

    We are looking for a wide range of artistic expressions, including but not limited to: 

    • Graphic design artwork  
    • Videos of spoken-word art  
    • Musical pieces (vocal, instrumental…etc.)  
    • Videos of dances, skits  
    • Animations  
    • Paintings 
    • Comic Illustrations 

    Project Details

    Objective: Create an original art piece representing a specific Write for Rights case. 
    Compensation: TBD
    Timeline: September 15, 2024 – October 15, 2024
    Submission Deadline: August 30th, 2024 

    How to Apply

    Submit your application including: 

    • A brief introduction of yourself, your artistic background and your interest in social justice  
    • A short proposal outlining:
      • Two Write for Rights cases you are interested in working on and why  
      • A short description of your artistic vision for the piece  
    • A portfolio or samples of your previous work

    Send your applications to writeforrights@amnesty.ca by August 30th, 2024. 

    Don’t miss this chance to make a global impact with your art. Join us in advocating for human rights through powerful, creative expression. 


    Write for Rights Cases

    Manahel al-Otaibi (Saudi Arabia) 

    Manahel al-Otaibi is a fitness instructor and a brave outspoken advocate for women’s rights in Saudi Arabia. In November 2022, she was arrested after posting to Snapchat photos of herself at a shopping mall. In the photos, she was not wearing the traditional long-sleeved loose robe known as an abaya. Manahel has been sentenced to 11 years in prison.

    Wet’suwet’en Nation Land Defenders (Canada)  

    The Wetʼsuwetʼen Nation are deeply connected to their ancestral lands, but this is threatened by the construction of a fossil fuel pipeline through their territory. Their Hereditary Chiefs did not consent to this construction. Land defenders have been charged for blocking pipeline construction sites, even though these sites are on their ancestral lands. They could face prison and a criminal record. 

    Maryia Kalesnikava (Belarus) 

    Political activist Maryia Kalesnikava dared to challenge the repressive Belarus government. On 7 September 2020, Maryia was abducted by the Belarus authorities. She was taken to the border where she resisted deportation by tearing up her passport. She was detained and later sentenced to 11 years in prison on false charges. Maryia’s family haven’t heard from her for more than a year. 

    Floraine Irangabiye (Burundi) 

    Floriane Irangabiye is a mother, journalist, and human rights defender from Burundi. In 2010 she relocated to Rwanda where she co-founded a radio station for exiled Burundian voices. In August 2022 she was arrested while visiting family in Burundi. In January 2023 she was sentenced to 10 years in prison for “undermining the integrity of the national territory”, all for criticizing Burundi’s human rights record.

    Kyung Seok Park (South Korea) 

    Kyung Seok Park is a dedicated disability rights activist. Holding peaceful protests on Seoul’s public transport systems, Kyung Seok Park has drawn attention to how hard it is for people with disabilities to easily access trains and subways safely – denying them the ability to travel to work, school, or to live independently. Kyung Seok Park’s activism has been met with police abuse, public smear campaigns and punitive litigation.   

    https://amnesty.ca/activism-guide/appy-now-w4rs-art/

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

  • The Saudi Arabian brothers Muhammad and Asaad al-Ghamdi have been unlawfully convicted for their peaceful online expression. Muhammad, a 55-year-old retired teacher, was arrested outside his house on 11 July 2022 and was consequently sentenced to death by the Specialized Criminal Court (SCC) a year later. His younger brother Asaad, a 48-year-old teacher, was arrested on 20 November 2022 during an unlawful night raid at his house and was convicted on 29 May 2024 by the same court to 20 years in prison.

    Both brothers were wrongfully convicted under Articles 30, 34, 43, and 44 of Saudi Arabia’s counterterrorism law. They were accused of describing the King in a way that undermines justice, supporting terrorist ideology, communicating with terrorist entities, and publishing false news. These offenses have often been used to suppress freedom of expression in Saudi Arabia and convict innocent dissidents.

    Despite having committed the same “offenses”, the discrepancy in the sentences given is extremely worrying. Their case highlights the prevalence of unfair trials and the skewed justice system in Saudi Arabia. The Crown Prince, Muhammad bin Salman, has expressed his disapproval of Muhammad al-Ghamdi’s sentencing, claiming that he is a “victim of bad laws”. This raised many criticisms as the Crown Prince allowed the same laws to be used to sentence Asaad al-Ghamdi. Despite his claims that he is trying to change the laws, reports state that under his rule there has been a crackdown on freedom of expression and an increased sentencing of the death penalty.

    Their unfair treatment goes beyond their unlawful convictions. Asaad was not told the reason for his arrest for over 10 months and was denied a lawyer during that period. Moreover, he also spent approximately 3 of those months in solitary confinement. As for Muhammad, his appointed lawyer did not attend any of the interrogations between December 2022 and March 2023, nor did he use the medical reports of Muhammad’s diagnosed mental health conditions in the trial, which could have lessened his sentence. It is evident that due process has not been followed in his case, especially given that he has not been notified whether he is allowed to appeal, or even the date of his execution.

    Dr Saeed al-Ghamdi, a UK-based exiled government critic and brother of Muhammad and Asaad, believes that these severe penalties are a way to threaten dissidents abroad such as himself. He stated that the Saudi government had repeatedly asked him to return to Saudi Arabia, which he refused, and thus sentencing his brothers in such a way was an act of retaliation. This speculation is in line with the government’s previous attempts to silence dissidents, even those out of the country.

    The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has recognized the injustice of Muhammad’s sentence by highlighting the arbitrary nature of it. The members have also stated that his detention is a violation of Saudi Arabia’s obligations under international law. More specifically, that his social media activity should be protected under his right to freedom of expression, and that it should not be considered an attempt to overthrow the government as the SCC wrongfully asserted. The Working Group also highlighted that he was not given a fair trial, which is in breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Nelson Mandela Rules – the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners.

    The sentences of the al-Ghamdi brothers are part of Saudi Arabia’s violent attempt to silence dissidents. Saudi Arabia must revisit its counterterrorism law so that peaceful protests and freedom of expression are not equated with terrorism and are not punishable by law. Moreover, authorities should ensure that the sentences reflect the offenses more appropriately to ensure that overly severe punishments are not given. As part of this, the death penalty must be abolished, especially for lesser offenses and certainly for non-crimes such as expressing one’s opinion. The state must commit to guaranteeing fair trials to all and releasing Muhammad and Asaad al-Ghamdi.

    The post Muhammad and Asaad al-Ghamdi: The Innocent Brothers’ Unlawful Convictions appeared first on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.

    This post was originally published on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.

  • 1.1. The legislative framework

    In Saudi Arabia, online expression is heavily restricted by a combination of laws, regulations, and enforcement practices that aim to control the flow of information and suppress dissent. The government employs various mechanisms to monitor and censor online content, targeting individuals and platforms that challenge its authority or promote views deemed contrary to the state’s interests. The restrictive legal framework in Saudi Arabia is anchored by several key pieces of legislation that collectively stifle online expression. The Anti-Cyber Crime Law, the Anti-Terrorism Law, and the Press and Publications Law are among the most significant. These laws grant the government extensive powers to control digital content, often under broad and vaguely defined provisions that can be easily interpreted to justify the suppression of dissent. Collectively, the legislative framework creates a hostile environment for freedom of speech and democratic discourse in Saudi Arabia. The vague and overly broad language of the legislation provides authorities with ample discretion to target individuals who express dissenting opinions or challenge the status quo. The fear of reprisals and harsh penalties leads many individuals to self-censor or avoid discussing sensitive topics online, undermining efforts to foster open debate, accountability, and social progress.

