California leads 16-state lawsuit over Trump's emergency declaration

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, like most Canadian political leaders, maintains uncritical support for Israel despite significant opposition to such policies from Jewish and non-Jewish Canadians alike. (Office of the Prime Minister of Canada)

Ali Abunimah 19 February 2019

Jewish Canadians are deeply divided in their opinions on Israel, and many are highly critical of it. Moreover, a majority does not see criticism of Israel as necessarily anti-Semitic.

Those are key findings of the first survey to ask Jewish Canadians about their views on the situation in Palestine.

The report on the survey – entitled “Two Jews, Three Opinions: Jewish Canadians Diverse Views on Israel-Palestine” – notes that Canada’s ruling elites justify their virtually uncritical backing of Israel by “claiming it is necessary to support Jews and oppose anti-Semitism,” treating Jewish opinion as “monolithic.”

However, the survey, according to the report’s authors, “refutes the claims by the Canadian government and political parties that they are defending Canadian Jews against anti-Semitism by uncritically supporting Israel.”

Key findings include that:

• Almost two in five respondents (37 percent) have a negative opinion of the Israeli government, while half view it positively;
• Almost a third (31 percent) oppose Israel’s military blockade of the Gaza Strip;
• Roughly equal numbers oppose (45 percent) and support (42 percent) US President Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital;
• More than a third (36 percent) view the Palestinian call for boycott, divestment and sanctions on Israel to be reasonable, and more than two in five (44 percent) oppose the Canadian parliament’s condemnation of the BDS movement;
• Almost a quarter (22 percent) think it would be reasonable to impose sanctions on Israel.
• Almost three in five do not see criticism of Israel as necessarily anti-Semitic;
• Half agree that accusations of anti-Semitism are often used to silence legitimate criticism of Israel

Disproportionate weight

The poll, conducted by research firm EKOS, surveyed a random sample of 359 Jewish Canadians in June and September last year. The results were released Tuesday.

It was commissioned by Independent Jewish Voices Canada and United Jewish People’s Order.

When politicians treat Jewish opinion as monolithic, the report states, “the purported views of the one percent of Canadians who are Jewish assume disproportionate weight,” especially over the 3.2 percent of Canadians who are Muslim, and 1.5 percent who identify as Arab.

Jewish opinions are nonetheless given such weight by political leaders “because Israel portrays itself as ‘the Jewish state’ and much of Canada’s support for Israel is couched in terms of supporting Jews and opposing anti-Semitism.”

The survey finds that most Jewish Canadians support Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s centrist Liberal Party (39 percent of respondents). The center-left New Democratic Party (NDP) secures support from 24 percent, while just eight percent support the Green Party. The right-wing Conservative party is supported by 26 percent of Jewish Canadians down from 52 percent in 2011.

Across the board, the survey found, Jewish Canadian Conservatives hold more strongly pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian positions. Similarly, religious Jews tended to hold more pro-Israel views.

Is criticism of Israel anti-Semitic?

The survey reveals somewhat contradictory views among Jewish Canadians on whether criticizing Israel demonstrates prejudice against Jews.

There was a roughly even split over whether criticism that “specifically singles out Israel” is anti-Semitic, with 42 percent of respondents agreeing that it is and 38 percent disagreeing. One-fifth neither agrees nor disagrees.

There was also a strong consensus supporting the statement that “those who criticize an Israeli government policy are being anti-Semitic unless they also equally criticize other countries’ human rights violations.”

Sixty-three percent of respondents supported that statement, while 24 percent disagreed.

By contrast, 58 percent also agreed with the statement that criticizing Israeli government policies “is like criticism of any other countries’ policies and is not necessarily anti-Semitic.”

And, almost half (48 percent) agreed that accusations of anti-Semitism are often used to silence legitimate criticism of Israel, while 39 percent disagreed that was the case.

The report notes that these apparently contradictory results reflect how the use of “highly charged words or phrases” – such as “singles out Israel” and “equally criticize” – affect the answers given by Jewish Canadians.

Such loaded phrases “evoke images of unfairly targeting Israel” and therefore skew answers in a more pro-Israel direction.

Yet such emotionally manipulative phrases are a staple of pro-Israel advocacy and have been used “to attack the United Nations and Palestine solidarity groups by claiming they are ‘singling out’ Israel for blame, while not ‘equally’ blaming other countries with as bad or worse human rights records.”

“Calling Israel’s critics anti-Semitic is a powerful weapon, which pro-Israel groups regularly use to attack progressive movements, individuals and politicians,” the report states. “They have attacked churches, unions, academics, students and even Jews who dare to speak in defense of Palestinian people.”

