Daily Archives: January 9, 2022

ISLAMABAD: Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly and PML-N President Shahbaz Sharif on Sunday lashed out at the PTI-led government and held it responsible for the Murree tragedy that claimed the lives of more than 20 people after their vehicles ended up being stranded in heavy snowfall, Geo News reported.

In a statement, the Opposition leader said that the horrific Murree tragedy has proved that there is no functional government in the country.

"Only incompetency, impassivity, cruelty, and oppression are prevalent in this country," he maintained.

He urged the government to reveal the facts and figures about the deaths and inform the masses of the current situation of Murree so that a strategy could be devised accordingly.

Shahbaz expressed his concern over the reports of stranded tourists vehicles in snow and said that per the reports, thousands of vehicles are still stranded in Muree and Galiat.

"The government should ensure everyone stranded in Murree reaches their homes safely," he said.

The PML-N president criticized the government for issuing statements and holding citizens responsible for the incident.

He added that the government should perform its administrative responsibilities instead of shifting the blame on citizens.

He also lauded the local residents of Murree for helping the stranded tourists.

Shahbaz expressed sympathy with the families of those who lost their lives in the storm, adding that this tragedy has hurt the nation badly.

"If precaution were taken on time, it would not have been turned into such tragedy," he said.

It is worth mentioning that, according to official statistics, at least 23 people have died thus far as thousands of tourist vehicles ended up being stranded in Murree due to heavy snowfall and ensuing road blockage.

The federal government, on Saturday, deployed personnel of the Pakistan Army and other civil-armed forces for rescue operations in the hill station.

The Punjab government had declared Murree as a calamity-hit area after heavy snowfall wreaked havoc on the city. Taking notice of the chaos and emergency, Punjab Chief Minister Usman Buzdar had directed to open the governments offices and rest houses for the stranded tourists.

According to the local administration of Murree, rain and blizzards were forecast around Murree, with thunderstorms at a speed of 50-90 kmph and heavy snowfall.

The administration had warned the citizens not to leave their homes in severe weather or drive towards Murree as severe weather conditions were forecast.

Thumbnail image: AFP

Continued here:

Murree tragedy proves incompetency, cruelty, and oppression prevalent in country: Shahbaz - Geo News

A Ukrainian opera director arrested in Italy at Russias request has pledged to continue his fight against the oppression of Vladimir Putins government as calls for his release mount from around the world.

Yevhen (Eugene) Lavrenchuk, 39, was detained in Naples on an international arrest warrant issued by Russia during a stopover in the city on 17 December.

Russia is seeking his extradition for financial crimes allegedly committed when he was director of the Polish Theatre in Moscow. Lavrenchuk left Russia for Ukraine in 2014 in protest at Russias annexation of Crimea that year.

Lavrenchuk told the court of appeal in Naples that he was being persecuted by Russia for publicly voicing his dissent. He claimed the persecution led to him being beaten up outside the Odessa opera and ballet theatre, where he was a director, in December 2020. He has refused extradition, saying that he feared being exposed to discrimination.

Lavrenchuk is being held at Poggioreale prison in Naples, where he was visited this week by Francesco Emilio Borrelli, a regional councillor for the Europa Verde party.

I spoke to him for about 15 minutes during a prison check, which we do periodically, Borrelli said.

He was calm and in good form; he came across as a person aware of living an injustice and that in the end he will be proven right. He said hes determined to return to his country to fight against the oppression of Putins regime.

Lavrenchuk had never been to Italy before landing at Capodichino airport on 15 December on a stopover in his journey between Tel Aviv, where he had been visiting his sister, and Lviv in Ukraine.

He was arrested at a hotel close to the airport after providing his ID at check-in. By law, hotels in Italy have to scan a copy of a guests ID document; the details are then sent to the local police for registration.

Police found his name had been inserted into an international search system with a mandate for his arrest, said Alfonso Tatarano, Lavrenchuks lawyer. He didnt know he was being looked for by Russian authorities or that his name was in this system.

The case comes as fears mount over the possibility of a Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Liudmyla Denisova, the Ukrainian parliamentary commissioner for human rights, said on Thursday that Lavrenchuks arrest was not made on the basis of a red notice by Interpol, as was originally reported, but on a circular note distributed to a limited number of countries.

This testifies to Russias abuse of the Interpol charter and its misuse as an instrument of hybrid warfare for the politically motivated persecution of Ukrainians, Denisova wrote on her Facebook page.

The warrant for Lavrenchuks arrest was issued by a Moscow court in July 2020. The accusations against him date back eight years, when he allegedly defrauded one of his students by asking for money to pay for repairs to the Polish Theatre.

However, it is not yet clear to Italian judicial authorities whether the court had issued a conviction for his alleged crimes or a preliminary injunction. The crime is punishable by 10 years in prison.

We dont yet have the complete records of the proceedings, said Tatarano.

Russia has 40 days, from the day it was notified of Lavrenchuks arrest, to send its formal extradition request and related documents. The case is being handled by Luigi Riello, the chief public prosecutor of the Naples appeals court.

He will evaluate on what basis the request for extradition is being made before submitting his evaluation to the court, said Tatarano. If there is concrete danger that Lavrenchuk will receive unfair treatment or that the accusations are based on political opinions, the court will reject the extradition request. But we have to prove this, and I think we can.

Tatarano will appeal for Lavrenchuk to be either released from custody or placed under house arrest pending the outcome of the legal process.

A Facebook page calling for Lavrenchuks release has attracted more than 1,400 followers while members of the Ukrainian community in Italy are planning to protest in Milan on Saturday. We are mobilising to show how the Russian regime exploits legal cases against Ukrainian citizens for its own political purposes, the protest organisers wrote on Facebook.

PEN America, the writers association, has also called for Lavrenchuks immediate release.

The circumstances of Lavrenchuks detention he was detained in Naples while transferring to a flight to Lviv after travelling from Tel Aviv are a disturbing echo of Belaruss move last year to force a Ryanair flight to land in order to arrest blogger Raman Protasevich, said Polina Sadovskaya, PEN Americas Eurasia director. In this case, Lavrenchuk is one of the most visible voices against the Russian annexation of Crimea in the Eurasian theatre community, and Russias extradition request against him bears the hallmarks of politically motivated repression.

See the article here:

Arrested Ukrainian opera director vows to fight Putin oppression - The Guardian

LONDON: In November 1914, Sheikh Khazaal, the last ruler of the autonomous Arab state of Arabistan, could have been forgiven for thinking the troubles of his people were over.

Oil had been discovered on his lands, promising to transform the fortunes of the Ahwazi people, and Britain stood ready to guarantee their right to autonomy. In reality, the troubles of the Ahwazi were just beginning.

Within a decade, Sheikh Khazaal was under arrest in Tehran, the name Arabistan had been wiped from the map, and the Ahwazi Arabs of Iran had fallen victim to a brutal oppression that continues to this day.