    Several key laws regulate online content in Saudi Arabia, including the Anti-Cyber Crime Law, the Anti-Terrorism Law, and the Press and Publications Law. These laws are often interpreted broadly to criminalize dissent and restrict freedom of expression:

    –   Anti-Cyber Crime Law:  Enacted in 2007, the Anti-Cyber Crime Law[3] was introduced to combat cybercrimes such as hacking, identity theft, and online fraud. However, it contains provisions that grant authorities broad powers to monitor, censor, and prosecute individuals for expressing dissenting opinions or sharing content deemed offensive or subversive. Article 6 of the law, for example, criminalizes the production, preparation, transmission, or storage of material that violates public order, religious values, or public morals. This vague and overly broad language is often used to target activists, journalists, and social media users who criticize the government or advocate for political or social change.

    –   Anti-Terrorism Law: The Anti-Terrorism Law, enacted in 2014, includes provisions that define terrorism broadly and give authorities sweeping powers to crack down on perceived threats to national security[4]. The law has been used to target individuals and groups engaged in peaceful dissent or activism, including human rights defenders, journalists, and religious minorities. Under the purpose of combating terrorism, the government has arrested and prosecuted individuals for expressing dissenting opinions online, sharing critical content, or participating in protests. In November 2017, a new antiterrorism law was enacted, featuring expansive definitions of terrorist acts. Under this legislation, individuals face criminal penalties ranging from 5 to 10 years’ imprisonment for depicting the king or crown prince, directly or indirectly, “in a manner that brings religion or justice into disrepute.” Moreover, using one’s “social status or media influence to promote terrorism” can result in a 15-year sentence[5]. Originally established in 2008 to handle terrorism cases, the Specialized Criminal Court (SCC) has been widely utilized to incarcerate human rights activists and defenders. International rights organizations have criticized the antiterrorism law for its ambiguity and its deviation from international human rights standards. These groups argue that the law suppresses criticism and dissent by means of prosecution and the threat of arrest and detention.

    –   Press and Publications Law: Originally introduced to regulate traditional media outlets, the Press and Publications Law was extended in 2011 to cover online content as well. The law requires all online publishers, including bloggers and social media influencers, to obtain a license from the government. It also imposes strict controls on the dissemination of news and information, prohibiting the publication of anything that could harm public order, religious values, public morals, and the safety and security of the state[6]. This broad censorship authority allows the government to suppress critical reporting and dissenting voices, stifling independent journalism and free expression online.

    1.2. The Role of Social Media Platforms

    Social media platforms play a significant role in shaping digital rights discourse in Saudi Arabia. While they provide a space for individuals to express themselves and mobilize for social causes, they are also subject to government oversight and censorship. Platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube are commonly used by activists and human rights defenders to raise awareness of issues and advocate for change, but they are also vulnerable to censorship and harassment. Social media companies themselves play a dual role in the digital rights discourse. On one hand, they provide platforms that facilitate free expression and the mobilization of social movements. On the other hand, they are often complicit in government censorship and surveillance efforts. Social media companies have been criticized for complying with government requests to remove content or share user data, sometimes without adequate transparency or due process. This compliance raises significant ethical questions about the responsibility of social media companies to protect user rights and uphold freedom of expression. The dynamics between social media platforms, government oversight, and user activism profoundly impact public discourse in Saudi Arabia. While social media enables unprecedented levels of connectivity and information sharing, the pervasive threat of censorship and repression limits the scope of open debate. Many users self-censor to avoid potential repercussions, leading to a constrained public sphere where critical voices are often silenced or marginalized.

    The Saudi government tightly controls news outlets across all mediums, including digital platforms, and uses various online tactics to create an illusion of popular support for its policies. Critics believe the government employs an “electronic army” to promote pro government views, especially on social media. These trolls use “hashtag poisoning” to disseminate popular hashtags with unrelated or opposing posts, disrupting criticism. According to a report by the University of Oxford’s Computational Propaganda Research Project[7], Saudi Arabia is one of seven countries identified by Facebook and Twitter for using these platforms to influence global audiences. In addition, the Saudi government has invested in online outlets to promote its narrative, partnering with foreign news organizations like Bloomberg and the Independent[8]. In 2019, Facebook removed several hundred government-linked pages involved in influence campaigns, and Twitter blocked tens of thousands of accounts amplifying pro government messages[9].

    The role of social media in Saudi Arabia also has broader implications for digital rights in the region and globally. Despite their potential for empowerment, social media platforms in Saudi Arabia operate under strict government oversight. Authorities monitor these platforms closely, using sophisticated technologies and human resources to track and censor content and suppress dissent. This includes removing posts deemed objectionable, blocking accounts, and even shutting down entire platforms during critical moments. The government exercises pressure on social media companies to comply with local laws and regulations, often requiring them to provide data on users or take down specific content.

    1.3. Digital Violence Against Human Rights Defenders and Saudi Government’s Surveillance

    Human rights defenders and activists in Saudi Arabia face significant risks of digital violence, including online harassment, surveillance, and cyberattacks. State-sponsored actors and anonymous trolls often target activists with smear campaigns, threats, and intimidation tactics to silence dissent and deter others from speaking out. Such attacks not only undermine the work of human rights defenders but also create a climate of fear and self-censorship.

    The Saudi government employs sophisticated surveillance technologies to monitor the digital activities of human rights defenders. This includes hacking into personal devices to gather information, intercepting communications, and installing spyware. Authorities regularly monitor websites, blogs, chat rooms, social media, emails, and text messages. After lifting the ban on online voice and video call services in September 2017, the government announced that all calls would be monitored and censored[10]. The country has heavily invested in advanced surveillance systems. Citizen Lab reported that spyware from the Israeli firm NSO Group has been used to target activists and dissidents in Saudi Arabia. In December 2021, Citizen Lab noted that Saudi authorities likely switched from NSO’s Pegasus spyware[11] to Predator spyware from Cytrox[12], a North Macedonia-based developer[13]. Meta also indicated that Cytrox spyware is likely used by Saudi entities[14]. These measures not only violate privacy but also create a pervasive atmosphere of fear.

    Doxxing is another prevalent form of digital violence, where personal information such as home addresses, phone numbers, and private communications are published online without consent. This exposes human rights defenders to physical threats and harassment, further endangering their safety and that of their families. The exposure of private information is intended to intimidate and silence activists by making them vulnerable to both state and non-state actors. Pro-government trolls and bot networks often engage in coordinated online attacks to overwhelm and intimidate human rights defenders. These coordinated efforts flood social media with abusive messages, false accusations, and propaganda, making it difficult for activists to maintain a presence online. The scale and intensity of these attacks can lead to psychological distress and burnout among defenders, reducing their capacity to continue their work.

    Notably, online gender-based violence[15] is a significant issue, particularly for women human rights defenders who challenge societal norms and advocate for gender equality and human rights. Women activists in Saudi Arabia frequently receive threats of physical and sexual violence. These threats can be explicit, such as threats of rape or physical assault, or more implicit, suggesting potential harm to the individual or their family members. Such threats create a climate of fear and discourage women from participating in online activism. Moreover, smear campaigns are used as coordinated efforts to damage an individual’s reputation by spreading false or misleading information about them. Women activists are often targeted with rumors and defamatory content intended to discredit their work and undermine their credibility. OGBV has a significant silencing effect on women activists. Fear of harassment and violence leads many women to self-censor, avoiding discussing controversial topics or participating in public debates. It refrains other women from engaging in activism or public life and discourages women activists from speaking out or participating in advocacy efforts, further marginalizing their voices in public discourse. To combat OGBV effectively, legal reforms are necessary to provide stronger protections for women online. This includes enacting specific laws that criminalize online harassment, threats, and doxxing, and ensuring that these laws are enforced fairly and consistently.