Lobby out of touch

“Jewish Canadians’ critical of Israel perspectives are more aligned with those of the wider community than organizations like CIJA, B’nai Brith Canada and Simon Wiesenthal Center are willing to admit,” Rima Berns-McGown, a member of the Ontario provincial parliament, told The Electronic Intifada in reaction to the poll.

“Those organizations do not represent the Jewish community, only a shrinking portion of it,” Berns-McGown, a member of the NDP and a supporter of Independent Jewish Voices, added.

She observed that “the major parties do not reflect this yet,” but she sees change underway. She notes that despite getting strong right-wing pushback over her own support for BDS, she handily won election in her Toronto district.

Berns-McGown added that she also got “zero public blowback” for a video supporting the Independent Jewish Voices campaign to have charitable status stripped from the Jewish National Fund of Canada over its role in financing Israeli human rights violations and war crimes.

IJV-VJI Canada @IndJewishVoices

Thrilled to have the support of such a brilliant community leader & MPP.

Listen to @beyrima explain how she’s helping us #StopJNFCanada & demanding #NoTaxBreaks4Colonization.

Take action here: http://www.stopthejnf.ca 

23

3:16 PM - Feb 4, 2019

Diana Ralph, the lead author of the study and a member of Independent Jewish Voices, agrees that unrepresentative Israel lobby groups disproportionately shape official policies.

“Since the 1980s Canada has moved far from even appearing to be an honest broker on Israel-Palestine, to uncritical support for Israel,” Ralph told The Electronic Intifada.

“Clearly Prime Minister Justin Trudeau isn’t listening to Canadians, or even members of his own Liberal Party, about issues related to Israel-Palestine. And the Conservative party is at least as bad.”

Ralph noted that CIJA – the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs – “is one of Canada’s largest lobby groups with over 50 staff people who hold hundreds of meetings with members of Parliament and key political leaders every year.”

“However, we are starting to succeed in influencing the bases of the Green, NDP and even Liberal parties in Canada,” Ralph added.

The Green Party has already endorsed BDS, and the NDP leader last year had to invoke what Ralph calls “anti-democratic means” to prevent a vote on a strongly pro-Palestinian resolution.

And reflecting a generational shift, the Canadian Federation of Students last November voted to endorse BDS – a rebuke to Trudeau, who has regularly vilified the nonviolent movement for Palestinian rights.

Surveys commissioned by Palestine solidarity groups in 2017 found a major disconnect between the government’s unconditional support of Israel and the Canadian general public, and widespread support for BDS.

According to Ralph, the groups that commissioned the latest poll focusing on Jewish opinion plan to use the results to spark discussions in Jewish communities and synagogues, with lawmakers and policymakers and the general public.

Ralph said: “It is time for Canadian foreign policy to reflect the wishes of most Canadians and many Jewish Canadians who believe it is reasonable to impose boycotts and sanctions on Israel for its violations of international law and human rights.”

Thousands to lose their jobs as Honda’s Swindon plant closes

By Minnie Stephenson-19 Feb 2019

Workers at the Honda factory were given the day off today after receiving confirmation that they will lose their jobs by 2021.

The company says it didn’t take the decision to cut 3,500 jobs lightly, but with global changes it was left with no choice.

That’s little consolation to the workers, though. We spent the day talking to many of them.

Twitter launches political ad tracking tools in Europe ahead of key EU polls

FILE PHOTO: A man reads tweets on his phone in front of a displayed Twitter logo in Bordeaux, southwestern France, March 10, 2016. REUTERS/Regis Duvignau/Illustration/File Photo

Foo Yun Chee-FEBRUARY 19, 2019

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Twitter on Tuesday rolled out tools in Europe which will make it easier for voters to identify political campaign ads tied to crucial European Parliament elections in May amidst fears of Russian disinformation campaigns and threats of regulatory action.

Social networks such as Twitter and Facebook have come under pressure to do more to combat fake news and the spread of extremism and propaganda online. The European Union is concerned about Russia’s role. Russia has repeatedly denied any such actions.

Twitter said its political campaigning ads policy, introduced during the U.S. midterm elections, will also be launched in India and Australia, both of which are also heading to the polls.

In essence it means that anyone can view ads put on Twitter endorsing a party or a candidate on its Ads Transparency Center, with details on billing information, ad spending and demographic targeting data. The ads will be available indefinitely.

 

A visual label and disclaimer information on promoted content will allow users to identify political campaign ads and who paid for them.