For centuries, Arab tribes had ruled a large tract of land in todays western Iran. Al-Ahwaz, as their descendants know it today, extended north over 600 km along the east bank of the Shatt Al-Arab, and down the entire eastern littoral of the Gulf, as far south as the Strait of Hormuz.

However, the independent status of Arabistan was struck a blow in 1848 by the geopolitical maneuverings of its powerful neighbors. With the Treaty of Erzurum, the Ottoman empire agreed to recognize the full sovereign rights of the Persian government to Arabistan. The Arab tribes whose lands were so casually signed away were not consulted.

Within 10 years, however, Sheikh Khazaals predecessor, Sheikh Jabir, had found a powerful friend the British Empire.

Trade in the Gulf was vital for Britains interests in India and Sheikh Jabir was seen as a valuable ally, especially after his support for the British during the short Anglo-Persian war of 1856-1857 in which Britain repelled Tehrans attempts to seize Herat in neighboring Afghanistan.

Keen to maintain Afghanistan as a buffer, the British had backed the emir of Herats independence. Now, it seemed, Queen Victorias government meant to do the same for the sheikh of Arabistan.

Read our full interactive Deep Dive on the Ahwazi Arabs and their traumatic history in Iran here

The British opened a vice-consulate at Mohammerah in 1888. By 1897, by which time Sheikh Khazaal had become the ruler of what the British referred to as the Sheikhdom of Mohammerah, imperial Britain was heavily invested in Arabistan.

As a British Foreign Office summary of dealings with Sheikh Khazaal put it, an essential part of British policy in the Gulf was the establishment of good relations and the conclusion of treaties with the various Arab rulers, and the sheikhs of Mohammerah, controlling territory at the head of the Gulf, thus came very prominently into the general scheme.

With the might of the British at his back, Sheikh Khazaal appeared to be steering Arabistan toward a bright, independent future.

But, in 1903, the Shah of Iran, Muzaffar Al-Din, formally recognized the lands as his in perpetuity. Then, in 1908, vast reserves of oil were found on the sheikhs land at Masjid-i-Sulaiman.

In 1910, after a minor clash between Arabistan and Ottoman forces on the Shatt Al-Arab, Britain sent a warship to Mohammerah, to counteract a certain amount of loss of prestige suffered by the sheikh and also to make a demonstration in face of the growth of Turkish ambitions in the Arabian Gulf area.

On board was Sir Percy Cox, the British political resident in the Gulf. In a ceremony at the Palace of Fallahiyah on Oct. 15, 1910, he presented the sheikh with reassurances of Britains steadfast support, and the insignia and title of a Knight Commander of the Order of the Indian Empire.

In 1914, in a letter from Sir Percy, the sheikh had in his hand what amounted to a pledge by the greatest imperial power of the time to preserve his autonomy and protect Arabistan from the Persian government.

In the letter, dated Nov. 22, 1914, the British envoy wrote that he was now authorized to assure your excellency personally that whatever change may take place in the form of the government of Persia, His Majestys government will be prepared to afford you the support necessary for obtaining a satisfactory solution, both to yourself and to us, in the event of any encroachment by the Persian government on your jurisdiction and recognized rights, or on your property in Persia.

Read our full interactive Deep Dive on the Ahwazi Arabs and their traumatic history in Iran here

In fact, all of Britains assurances would prove worthless and, just 10 years later, Arabistans hopes of independence would be shattered.

The problem was oil. The Arabs had it, the Persians wanted it. And when it came to the crunch, the British, despite all their promises of support, chose to back the Persians.

Britains change of heart was triggered by the Russian revolution of 1917, after which it became clear that the Bolsheviks had designs on Persia. In 1921, fearing that the failing Persian Qajar dynasty might side with Moscow, Britain conspired with Reza Khan, the leader of Persias Cossack Brigade, to stage a coup.

Reza Khan, as a British report of 1946 would later concede, was ultimately personally responsible for the sheikhs complete downfall.

In 1922, Reza Khan threatened to invade Arabistan, which he now regarded as the Persian province of Khuzestan. His motive, as US historian Chelsi Mueller concluded in her 2020 book The Origins of the Arab-Iranian Conflict, was clear.

He eyed Arabistan not only because it was the only remaining province that had not yet been penetrated by the authority of central government but also because he had come to appreciate the potential of Arabistans oil industry to provide much-needed revenues, Mueller wrote.

Sheikh Khazaal asked for Britains protection, invoking the many assurances he had been given. Instead, he was brushed off, and reminded of his obligations to the Persian government.

Time was running out for the Arabs. In a despatch sent to London on Sept. 4, 1922, Sir Percy Loraine, British envoy to Iran, wrote it would be preferable to deal with a strong central authority rather than with a number of local rulers in Persia. This, he added, would involve a loosening of our relations with such local rulers.

In August 1924, the Persian government informed Sheikh Khazaal that the pledge of autonomy he had won from Muzaffar Al-Din in 1903 was no longer valid. The sheikh appealed to the British for help, but was again rebuffed.

Reza Khan demanded the sheikhs unconditional surrender. It was, the British concluded, clear that the old regime had come to an end and that Reza Khan, having established a stranglehold over Khuzestan, would be unlikely ever voluntarily to relinquish it.

Read our full interactive Deep Dive on the Ahwazi Arabs and their traumatic history in Iran here

The British government was now in an embarrassing position because of the services which the sheikh had rendered them in the past. Nevertheless, for fear of Russian incursion in Persia, Britain had now decided firmly to support the central government in Tehran.

The Ahwazi were on their own.

On April 18, 1925, Sheikh Khazaal and his son, Abdul Hamid, were arrested and taken to Tehran, where the last ruler of Arabistan would spend the remaining 11 years of his life under house arrest. The name Arabistan was expunged from history and the territories of the Ahwaz finally absorbed into Persian provinces.

Khazaals last days were spent in futile negotiations with Tehran, marked, the British noted, by a series of gross breaches of faith on the part of the central government, which had obviously no intention of carrying out the promises given to the sheikh.

The Persians, concluded the British, were obviously merely waiting for the sheikh to die. That wait ended during the night of May 24, 1936.

In the almost 100 years since the Ahwazi people lost their autonomy, they have experienced persecution and cultural oppression in almost every walk of life. Dams divert water from the Karun and other rivers for the benefit of Persian provinces of Iran, Arabic is banned in schools, while the names of towns and villages have long been Persianized. On world maps, the historic Arab port of Mohammerah became Khorramshahr.

Protests are met with violent repression. Countless citizens working to keep the flame of Arab culture alive have been arrested, disappeared, tortured, executed or gunned down at checkpoints.

Many Ahwazi who sought sanctuary overseas are working to bring the plight of the Ahwazi to the attention of the world. Even in exile, however, they are not safe.

