A new lawsuit accuses the State Department of failing to ever sanction Israeli military units under the Leahy Law, which was passed in 1997 to prevent the United States from funding foreign military units credibly implicated in gross human rights violations. The case was brought by five Palestinians in Gaza, the occupied West Bank and the United States and is supported by the human rights group DAWN. Former State Department official Charles Blaha, who served as director of the human rights office tasked with implementing the Leahy Law, says there is a mountain of evidence of Israel carrying out torture, extrajudicial killings, rape, enforced disappearances and other abuses. “Despite all that, the State Department has never once held any Israeli unit ineligible for assistance under the Leahy Law,” says Blaha, now a senior adviser at DAWN. We also speak with Palestinian American writer Ahmed Moor, one of the plaintiffs in the suit, who has family in Gaza and says the last year of genocide has made the lawsuit more urgent. “The conditions of basic life are not being met. Gaza is unlivable,” says Moor.
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
“And hope here, I don’t think it’s passive. It is active. It’s a form of resistance against despair. And it must be paired with a political imagination, that belief that we can build the future.”
–Wasim Almasri, Director of Programs, The Alliance for Middle East Peace
In this important conversation, Andrea and Terrell speak with Avi Meyerstein, Founder and President of the Alliance for Middle East Peace (ALLMEP), and Wasim Almasri, Director of Programs based in the West Bank city of Ramallah. They discuss what a meaningful path to peace looks like for Israelis and Palestinians, how to achieve it, the priorities the outgoing and incoming U.S. administrations must focus on, and the pending ceasefire deal, which has seen a resurgence of promising negotiations in recent days.
If you’re looking for defiant hope and a light to show the way in these dark times, listen to the team at ALLMEP who have been hard at work planting powerful seeds of change. For more on their work, check at the link at the top of the show notes.
Want to enjoy Gaslit Nation ad-free? Join our community of listeners for bonus shows, ad-free episodes, exclusive Q&A sessions, our group chat, invites to live events like our Monday political salons at 4pm ET over Zoom, and more! Sign up at Patreon.com/Gaslit!
Thank you to everyone who supports the show–we could not make Gaslit Nation without you!
Hopes for Gaza ceasefire-for-hostages deal rise Israeli officials, Hamas sources, and US and Arab figures say deal may be within reach – perhaps within days https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/17/israeli-negotiators-head-to-qatar-as-hopes-rise-for-gaza-hostage-deal
This content originally appeared on Gaslit Nation and was authored by Andrea Chalupa.
As the official death toll in Gaza tops 45,000 and Israel’s wars throughout the Middle East continue, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in court for a long-awaited corruption trial, making him the country’s first sitting leader to face criminal charges. He is charged with fraud, breach of trust and accepting bribes in three separate cases. For more on this extraordinary case, we speak with acclaimed filmmaker Alex Gibney, whose latest documentary The Bibi Files features leaked behind-the-scenes footage of police interrogations of Netanyahu, his wife and those accused of bribing him. The film has been banned in Israel, and Netanyahu even tried unsuccessfully to stop it from screening at the Toronto International Film Festival, but Gibney says it is being widely shared inside Israel through unofficial channels. “Strictly speaking, this is a film about corruption,” Gibney tells Democracy Now! “It starts with petty corruption — being bribed with gifts and cigars, champagne, jewelry — but then the ultimate corruption is how he’s tried to elude a reckoning for his misdeeds, and in so doing, he wraps himself in the mantle of prime minister and then wages endless war.”
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
Beirut, December 16, 2024 – The Committee to Protect Journalists strongly denounces the killings of four Palestinian journalists in Gaza during the past week and calls for the international community to hold Israel accountable for its attacks against the media.
“At least 95 journalists and media workers have been killed worldwide in 2024,” CPJ’s CEO Jodie Ginsberg said in New York. “Israel is responsible for two thirds of those deaths and yet continues to act with total impunity when it comes to the killing of journalists and its attacks on the media. The international community has failed in its obligations to hold Israel accountable for its actions.”
On December 15, Ahmed Al-Louh, a 39-year-old Palestinian journalist who freelanced with multiple outlets including Qatar-funded Al Jazeera, was killed in an Israeli airstrike on the Nuseirat camp in Gaza city, on December 15, 2024, according to Al Jazeera and multiplenewsreports. Al Jazeera reported that Al-Louh was wearing a “Press” vest and helmet, considered the attack to be targeted. Al-Louh is the seventh Al Jazeera-affiliated journalist killed by Israel since the war began. Israel Defense Forces (IDF) spokesperson for Arabic Media, Avichay Adraee, acknowledged the targeting of Al-Louh and accused him of being an Islamic Jihad militant in a post on X, but provided no proof for the allegation.