“Our political campaigning ads policy is being expanded to cover #EUElections2019, providing the general public with an additional layer of insight into who is running a political campaign ad on Twitter,” the company said in a blog post.

It said candidates or organizations will have to go through a certification process with proof of identity before they can run political campaigning ads on its site. This policy will kick off on March 11.

Reporting by Foo Yun Chee

UK urges Germany to reconsider ban on arms sales to Saudi Arabia: Report

In letter to German counterpart, UK foreign minister expresses 'concern' over impact on UK weapons industry

The UK's Eurofighter Typhoon military has parts made in Germany (AFP/File photo)

By 

MEE and agencies

Published date: 19 February 2019 21:14 UTC | Last update: 2 hours 24 min ago

The UK's foreign minister has urged Germany to reconsider its ban on arms exports to Saudi Arabia, according to a letter seen by German news outlet Der Spiegel, the latest example of an ongoing divide between European countries over weapons sales to the Gulf kingdom.

In a letter to his German counterpart, Jeremy Hunt said the UK is unable to fulfill several defence contracts with Saudi Arabia, such as the Eurofighter Typhoon and Tornado military plane, because parts of those aircraft are built in Germany, Der Spiegel reported on Tuesday.

As a result, Hunt asked Heiko Maas to exempt big defence projects from the German government's moratorium on arms sales to the Saudis, which was put in place in the aftermath of the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi last fall.

"I am very concerned about the impact of the German government's decision on the British and European defence industry and the consequences for Europe's ability to fulfil its NATO commitments," Hunt told Maas in the letter, as reported by Reuters, which cited the Der Spiegel article.

In his letter, Hunt also said the German government's decision to halt arms exports to Saudi Arabia would cost German defence firms $2.6bn in revenues by 2026, Reuters said.

Labour vows to suspend UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia

Read More »

Germany barred future arms export licenses to Saudi Arabia in November as details emerged about the brutal killing of Khashoggi, a Saudi government critic, at the country's Istanbul consulate.

Saudi government agents killed the journalist on 2 October and dismembered his body, prompting global outrage and calls for Western countries to end weapon sales to the Saudis.

Germany, Norway and Denmark announced they would halt future arms deals with Riyadh, while other major European countries, despite pressure from their respective citizens to do the same, have maintained business as usual with the Saudi government.

Germany accounts for just under two percent of all Saudi arms imports, a small percentage compared to the United States and Britain.

But Berlin makes components for other countries' export contracts, including a proposed £10b deal for Riyadh to buy 48 new Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jets from the UK.

Reuters said it had not seen Hunt's letter and a spokesman for the German foreign ministry declined to comment to the news agency.

Der Spiegel's report comes only days after the UK House of Lords said the British government should suspend some of its export licenses for weapons shipments to Saudi Arabia.

UK arms sales to the Gulf country since the start of the war in Yemen have "highly likely" left Britain "narrowly on the wrong side" of international law, the report stated.

More than 60,000 people - civilians and combatants - have been killed in Yemen during almost four years of the war, in which a Saudi-led coalition has sought to oust the country's Houthi rebels.

Yemen has been plunged into a dire humanitarian crisis as a result of the ongoing conflict and millions of Yemenis are on the brink of starvation.

"The [UK] government must address the root causes of the suffering - the conflict itself -and be prepared to suspend some key export licences to Saudi-Arabia and members of the coalition," said Lord Howell of Guildford, one of the committee members, in the report.

How to Regulate the Internet Without Becoming a Dictator

The British model of filtering data rather than content can protect citizens while preserving an open internet.

A member of staff poses for a photograph at a workspace in the National Cyber Security Centre on Feb. 14, 2017 in London, England. (Carl Court/Getty Images)

BY JUSTIN SHERMAN

 | FEBRUARY 18, 2019, 11:11 AM
On Nov. 16, 2018, U.S. President Donald Trump signed the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Act into law, which transformed the National Protection and Programs Directorate at the Department of Homeland Security into the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).

The change aims to bolster the United States’ defenses against physical and digital threats to critical infrastructure. The reasons for CISA’s creation are no mystery: Democracies are increasingly realizing that they cannot rely entirely on the unregulated market to protect citizens or even businesses from cyberharms. Now, the question for CISA is how to meet current threats while maintaining a free and open internet for Americans.

Democracies are grappling with the differences between the internet as idealized in their policy documents—with principles such as freedom and openness—and the internet in reality—an insecure, increasingly centralized, and increasingly restricted network. Democratic internet strategies face tensions that need to be resolved, including the need to find a balance between total network openness (which dangerously allows anything through) and total network control (an authoritarian model for the internet).