In 2005, Ahmad Mola Nissi, one of the founders of the Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of Ahwaz, fled Iran with his wife and children and sought asylum in the Netherlands. On Nov. 8, 2017, he was shot dead outside his home in the Hague by an unknown assassin.

In June 2005, Karim Abdian, director of a Virginia-based NGO, the Ahwaz Education and Human Rights Foundation, appealed to the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.

The Ahwazi, he said, had been subjected to political, cultural, social and economic subjugation, and are treated as second and third-class citizens, both by the Iranian monarchy in the past and by the current clerical regime. Nevertheless, they still had faith in the international communitys ability to present a just and a viable solution to resolve this conflict peacefully.

Sixteen years later, Abdian despairs of seeing any improvement in the position of his people. I dont see any way out currently, he told Arab News, though he dreams of self-determination for the Ahwazi in a federalist Iran.

In the meantime, as an Ahwazi Arab, you cannot even give your child an Arabic name. So, this nation, which owns the land that currently produces 80 percent of the oil, 65 percent of the gas and 35 percent of the water of Iran, lives in abject poverty.

Read more:

How Iran's Ahwazi Arabs, betrayed, fell victim to oppression that continues to this day - Arab News

Of all the remembrances of January 6, the most searing for me was a simple tweet thread. It came from a Presbyterian pastor named Duke Kwon, and it was a photo compilation of Christian imagery on January 6. There were crosses, Bibles, public prayers, and Christian flags amid the tear gas. In fact, Christian flags and symbols were on the front lines of the fighting, carried like men used to carry regimental colors into battle.

Its hard to think of the worst image, but the picture belowwhich combines the Christian flag with an American flag and a Trump flagalmost perfectly captures the syncretism of Trumpist Christianity:

Ive written at length about Christian nationalism generally and the specific version of Christianity that was suffused throughout Trumps effort to steal a national election. But I want to write about something a bit different, about the definition of a Christian nation and the sense that America is (or was) a Christian nation that is now moving to a post-Christian future where it will become increasingly difficult for faithful Christians to find a home here and to feel welcome in their own communities.

This ideathat America is moving from a Christian past to a post-Christian futureisnt precisely Christian nationalism, but it does lend an enormous amount of emotional urgency to Christian political engagement. But lets unpack these thoughts for a moment. Is America a Christian nation? Has it been a Christian nation? And is it harder to live life publicly, openly, and authentically as a Christian than it used to be?

I know thats a lot to unpack. One essay can only scratch the surface. Books have been written on the subject. But lets have the conversation anyway. First, lets try to define what a Christian nation is.

We know that the United States does not meet one definition of a Christian nation. It does not have an established Christian church, and our Constitution explicitly rejects any formal religious establishment. There is nothing like the Church of England here. Our nations head of state is not also the defender of the faith.

But formal establishment is only one way to define a Christian nation, and its perhaps the least instructive. Theres the rather important matter of the religious faith and practice of its citizens. But does the mere fact that a majority of a nations citizens identify as Christian render a nation a Christian nation?

Id argue that a nations religious character is defined by the interaction between the individual faith of the citizens and the institutional expression of the nations values. A functioning Christian nation is going to combine both a robust private practice of faith with a government that is committed to basic elements of justice and mercy. In other words, when determining the identity of a people and nation, by their fruits you shall know them.

For example, Ive argued that American classical liberalism, at its best, not only respects and reflects the inherent God-given dignity of man by protecting our most fundamental human rights, it also recognizes and seeks to mitigate the inherent sinfulness of man by recognizing our capacity for tyranny and oppression. In other words, One way of reading American history is as a reflection of the central theological tension inherent in the gospel: the push and pull between humans as made in the image of God and humans still trapped in sin.

But we know enough about Americas experiment with classical liberalism that it has often fallen profoundly short of its professed values and has long engaged in behavior that its own founding declaration decisively rejects.

By this more exacting definition of Christian nation, which combines both individual faith identities and collective, national expressions of justice and mercy, then its far less clear that America has been a Christian nation or that our future looks to be more post-Christian than our past. In fact, a more fair reading of our history is one of conflict between Christians, where all too many times one set of believers sought to oppress others and used the power of government in the most profoundly un-Christian of ways.

In Lincolns second inaugural address, he famously said of the Union and the Confederacy, Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. That was true most dramatically in the Civil War, but its been true in countless conflicts before and since.

In fact, in the present day, its still true. As Republicans and Democrats hate each other with increasing ferocity, both parties utterly depend on the two most churchgoing demographics in America to attain and hold power. While Democrats are more secular than Republicans, its a rump party without the black vote, and black voters are among the most devout and churchgoing citizens in the United States of America. Republicans of course depend on the white Evangelical vote, and white Evangelicals attend church and believe in the God of the Bible at rates similar to black Protestants.

And what of Americas religious past, the good old days that so many Republican Christians seem to remember and long for? Reality is far more messy. One can make a good argument that white Protestant religious power may well have reached its American apex during Prohibition. A religiously infused temperance movement was so powerful that it succeeded in passing a constitutional amendment essentially imposing morals legislation throughout the United States.

Yet what else was happening in the United States during that era? Well, the entire southern United States (the Bible Belt, by the way) was essentially an apartheid sub-state within the larger United States. It brutally oppressed Americas black citizens, including its black Christian citizens. The Tulsa Race Massacre happened in 1921, at the peak of white Protestant power.

At the same time, white Protestants were also busy persecuting Catholics. The late 19th and early 20th centuries were the heyday of so-called Blaine Amendmentsstate constitutional amendments that were explicitly aimed at protecting Protestant political and cultural power against perceived Catholic political and cultural encroachment.

So do we want to claim America as a Christian nation in that period? Even though there were millions of American Christians who possessed and wielded power to an extent not seen before or since? Where was the justice? Instead a nation of Christian was proving that it could act in affirmatively un-Christianeven anti-Christianways.

And what about the idea that it is increasingly difficult to live out your Christian faith in this new, post-Christian era? I do think there are communities in the United States that are more hostile to authentic Christians expressions than in years past. I spent years of my life defending Christian liberty in higher education, for example, and I can give you chapter and verse on blatant anti-Christian hostility. Ive seen it. Ive experienced it.

There are influential people and institutions in this country whove taken the position that orthodox expressions of Christian sexual morality represent nothing more than bigotry and hatred.

But as much hostility as Ive seen and experienced from some secular leftists in response to the public expression of my Christian values, nothing compares to hostility Ive seen and experienced from self-identified Christians when I rooted my opposition to Donald Trump in the same Christian values that sometimes earned me scorn in the Ivy League.

In other words, Christians were more hostile to my public expressions of my values than the secular left ever was. And Im far from alone. Where does that cut on the question of whether its easy or hard to publicly and authentically live out your Christian faith? And whos hostile to that faith?