    1.4. Impact on Freedom of Speech and Democratic Discourse

    The pervasive threat of digital violence inevitably affects the freedom of speech in Saudi Arabia. The country has been ranked 170th out of 180 countries in the 2023 World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders[16], reflecting the severe restrictions on freedom of expression and press freedom. As well, Freedom House’s “Freedom on the Net 2022” report rated Saudi Arabia as “Not Free,” with a score of 24 out of 100[17]. The report highlighted extensive government surveillance, censorship, and harassment of online users. In many cases, activists are arrested and charged under broad laws such as the Anti-Cyber Crime Law or the Anti-Terrorism Law, based on their social media activities. High-profile cases, such as those of Raif Badawi and Loujain al-Hathloul, demonstrate the severe consequences that can result from online dissent. Fear of reprisal leads many individuals to self-censor, avoiding the discussion of sensitive topics or criticism of the government online[18]. The limitation of public debate prevents the emergence of a civil society and undermines the development of democratic processes.

    1. Notable Cases

    In the realm of digital rights advocacy, several high-profile cases have garnered international attention, shedding light on the challenges and threats faced by individuals exercising their rights in the digital sphere. Here, we delve into three notable cases from Saudi Arabia, each highlighting different aspects of digital rights violations and their broader implications.

    2.1. Jamal Khashoggi’s case: Analysis of the assassination and its implications on digital rights

    Jamal Khashoggi, a prominent Saudi journalist and former advisor to the royal family, dedicated his career to reporting on sensitive political issues and advocating for reform in Saudi Arabia[22]. As a columnist for The Washington Post, Khashoggi fearlessly criticized the Saudi government’s policies, particularly its human rights record and military intervention in Yemen. However, his vocal opposition to the government made him a target of Saudi authorities. In October 2018, Khashoggi entered the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, to obtain documents for his upcoming marriage. Tragically, he never exited the consulate alive. Investigations later revealed that Khashoggi was brutally murdered by a team of Saudi agents who had flown in from Riyadh. The assassination, widely believed to have been ordered by high-ranking Saudi officials, lighted up a diplomatic crisis around the world[23]. The case of Jamal Khashoggi highlights the dangers faced by journalists and dissenters in the digital age. Khashoggi’s use of online platforms to express his views made him a target of digital surveillance, ultimately leading to his tragic demise. His assassination highlights the risks journalists and activists face when speaking truth to power in repressive regimes.

    2.2.Raif Badawi’s case: Examination of the blogger’s imprisonment for online expression

    Raif Badawi, a Saudi blogger and founder of the Free Saudi Liberals website, used his online platform to advocate for secularism, freedom of speech, and human rights in Saudi Arabia. Through his writings, Badawi challenged religious orthodoxy and called for political reform in a country known for its strict censorship laws. However, his activism caught the attention of Saudi authorities. In 2012, Badawi was arrested on charges of “insulting Islam” and “apostasy,” crimes punishable by severe penalties under Saudi law. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to ten years in prison, as well as 1,000 lashes, a punishment that drew condemnation from human rights organizations worldwide[24].  Amnesty International reported that Badawi received his first 50 lashes in January 2015, an act that sparked global outrage and protests. According to Amnesty, the punishment was intended to be carried out over 20 weeks, but subsequent lashings were postponed due to international pressure and concerns about Badawi’s health[25]. The harsh punishment and conditions of Badawi’s imprisonment have led to severe physical and psychological suffering, underscoring the Saudi government’s ruthless approach to silencing dissent. Despite international pressure and campaigns calling for his release, Badawi remains imprisoned, enduring harsh conditions and physical abuse. Raif Badawi’s case illustrates the Saudi government’s crackdown on online dissent and the suppression of freedom of expression. His story highlights the risks activists face when using digital platforms to challenge authoritarian regimes and advocate for democratic reforms. Moreover, his continued imprisonment serves as a reminder of the ongoing struggle for human rights in Saudi Arabia.

    2.3.Samar Badawi and Loujain Al-Hathloul’s cases: the arrest of the women’s rights activists for their online exposure

    Samar Badawi and Loujain Al-Hathloul, two prominent women’s rights activists in Saudi Arabia, have been instrumental in advocating for gender equality and civil liberties in the kingdom. Their efforts, both online and offline, have challenged discriminatory laws and societal norms, aiming to bring about significant reforms that enhance women’s rights and empower marginalized communities. Samar Badawi, a recipient of the U.S. State Department’s International Women of Courage Award, has long been a vocal advocate for women’s rights in Saudi Arabia. Through her online activism and advocacy work, she has addressed issues such as the guardianship system and the right to drive, advocating for gender equality and greater freedoms for women. However, her outspokenness made her a target for the Saudi authorities. In 2018, Samar Badawi was arrested by Saudi authorities on charges of “promoting women’s rights” and “contacting foreign entities.” This arrest became relevant among the human rights community and highlighted the Saudi government’s determination to silence dissent, particularly among women activists. In June 2021, Badawi was released after she served a three years’ sentence. Her case underscored the risks faced by individuals who use digital platforms to amplify marginalized voices and challenge societal norms.

    Similarly, Loujain Al-Hathloul, renowned for her activism against the female driving ban in Saudi Arabia, has faced relentless persecution for her advocacy work. Al-Hathloul’s efforts to challenge gender norms and promote women’s rights through online activism garnered both admiration and scrutiny from the Saudi authorities[26]. Her activism began gaining significant attention in 2014 when she attempted to drive into Saudi Arabia from the United Arab Emirates, openly defying the ban. She live-streamed her action, drawing widespread attention and international support. However, this act of defiance led to her arrest and a 73-day detention, marking the beginning of a series of state reprisals against her. In 2018, she was detained and subjected to arbitrary detention, alleged torture, and solitary confinement, signaling the Saudi government’s suppression of dissent. During her detention, Al-Hathloul faced severe mistreatment. Reports from her family and human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, allege that she was subjected to torture, including electric shocks, flogging, and sexual harassment, during interrogation sessions. She was also held in solitary confinement for extended periods, which is considered a form of psychological torture. Al-Hathloul was charged with various offenses, including attempting to destabilize the kingdom, working with foreign entities to harm national security, and advancing a foreign agenda. In December 2020, she was sentenced to nearly six years in prison by Saudi Arabia’s Specialized Criminal Court, which handles terrorism-related cases. This court is often criticized for its lack of independence and the harsh sentences it imposes on activists and dissenters. Despite her release on probation in February 2021, Al-Hathloul remains under strict travel restrictions and a suspended sentence that could see her re-imprisoned at any time if she engages in further activism[27].

    The cases of Samar Badawi and Loujain Al-Hathloul serve as reminders of the dangers faced by women activists in Saudi Arabia, particularly those who engage in digital activism. Their stories highlight the gendered nature of online repression, with women activists facing heightened risks and scrutiny for their advocacy work. These cases underscore the urgent need for greater international attention and solidarity in support of women’s rights defenders and digital activists in Saudi Arabia.

    1. International community, Challenges and Recommendations

    The international community has consistently applied pressure on Saudi Arabia to reform its digital policies, particularly regarding surveillance, censorship, and human rights abuses. Organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Citizen Lab have documented and condemned the misuse of surveillance technology against activists, journalists, and political dissidents. This global scrutiny has heightened awareness and fostered calls for accountability, which has led to some policy changes and encouraged greater transparency. Nevertheless, significant challenges remain in improving digital rights within the kingdom. The Saudi government’s entrenched commitment to maintaining strict control over information flow and surveillance presents a considerable obstacle. Authorities often justify extensive monitoring and censorship as vital for national security and social stability. This resistance to change is deeply rooted in the political and social fabric of the country, making substantial reforms difficult to achieve. Alongside, the rapid development and deployment of sophisticated surveillance technologies by firms like NSO Group and Cytrox pose ongoing challenges. These tools provide extensive monitoring capabilities that are difficult to counter with existing regulatory frameworks.