In 2016, election interference plagued the U.S. presidential election and other contests across Europe, and the devastating NotPetya ransomware wreaked global havoc. Cyberinsecurity is driving many countries toward a more authoritarian approach to the internet.

 In a November 2018 resolution on cybercrime backed by Russia and adopted by the U.N. General Assembly, three of the biggest democracies in the world—India, Brazil, and Nigeria—voted with Russia and China, clashing with more traditionally open countries including Australia, Canada, Estonia, France, Greece, Israel, the United States, and Britain.

Individual countries have also participated in this trend toward increased surveillance. In the last six months alone, many strict, sweeping laws have been passed or proposed in the name of mitigating vulnerability and combating cybercrime, including in Vietnam, Thailand, Tanzania, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt. Even India, the world’s largest democracy, has recently adopted some troubling tech policies.

New options are necessary, lest the authoritarian model for the internet—one in which the government exerts tight control over the internet in its borders—become a more appealing means of addressing cybersecurity threats than a relatively hands-off approach. One approach some cybersecurity experts have begun to advocate is the British example.

The United Kingdom has taken the view that its citizens and small businesses should not be expected to address cybersecurity threats on their own. As such, Britain’s approach offers an interesting philosophical take on the roles and responsibilities of governments for cybersecurity within their borders.

Governments can exert some influence over the internet within their borders without being authoritarian—if they act in a way that protects citizens from cybersecurity threats, such as identity theft or computer hacking—provided those actions are also backed by democratic laws and procedures that prevent the abuse of power (e.g., using cyberinsecurity as an excuse for censorship). This is a critical idea at a time when countries around the world seem to be shifting toward an authoritarian model of internet regulation under the pretense of maintaining internet security.

The U.K. National Cyber Security Centre is adopting a suite of new cyberdefense measures: For example, it recently implemented a government email security protocol, alongside new mechanisms of domain name system filtering, to stop attacks before they even approach end users. At its core, the goal is to block malicious domains and internet protocol addresses—from which 1s and 0s are sent across the web—before their data can reach U.K. citizens. By automating the detection and mitigation of smaller threats on public networks, more resources can be focused on greater risks (such as advanced persistent threats).

The British government also strengthened the Border Gateway Protocol (which routes internet traffic worldwide) and SS7 (the international telecoms signal protocol) to make malicious traffic rerouting more difficult. Such a step, historically taken by China, Russia, and other authoritarian nations, moves one country’s internet traffic through another’s borders, potentially allowing easier access to sensitive information.

These policies are part of Britain’s greater cyberdefense across public U.K. networks—specifically, “minimising the most common forms of phishing attacks, filtering known bad IP addresses, and actively blocking malicious online activity,” according to the country’s 2016-2021 National Cyber Security Strategy.

National-level threat filtering seems to work: According to Britain’s 2018 update on the strategy, the government reduced the median time that phishing sites and compromised sites are physically hosted in the U.K. before they’re taken down. The global volume of phishing has increased by nearly 50 percent from mid-2016 to present, yet the share hosted in the U.K. has decreased by almost that same amount.Cyberharms impacting citizens are being reduced.

Philip Reitinger, the head of the Global Cyber Alliance and former director of the U.S. National Cybersecurity Center, noted last year that “we have to stop trying to teach people to farm in cybersecurity. We have to give them food.” In other words, governments need to lessen the burden placed on the individual to stay cybersecure.

For the 50 countries around the world that have yet to take decisive stances on their internet models—what my colleagues and I term the “Digital Deciders”—it may be unclear what the difference is between government defense from cyberharms in the U.K. and internet control in countries such as China. To understand why the U.K. model offers a way to protect citizens without exerting authoritarian influence over the internet, it’s imperative to break down this distinction.

Britain is a clear supporter of a global and open internet, which depends on principles including free speech, open access to information, and the expansion of global commerce. It clearly differentiates its stance from the sovereign and controlled internet model favored by countries like China, Russia, and Iran, which is characterized by such practices as the suppression of online dissent and the blocking of foreign news sites.

These countries have long filtered the internet traffic entering their borders—and heavily regulated, among other things, where data is geographically stored and who can post what—all under the justification of internet insecurity. Because the global network is only enabling the spread of harms, the logic goes, governments must exert tight control of the internet within their borders to limit the overall flow of traffic.