Lets think for a moment about the Bible Belt. Heres a pop quizwas it more or less difficult to be publicly and authentically Christian in the South in 2022 or 1952? The answer is easy. The South is far more welcoming of orthodox, authentic Christianity now. Why? Because orthodox, authentic public Christianitywhich would necessarily include opposition to the racial oppression of Jim Crowcarried profoundly greater risks even in the relatively recent past.

If you were black, it could get you killed. The Civil Rights Memorial lists the names of 41 martyrs of the movement, and the overwhelming majority are black. The victims include pastors and four young girls killed when white supremacist terrorists blew up the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham in 1963. These terrible losses represent a fraction of the thousands of black Americans lynched in the South after the Civil War.

If you were white, you could face economic retaliation and physical violence that could make modern cancel culture look tame. White Christian and Jewish allies also risked death. For example, segregationists beat a white pastor named James Reeb to death in Birmingham. An Alabama sheriffs deputy shot and killed an Episcopal seminary student named Jonathan Daniels. The infamous Mississippi Burning murders of 1964 claimed the lives of a black Mississippi man named James Chaney and two Jewish men from New York named Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner.

These men were just a few of the casualties of a movement that called for racial justice in the heart of one of the most Christian regions in the nation.

Heres a challenging reality: America has become more justand thus closer to the ideals one would expect of a Christian nationas white Protestant power has waned. The United States of 2022 is far more just than it was in 1822 or 1922 or 1952 or even 1982. And while white Protestants have undeniably been part of that storythey were indispensable to the abolitionist movement, for examplethe elevation of other voices has made a tremendous difference.

In the civil rights movement, the sad reality is that all too often the person wielding the fire hose and the person facing the spray both proclaimed faith in Jesus and both went to church, but only one of them was acting justly. And any account of American civil rights has to include the vital contribution of the American Jewish community.

Once again, the same theme pops up: Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other.

Even one of the most defining moral issues of modern Christian conservatismthe fight against abortionarose largely out of the Catholic Church, the same church that Protestants spent decades vigorously trying to suppress. The pro-life alliance between Evangelicals and Catholics is a relatively recent phenomenon.

I make this observation not to state that white American Protestants are uniquely problematic. The history of Christian power wielded by virtually any Christian faction anywhere is replete with examples of injustice and abuse. Nor are Christians uniquely terrible. Weve seen the awful consequences of corrupt religion throughout world history and throughout world religions. We still see it today.

The Christianity of the United States of America, both as a matter of individual expression and institutional justice, is an enormously complex topic, but one thing I can say with confidencethere was no golden age of American Christianity. And we cannot look back at any moment and say, this is when America was a Christian nation.

What conservative Evangelicals are losing today isnt so much liberty as power. Christians of all theological stripes enjoy more religious freedom now, in this nation, than virtually any group of believers anywhere in the world. Yet even so its always uncomfortable to lose power.

And that brings me to my last thoughtsince when is comfort our goal? The Kingdom of God is upside-down, remember. The last shall be first. To save your life you must lose your life. There is no higher calling than taking up your cross to follow Christ. If youre living a life where your Christianity is comfortable, and anything remotely resembling a cross is far, far from your experience, thats when we should wonder if weve conformed to the culture. Because we know the culture has not conformed to the cross.

There is a misplaced emotional urgency in parts of the church today. Theres a longing for a past we shouldnt seek to recover, panic over a present that is still laden with privilege, and fear of a future that is in the hands of a sovereign God. We saw that all on January 6. We see it still in rhetoric that blankets our Christian political discourse.

Yet if our history teaches us anything, it is that we cannot equate Christian power with Christian justice, and while weve always been a nation of Christians, we have not always borne Christian fruit.

One more thing

In the latest Good Faith podcast, Curtis and I talk about the relationship between justice and power and also about the relationship between Christianity and the American founding. We take the themes of this weeks newsletter and go deep.

Give it a listen. And please rate us! Were trying to get to 1,000 recommendations (then 2,000 of course). Your ratings make it easier for new listeners to find us and The Dispatch. Thank you!

One last thing

This is so good. Ive linked to Tenielle Nedas music before, and I listen to it all the time. This is a favorite. Enjoy:

Original post:

A Nation of Christians Is Not Necessarily a Christian Nation - The Dispatch

Boris Johnsons government has been of trying to subvert the justice system after the attorney general announced she could refer the Colston statue case to the Court of Appeal.

Lawyers, campaigners and opposition parties condemned Suella Braverman after she claimed the jury verdict which cleared four protesters of criminal damage after they toppled a monument of slave trader Edward Colston had caused confusion.

Speaking toThe Independent, Peter Herbert, retired judge and chair of the Society of Black Lawyers, described the attorney generals intervention as a disgrace.

The senior figure added: The Court of Appeal has no role to play in this acquittal Her involvement smacks of institutional racism, demonstrating the need to defend the narrative of slavery and oppression, the direct link to colonialism, and therefore to present day injustices.

Labour accused Ms Braverman of playing politics with the jury system, after Ms Braverman said she was carefully considering whether to refer the outcome to senior judges to give them a chance to clarify the law.

The attorney general has a duty to uphold democracy, the rule of law and the sanctity of the jury system not play political games when she doesnt like the results, said Emily Thornberry, the shadow attorney general.

The barrister defending one of the so-called Colston Four in Bristol told The Independent the attorney generals move amounted to Trumpian behaviour.

BarristerRajChada, who represented 33-year-old protester Jake Skuse, said: [Ms Braverman] is undermining public confidence in the criminal justice system by undermining the role of juries. Its Trumpian politics you dont like a decision then you seek to undermine it any way you can.

Nazir Afzal, former chief crown prosecutor for the northwest of England, also condemned the governments decision to interfere in the case.

The senior solicitor told The Independent: If the attorney general would like, I can refer several thousands of jury acquittals to her to consider. The case ends here, and to suggest otherwise is damaging to public confidence in the justice system.

If the Colston case is referred to Court of Appeal, the senior judges will not be able to overturn the jurys verdict, but they could potentially point out an error in law in directions that were given to the jury in the case.

The acquittal of the four activists who claimed the presence of the statue was a hate crime and was therefore not an offence to remove it has sparked an angry backlash among Tory MPs who warned it would allow mob rule and encourage the pulling down of more statues.

In a statement posted to Twitter on Friday, Ms Braverman said the jurys decision was causing confusion and she was able to refer matters to the Court of Appeal so that senior judges have the opportunity to clarify the law for future cases. I am carefully considering whether to do so.

But the defence barrister in the case insisted there was nothing to clarify. Our lawful excuse defences were reviewed by the judge and he sent robust directions to the jury, said Mr Chada. There was no suggestion by the prosecution the judge got it wrong.

Cabinet minister Grant Shapps suggested that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill close a loophole limiting the prosecution of those who damage memorials. The bill, currently going through parliament, would move more cases into crown court and increase the maximum sentence in such cases to 10 years imprisonment.