On December 14, Mohammed Balousha, a 38-year-old Palestinian journalist and the reporter for the Emirati-owned, Dubai-based Al Mashhad Media was killed in a direct Israeli drone strike when he was returning from a medical checkup at the Sheikh Radwan neighborhood clinic in northern Gaza City, according to the outlet and multiplenewsreports. Al Mashhad TV said it considered the attack deliberate.
On December 14, Mohammed Al Qrinawi, a Palestinian journalist and the editor at the local Snd news agency, was killed along with his wife and their three children, in an Israeli airstrike on Al Bureij refugee camp in central Gaza Strip, according to his outlet and multiplenewsreports.
On December 11, Iman Al Shanti, a 36 year-old Palestinian journalist who was a host and producer for Al Aqsa Radio and a reporter for Al Jazeera’s AJ+ platform during the war, was killed with her family in an Israeli airstrike on the Sheikh Radwan neighborhood in northern Gaza, according to multiplenewsreports.
At least 141 journalists have been killed in the Israel-Gaza war since October 7, 2023, CPJ has documented; 133 of them were Palestinians in Gaza. Journalists in northern Gaza are facing catastrophic conditions, saying ethnic cleansing is happening in a news void in northern Gaza.
CPJ emailed the IDF North America Media Desk of the IDF asking whether the IDF knew there were civilians in the areas that it bombed, and if journalists were targeted for their work. The IDF responded that it needed more time to investigate CPJ’s query but did not specify how much time would be required.
Over the last decade and a half, deep-sea mining has captured worldwide attention as a potential source for the minerals like manganese, nickel, and cobalt that are needed to make electric vehicle batteries and other technology in support of the global energy transition.
While the most coveted seabed area for potential mining — the vast and relatively flat Clarion-Clipperton Zone in the Pacific Ocean — is under international jurisdiction, parts of the world’s oceans controlled by individual nations have also attracted interest. Some countries, like Papua New Guinea, have taken the step of issuing exploration contracts. France, by contrast, passed an outright ban on mining in its waters. (In Papua New Guinea, reports recently emerged of illegal mining in its waters.) Other countries are still debating what to do.
Since 2017, Norway has been considering the possibility of mining in the part of the Arctic Ocean set aside as its exclusive economic zone — specifically in an area comprising over 100,000 square miles, about the size of Italy. The resources of interest there include two coveted deposits: polymetallic sulfides, which are ores that form around hydrothermal vents, and cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts, or accretions of metal along the sides of underwater mountains.
Earlier this year, in January, a proposal to allow companies to survey Norway’s waters and assess its resource potential sailed through parliament with an 80-20 vote. Until that point, seabed mining had not been a widely publicized issue in Norway, but the vote prompted a groundswell of civil society opposition.
“To large parts of Norwegian society, this came as a surprise when the Norwegian government suddenly announced that they were going for deep sea mining, and it sparked a lot of outrage,” said Haldis Tjeldflaat Helle, a deep sea mining campaigner at Greenpeace Nordic. Environmental organizations found themselves in an unusual alliance with the country’s fishing industry, which organized against the mining plan because of the threat it posed to fish stocks (seafood is Norway’s largest export after oil and gas). There was also opposition from Norwegian trade unions and a resolution passed in the European Parliament that criticized the plan.
In the fall, during the course of routine parliamentary proceedings, the Socialist Left, a small political party with just eight seats in Parliament, threatened to withhold support for the annual budget unless the government — a minority coalition between the Labour Party and the Centre Party — dropped its plans for the permit licensing program for the year ahead.
This caused weeks of “intense” negotiations between the parties, according to Lars Haltbrekken, an environmental activist and Socialist Left parliamentarian. The argument in some ways reflected competing visions of how Norway should position its image to the world: “‘If we now stop this process, companies will think of Norway as an unstable country to make business in’ — that was the argument from the government. What we argued was that the environmental consequences of doing this might be so huge that it’s also a risk for Norway’s reputation around the world,” Haltbrekken said.