    Moreover, Saudi Arabia’s legal system lacks comprehensive protections for digital rights, making it difficult to safeguard privacy and freedom of expression. The absence of independent judicial oversight exacerbates the situation, as there are few checks and balances to prevent abuse of surveillance powers. Current laws are often broadly interpreted to justify actions against dissent, leaving little room for legal recourse. Last, cultural norms and social expectations in Saudi Arabia can also impede efforts to enhance digital rights. Traditional views on authority and dissent, coupled with limited public awareness of digital privacy issues, create an environment where government surveillance is more readily accepted or overlooked.

    The following recommendations aim to address these challenges by leveraging international collaboration, legal reforms, technological safeguards, and educational initiatives. By implementing these measures, Saudi Arabia can foster a more secure, informed, and empowered digital society.

    1. Adopt International Standards: Align national laws and practices with international standards and guidelines on digital rights and privacy, such as those established by the United Nations and the European Union.
    2. Establish Comprehensive Digital Rights Legislation: Enact laws that explicitly protect digital privacy, freedom of expression, and data security. These laws should include clear definitions and provisions that limit government surveillance and ensure judicial oversight.
    1. Encouraging Corporate Responsibility: Technology companies supplying surveillance tools should be encouraged or compelled to adopt rigorous human rights policies.
    1. Promoting Digital Literacy: Implement nationwide programs to enhance digital literacy among citizens. This includes educating individuals on the importance of digital privacy, recognizing online threats, and understanding how to use technology safely and responsibly. Digital literacy curriculums should be integrated into the education system from an early age, emphasizing critical thinking and safe online practices.
    2. Creating Safe Online Spaces: Establish safe online platforms and forums where citizens can learn about digital rights, share experiences, and seek advice without fear of surveillance or reprisal. These platforms can be moderated by trusted organizations to ensure they remain secure and supportive.
    3. Safeguarding Journalistic Freedom: Ensure protections for journalists and media outlets to operate freely without fear of retribution. This includes decriminalizing defamation and other speech-related offenses that are often used to silence dissent.

    [1]Economy Middle East. (2023). Saudi Arabia internet penetration reaches record high. Economy Middle East. https://economymiddleeast.com/news/saudi-arabia-internet-penetration-reaches-report/#:~:text=The%20report%20reveals%20that%20a,universal%20access%20across%20its%20population?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss

    [2] Context News. (2023). Saudi surveillance city: Would you sell your data to The Line? Context News. https://www.context.news/digital-rights/saudi-surveillance-city-would-you-sell-your-data-to-the-line?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss

    [3] Bureau of Experts at the Council of Ministers. (n.d.). Law details. Bureau of Experts at the Council of Ministers. https://laws.boe.gov.sa/BoeLaws/Laws/LawDetails/25df73d6-0f49-4dc5-b010-a9a700f2ec1d/2?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss

    [4]Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB). (n.d.). Mapping the Saudi state: Human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia. United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/RuleOfLaw/NegativeEffectsTerrorism/ADHRB.pdf?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss

    [5] Human Rights Watch. (2017, November 23). Saudi Arabia: New counterterrorism law enables abuse. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/11/23/saudi-arabia-new-counterterrorism-law-enables-abuse?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss

    [6] U.S. Department of State. (2023). 2022 Report on international religious freedom: Saudi Arabia. U.S. Embassy & Consulates in Saudi Arabia. https://sa.usembassy.gov/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom-for-saudi-arabia/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss

    [7] Oxford Internet Institute. (2019). CyberTroop Report 2019. Retrieved from https://demtech.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2019/09/CyberTroop-Report19.pdf?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss

    [8] New York Times. (2018, October 20). Saudi Arabia’s clout in Washington is being questioned. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/20/us/politics/saudi-image-campaign-twitter.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss

    [9] Facebook. (2019, August 1). Removing Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior From UAE, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Facebook Newsroom. Retrieved from https://about.fb.com/news/2019/08/cib-uae-egypt-saudi-arabia/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss

    [10] Reuters. (2017, September 21). Saudi lifting ban on Skype, WhatsApp calls, but will monitor them. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-telecoms-ban/saudi-lifting-ban-on-skype-whatsapp-calls-but-will-monitor-them-idUSKCN1BW12L?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss

    [11] Pegasus spyware, developed by the Israeli cyber-intelligence firm NSO Group, is a sophisticated tool designed for covert surveillance. Established in 2010, NSO Group created Pegasus to enable government agencies and law enforcement to monitor and extract data from mobile devices.

    [12] Similar to NSO Group’s Pegasus, Cytrox spyware is designed for covert monitoring and data extraction from mobile devices.

    [13] Citizen Lab. (2021, December 14). Pegasus vs. Predator: Dissidents Doubly Infected iPhone Reveals Cytrox Mercenary Spyware. Retrieved from https://citizenlab.ca/2021/12/pegasus-vs-predator-dissidents-doubly-infected-iphone-reveals-cytrox-mercenary-spyware/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss

    [14] Facebook. (2021). Threat Report on the Surveillance-for-Hire Industry. Retrieved from https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Threat-Report-on-the-Surveillance-for-Hire-Industry.pdf?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss

    [15] Online Gender-Based Violence refers to harmful behaviors directed at individuals based on their gender, facilitated through digital platforms and communication technologies. This form of violence includes harassment, threats, stalking, and exploitation, and it disproportionately affects women and gender minorities.

    [16] Reporters Without Borders. (n.d.). Saudi Arabia. Retrieved from https://rsf.org/en/country/saudi-arabia?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss

    [17] Freedom House. (2022). Saudi Arabia. Freedom on the Net 2022. Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/country/saudi-arabia/freedom-net/2022?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss

    [18] Reporters Without Borders. (2023, April 20). RSF issues warning about Saudi Arabia’s press freedom index ranking. Reporters Without Borders. Retrieved from https://rsf.org/en/rsf-issues-warning-about-saudi-arabias-press-freedom-index-ranking?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss

    [19] Hoffmann, Amanda, and Emily J. Knox. “The Role of Digital Literacy in Advocacy for Intellectual Freedom.” The Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy, vol. 90, no. 4, 2020, pp. 372–386.

    [20] Saudi Arabia Vision 2030. (n.d.). Home. Retrieved from https://www.vision2030.gov.sa/en/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss

    [21] DataReportal. (2024). Digital 2024: Saudi Arabia. Retrieved from https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2024-saudi-arabia?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss

    [22] Amnesty International. (2023, September 21). Saudi Arabia: Still no justice for state-sanctioned murder of Jamal Khashoggi five years on. Amnesty International. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/09/saudi-arabia-still-no-justice-for-state-sanctioned-murder-of-jamal-khashoggi-five-years-on/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss

    [23] Washington Post. (2018, December 21). Jamal Khashoggi’s final months: An exile in the long shadow of Saudi Arabia. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/jamal-khashoggis-final-months-an-exile-in-the-long-shadow-of-saudi-arabia/2018/12/21/d6fc68c2-0476-11e9-b6a9-0aa5c2fcc9e4_story.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss

    [24] Amnesty International. (2015, June 7). Saudi Arabia: Raif Badawi sentence a “dark day” for free speech. Amnesty International. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/06/saudi-arabia-raif-badawi-sentence-dark-day/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss

    [25] Amnesty International. (2016, January 6). Saudi Arabia: A year of bloody repression since flogging of Raif Badawi. Amnesty International. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/01/saudi-arabia-a-year-of-bloody-repression-since-flogging-of-raif-badawi-2/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss

    [26] Amnesty International. (2018, June 6). Saudi Arabia: Release women human rights defenders. Amnesty International. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/06/saudi-arabia-release-women-human-rights-defenders/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss

    [27] Human Rights Watch. (2021, February 10). Saudi Arabia: Prominent women’s rights activist released. Human Rights Watch. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/02/10/saudi-arabia-prominent-womens-rights-activist-released?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss

    The post Suppression of Online Expression in Saudi Arabia appeared first on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.