But legal expert Prof Thomas Lewis, director of theCentre for Rights and Justiceat Nottingham Trent University, told The Independent that the bill could see more jury acquittals.

The bills seeks to give extra protection to memorials by moving these cases from low-level magistrates courts and putting them before a jury, he said. The point about juries, dating back to the Magna Carta, is that they are the voice of the ordinary people. You have to accept their verdict.

Zehrah Hasan a barrister at Garden Court Chambers and campaigner at the Black Protest Legal Support group, warned the government against questioning jury verdicts. Suella Braverman threatening to use her power to question the legal basis for the jury decision is ill-informed, and its another example of the Tory governments authoritarianism.

Grey Collier, advocacy director at human rights campaign group Liberty, added: This government has form for trying to overturn things it doesnt like. This looks like the government is trying to subvert the rule of law by going behind the systems we have in place.

Wera Hobhouse MP, the Liberal Democrats justice spokesperson, said it was unacceptable that politicians are trying to trespass into what should be left to our independent court procedures the Tories should step back from undermining our democracy.

Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 allows the attorney general, following a submission from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), to ask a higher court to clarify a point of law. But it is not a means of changing the outcome of an individual case.

A CPS spokesman said: We are considering the outcome of the case but, under the law, the prosecution cannot appeal against a jury acquittal.

See the original post:

Government accused of subverting rule of law with Colston statue case appeal move - The Independent

Tesla has opened a new sales and service center in the Xinjiang region of China, home to a Muslim population known as the Uyghurs whom the United Nations and rights organizations have identified as arepressed ethnic group.

In 2021, theUnited States, United Kingdom and Canadasaid China engages in "forced labour, mass detention in internment camps, forced sterilisations" and other abuses against Uyghurs. Separately, theEU imposed sanctions on China for "arbitrary detentions"of Uyghurs.

China has repeatedly dismissed those claims as"lies and disinformation."

Tesla announced the move last week on Weibo, a popular social media platform in the country. The Wall Street Journal previously reported on Tesla's move into Xinjiang.

A Dec. 31 post on Tesla's Weibo account which was translated by CNBC said: "The UrumqiTeslaCenter officially opens #inanewdirection... As the firstTeslaCenter in Xinjiang, this location integrates sales, service and delivery. It will help Xinjiang users enjoy the experience of one-stop service, escortingTeslacar owners on their journey to the west."

Another Weibo post on that same date said: "#inanewdirection UrumqiTeslaCenter has officially opened! On the last day of 2021 we meet in Xinjiang. In 2022, let's begin Xinjiang's journey to pure electric [vehicles]! Encounter even more beauty!"

The hashtag phrases comprised wordplay in Chinese. The character that spells "new" is contained in the first half of the region's name, Xinjiang.

Tesla currently has one supercharger in Urumqi and another that's "coming soon," according to its website.

Many social media users in China expressed appreciation in response to Tesla's posts. But the move elicited outrage in the West.

As NBC News previously reported in June 2021, Amnesty International researchers found that "Chinese authorities in the western region of Xinjiang have been rounding up women and men largely Muslims from the Uighur, Kazakh and Kyrgyz ethnic minorities and detaining them in camps designed to rid them of terrorist or extremist leanings since 2017.

"More than 1 million Uighurs and other minorities from Xinjiang are believed to be held in internment camps, where they are forced to study Marxism, renounce their religion, work in factories and face abuse, according to human rights groups and first-hand accounts. Beijing says these 're-education camps' provide vocational training and are necessary to fight extremism."

In response, U.S. senators recently approved abill banning importsfrom China's Xinjiang region unless businesses can prove they were produced without forced labor.

The author of the bill, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), said of Tesla in a press statement, "Nationless corporations are helping the Chinese Communist Party cover up genocide and slave labor in the region."

Tesla did not respond to requests for comment. Tesla shares rose more than 13% on Mondayafter the company reported record vehicle deliveries for 2021.

Elon Musk's electric vehicle company and his re-usable rocket company SpaceX have both faced scrutiny in China.

For example, China sent a complaint to the United Nations last year revealing that SpaceX satellites had nearly collided with China's space station on two separate occasions in 2021.

With nearly 30,000 satellites and other debris believed to be orbiting the planet, scientists have urged governments to share data to reduce the risk of disastrous collisions. SpaceX has deployed nearly 1,900 satellites to serve its Starlink broadband network, and is planning to launch thousands more.

Before that, China mandated recalls of Tesla vehicles over quality defects, and the Chinese government restricted the use of Teslas by some state and military personnel citing security concerns.

But Tesla has also helped Beijing demonstrate that it is open to foreign businesses, and that a foreign company can thrive in its relatively closed market.

In 2019, when Musk broke ground on Tesla's Shanghai factory, the CEO said, "Somebody who joins today as a junior engineer in Tesla China could one day be CEO of Tesla worldwide...They could have my job one day maybe."

In July 2020, Musk posted on Twitter that "China rocks" while the U.S. is full of "complacency and entitlement."

Read the original:

Tesla opened a dealership in Xinjiang, China, despite widespread reports of Uyghur oppression there - CNBC

Several countries including the United States, Australia, Belgium, and the UK have already decided to boycott the upcoming Beijing Winter Olympic Games diplomatically in protest against Chinas repression of democracy and separatist movements in Hong Kong and Taiwan and not least the treatment of the Muslim minority of Uighurs in Xinjiang province.

But with under a month to go until kick-off, the Danish government has yet to make a decision and is under massive pressure,DR Newswrites.

Minister of Culture Ane Halsboe Jrgensen and Minister of Foreign Affairs Jeppe Kofod refuse to be interviewed on the very grounds that the government has not yet decided whether it wants to boycott the Games diplomatically.

To DR News, Eva Flyvholm, foreign affairs spokeswoman for the Unity List, says: Now the government must get together, they have had time to think about this for a long time and we must know where the country stands.

In relation to human rights, its really important that Denmark draws a line, both when it comes to China, but also when it comes to the World Cup in Qatar, she says.

Foreign policy spokesman from the Liberal Party, Michael Aastrup wonders why the Danish government has yet to decide and says, Almost every day we see that China takes new steps and crosses the line in relation to freedom of speech in Hong Kong, in relation to the aggression against Taiwan and in relation to the oppression of the Muslim minority in the country.

Michael Aastrup does not believe Denmark is risking more than 70 years of diplomatic cooperation with China. No, because now its very simple; we have to choose a side. The United States and a large number of our allies have made it clear that they want a diplomatic boycott. Since they made the announcement so clearly, we should also join them and stand on the right side, he says.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has said that the committee considers other countries governments presence to be a political decision that each country must make, which IOC in its political neutrality fully respects.

Several Danish political parties believe a diplomatic boycott is a good idea which they would rather see happen in cooperation with other EU countries.

Stanis Elsborg, a senior analyst from Play the Game, which works to promote democracy, transparency, and freedom of speech in world sport, has long followed the debate on the diplomatic boycott of the upcoming Games.