The U.K. strategy calls for the filtering of data rather than content, which is a crucial point of differentiation. Data in this case refers to 1s and 0s (“machine-readable” code), while information refers to what the data means to humans. In control of the former, the United Kingdom takes down phishing websites that are perpetrating malicious data—code that intends to damage digital systems or gain unauthorized access to information. In control of the latter, China impedes access to foreign news sites that are perpetrating what it deems to be malicious information—content that runs contrary to the objectives of the government. The technical end results are quite different; Britain’s strategy is aimed at reducing cyberharms, such as identity theft and computer hacking, as opposed to censoring and isolating a country’s internet.

Even when democratic countries do filter for content, such practices are distinct from content filtering by authoritarians. China censors content that runs counter to its leaders’ goals, and Russia uses the domestic surveillance system SORM-3 to screen for political dissent. Democracies typically use content filtering for protecting child welfare and intellectual property, including, for example, the United States’ Children’s Internet Protection Act or Australia’s amended Copyright Act. These are not the same: The latter is meant to protect citizens and businesses from cyberharms that could result from the likes of IP theft or a child’s exposure to pornography.

By carrying out new strategies in cyberdefense, democracies like the United Kingdom set important standards for how other countries should operate while promoting a global and open internet.
France’s recent international cybernorms proposal received relatively wide support for its agreement to promote a more secure cyberspace, as have similar proposals in the U.N. General Assembly that have, in recent years, received similar backing. The policies and messaging of these global and open internet supporters have important influence on the 50 Digital Deciders that are grappling with their approach to internet governance, including Singapore, Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa.

Of course, the feasibility of applying the British approach around the world is an open question.
Implementation, after all, would differ by country depending on such factors as the centralization of a nation’s internet infrastructure, its governmental cybersecurity bureaucracy, and its existing laws. If wider implementation does not succeed, countries like China may capitalize on the internet defenses employed by the U.K. to point out that they were “right all along” and further twist future internet governance dialogues in their favor.

For instance, the United States has far more unique IP addresses within its borders than the U.K., which means the IP space is far less consolidated. This would likely make it more difficult to implement Britain’s assorted data-filtering mechanisms, since there is a wider range of web addresses the government would have to filter for malicious traffic. The United States also has the First Amendment, which the Supreme Court ruled in the 1990s in Bernstein v. Department of Justice could be interpreted to protect computer code as speech.

This is perhaps the central question at the heart of U.S. efforts to mimic the U.K. strategy. As Jane Bambauer argues, “Data is not automatically speech in every context,” but “any time the state regulates information precisely because it informs people, the regulation rouses the First Amendment.” It’s possible that filtering 1s and 0s to look for cybersecurity threats could be interpreted as infringement on this protection.

If the United Kingdom is correct that the best way to protect businesses and citizens from cyberthreats is to engage adversaries online, other democracies ought to explore this path. The authoritarian argument of controlling the internet in the face of cyberinsecurity is compelling—which is why the authoritarian internet model is spreading around the world.

In order to defend a global and open internet, and to better protect governments, economies, and citizens against cyberharms, other countries should emulate the United Kingdom’s approach. The central challenge for democracies is to figure out how they might interpret and adopt this strategy and to find an appropriate balance between total network openness and total network control that protects citizens and still preserves the benefits of a global and free internet.

 

Justin Sherman is a cybersecurity policy fellow at New America, a fellow at the Duke Center on Law & Technology, and a student at Duke University.

Release of Hakeem al-Arabi: A Lesson in Human Rights Diplomacy

by Laksiri Fernando-Feb 18, 2019

Feb 18, 2019

We all are living in an interdependent world today where issues of human rights are often highlighted in the international media boosted by the new social media. The issue of Hakeem al-Arabi, a refugee living in Australiafrom Bahrain, and became arrested in Thailandon 27 November 2018 when he was there on honeymoon,was such an important case highlighted all over the world and particularly in Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, UK, Canada and Europe.

After over two months of incarceration, Arabi was finally released on 11 February 2019. The Thai authorities dropped the extradition charges requested by Bahrain,under particularly the Australian diplomatic efforts. Human rights diplomacy in this case however was not limited to the Australian authorities. There were key individuals, sports organizations and media outlets apart from the usual human rights organizations/campaigners who influenced in his release. The Thai authorities also finally involved in diplomatic efforts with Bahrain.

Background tothe Case

Born in Bahrain in 1993, Arabi was a well-known professional footballer playing for the Bahrain national team before fleeing the country in 2012. He finally came to Australia in 2014 and lives in Melbourne having officially obtained the refugee status. The reason for fleeing the country was alleged persecution and baseless prosecution charging him for vandalism of a police station with others during the famous Bahrain uprising in 2011/2012.