    This post was originally published on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.

  • With the global rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI), countries have increasingly adopted regulations to restrict the use of this new technology, exemplified by the AI Act in the European Union. In contrast, Gulf governments have taken a more business-friendly approach to AI regulation, raising concerns about potential breaches of their populations’ privacy rights. Notably, Saudi Arabia has sought to create an attractive environment for data and AI businesses and has so far avoided implementing binding regulations.

    Saudi Arabia has invested heavily in AI as part of its Vision 2030 initiative and plans to integrate various AI technologies into its futuristic city-building project, Neom. These intentions raise significant concerns about potential human rights abuses by the Saudi government involving the use of AI, such as ChatGPT, the artificial intelligence language model making international headlines. These concerns are not limited to AI but extend to the misuse of a broader range of digital technologies. Recent high-profile cases involving Saudi Arabia include the use of digital technologies to spy on dissidents and their families overseas, as well as attempts to infiltrate Twitter to identify government opponents using anonymous accounts. Thus, AI presents yet another opportunity for the Saudi government to infringe on people’s most basic rights to privacy through surveillance and manipulation, exacerbating existing injustices.

    These concerns would be less severe if the Saudi government introduced rules to regulate AI. However, the kingdom has only issued guidelines for AI use, without enforcing any legally binding regulations. This absence of strict regulations means that the Saudi government could potentially violate international human rights laws and standards on privacy without breaching its own laws. Given Saudi Arabia’s tendency to disregard the international right to privacy with its current digital technology, this situation poses significant risks for the future of not only the Saudi population but also any person visiting their future mega city, Neom.

    To address these concerns, it is crucial for the international community to take action. Governments and international organizations should apply pressure on Saudi Arabia to implement comprehensive and binding AI regulations. Such regulations should ensure the protection of human rights and privacy, adhering to international standards. Additionally, countries should collaborate on establishing a global framework for AI governance that promotes ethical use and prevents abuses.

    Furthermore, multinational corporations and AI developers should be encouraged to adopt ethical guidelines and refuse to participate in projects that could lead to human rights violations. By fostering a culture of accountability and ethical responsibility, the international community can mitigate the risks associated with the misuse of AI technologies.

    The post AI Regulation in Saudi Arabia: Innovation over Human Rights appeared first on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.

    This post was originally published on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.

  • The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is an important tool to keep states accountable, combat impunity for human rights violations, and promote open dialogue on human rights issues. Nevertheless, states such as Saudi Arabia notoriously do not follow through on their promises to implement recommendations, a fact that many at Saudi Arabia’s fourth Universal Periodic Review consideration meeting emphasized. This meeting was held on Thursday 4 July 2024, as part of the Human Rights Council’s 56th regular session. The meeting ended with the unanimous adoption of the outcome of the UPR of Saudi Arabia.

    The country received 354 recommendations from 135 states. The president of the Saudi Human Rights Commission (HRC), Dr. Hala bint Mazyed Al-Tuwaijri, claims that they have accepted more than 80% of these recommendations, and specified that 273 were accepted, 12 partially accepted with clarifications, and 69 were noted. She also emphasized that 97% of those regarding women were accepted. Although these statistics may appear reassuring, it is important to remember that many of the recommendations from Saudi’s third periodic review in 2018 remain either partly or not at all implemented. Therefore, these empty promises mean nothing until they are accompanied by concrete action.

    There was a clear division between the remarks from nation-states and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Representatives from Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, and Jordan, to name a few, all commended the country’s efforts. It should be pointed out that all these countries submitted recommendations that did not address Saudi’s human rights violations. Even the wording of their recommendations, most of which started with “continue” rather than more proactive terms such as “strengthen”, “adopt”, or “abolish” as used by other states, showcases a weak attempt to hold the country accountable for its wrongdoing.

    On the other hand, representatives from NGOs such as Human Rights Watch were a lot more vocal about their views on Saudi Arabia’s human rights violations. The speaker of the organization rightfully said that Saudi authorities continue to infringe on the human rights of its people and that the limited reforms thus far are inadequate. They also underlined that there is no credible accountability for the crimes against humanity committed by the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, which ECDHR also agrees with. Despite these being well-known facts, impunity prevails and tools such as the UPR appear to not do enough to change the situation.

    It has not gone unnoticed that, despite the 80% acceptance rate, key recommendations were rejected. One of which is Belgium’s recommendation (number 43.65) on refraining from reprisals against human rights defenders with interaction with UN human rights mechanisms. Saudi Arabia is condemning innocent people for using mechanisms that have been specifically set up to protect their rights. This is a common tactic used to silence dissidents and hide the state’s abuses.

    Issues of transparency and accountability were also brought up. The International Federation for Human Rights (IFHR), rightly, demanded that the Saudi Human Rights Commission abide by the Paris Principles. Moreover, the Amnesty International representative spoke on Saudi’s proven lack of engagement with the demands of the international community, highlighting that despite its alleged acceptance of the recommendations on women’s rights, the male guardianship system remains unfortunately strong. This shows that there is a lack of dedication from the Saudi HRC and the state to follow through on its commitments.

    The need to abolish the cybercrime and counter-terrorism law was also addressed, including by Amnesty International and The Gulf Center for Human Rights. Amnesty International rightfully requested for the release of human rights defenders who have been unlawfully detained for simply exercising their right to freedom of expression. The president of HRC stated that the laws were in line with international standards and that the presumption of innocence is always applied. This is evidently not the case as innocent activists are continuously detained without real justifications.

    Many NGOs, including The Gulf Center for Human Rights and The Advocates for Human Rights, raised the issue of the unlawful use of the death penalty. The representative of The Advocates for Human Rights highlighted the continued use of the death penalty on minors, which the president of the Saudi HRC claimed does not happen despite the evidence clearly showing otherwise.

    Saudi Arabia’s UPR report consideration meeting allowed NGOs around the world to speak out about the human rights violations occurring and try to hold the country accountable. Unfortunately, Dr. Hala bint Mazyed Al-Tuwaijri appeared set in the fact that Saudi Arabia had already addressed many of the issues discussed. ADHRB calls on Saudi Arabia to take its commitments under the UPR seriously and take accountability for its violations. Additionally, we call on other human rights organizations to keep advocating for much-needed systemic change in the country so that its people can have their human rights respected as they deserve.

    The post Saudi Arabia’s Universal Periodic Review at the Human Rights Council: the Truth from NGOs Vs. the Lies of the Saudi Human Rights Commission appeared first on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.

    This post was originally published on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.

  • Saudis living in the UK claim Riyadh is targeting them for speaking out on human rights and jailing of female activists

    Saudi exiles living in the UK have spoken of threats to their lives and harassment over their support for improvements in human rights in their home country.

    Saudi Arabia has been attempting to present itself as a reformed state since the murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi by a Saudi hit squad at its consulate in Istanbul in 2018.

    It has spent billions on sporting deals and promoting tourism in the country and was recently named host of a UN commission on women’s rights, despite what Amnesty International called its “abysmal” record on women’s rights.

    Continue reading…

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

  • The recent forced labor complaint against the Saudi Arabian government by the Building and Wood Workers’ International Union (BWI) underscores significant concerns about the treatment of migrant workers under the country’s Vision 2030 plan. This action by the BWI, representing 12 million members, serves as a stark warning to Saudi authorities, businesses, and investors about the predictable and preventable migrant labor abuses that mar the Kingdom’s ambitious economic blueprint.

    Filed on June 5th, 2024, under Article 24 of the ILO constitution, the complaint highlights the exploitative living and working conditions faced by Saudi Arabia’s 13.4 million migrant workers. The most pressing issues include widespread wage theft, abusive working conditions, and the lack of enforcement of international labor treaties ratified by Saudi Arabia. The evidence presented by BWI includes testimonies from 193 migrant workers detailing abuses such as movement restrictions, intimidation, retention of identity documents, debt bondage, and excessive overtime. These conditions are exacerbated by the workers’ inability to exercise their rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining, raising serious questions about the measures in place to address these issues.

    Central to these abuses is Saudi Arabia’s kafala system, which grants employers excessive control over their workers’ mobility and legal status. According to a BWI survey, 63 percent of migrant workers cannot freely terminate their employment, 85 percent of indebted workers cannot leave their jobs, and 46 percent report delayed or withheld wages. These figures highlight the urgent need for awareness and action. The timing of this complaint is especially crucial as it precedes FIFA’s decision in July on Saudi Arabia’s sole bid to host the 2034 FIFA World Cup, which flagrantly disregards FIFA’s own human rights rules and due diligence requirements. FIFA’s history of overlooking human rights abuses, notably during the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, which was awarded without proper human rights due diligence and led to widespread labor exploitation, should serve as a cautionary tale. Qatar faced a labor complaint in 2014, and despite some reforms, the complaint was not taken seriously enough, resulting in severe abuse and even deaths among workers. The recent ILO complaint against Saudi Arabia signals a similar trajectory that must not be allowed to continue.

    Beyond FIFA, mega projects such as the futuristic NEOM city, part of Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, heavily rely on a migrant labor force. Without significant improvements in labor protections, these projects risk perpetuating the cycle of abuse and exploitation. International companies involved in these projects must conduct thorough due diligence to ensure they do not contribute to or exacerbate these abuses. Furthermore, countries with trade investment agreements with Saudi Arabia, such as the United States, must leverage their influence to pressure the Saudi government to eradicate human rights violations. More importantly, Saudi authorities must critically examine the kafala system and prioritize its reform over superficial efforts to improve their global image.

    The forced labor complaint is a critical reminder of the urgent need for systemic labor reforms. As the world watches, Saudi Arabia has an opportunity to demonstrate a genuine commitment to protecting migrant workers’ rights and rectifying past injustices. Only then can the country truly realize its Vision 2030 without the stain of human rights abuses.

    The post Forced Labor Complaint Exposes Saudi Arabia’s Migrant Worker Abuses Amid Vision 2030 Ambitions appeared first on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.

    This post was originally published on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.

  • In a sign of major geopolitical realignment, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab states sent warm congratulations to Iran on its newly elected President Masoud Pezeshkian.

    Saudi King Salman welcomed the news of Iran’s election winner last weekend and said he hoped that the two Persian Gulf nations would continue developing their relations “between our brotherly people”.

    That olive branch from Saudi Arabia to Iran is an unprecedented diplomatic development – one that will trigger alarm in Washington whose primary goal in the Middle East has been to isolate Iran from its neighbors.

    There were similar cordial official messages from Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Bahrain. Together with Saudi Arabia, these oil-rich states comprise the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). There is much talk now of the Gulf Arab bloc normalizing relations with its Persian neighbor.

    For his part, President Pezeshkian – a heart surgeon by profession – says he wants to prioritize peaceful regional relations.

    For decades, since the Iranian revolution in 1979, the Gulf Arab states have viewed the Islamic Republic with deep suspicion and hostility. For one thing, there is the sectarian tension between Shia Islam as professed mainly by Iran and the Sunni Islam that dominates the Gulf Arab states.

    There is also the visceral fear among the Arab monarchies that the revolutionary politics espoused by Iran might infect their masses thereby threatening the rigid autocracies and their system of hereditary rule. The fact that Iran holds elections stands in stark contrast to the Gulf kingdoms ruled by royal families. So much for President Joe Biden’s mantra about the U.S. supposedly supporting democracy over autocracy.

    The United States and its Western allies, in particular, the former colonial power Britain, have exploited the tensions in the Persian Gulf to exercise a divide-and-rule policy. The British are past masters at playing the sectarian game in all their former colonies from Ireland to Myanmar and everywhere in between, including the Middle East.

    Taking a leaf out of that imperialist playbook, Washington has historically fuelled fears of Iranian expansionism. This has ensured Saudi Arabia and its Gulf neighbors remain under U.S. “protection” which is vital for maintaining the petrodollar system that underpins the American dollar as the international reserve currency. Without the petrodollar privileges, the U.S. economy would implode.

    Secondly, the Gulf is an eye-watering huge market for American weapons exports, from overrated Patriot air defense systems to overpriced fighter jets.

    In short, the policy of the U.S. and its Western allies was and is to promote a Cold War in the Gulf between the Arab states and Iran.

    The schismatic animosity cannot be overstated. The Arab monarchies were habitually paranoid about Iran infiltrating their societies. Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni rulers conducted severe repressive policies towards their Shia populations.

    In 2010, an explosive exposé by Julian Assange’s Wikileaks organization showed the then Saudi ruler King Abdullah pleading with the United States to launch military attacks on Iran. The Saudi monarch described Iran as “the head of the snake” and he implored the U.S. to decapitate the Islamic Republic.

    Fast forward to the present Saudi ruler, King Salman, a half-brother of the deceased Abdullah, who is now calling for fraternal relations with Iran – as are other Gulf Arab states.

    Saudi heir to the throne, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, also extended his congratulations to Iran’s new president and went further to propose regional security cooperation. The Saudi heir reportedly told President Pezeshkian: “I affirm my keenness on developing and deepening the relations that unite our countries and peoples and serve our mutual interests.”

    This is an astounding turnaround for positive relations. Crown Prince MbS was the main instigator of Saudi’s disastrous war on Yemen in 2015 which was prompted by his fear of Iran’s alliance with the Houthis in Saudi’s southern neighbor following the landmark international nuclear deal with Tehran.

    Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Sunni states were also instrumental in pursuing the U.S.-led covert war for regime change in Syria against Iranian ally Bashar al Assad. That proxy war effort was a defeat for the U.S. side after Russia and Iran stepped in to defend Syria.

    What’s happening here is a major geopolitical realignment. Russia, Iran, China and others have put a decisive marker down spelling the end of U.S. and Western hegemony.

    It is clear that the U.S.-led so-called “rules-based global order” is nothing more than a dead-end scam imposed on the rest of the world. All empirical evidence shows that the primary enemy of international peace and security is the U.S. hegemon and its Western vassals.

    The U.S.-instigated proxy war against Russia in Ukraine is recklessly pushing the world to the abyss of a nuclear catastrophe. Elsewhere, in the Middle East with the Western-backed Israeli genocide in Gaza and the relentless belligerence of NATO in the Asia-Pacific toward China, it is increasingly evident what is the source of international conflict and chaos – U.S.-led Western imperialism.

    The Gulf Arab leaders may not be reacting out of democratic sensibilities. But they must surely know that the writing is on the wall for American hegemony and its destructive death wish to survive at all costs.

    The world is changing dramatically to a new multipolar order where the majority of nations are trying to come to a peaceful coexistence.

    Last year, China brokered a historic rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran. All of these parties know that the U.S. disorder of hegemonic Cold War division is unsustainable and ultimately self-defeating for those who adhere to it.

    The Saudis know that the Eurasian economic engine is driving the world economy and the embrace of the Global South of a multipolar order is hammering nails into the coffin of Western hegemony.

    Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf Arab states are signing up as new members of the Shanghai Cooperation Council which also includes Russia, China, Iran, India and Pakistan, among others.

    King Salman and other Arab leaders are finally realizing that Uncle Sam’s patronage is like putting a loaded gun to your head. As that old American war criminal Henry Kissinger once reputedly remarked with his trademark cynicism: being an enemy of the U.S. can be dangerous but to be an ally of Uncle Sam is absolutely fatal.

    The days of Washington and its Western minions playing divide and rule are over because they have discredited themselves irreparably.

    • First published in Strategic Culture Foundation

    The post U.S. divide and rule no more… Washington’s Gulf allies embrace Iran first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Crown prince criticised ‘bad laws’ for Mohammed al-Ghamdi’s death sentence months before second conviction

    Fresh questions have been raised about the suppression of free speech in Saudi Arabia after the brother of a man facing the death penalty for tweeting to 10 followers was handed a 20-year sentence for largely innocuous tweets.

    The Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, had said Mohammed al-Ghamdi was a victim of “bad laws” after being sentenced to death, yet the crown prince permitted the same laws to be used to sentence Ghamdi’s younger brother, Asaad al-Ghamdi.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Crown prince criticised ‘bad laws’ for Mohammed al-Ghamdi’s death sentence months before second conviction

    Fresh questions have been raised about the suppression of free speech in Saudi Arabia after the brother of a man facing the death penalty for tweeting to 10 followers was handed a 20-year sentence for largely innocuous tweets.

    The Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, had said Mohammed al-Ghamdi was a victim of “bad laws” after being sentenced to death, yet the crown prince permitted the same laws to be used to sentence Ghamdi’s younger brother, Asaad al-Ghamdi.

    Continue reading…

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

  • Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain, together with the European Centre for Democracy and Human Rights, launches the #GameOverSaudi campaign, a concerted effort to address the women’s rights situation in Saudi Arabia amid the celebration of the Esports World Cup in the country.

    The tournament, which arises as the largest global event of its kind, represents the last Saudi effort to divert the international community’s attention from its appalling human rights record. The question is: will you let this happen?

    Human rights abuses should never be overlooked. The situation of Saudi women is particularly concerning, being that they are treated as second-class citizens subordinated to their male relatives. With this campaign, we want to bring to people’s attention the following facts:

    In Saudi Arabia, every woman has a male guardian authorized to make critical decisions on her behalf (”male guardianship system”). Traditionally, a woman’s guardian is her father from birth and her husband once she is married.

    In 2022, on International Women’s Day, Saudi Arabia passed a law that codified many of the widespread informal problematic practices inherent to the country’s male guardianship system.

    Saudi Arabia’s 2022 Personal Status Law (PSL) entrenches a system of gender-based discrimination in matters such as marriage, divorce, child custody, and inheritance and includes provisions that facilitate domestic violence:

    The idea that husbands are expected to protect and provide and wives, in turn, must obey, is enshrined in Saudi PSL.

    Following the country’s longstanding practice, the 2022 PSL states that a woman must obtain a guardian’s permission to marry and for the marriage contract to be valid.

    According to Articles 42 and 55 of PSL, a wife is obligated to “reasonably” obey her husband and a wife’s right to financial support shall be forfeited if she does not do so.

    Saudi PSL asserts that in exchange for the husband’s maintenance during marriage -food, clothing, accommodation, and other essential needs-, the wife must submit to him. If she refuses to do so, the husband has the right to deny maintenance. Such provisions place women at risk of exploitation and abuse,which is not criminalized in Saudi law.

    Men and women do not have the same ability to access divorce: In Saudi Arabia, upon separation, the mother is automatically granted custody of the child. However, the father remains the child’s legal guardian and, therefore, retains the power to make critical decisions about the child’s life.

    Moreover, women campaigning for equal rights and the abolishment of the male guardianship system in Saudi Arabia have been subjected to ongoing repression. Prominent women’s rights activists have been arbitrarily detained, banned from travel, and horrifically tortured or ill-treated in prison.

    This is the reality that people who are not critically engaging with the Esports World Cup celebration in Saudi Arabia will support. If this makes you uncomfortable, join our campaign by saying #GameOverSaudi and sharing this information in the chatrooms that will broadcast the game live on YouTube and Twitch. You can also contribute to the campaign by repeating the same action in the chat section of YouTubers -big or small-, that you might know and who are covering or commenting on the tournament.

    For women, #GameOverSaudi.

    The post #GameOverSaudi: ADHRB and ECDHR joint women’s rights campaign appeared first on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.

    This post was originally published on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.

  • On July 3, 2024, the Esports World Cup, the largest global event of its kind, will kick off in Saudi Arabia amid in the gaming community. Saudi’s last attempt to become a hub for international esports has, once more, triggered discussions about the ethical implications of hosting major sports -and esports- events in countries with poor human rights records.

    The Esports World Cup is the successor to Gamers8, a series of tournaments and gaming festivals hosted in 2023 by the Savvy Gaming Group, and the latest major esports project of this esports company owned by Saudi Arabia’s $700 billion Public Investment Fund. A Public Investment Fund that has made relevant investments in esports and games in recent years in an effort to enhance the kingdom’s progress towards “realizing the Vision 2030 objectives of diversifying the economy”. Specifically, this tournament, according to the press release announcing the launch of the event, aims to increase the gaming sector’s contribution to the kingdom’s GDP by more than SAR 50 billion by 2030 and create 39,000 new job opportunities. It also plans to draw visitors and tourists to Riyadh during the summer, when the country experiences a drop in hotel occupancy rates and tourism spending.

    The event has caught the attention of gaming-specialized media thanks to offering a “life-changing prize money” of 60 million dollars -the largest prize pool ever awarded in the history of esports- and the feature of some of the most popular games in the world across different genres: League of Legends, Counter-Strike 2, Apex Legends, and Fortnite, among multiple others.

    The League of Legends (LoL)’s involvement in the tournament is particularly interesting: in 2020, Riot Games, the developer of LoL among other famous games, announced a partnership with the Saudi state-backed city development NEOM for the League of Legends European Championship (LEC) that was canceled less than 24 hours later due to public backlash. More specifically, LEC/Riot staff and members of the LoL gaming community were preoccupied with the Kingdom’s human rights violations. It is therefore understandable why the renewed ties between Riot and Saudi Arabia for the 2024 Esports World Cup prompted, again, controversy among the LoL community. This time, however, it looks like Riot’s apologies will not be heard and Saudi’s money stands above moral values within the esports industry.

    As a matter of fact, Saudi’s sponsorship can be seen by some as quite alluring at a time of so-called esports winter, a period following the 2021 and 2022 “bonanza” that is characterized by the lack of investments and the industry’s struggle to turn a profit. Nonetheless, as Travis Gafford, fan and voice of the esports industry for the past 13 years, states:

    “I have heard many people suggest that (…) in order to survive we must do this. Even if it is true I have to ask (…), we deserve to exist then? If the only way for us to continue to do all of this is to partner with totalitarian regimes with a history of human rights abuse, what are we even doing? (…) When I signed up for this I though it was just going to be about games competitions and now I am making this video talking about assassinations and terrible governments and the decisions they are making”.

    Saudi Arabia is already home to some of soccer’s biggest stars and co-owner of professional golf. Now the country wants to become the capital of esports in the coming years. This is sportswashing at its finest. Will the gaming community let Saudi Arabia trick them into thinking that the kingdom’s a “cool, forward-thinking, interesting place to go on holiday” or will they address the big elephant in the room, namely, Saudi Arabia’s appalling human rights violations?

    We encourage the young gaming community not to cover or watch the Esports World Cup, saying loud and clear: not in my name. Young people deserve more, and although it is not fair for them to have to decide whether to enjoy their hobby or support human rights, this is where the gaming industry and its co-optation by Saudi money have led us.

    The post Diverting attention from human rights abuses: the Esports World Cup in Saudi Arabia appeared first on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.

    This post was originally published on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.

  • On 28th June 2024, ADHRB delivered an intervention at the United Nation Human Rights Council session 56 during the annual discussion session on the human rights of women. ADHRB considered that Saudi Arabia should harmonize its legislation with human rights standards and release those detained for speaking out and advocating for women’s rights.

    Saudi Arabia’s male guardianship system is a legal and social framework that severely limits women’s autonomy and has profound effects on women’s rights and freedoms. It continues to prevent them from making crucial decisions such as traveling, marriage, or accessing certain health care services.

    Significant obstacles remain in the plan to advance women’s rights in Saudi Arabia. In addition to the guardianship system, women human rights defenders face prosecution, and some of them have been sentenced to lengthy prison terms of up to 45 years for exercising their right to freedom of expression. This includes Loujain Al-Hathloul, Nassima Al-Sada, and Samar Badawi, who have been arbitrarily arrested, banned from traveling, and subjected to horrific torture and ill-treatment in prison.

    As a party to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), Saudi Arabia should harmonize its legislation with human rights standards, including the Personal Status Law of 2022. The repression of freedom of expression must stop, and Saudi Arabia must release at least 44 women detained for expressing their opinions and advocating for women’s rights issues.

    The post ADHRB at #HRC56: Saudi Arabia should harmonize its legislation with human rights standards appeared first on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.

    This post was originally published on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.

  • A security guarantee, assistance in developing a nuclear program, and more unrestricted arms sales in exchange for the normalization of Israeli-Saudi relations is what the Biden administration proposes to Saudi Arabia in a bilateral agreement that is close to being finalized between the two countries. Long gone are Biden’s words in the 2019 Democratic primary elections declaring Saudi Arabia’s state as a “pariah” after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi at the hands of Saudi intelligence officials in Turkey. According to the new Biden posture, the kingdom is now worthy of a security guarantee.

    The supporters of the agreement assert that it would enhance regional security in the Middle East by reinforcing the U.S.-led alliance against Iran, containing the rising influence of China in the Arab world, and pushing for the normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. Nonetheless, as Foreign Policy noted, the potential harms of this deal seem to outweigh the overstated benefits it would bring for the Biden Administration and the international security order as a whole.

    Concerning the alliance against Iran, the reality is that Saudi Arabia has, for quite a while now, benefited from both U.S. arms sales and military and diplomatic assistance. Thanks to that, the U.S. has already been placing relevant constraints on the Islamic Republic’s actions, and there is no pressing need to add more elements to this deterrence strategy. If anything, by strengthening security ties with the kingdom, Saudi Arabia might feel freer than before to make aggressive moves in regional policy, possibly drawing the U.S. into the subsequent region’s violence. Moreover, assisting Saudi Arabia in developing civilian nuclear power could initiate a nuclear arms race in the Persian Gulf by increasing Iran’s threat perception and supplying Saudi Arabia with essential components for nuclear weapons construction.

    In regard to keeping China’s influence in the Middle East under control, it should be noted that the already existing Saudi-Chinese relations are rooted in both strong economic interests and interests of other nature. For example, China has been, for years, the largest export and import partner of Saudi Arabia. Therefore, it does not seem that this agreement will prevent both partners from actively engaging with one another in the future. In any case, when dealing with China in the pursuit of its national interests, the Saudis will continue to be attracted by the Asian country’s disregard for human rights deficiencies in partner countries.

    As for the third objective of the agreement, truth be told, although the U.S. will try to take advantage of the Israeli desire to pursue the normalization of relations with Saudi Arabia to force the country to moderate its calamitous offensive in Gaza or move toward a two-state solution, Israel’s opposition to both of these aims will render any Israeli-Saudi normalization remote. Even more so knowing that Riyadh has defended the need for Israel’s support of a Palestinian state as a key component of any Saudi recognition of Israel. As the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft asserts, if the Biden administration wants to really exert pressure on Israel, “the voluminous U.S. aid and diplomatic cover that the United States gives to Israel represent much larger and more direct sources of leverage than any indirect maneuver involving Saudi Arabia”. Biden would do well to keep this in mind, as the current U.S.’s stance in the war in Gaza risks losing his re-election.

    However, the U.S.-Saudi Pact not only does not suit US strategic interests but also jeopardizes the numerous efforts to end human rights abuses in the country. It should not be forgotten that  Saudi citizens do not enjoy political rights and their civil liberties are severely restricted and continuously repressed. Also, abroad, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has assassinated and forced the disappearance of ideological opponents. In view of these facts, finalizing an agreement of any nature that contemplates no provisions whatsoever about the promotion and protection of human rights with such kind of a regime, is beyond reprehensible for the U.S. part. Not only that, but the double standards of U.S. foreign policy, with its uneven support for self-determination and human rights in the Middle East, but its full support for Ukraine, explain why so many people, in particular in the global south, “are reticent to join the U.S. in just causes such as aiding Ukraine”.

    Additionally, this pact’s desirability is more difficult to understand if taking into account the fact that backing Riyadh is a losing topic in U.S. politics. In this respect, according to Foreign Policy, a majority of Americans have held an unfavorable view of Saudi Arabia for more than two decades. Biden’s support of a U.S.-Saudi deal could thus raise significant opposition from Americans hostile toward Saudi Arabia for different reasons: the Yemen War, oil prices, human rights, and allegations surrounding the 9/11 terror attacks. Furthermore, Biden could lose the support of Arab, Muslim, left-leaning, and young American voters, who constitute an important part of Democrat voters, if the deal passes and it appears to benefit Israel at the expense of Palestinians. This assertion is not to be taken lightly, as in 2020, Biden won nearly 60 percent of the Arab American vote in the US presidential election against Trump.

    The only clear winner of this pact is the authoritarian regime of Saudi Arabia. As the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft argues, the value the country places in this pact lies in the anomaly of having “an absolute hereditary monarchy ruling over a supposedly modernizing state in the twenty-first century” and realizing the inherent instability of such a combination. As a consequence, the U.S.-Saudi agreement, representing a diplomatic hug from a superpower, can be understood as a way to help Saudi Arabia extend this anomaly, along with the negative repercussions this may have on the struggle for human rights.

    Rewarding the Saudi monarchy’s authoritarianism and militarism is not the right path to follow.  As several US congressional representatives stated in a 2022 letter to President Biden, even though the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has long been an important U.S. partner, it cannot be ignored that its leadership has repeatedly acted in ways at odds with U.S. policy and values.

    The post Advanced arms and technology for a monarchy with an appalling human rights record: the US-Saudi Arabia Security Pact appeared first on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.

    This post was originally published on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.

  • More than 1,000 people participating in the Hajj to Mecca, Saudi Arabia, have died as of Thursday as temperatures in the holy city reached 125°F at the Grand Mosque. The tragedy serves as an example of how the climate crisis is making mass gatherings more dangerous, especially in warmer parts of the world. Saudi Arabia is heating 50% faster than the rest of the Northern Hemisphere, and by 2050…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.