For me, it testifies that China is a major political power, and Denmark is in the process of a very, very difficult balancing act to figure out how to deal with the situation in China because the country is also a big and important partner, he says.

The Winter Olympics are scheduled to start on 4 February 2022 and end on 20 February 2022.

Here is the original post:

Danish government under pressure to boycott the Beijing Winter Olympics - ScandAsia.com

The federal government just set aside a huge sum $40bn to compensate the victims and relatives of a system of cruel racial exploitation that existed for much of the countrys history. This news is not about the United States, where debate over reparations for slavery have been stalled in Congress for decades. No, this news comes from the USs neighbour to the north, Canada.

The national government of Canada has agreed to set aside this sum, the equivalent of $31bn, for Indigenous Canadians who were harmed by the countrys child welfare system. The huge sum will go towards compensating Indigenous children who were unnecessarily removed from their families in the last three decades, and fixing the discriminatory system itself. The decision is the latest step in Canadas efforts to provide redress for historic wrongs against Indigenous Canadians and especially Indigenous children. It is an acknowledgement that even after the closure of Canadas infamous residential schools, the welfare system remained focused on removing Indigenous children from their families rather than supporting them in place.

For years, Indigenous Canadians were subjected to Canadian boarding schools. These institutions, generally operated by the Catholic Church and other religious institutions, forcibly removed First Nations, Inuit and Mtis children from their parents and communities and systematically stripped them of their cultural identities while imposing upon them English and French, Christian religious practices, and white Canadian culture.

This programme of state-sanctioned kidnapping and indoctrination officially ran from 1883 until the last school was closed in 1996, despite a long and well-known record of abuse. The stories that have emerged over the decades concerning these schools are horrific. Sexual abuse of children was common, and many of the schools had horrific mortality rates, as children died from tuberculosis and other communicable diseases, malnutrition, violence and even infanticide. The recent revelations of hundreds of newly-discovered unmarked graves on the sites of the now-closed boarding schools has created public outrage across Canada in recent months. These public scandals, combined with a ruling from a 2016 tribunal that surviving victims should be compensated, as well as a pair of pending lawsuits concerning more recent cases of discrimination, finally prompted the Canadian government to act.

In contrast, the debate about reparations continues to ebb and flow in the US without any resolution. Legislation in the House of Representatives to create a national commission to explore the issue, symbolically titled House Resolution 40 (HR 40) after the famous Forty Acres and a Mule promise to compensate freed slaves after the American Civil War, has been introduced by Black legislators every year since 1989, to no avail. The racial reckoning that occurred after the deaths of George Floyd and others in 2020 seemed to produce newfound momentum for the reparations conversation. HR 40 moved out of committee for the first time in 2021 but has yet to be put up to a full vote.

Unlike Canada, where the revelation of the graveyards of Indigenous children helped spur moral outrage and governmental action, the evils of American slavery have been extremely well-documented in academic and popular discourse for some time. And attempts like the 1619 Project to highlight the centrality of slavery and its aftermath to American history have led to backlash and laws designed to specifically downplay and obscure the magnitude and horror of American slavery and racial oppression. Such laws portend a renewed opposition to calls for reparations. And so attempts to appeal to moral outrage are likely to be counterproductive in the face of defensive conservatives and state policies designed to whitewash history.

Despite these setbacks in the United States, the American case for reparations can draw encouragement and examples from Canada. The multibillion-dollar sum allocated in Canada comes after years of increasingly large awards and settlements across the country. An earlier settlement reached in 2006 obligated the federal government and the Catholic Church to pay compensation to victims of the residential schools system. In recent years, the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have agreed to settlements with specific First Nations worth tens or hundreds of millions of dollars each, based on improper allocation of lands based on treaties that are decades or even centuries old. An Ontario court recently ruled that the government had been significantly under-compensating members of various First Nations under the terms of an 1850 treaty, requiring potential billions in back pay.

The first lesson to draw from these Canadian examples is that localised action can have significant effect. This is encouraging for the US where, absent federal legislation, local jurisdictions have taken up the task of reparations. Evanston, Illinois recently became the first US city to implement a policy of reparations for its African American residents. The city has inspired other municipalities to look into similar programmes; main cities such as Detroit and Boston have taken steps towards implementing reparations. Evanston even recently hosted a meeting of the National African American Reparations Commission, which seeks to create a national network among advocates working on reparations at the local level. California, the countrys most populous state, created a task force in 2020 that has been investigating the details of how to implement reparations across the state. Even private institutions have begun implementing programmes to benefit descendants of American slaves, including Georgetown University and several other colleges and universities with histories of profiting from slavery.

Furthermore, reparations have been made or considered for more specific cities and statewide programmes that victimised Black people. North Carolina has been paying out millions to victims of forced sterilisation during a statewide eugenics programme that operated until 1976. The city of Chicago has been paying millions of dollars to compensate victims of police torture under now-deceased Police Commander Jon Burge. The city government of Tulsa, Oklahoma has begun deliberations over compensating any survivors as well as descendants of those victimised by the 1921 Tulsa Massacre, which rose into popular consciousness over the 100th anniversary of the ethnic cleansing against the citys Black residents.

In each of these examples, at least some of the recipients of compensation are living survivors of the policies in question, as is the case for the Canadian programme as well. However, these programmes have also established that families of direct victims are eligible for compensation. Furthermore, while slavery in the United States ended far too long ago for any of its direct victims to still be alive, there is a strong case that slavery represented just one phase in an unbroken chain of anti-Black policies that include Jim Crow segregation, redlining policies that discriminated against Black homeowners, and biased policing and criminal justice systems, all of which continue to affect Black people today. Indeed, scholar and prominent reparations advocate Ta-Nehisi Coates has made just such an argument, including in his landmark 2014 essay: The Case for Reparations.

If the Canadian example is to be followed, focusing on these specific and localised cases redlining in American cities, the Tulsa Massacre, police torture in Chicago, reparations in specific cities or states can lay the groundwork for larger and more general plans for compensation for the larger system of racial oppression. This type of bottom-up approach to reparations can actually support and complement the top-down approach that has been pursued in Congress through HR 40.

The final lesson coming from Canada is that, until legislation is passed to recognise and compensate past injustices, the court system can be an effective avenue for gaining redress. The United States has seen the judiciary move ahead of the legislature in other areas, from desegregation in the 1950s with Brown vs Board of Education to LGBTQ rights in the recent cases of Obergefell vs Hodges and Bostock vs Clayton County. One such lawsuit for reparations in the US was dismissed in 2004 without prejudice, meaning that it can be revived. As local, state and corporate efforts for reparations become more widespread, such changes could add momentum for a renewed legal case for reparations. A legal victory, or simply a strong court case, may in turn spur legislators to finally move on HR 40, seeking legislative redress for the evils of slavery and subsequent racial oppression.