On December 1, the plan was finally reversed. The Socialist Left didn’t put a full stop to deep-sea mining in Norway, but its maneuvering delayed the granting of exploration permits by at least a year and could make a future resumption of licensing approval unlikely. “I think that when we have stopped it for one year, we will be able to stop it for another year, and another year, and another year,” Haltbrekken said. The prime minister, Jonas Gahr Støre, described the latest outcome as merely a “postponement.”
In what some observers saw as an indication of just how uncertain deep-sea mining is as a commercial venture, only three mining companies, all small Norwegian startups, had plans to apply for the permits. One of them, Green Minerals, said in a press release last week that it “expects a slightly accelerated timeline” for licensing approval under next year’s newly elected government, allowing the company to maintain its timeline of a first exploration cruise in 2026 and the beginning of mining operations before 2030.
Norway’s waters are far more remote and harder to operate heavy machinery in than others being explored for deep-sea mining. “The weather conditions in the Norwegian Sea are very different than the ones in the Pacific,” said Helle, of Greenpeace Nordic. “We are talking about an area that is very far north. Most of it is above the Arctic Circle, close to Svalbard, and this is an area where you have a lot of high waves, you have a lot of wind and you can get temperatures around freezing, and so it is very challenging doing operations.”
Norway does have a history of industrial operations in the Arctic — its primary export is oil, much of which is drilled offshore, though much closer to its shores than the proposed mining area. The country is at “the forefront of marine and deep-sea technology,” said Thomas Dahlgren, a Swedish biologist at the Norwegian Research Centre who studies deep-sea life. “They have Kongsberg,” he continued, referring to the defense contractor and maritime technology developer. “They have 50 years of experience in pumping up oil and gas from the seafloor and so on, and they have all the wealth they built up by exploiting fossil fuels, which they are now eager to put to work in some other industrial activity.”
Aside from the technical challenges, some conservationists worry that mining for underwater sulfides could endanger a delicate and little-known part of the planet before scientists have had the chance to learn its secrets. Hydrothermal vents — underwater geysers that spout superheated, mineral-rich water from the Earth’s crust — were discovered in 1977. Scientists were astonished to find that the vents supported entire underwater ecosystems, with species found nowhere else, and in the decades since their discovery, some have speculated that these environments may hold clues to the origin of life on earth — and even the possibility of life on other planets. The total area on earth containing active vent ecosystems is estimated to be around 50 square kilometers (less than 20 square miles).
Deep-sea mining proponents only suggest mining around hydrothermal vents that are extinct, or inactive — no longer spouting heated water, but still surrounded by valuable metals. But Matthew Gianni, co-founder and policy advisor of the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, said that the easiest inactive vents for miners to locate tend to be in so-called vent fields, in proximity to active vents, which could be disturbed by mining. “If you punch a hole into an inactive deposit, you can change the hydrology of the venting system. You can basically shut down an active vent and everything living on it basically goes dead eventually,” Gianni said.
A ship passes through glaciers near the Svalbard Islands, in the Arctic Ocean in Norway.
Sebnem Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
The debate over deep-sea mining has touched on a contradiction in Norway’s political identity. It’s a country deeply tied to the ocean, with a proud culture of environmental stewardship, while also being heavily materially invested in the extraction of the ocean’s riches — and, like other petrostates, eager for an economic replacement in the event that the world’s appetite for Norway’s oil eventually dies.
“I’m not saying we should do it,” said Steinar Løve Ellefmo, a geoscientist who facilitates an interdisciplinary pilot program at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology where researchers study deep-sea mining solutions in collaboration with public officials, NGOs, and commercial stakeholders including Green Minerals, the mining startup. “I’m saying we should investigate whether we can do it as a contribution to meeting the demand for minerals and metals” — adding that their extraction “has the potential to limit or reduce our dependence on petroleum-based energy production.”
Haltbrekken, the Socialist Left parliamentarian, said he accepts the need for mineral mining, broadly speaking. “We need minerals, we do, to stop climate change. But we do need to do more recycling of the minerals that we already have. And I think even though we do have a lot of conflicts and a lot of environmental disasters connected to the mining industry on land, it’s easier for us to control and have strict environmental regulations on mining on land than mining two to three thousand meters down in the sea,” he said.
“Of course, should we do more on recycling?” Ellefmo said. “But that will not really do the trick. It will contribute, yes, no question, and we should put more effort into it. We should do more on onshore mining for sure. We should do something on your and my consumption for sure. But at the same time, I think we should be allowed to investigate whether [deep-sea mining] could be a good idea. And that includes, of course, understanding the environmental impact if we were to do it.”
Fundamentally, the debate has an epistemological character: The only thing everyone seems to agree on is how little is known about the deep ocean or what the effects of mining there would be. But while, for opponents of mining, this ignorance is what makes the idea of mining a hubristic folly, others see the fact of what we don’t know as the motivation for permitting exploration of the deep sea — in the interest of science.
But, as Dahlgren, the Swedish biologist, said, “It would be naive to think that the research and science required to understand the baselines would appear without this industrial interest. Society will not pay for it.”
A claim emerged in Chinese-language reports that the European Union decided to cancel favorable tariff policies towards Hong Kong.
But the claim is misleading. The reports cited an EU resolution that is a non-binding request designed to draw attention to the latest issues in Hong Kong. As of Dec. 13, the bloc had not revoked the city’s favorable customs treatment.
The claim was shared in a report published by the Taiwanese media outlet NewTalk News on Dec. 5, 2024.
“The European Parliament has recently passed a resolution to revoke the EU’s special tariff treatment for Hong Kong,” the report reads in part.
The report cited a post on X uploaded by “News Investigation” that reads: “The European Parliament has recently passed a resolution requesting the European Union to revoke favorable tariff treatment for Hong Kong. The US$500 billion in annual Chinese exports to the EU which pass through Hong Kong will no longer enjoy ultra-low tariffs.”
Online media claimed that the EU decided to cancel favorable tariffs previously enjoyed by Hong Kong.
The EU has historically granted Hong Kong favorable customs treatment, recognizing its status as a separate customs territory distinct from mainland China. This arrangement facilitated trade by simplifying customs procedures and reducing tariffs, thereby promoting economic exchange between the EU and Hong Kong.
The claim about the EU revoking Hong Kong’s favorable customs treatment is false.
EU resolution on Hong Kong
Keyword searches found a resolution regarding Hong Kong passed by the EU on Nov. 28, 2024 here.
“Calls on the EEAS [European External Action Service] and the Member States to warn China that its actions in HK will have consequences for EU-China relations; calls on the Council … to revoke HK’s favourable customs treatment and review the status of the HK Economic Trade Office in Brussels,” the resolution reads in part.
The European Parliament adopts three types of resolutions, including non-legislative ones, which offer greater flexibility by allowing the parliament to address any topic it deems relevant. These resolutions are non-binding. The recent resolution on Hong Kong falls under this category.
While such resolutions express the parliament’s views, they do not impose any obligation on other EU institutions to act on their calls. Instead, the primary purpose of these resolutions is to draw the attention of other European institutions to specific issues.
The EU’s resolution was in response to a Hong Kong court jailing 45 democracy supporters for up to 10 years.
In all, 47 Hong Kong opposition politicians and pro-democracy activists were charged with “conspiracy to commit subversion” under the city’s 2020 National Security Law for taking part in a democratic primary in the summer of 2020. Two were acquitted.
Amid growing calls for further sanctions on Hong Kong and the expansion of lifeboat visa schemes for those fleeing the ongoing political crackdown in the city, the governments of the U.S., U.K. and Australia, and the United Nations slammed the sentencing.
The EU resolution on Hong Kong, passed with 473 votes in favor, 23 against and 98 abstentions, calls on the city to immediately release the jailed activists as well as pro-democracy media tycoon Jimmy Lai.
Translated by Shen Ke. Edited by Taejun Kang.
Asia Fact Check Lab (AFCL) was established to counter disinformation in today’s complex media environment. We publish fact-checks, media-watches and in-depth reports that aim to sharpen and deepen our readers’ understanding of current affairs and public issues. If you like our content, you can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram and X.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Zhuang Jing for Asia Fact Check Lab.
A claim emerged in Chinese-language reports that the European Union decided to cancel favorable tariff policies towards Hong Kong.
But the claim is misleading. The reports cited an EU resolution that is a non-binding request designed to draw attention to the latest issues in Hong Kong. As of Dec. 13, the bloc had not revoked the city’s favorable customs treatment.
The claim was shared in a report published by the Taiwanese media outlet NewTalk News on Dec. 5, 2024.
“The European Parliament has recently passed a resolution to revoke the EU’s special tariff treatment for Hong Kong,” the report reads in part.
The report cited a post on X uploaded by “News Investigation” that reads: “The European Parliament has recently passed a resolution requesting the European Union to revoke favorable tariff treatment for Hong Kong. The US$500 billion in annual Chinese exports to the EU which pass through Hong Kong will no longer enjoy ultra-low tariffs.”
Online media claimed that the EU decided to cancel favorable tariffs previously enjoyed by Hong Kong.
The EU has historically granted Hong Kong favorable customs treatment, recognizing its status as a separate customs territory distinct from mainland China. This arrangement facilitated trade by simplifying customs procedures and reducing tariffs, thereby promoting economic exchange between the EU and Hong Kong.
The claim about the EU revoking Hong Kong’s favorable customs treatment is false.
EU resolution on Hong Kong
Keyword searches found a resolution regarding Hong Kong passed by the EU on Nov. 28, 2024 here.
“Calls on the EEAS [European External Action Service] and the Member States to warn China that its actions in HK will have consequences for EU-China relations; calls on the Council … to revoke HK’s favourable customs treatment and review the status of the HK Economic Trade Office in Brussels,” the resolution reads in part.
The European Parliament adopts three types of resolutions, including non-legislative ones, which offer greater flexibility by allowing the parliament to address any topic it deems relevant. These resolutions are non-binding. The recent resolution on Hong Kong falls under this category.
While such resolutions express the parliament’s views, they do not impose any obligation on other EU institutions to act on their calls. Instead, the primary purpose of these resolutions is to draw the attention of other European institutions to specific issues.
The EU’s resolution was in response to a Hong Kong court jailing 45 democracy supporters for up to 10 years.
In all, 47 Hong Kong opposition politicians and pro-democracy activists were charged with “conspiracy to commit subversion” under the city’s 2020 National Security Law for taking part in a democratic primary in the summer of 2020. Two were acquitted.
Amid growing calls for further sanctions on Hong Kong and the expansion of lifeboat visa schemes for those fleeing the ongoing political crackdown in the city, the governments of the U.S., U.K. and Australia, and the United Nations slammed the sentencing.
The EU resolution on Hong Kong, passed with 473 votes in favor, 23 against and 98 abstentions, calls on the city to immediately release the jailed activists as well as pro-democracy media tycoon Jimmy Lai.
Translated by Shen Ke. Edited by Taejun Kang.
Asia Fact Check Lab (AFCL) was established to counter disinformation in today’s complex media environment. We publish fact-checks, media-watches and in-depth reports that aim to sharpen and deepen our readers’ understanding of current affairs and public issues. If you like our content, you can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram and X.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Zhuang Jing for Asia Fact Check Lab.
The governments of Laos and Cambodia have stirred controversy after announcing awards for a casino magnate blacklisted by the U.S. for criminal activity and a scion of the country’s first family known for flaunting their wealth.
Residents told RFA that they fear awarding the two men will legitimize their bad behavior and lead to further problems for both countries.
On Dec. 6, Viengsavanh Siphandone, the governor of Laos’ Luang Namtha province, bestowed a national award on Zhao Wei, the head of the Golden Triangle Special Economic Zone, which lies along the Mekong River in Bokeo province.
The governor presented Zhao, the Chinese founder of the Hong Kong-registered Kings Romans Group, with the “Third Class Development Medal” at an award ceremony inside his economic zone for donating materials and funds worth 1.3 billion kip (US$60,000) to the Luang Namtha police headquarters.
The award drew criticism from members of the public, who told RFA Lao that the government had no business celebrating an entrepreneur who is known for supporting criminal enterprises.
“Zhao Wei … opens loopholes for [gangs involved in] human trafficking and money scams,” one resident of the capital Vientiane said, speaking on condition of anonymity citing fear of reprisal. “He is not only notorious locally for his involvement in transnational crimes, but internationally as well.”
Kings Roman Group operates the Kings Romans Casino in the Golden Triangle SEZ, which Zhao is said to hold de facto control of, and which caters mainly to Chinese tourists.
The Blue Shield casino, operated by the Kings Romans Group, stands in the Golden Triangle special economic zone on the banks of the Mekong river in Laos, March 2, 2016.
In 2018, the U.S. Treasury Department declared the Zhao Wei network a “transnational criminal organization,” or TCO, and imposed sanctions on Zhao and three other individuals and three companies across Laos, Thailand and Hong Kong.
“Based in Laos within the Golden Triangle Special Economic Zone (GTSEZ), the Zhao Wei TCO exploits this region by engaging in drug trafficking, human trafficking, money laundering, bribery, and wildlife trafficking, much of which is facilitated through the Kings Romans Casino located within the GTSEZ,” said a Treasury Department statement announcing the sanctions.
Legitimizing criminal activities
On Aug. 9 and 12, Lao and Chinese police raided and arrested more than 2,000 people on charges of committing crimes in the SEZ, where thousands have been lured through trafficking networks and forced to work as online scammers.
Many of the women lured to the SEZ have also been forced to become sex workers.
An official who took part in the rescue of three victims from the SEZ earlier this year told RFA he is worried that the award will legitimize Zhao’s activities and lead to more human trafficking there.
“By deciding to award Zhao Wei the medal, the government has opened more opportunities for him to trick women into prostitution,” he said.
Police raid a restaurant suspected of providing sex services to customers in Vientiane, capital of Laos, Jan. 2022.
This is the second time the Lao government has bestowed an award on Zhao. In 2022, the Bokeo Military Command presented him with a medal courage, saying it recognized his contributions to national defense and public security within the Golden Triangle SEZ.
The Lao government says it is cracking down on the cyber-scamming industry, which a United States Institute of Peace report earlier this year said could be worth as much as 40% of the country’s formal economy.
The think tank estimated that criminal gangs could be holding as many as 85,000 workers in slave-like conditions in compounds such as those in the Golden Triangle SEZ.
Hun family scion receives medal of honor
In Cambodia, King Norodom Sihamoni conferred the Royal Order of Monisaraphon to Hun Panhaboth — the grandson of Senate President Hun Sen’s elder brother — per the request of the Interior Ministry and Prime Minister Hun Manet, according to a royal decree dated Oct. 9.
The award is generally given to Cambodians who contribute to or support the fields of education, arts, literacy, science or social affairs.
Hun Panhaboth is the son of Hun Chanthou, who is the daughter of Hun Sen’s late elder brother Hun Neng. According to a report by Global Witness, Hun Chanthou and Hun Neng’s four other children own around 40 major companies.
Hun Panhaboth is known in Cambodia for flaunting his wealth both at home and abroad, and even for boasting about his illegal activities, such as selling weapons to private citizens, on his Facebook and Instagram pages.
Cambodia’s Senate President Hun Sen walks past an honor guard in Phnom Penh on April 3, 2024.
He owns luxury vehicles including a McLaren worth nearly US$1 million, a Bentley and an Audi worth more than US$200,000 each, and a private Airbus 72 helicopter. He is known to have given his girlfriend gifts worth nearly US$100,000 for her birthday and shuttled her on a private plane from Australia to Cambodia.
Hun Panhaboth‘s lavish lifestyle has also been widely reported in the foreign press, including by Thai newspaper MRG Online, which claimed that he has used his family ties to procure contracts for large development projects.
After facing criticism in the media, Hun Panhaboth assumed the role of a philanthropist, distributing gifts to the poor and posting the acts on social media.
Philanthropy dwarfed by negative impact
Sok Ey San, spokesperson for the ruling Cambodian People’s Party, told RFA that the government only confers the medal of honor on those who have “shown great achievements and contributions to the nation and the people,” although he refused to elaborate on what achievements or contributions Hun Panhaboth had made.
Sok Ey San also dismissed concerns about Hun Panhaboth writing posts to Facebook about selling firearms, saying he was “a minor [at the time] and not mature enough to think seriously.”
“He just posted that for fun — nobody thinks what he did on Facebook was serious,“ he told RFA.
Youth group leaders RFA Khmer spoke with said they believe the government awarded Hun Panhaboth the national medal of honor for his acts of philanthropy, but suggested that they were dwarfed by those that have had a negative impact on society.
Mat Vanny, chairman of the board of the South Korea-based Democratic Movement for National Unification, said that given Hun Panhaboth’s involvement in illegal activity and his penchant for flaunting his wealth, he is unqualified to receive such an honor.
He added that the conferment will “devalue the award,” as well as the reputations of the government and king who gave it to him.
Em Bunnarith, president of the Australia-based Global Cambodian Youth Network, said that in a country with a dynastic and corrupt leadership, such as Cambodia, decisions to award a medal of honor don’t go through proper assessment.
“What the government has done will make our youth feel hopeless,” he said. “It means that if they have no connections … they will have no opportunity to contribute to the nation.”
Regardless of what Hun Panhaboth has done, Em Bunnarith said, the Hun family will likely elevate his position within the armed forces to help protect the family name.
Translated by Ounkeo Souksavanh and Sovannarith Keo. Edited by Joshua Lipes and Malcolm Foster.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by RFA Lao and RFA Khmer.
Faisal Karimi and Wahab Siddiqi, respectively founder and editor-in-chief of the Afghanistan Women’s News Agency, were among the first journalists to flee Afghanistan after the Taliban retook control of the country in August 2021. After escaping the country undetected with nearly two dozen newsroom colleagues and family members a week after the fall of Kabul, they made their way to a refugee camp in Albania. Then, they got to work rebuilding the newsroom they had left behind.
More than three years later, the two journalists run the agency from exile in the United States. To get out the news, they rely on the reporting of 15 female journalists hired in 10 provinces to replace the staff who fled. As the Taliban has become increasingly hostile to women journalists and the exile press, the newsroom takes extreme security precautions. Zoom meetings take place with a strict “cameras off” policy so that the women won’t be compromised if they recognize each other on the street.
In June, CPJ interviewed Karimi and Siddiqi in Columbia, Missouri, where they were attending a safety training for journalists in exile at the University of Missouri’s School of Journalism. During the interview, both men checked their phones often, explaining the importance of remaining available at all times for their reporters.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Can you describe the atmosphere for the press immediately after the Taliban takeover?
Karimi: When the Taliban took over, our hope collapsed overnight. We were working journalists for eight years before the takeover and we used our journalism against extremist Taliban ideology. Our work aimed to promote democratic values and human rights in our country by creating a newsroom and outlet for female journalists. Eight years of such work was evidence enough for the Taliban to attack us.
Siddiqi: Social norms in Afghanistan regarding women’s rights are very sensitive and this was the main reason we had to flee. When you are talking about women’s rights in Afghanistan, you are not only facing danger from the Taliban, but also from others in the country who adhere to such radical beliefs.
I remember when we were working in Herat, our office was in a very safe location, but even our neighbors would question why so many women were entering the building. They assumed there was some ethical wrongdoing. Since our work highlighted women’s issues, we were in danger from the Taliban and the pervasive misogyny in the society at large.
The Afghanistan Women’s News Agency is one of just a handful of women-focused outlets covering Afghanistan, like Rukshana Media and Zan Times. What led you to found it in 2016?
Karimi: Siddiqi and I both taught at Herat University. As a professor of journalism, I witnessed my female students struggle and face a lack of resources and opportunities every day. The disparity between them and my male students was blatantly obvious. Lack of access to media equipment, gender inequality in the newsroom, harassment and discrimination was a daily reality for these women.
In light of this, I decided to create a safe environment for my female students to publish their stories, [to] access media equipment and the internet eight years before the Taliban takeover. Although the Taliban was not yet in power, the extremist ideology had already begun to spread rapidly.
Families were understandably concerned when their daughters went to school or the newsroom, but when we established this newsroom solely for women, almost all female journalists across Herat came to work there. As a professor, I had the trust of these women’s families. That’s why I, as a man, was able to set up this space and reassure the families that it was safe.
Part of your staff is in exile, but you still have many female journalists based in Afghanistan. What’s their experience like?
Karimi: All of our female reporters on the ground have to remain anonymous for their safety as per our contract. Their names are never published with their stories. There are currently 15 female journalists working with us, spread across 10 provinces. Some of them are our former interns whom we hired permanently and some of them are currently interns who receive training through Zoom, so that they can be the next generation of female reporters. All of them are actively reporting, even interns, as they learn and are simultaneously paid for their work.
Siddiqi:It’s important to add that our reporters know each other by name only. Our reporters have never met or seen each other’s faces since we require them to turn their cameras off during virtual meetings. We are extremely strict about our security protocols in order to ensure that if one of our reporters faces Taliban retaliation, their colleagues will remain safe. Our reporters know that even a minor mistake can put our whole newsroom in danger.
(Illustration: Tesla Jones-Santoro)
It is obvious that these women are well aware of the danger that comes with being journalists. Why are they still in the country and choosing to report despite these risks?