Bahrain is a country with Shia and Sunni populations engulfed in frictions. While Shia followers are the majority, the political system is controlled by Sunni authorities. As a footballer, Arabi has always believed that football and sports could bring the two communities together particularly among the youth. This is like cricket or sports possibly playing a positive role in reconciliation in Sri Lanka. However, on matters of discrimination and democracy, Arabi has been outspoken while his brother Emad being more vocal and an activist. 

In recent years, there have been movements asking for greater democracy and freedom in Bahrain. Those were undoubtedly related to the Arab Spring movements, nevertheless had local issues involved. When protests were unleashing beginning 2011, Emad was directly involved in street protests. When the police came after Emad at their home, Arabi was arrested instead in Emad’s absence. This is a common story in many similar countries including Sri Lanka. Arabi was later released as he was a very important football player.

In the following year when many footballers and sportsmen were arrested, harassed and tortured, Arabi himself became outspoken. That was the apparent reason for his final arrest in November 2012. He was going to a Café and the police came and arrested him for the apparent involvement of vandalizing a police station in his home town, Manama. This was based on a supposed confession of his brother Emad. But at the time this incidenthappened, Arabi apparently was playing a televised football match.

During this detention, he was allegedly tortured. He told a German broadcaster that they spent three hours hitting him hard on his legs while saying ‘you will never play football again with these legs’ (Wikipedia).[i]But he was resilient and soon recovered. He was released on bail and was able to play again to the national team in late 2013. That is how he managed to get the opportunity to flee. In December 2013, when he was in Qatar to play for the West Asian Football Championship, he fled. He fled first to Iran, then to Malaysia, and then to Thailand and finally to Australia where he sought and received refugee status in 2017 after three years of careful processing of the case. 

Human Rights Issues

As a refugee in Australia, Arabi had rights protected under international law and conventions. He could travel with his official documents. Although many authorities and countries are unaware of this situation, a recognized refugee of a country could not be issued with a Red Notice for an alleged offense perpetrated in the original country. Perhaps his status was not clear even to the Interpol first.

On 27 November 2018, Arabi and his recently wedded wife travelled to Thailand to enjoy a belated honeymoon. They were both arrested at the Bangkok airport. Later the wife was released while Arabi was charged with extradition orders from Bahrain. He was nevertheless allowed the opportunity defend. A Thai human rights lawyer appeared to defend him even without a fee at first. How did they know about his arrival? It is said that some officers in the Australian Interpol informed the Thai authorities, even them without knowing the situation and refugee rights.

Although the Interpol rescinded the red notice having realized the mistake, the Thai authorities kept him in custody because the Bahrain authorities had requested his extradition. The argument was that he was a convicted offender or a ‘criminal’ under laws of Bahrain. Thailand has extremely cordial relations with Bahrain with even mutual business interests. Understandably therefore, this was not a request that the Thai authorities could easily refuse.

There were other human rights issues related to Arabi’s case. (1) What Bahrain talking about was not purelya criminal case, but a political one. (2) Arabi was convicted in absentia without fully appreciating the facts in his defence. (3) He was obviously tortured in custody in Bahrain. (4) Arabi was discriminated and persecuted with many others given their minority religious status. (5) He had a valid claimthat he would be tortured if was deported to Bahrain.

Human Rights Diplomacy

Diplomacy related to Arabi’s release worked at three levels – top, middle and bottom. The middle level diplomacy was the most effective led by professionals and professional organizations related to football. Australia’s former Socceroo’s captain, Craig Foster, played a key role in the whole release. He is a football analyst and a human rights campaigner. He influenced the Australian government and the opposition on the issue, coordinating with Arabi’s wife. He shuttled between Melbourne, Bangkok and Zurich to influence different football communities and particularly FIFA. Their sane voices were influential in Bangkok.

There are so many people and organizations worked in Arabi’s release and all names cannot be mentioned. A particular story in ‘The Sydney Morning Herald’ (12 February 2019) by James Massola titled ‘The inside story of Hakeem’s home coming’ might be useful in this respect.[ii]

It was a campaign that succeeded without much exaggeration or castigation of third world countries, Thailand or even Bahrain. Only extreme criticism was of Arabi’s shackling in Bangkok. Shackling undoubtedly is despicable, but I have seen shackling even in Australiafor perhaps security reasons. I highlight this aspect to emphasize the importance of human rights diplomacy without merely relying on ‘naming and shaming’ and castigating of third world countries or governments in toto. There can be instances where strong campaigns are necessary, but with reasoning and necessary balance. Otherwise extreme criticisms can becounterproductive, in my opinion.

Amnesty International Australia compiled a very useful petition signed by over fifty thousand people which was handed over to Thai authorities. There were various other campaigns launched by international and Thai human rights organizations that also resulted into nearly a million Tweets over the issue. Human rights organizations led by Bahraini activists themselves in London and elsewhere had every right to voice their concerns and that was useful for others and for the future.

The key factor however was the Australian intervention and diplomacy on the matter. As Arabi was an officially recognized refugee without any dubious record, it was rather the duty upon Australia to intervene on the case. It was quite delicate as the matter involved three countries. Australia’s relations with both Thailand and Bahrain are extremely cordial and Australia is also not a country vociferous on all international human rights issues like some Western counterparts. In terms of human rights diplomacy, Australia’s positive image both with Thailand and Bahrain was extremely helpful.

Both the Foreign Minister Marise Payne and Prime Minister Scott Morrison played key roles, making phone calls, having meetings and writing letters. When it came to public statements those were carefully worded. Australian diplomacy not only extended to Thailand but also to Bahrain. Perhaps that is where the final solution was sought. However, the Thai government also had communicated with Bahrain in seeking as they called a ‘win-win solution.’

Conclusion

Hakeem al-Arabi’s detention and release may appear a simple case of human rights where diplomacy could work. However if that diplomacy had failed, at least one person’s human rights would have been in jeopardy. It is also not only the diplomacy of the Australian government that this article is emphasising. First and foremost it was the diplomacy of Craig Foster and his football colleagues that worked and influenced the others to follow suit.

There was another important event that guided the cordial relations between Australia and Thailand. That was the rescue of a junior football team of 12 boys and their coach from a Thai cave where they were fatally stranded in June-July 2018. Dr Richard Harris and Craig Challen, two Australian divers had played a key role in this rescue. They directly wrote to the Thai Prime Minister requesting Arabi’s release. This Australian-Thai cooperation during the cave rescue proved extremely helpful in Hakeem al-Arabi’s release.

It appears that those who are helpful in third world matters apparently have more influence in resolving human rights issues than those who behave otherwise. That is the final lesson. 

[i]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakeem_al-Araibi

[ii]https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/the-inside-story-of-hakeem-s-homecoming-20190212-p50x8p.html

'The beginning of great change': Greta Thunberg hails school climate strikes

The 16-year-old’s lone protest last summer has morphed into a powerful global movement challenging politicians to act
Taking part? Share your stories

'I want you to panic': 16-year-old issues climate warning at Davos – video

Jonathan Watts @jonathanwatts-Fri 15 Feb 2019 06.00 GMT

Greta Thunberg is hopeful the student climate strike on Friday can bring about positive change, as young people in more and more countries join the protest movement she started last summer as a lone campaigner outside the Swedish parliament.

The 16-year-old welcomed the huge mobilisation planned in the UK, which follows demonstrations by tens of thousands of school and university students in Australia, Belgium, Germany, the United States, Japan and more than a dozen other countries.

“I think it’s great that England is joining the school strike in a major way this week. There has been a number of real heroes on school strike, for instance in Scotland and Ireland, for some time now. Such as Holly Gillibrand and the ones in Cork with the epic sign saying ‘the emperor is naked’,” she told the Guardian.

With an even bigger global mobilisation planned for 15 March, she feels the momentum is now building.

“I think enough people have realised just how absurd the situation is. We are in the middle of the biggest crisis in human history and basically nothing is being done to prevent it. I think what we are seeing is the beginning of great changes and that is very hopeful,” she wrote.

Greta Thunberg strikes outside the Swedish parliament last summer. Photograph: Michael Campanella/The Guardian

Thunberg has risen rapidly in prominence and influence. In December, she spoke at the United Nations climate conference, berating world leaders for behaving like irresponsible children.
Last month, she had similarly harsh words for the global business elite at Davos. She said: “Some people, some companies, some decision-makers in particular, have known exactly what priceless values they have been sacrificing to continue making unimaginable amounts of money. And I think many of you here today belong to that group of people.”

The movement she started has morphed and grown around the world , and, at times, linked up with older groups, including Extinction Rebellion, 350.org and Greenpeace.

Next week she will take the train – having decided not to fly due to the high carbon emissions of aviation – to speak at an event alongside Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European commission, in Brussels, and then on to Paris to join the school strikes now expanding in France.
 Thousands of UK students strike over climate change – video

Veteran climate campaigners are astonished by what has been achieved in such a short time. “The movement that Greta launched is one of the most hopeful things in my 30 years of working on the climate question. It throws the generational challenge of global warming into its sharpest relief, and challenges adults to prove they are, actually, adults. So many thanks to all the young people who are stepping up,” said Bill McKibben, the founder of 350.org.

Around the world, so many student strikes are now taking place or planned that it is becoming hard to keep up. On Twitter, a supporter who posts under the name The Dormouse That Roared, has compiled a Google map that pins all the reported or announced locations, stretching from Abuja and Bugoloobi to Sacramento and Medellín. “This is not perfect by any means. It’s an emergency after all,” the online campaigner told the Guardian.

The most recent version shows thick clusters of activity, particularly in the UK and northern Europe. “#climatestrike. The house is on fire. Just wow!” wrote @dormouseroared, who is also collecting the different terms for “climate strike” in different languages.

In reply, people on Twitter have written, “I’ve been dreaming of this”, “Power to the children”, “beautiful” and simply “hope”.

Australia was one of the first countries to mobilise. Last November, organisers estimate 15,000 students went on strike. Last Friday, students lobbied outside the offices of the opposition party. On 1 March, they will target the federal treasurer’s office. Two weeks later, they will join the global strike.

Students on strike in Sydney. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian

They are demanding immediate political action to stop the Adani coalmine in Queensland, and a switch from fossil fuels to 100% renewable energy.

On Thursday, three student activists from Castlemaine in Australia – Callum Bridgefoot, 11; Harriet O’Shea Carre, 14 and Milou Albrechy,14 – spoke with the leader of the opposition in the federal parliament. “It’s a good sign that he is willing to meet,” they said. “The prime minister condemned the strike.”

The resources minister Matt Canavan was still more hostile, saying students would be better off learning about mining and science. “These are the type of things that excite young children and we should be great at it as a nation,” he told a local radio station. “The best thing you’ll learn about going to a protest is how to join the dole queue.”

In Belgium, there have been strikes by thousands of students for at least four consecutive weeks, with one now-famous placard – addressed to politicians and policymakers – reading: “I’ll do my homework when you do yours.”

More than 3,000 scientists have given their backing to the strikes. The Belgian government is clearly feeling the pressure. The environment minister was forced to resign after falsely claiming the country’s intelligence services held evidence that the striking children were being directed by unnamed powers. The allegation was quickly contradicted by intelligence chiefs.

Switzerland has seen some of the biggest actions. Local activists said 23,000 joined the strike on 18 January, followed by 65,000 on 2 February. They too are preparing for the global demonstration on 15 March. They want the government to immediately declare a climate state of emergency, implement policies to be zero-carbon by 2030 without geo-engineering, and if necessary move away from the current economic system.

Activists said they want to make clear that the problem is systematic rather than a matter of individual lifestyle choices. They have been criticised by right-wing politicians, but local governments have met student delegations to discuss short-term steps, such as a ban on any school trip that involves a flight. One regional authority has declared its support for the student movement. In an election year, state leaders have also expressed guarded support.

“For the moment, the government has reacted in a very paternalistic way. They say that it’s a good sign that the youth is demonstrating for its future but they don’t really do anything about it,” said Thomas Bruchez, a 20-year-old student at the University of Geneva. In two weeks, he said the organisers will prepare for the next nationwide strike, when they will consider how to involve workers and try to define more precise claims, such as free public transport financed by highly progressive taxes.

In Germany, activists told the Guardian there are mobilisations every week. Last Friday, there were 20,000 students striking in 50 cities. On 18 January, there were 30,000. And there will be another strike this Friday in at least 30 cities.


Students protest for climate action in Magdeburg, Germany. Photograph: Klaus-Dietmar Gabbert/AP

The global strike on 15 March is expected to be the biggest yet with mobilisations in 150 cities. “It is not acceptable that grown-ups are destroying the future right now,” said Jakob Blasel, a high-school student. “Our goal to stop coal power in Germany and fossil energy everywhere.” He said politicians have expressed admiration for their campaign, but this has not translated into action. “This is not acceptable. We won’t stop until they start acting.”

Until now 75% of the participants have been schoolchildren but increasing numbers of university students are joining. Luisa Neubauer, a 22-year-old, was among those invited to talk to senior cabinet officials. She told the German minister of economy that he was part of the problem because he was working for industry, rather than for people or the planet.

“What we need our politicians and our government to understand is that everything they do today comes at a price for future generations,” she said. “We are not doing this for fun, but because we don’t have a choice.”

But she too noted a new direction in the national discussion. “There is a debate now about climate and the environment, which is good. People for the first time in years are not talking about refugees but talking about the environment.”