The Canadian process for redressing the wrongs that continue to be inflicted upon Indigenous people has a long way to go. As the head of the First Nations advocacy organisation behind one the recent lawsuits notes candidly, no final agreement has been reached for the $40bn set aside by the Canadian government and promises actually dont end the discrimination for kids if theyre not implemented. The US case for reparations has even further to go, having yet to even revive the 40 Acre promise of 1865. But the progress made in select US localities, and the recent advancements in Canada, offer new hope and new strategies for finally achieving a measure of racial justice and repairing some of the damage that has accumulated over generations and centuries.

Correction: (8 January 2022) A previous version of this article stated that the $40bn sum set aside by the Canadian government was for Indigenous Canadians subjected to boarding schools. It is actually for Indigenous Canadians harmed by the discriminatory welfare system in the last three decades. The article has been updated to correct this error.

The views expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeeras editorial stance.

Link:

Canada approved reparations the US can be next - Al Jazeera English

Europe has faced such ugly moments too often before, where matters of life and deathand of war and peacedepended on the balance of power and test of wills between despots and more benevolent forces.

The Cold Wars peaceful end thirty years ago was meant to alter that bloody history and usher in a period that then US President George H.W. Bush in 1989 hoped would bring a Europe whole and free, where Russia would find its rightful and peaceful place.

For forty years, the seeds of democracy in Eastern Europe lay dormant, buried under the frozen tundra of the Cold War, said President Bush on May 31, 1989, in Mainz, Germany, six months before the Berlin Walls fall and more than two years ahead of Soviet dissolution. And decade after decade, time after time, the flowering human spirit withered from the chill of conflict and oppression The world has waited long enough. The time is right. Let Europe be whole and free.

It is with that as context that US President Joe Biden this week confronts a moment of truth for the dying embers of that aspiration and the signature foreign-policy initiative of his presidency. Biden is rallying allies for the systemic competition between democracy and Chinese and Russian autocracy that he has said will define the twenty-first century.

That collides with Russian President Vladimir Putins signature ambition of reversing the breakup of the Soviet Union and the enlargement of NATO to his borders, the former of which he famously called the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the [twentieth] century. As he turns seventy this year, he seems more determined than ever to cement his legacy, as have Russian czars and leaders before him, through territorial expansion or the control of neighbors.

This weeks talks begin with Mondays bilateral US-Russian meeting in Geneva, starting with an initial conversation Sunday evening, move on to the Russian-NATO Council in Brussels on Wednesday, and then end on Thursday in Vienna at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

What has prompted all these emergency meetings are Russian security demands delivered in mid-December in the form of two draft treaties. Their provisions would prohibit Ukraine from ever joining NATO and require the Alliance to withdraw forces stationed in member countries in Central and Eastern Europe and stop all military exercises in those countries. That was followed a few days later by brash Putin brinksmanship in the form of an ultimatumbacked by some one hundred thousand troops near Ukraines bordersthat he would take military-technical action if not satisfied.

Thus far, the United States and its allies have answered his escalation through the carrot of reciprocal talks on some aspects of the treatiesincluding allowable missile systems and military maneuversand through the stick of punishing, new financial, military, and technology sanctions should Russia invade Ukraine.

US officials told the New York Times that those plans include cutting off Russias largest financial institutions from global transactions, imposing an embargo on American-made or American-designed technology needed for defense-related and consumer industries, and arming insurgents in Ukraine who would conduct what would amount to a guerrilla war against a Russian military occupation, if it comes to that.

By this weeks end, the United States and its allies likely will know whether Putin is willing to negotiate or whether hes determined to escalate.

The fluidity of the situation was underscored by this past weeks swift, Russian-led military intervention in Kazakhstan, at the request of Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, ostensibly to quell widespread public protests against a fuel-price increase on January 2.

It would be a mistake to separate Putins actions in Kazakhstan from his ambitions in Ukraine. By his calculus, they are inextricably linked.

When the dust settles, Kazakhstan is likely to land deeper in Moscows expanding sphere of influence than at any time since it broke from the Soviet Union in 1991complete with its energy and mineral riches, which include 40 percent of the worlds uranium reserves.

Although the situation is still unfolding and reliable information is hard to come by, whats beyond dispute is that the timing and swift execution of Russias intervention underscore Putins determination to see and seize strategic opportunities in the former Soviet space. It is the fourth time in just two years that Moscow has intervened in neighboring states that had been tilting toward the Westfollowing interventions in Armenia, Belarus, and Ukraine.

Rumors are rife in Kazakhstan regarding Russias role in this past weeks events, ranging from the possibility that it was a Russian-organized coup from the beginning to the certainty that the always-opportunistic Putin simply seized the moment.

Whats clear is that with his country in turmoil and his leadership at risk, Tokayev turned to Putin to ensure his political survival. That is likely to bring lasting change to a countryand perhaps to other parts of Central Asiathat had benefited from balancing relations with Moscow, Beijing, and Washington.

With Moscows support, Tokayev issued shoot-to-kill orders against protesters and ousted Nursultan Nazarbayev, 81, his erstwhile benefactor, and the countrys first president, as head of Kazakhstans powerful security council. He also ousted and arrested Karim Masimov, his intelligence chief, on charges of treason.

Russian troops are now on the ground protecting the countrys most crucial airports and military installations, alongside other soldiers from the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), made up of six nations from the former Soviet Union, in its first such military intervention since its 1992 founding.

As US Secretary of State Tony Blinken said this week, One lesson of recent history is that once Russians are in your house, its sometimes very difficult to get them to leave. If there is a message from Kazakhstan to US officials negotiating this week with the Russians, it is this: Whatever you hope to negotiate, recognize that Putin is playing for keeps, believes he has the initiative, is willing to take risks, is prepared to send in troops, and sees the Biden administrationparticularly following the Afghanistan debacleand its partners as weak, divided, and indecisive.

The least-likely scenarios are those of Putin backing off from his demands on NATO or executing a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Watch instead for something murkier and craftier that would be designed to divide alliesthe taking of additional swatches of Ukrainian territory, the annexation of Luhansk of Donbas provinces, where Russian separatists dominate, or the stirring up of internal Ukrainian dramas with a hidden hand.

The question is whether the United States and its allies can avoid both appeasement and war. The future of Europe is again in the balance.

This article originally appeared onCNBC.com

Frederick Kempe is president and chief executive officer of the Atlantic Council. You can follow him on Twitter @FredKempe.

#1 The future of Europe hinges on the coming talks between the West and RussiaTHE WASHINGTON POST

The recent passing of Fred Hiatt, the legendary editorial page editor of the Washington Post, was a blow to democracy advocates around the world.

So it was heartening to see the Posts lead editorial on Sunday rightly warning that history could repeat itself in Europe if the United States and its allies dont respond properly to Putins aggressions. Hiatt would have been proud of the piece, comparing the gravity of the moment to the specter of Munich in 1938, when Britain and France traded a piece of Czechoslovakia to Adolf Hitlers Germany in return for his false pledge not to make war.