Siddiqi: From my understanding and through my conversations with them, there are two main reasons. One, these women are wholly committed to their work. When I am talking with them, I learn that they work more than eight hours a day because they love their job. They all know the impact that they are making in the current environment. Two, financial security is also a huge part of their choice to report. It is rare for women to work and receive salaries in the country under the Taliban. AWNA pays its journalists and this provides them with some level of control and financial independence.
Karimi: These female journalists know that the stakes are very high. Many times I have told them that their security is our priority. We don’t want any report or story that puts their safety at risk, but they still don’t prioritize themselves. They prioritize their reporting. Nobody can stop them from making their voices heard even in the most repressive atmosphere.
What is it like for you when your reporters are so far away while you are in exile?
Karimi: To be honest, I am not comfortable. Sometimes I think something bad has happened to a colleague. Trying to minimize their risk is one of our strategies and biggest challenges. I am very concerned every single day.
Have any of the female journalists working for AWNA had dangerous encounters with the Taliban?
Siddiqi: Just a few days ago, one of our female reporters called me from Kabul while she was attempting to report on a business exhibition. Upon entering the venue, she was detained by the Taliban. In the commotion of a large crowd, she somehow managed to hide herself and escaped without facing arrest.
I called her after that and I reiterated that this cannot be the norm. I told her that we cannot lose her and that without her, there would be no reporting. My colleague replied that she tries her best and knows all the newsroom security protocols. But even for non-political events, this is the risk and the reality for female journalists in the country.
(Illustration: Tesla Jones-Santoro)
How has reporting from exile shaped your view of the future of the media in Afghanistan?
Karimi: In my opinion, the lack of free and independent media in the country has created a need for reliable media in exile to combat Taliban propaganda and control. There is a lack of female-run media. We have bypassed the Taliban firewall by providing information from exile to empower people within the country, especially women.
Siddiqi: There are so many Afghan women who are students, photographers, activists, and writers, as well as journalists who can no longer publicize their work on their own channels due to safety concerns. Many of them have found a place in AWNA in order to share their work and add value to the media atmosphere. These are all citizens and female journalists. There are thousands of women who have something to share, journalists by training or not, who are acting as citizen journalists. They have something to show and we are dedicated to uplifting it.
Do you both hope to return to your country if things change?
Siddiqi:I chose to leave my parents, siblings, everything in order to escape the regime.
Life is not easy for me here. I left my memories and emotions in Afghanistan. Everyday these memories disturb me. I was educated and began my career in Afghanistan and I believe I owe my country.
Karimi: Of course I hope to go back to my country. Right now, I feel that I have three lives as an exiled journalist: The first is the life I left behind in Afghanistan, which includes most of my family. Half of my mind and heart remains there. My second life is this one in exile where I am forced to rebuild my personal and professional life from scratch. My third life revolves around how to keep my colleagues safe and to honor their mission as female journalists. I am constantly navigating these three lives and it is a devastating reality.
What is your hope for Afghan women journalists in the future?
Siddiqi: There is no hope bigger than Afghan women having their basic human rights and access to education. If there is no education for women, there is no understanding of their reality and rights. If there is no understanding in a society, there is no justice. If there is no justice, we are no longer in a human society, but in a jungle. The Taliban has shut off all the doors that were once available for Afghan women and together, we are trying to pry them open.
President-elect Trump, himself found liable in court for sexual abuse, has picked a striking number of suspected sexual predators for key positions in his incoming administration. Trump’s early pick of former Florida Congressmember Matt Gaetz for attorney general was shot down amid a firestorm over sexual misconduct allegations. Now Trump is pushing hard to keep the rest of his picks on track, including Fox host Pete Hegseth for defense secretary and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for health and human services secretary. Hegseth paid an undisclosed amount to a woman who accused him of sexual assault. Meanwhile, a woman who worked for RFK Jr. as a babysitter accused him of sexual assault at his home in 1998. Even one of the few women Trump has chosen, professional wrestling mogul Linda McMahon for education secretary, was sued for allegedly ignoring complaints that a WWE ringside announcer sexually abused children for years. “Trump really is the embodiment of a male entitlement,” says Deborah Tuerkheimer, professor of law at Northwestern University. Tuerkheimer says the president and these Cabinet picks are a bellwether for how society responds to abuse. “The #MeToo movement was about and continues to be about not just individual allegations, but this larger question of who’s held accountable and what kind of cultural toleration do we have for abuse by powerful men.”
This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.