What the United States cannot do is allow Mr. Putin to win concessions at the point of a gun, the Post concludes. In the all too likely event that he is not bargaining in good faith, and does invade Ukraine, President Biden will have to help that country defend itself, rally NATO and ensure that Russia pays a heavy price. Read more

#2 Kazakhstan Unrest and Russias Intervention Transform Ties With MoscowYaroslav Trofimov | THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

For more on the history of Russian-Kazakh relations, look no further than this excellent explainer from Yaroslav Trofimov.

Longtime Kazakh leader Nursultan Nazarbayev oversaw moves to strengthen the Kazakh identity and weaken Russias historic influence following the fall of the Soviet Union, Trofimov writes. But now by inviting Russian-led foreign intervention into Kazakhstan, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev has risked upending that balancing act.

Recent history provides two contrasting paths for Kazakhstan to follow: Belarus, where President Alyaksandr Lukashenkas brutal crackdown has successfully kept him in power for now, and Ukraine, where then President Viktor Yanukovych couldnt quell the 2014 revolution and fled to Russia, leading to Putin taking over Crimea and invading the Donbas region. The question now is whether Tokayev will have enough political will to take Lukashenkos path, Russia expert Andrey Kortunov tells Trofimov. Read more

#3 Russias menacing of Ukraine is unlikely to induce NATO to retreatTHE ECONOMIST

The Economist examines how Putins menacing build-up across the Ukrainian border could push NATO closer together, a risk the magazine argues the Russian dictator could be more than willing to take.

The irony, the Economist writes, is that Russias efforts to halt NATOs eastward expansion may end up achieving precisely the opposite. But for Putin, the gamble may be worth it. Better to start a war now, despite the attendant costs, than risk a Ukraine bristling with foreign troops in a decade.

The article ends with a sobering reflection by Munich Security Conference Chairman Wolfgang Ischinger, who in 1993 asked a top official in Moscow how Russia was going to calm the fears of former Soviet bloc countries such as Poland and Ukraine.

Whats wrong with our neighbors living in fear of us? replied the official. Unfortunately, says Ischinger, very little, if anything, has changed. Read more

#4 Ukraine is Only One Small Part of Putins PlansLilia Shevtsova | THE NEW YORK TIMES

Longtime Russia expert Lilia Shevtsovas smart, concise analysis of Putins attempt to remake the international order into a shape more friendly to authoritarian Russia is a crucial read in order to understand Putins endgame.

Judging from the Wests awkward, anguished response so far, Shevtsova warns, Putin might be close to getting what he wants. And Ukraine could only be the beginning. Writes Shevtsova: Today, Ukraine is the jewel to fight for. But it wont end there: Belarus, whose embattled leader relies on Russias support, could be the next prize in the geopolitical rivalry or perhaps it will be Kazakhstan, where popular anger at the corrupt, Russian-backed regime has erupted. The drama is just beginning.

The result, she argues, is a deadlock, as Russia and the West play a seemingly endless game of who blinks first. Read more

#5 In Kazakhstans Street Battles, Signs of Elites Fighting Each OtherIvan Nechepurenko and Andrew Higgins| THE NEW YORK TIMES

This weeks must-read is this superbly reported explainer of the riots in Kazakhstan from Ivan Nechepurenko and Andrew Higgins on how a power struggle within the Kazakh leadership may well have spilled into the streets and fueled the unrest sweeping the country.

The [fuel-price] crisis, they write, coincided with a power struggle within the government, fueling talk that the people fighting in the streets were proxies for feuding factions of the political elite.

Still, they note that discontent, even if exploited by political elites, is very real. Now that Tokayev has invited Russian troops into the country, the situation has only escalated further. What happens in Kazakhstan will leave ripples throughout the regionand perhaps beyond. Read more

Image: Demonstrators hold the Ukrainian national flag during a protest against Russian President Vladimir Putin's policies, in Kyiv, Ukraine January 9, 2022. Picture taken with a drone. Photo by Valentyn Ogirenko/Reuters.

See more here:

Can the US avoid both appeasement and war? This week's Russia talks will be revealing. - Atlantic Council

Facebook Twitter LinkedInPinterestReddit EmailPrint

Imam Hussain University, affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC), published an assessment of the November 2019 uprising, which spread to 200 cities with lightning speed in reaction to the tripling of fuel prices and shook the regime to its foundations.

This assessment underscores the significance of the 2019 uprising as a turning point in the face-off between the Iranian people and the regime.

This study underlines that those protests were organized, and that the protesters were not a spontaneous expression of outrage nor indiscriminate vandalizing of shops or public locations.

The Enemys Tactics in Creating Urban Riots, acknowledges that people expressed their disdain toward the ruling theocracy by targeting the regimes centers of oppression and plunder.

The IRGCs latest report was reviewed by 30 IRGC commanders, officials of security brigades, IRGC intelligence organization, Basij organization, and Sarollah Headquarters in Tehran [charged with maintaining Tehrans security].

The report highlights that Poor people and a part of the middle class who had become poor, mostly youth who did not foresee a clear economic, social and political future for themselves, participated in November protests.

The report also acknowledges that the nature of these protests differed significantly from protests in the 1990s and 2000s in that they resembled the protests in the 1980s that were organized by the principal Iranian opposition movement, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK).

The report also underlines that the November 2019 uprisings nationwide character and anti-government nature made it distinct from the 1999 and 2009 protests.

While this report sheds light on the regimes paranoia over the explosive state of Iranian society, it distorts the ruthless manner in which the security forces cracked down on the protest and deliberately ignores Supreme Leader Ali Khameneis directive to open fire on the innocent protesters.

The following are some excerpts of this report.

The Rioters Field Tactic

Policy Recommendation

To manage urban crises like November 2019, we recommend:

Summary

The IRGCs latest report once again highlighted that major Iran protests in 2019 were a turning point and had a significant impact on the regimes standing both domestically and internationally. The November 2019 uprising laid bare the regimes vulnerability and illegitimacy in Iran, explaining why Tehran had to resort to stepped-up intransigent policies regarding its nuclear and missile program.

The IRGCs report also acknowledges that the protests were highly organized, and protesters only targeted the regimes centers of oppression and plunder.

This report reconfirms that unlike what Tehrans apologists have tried to imply for years, Iranians do not believe in reform, have rejected the regimes factions, and see regime change as the only viable option to the current economic and social crises.

The report lays bare the fragile and vulnerable state of the regime vis-a-vis an increasingly restive society. Against this backdrop, Western governments should refrain from providing Irans moribund regime with any lifeline. Including the easing of the sanctions. On the contrary, they should stand with the Iranian people as they stand for liberty.

Read more from the original source:

Exclusive: IRGCs Report Says 2019 Iran Uprising Was Organized - National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI)