Daily Archives: January 21, 2022

NORMAL, Ill. (WMBD) Heartland Community College (HCC) is featuring an exhibit showcasing photographs by 50 Iranian female artists expressing what life is like for women in Iran.

Being a Woman: Iranian Artists Reflection is an installation of dozens of photographs and digital art curated by Shahrbanoo Hamzeh, exhibition coordinator at Heartland Community College, at the Joe McCauley Gallery on HCCs Normal campus. Its her first collection and the first one of its kind at HCC.

You are never enough in my country as a woman, said Hamzeh, who was born and raised in Iran. She came to the United States four years ago to pursue her Master of Fine Arts at Illinois State University.

Hamzeh said she wants to shine a light on the sanctioned oppression of women in Iran. She said they are treated as second-class citizens by the government.

Domestic violence is tolerated to the point of femicide, and its not okay. There is no way for women to get help because the law is against them, she said.

Hamzeh said women in Iran are constantly in survival mode.

Many women in Iran think thats the way it is everywhere, she said. You are fighting to stay alive to survive and you dont know whats happening to you until you leave the situation.

All of the photos were sent digitally and reproduced locally because of censorship by the Iranian regime.

Its another layer of not being safe. Being a woman is a problem by itself but being an artist is not that appreciated either Thats one of the reasons I left my country, Hamzeh said.

Hamzeh said two artists backed out at the last moment so they covered their photos. She said that sends a message of its own.

I think its going to show how much the fear can change the peoples interactions. They decided to self censor themselves, and I think thats how authority can deeply plant fear in peoples minds, she said.

Carol Hahn, associate dean of liberal arts and social sciences at Heartland Community College, said the exhibit was eye-opening, especially as a woman herself.

The reflection of what these women are dealing with kind of helped me think about where I am and where we come from, she said.

Hahn hopes students make that association, too.

So when students come in, it shows them what these womens experiences are, but then they can also make connections between those womens ideas and their own ideas, she said.

Hamzeh said she wants to bring attention to the violence and human rights abuses against women in Iran. She said some people are familiar with the Iranian government, but not the Iranian people.

I want more people to know about our situation. My hope is with enough conversation in the future, the laws will change, she said.

A reception will take place on Monday, Feb. 7 at 4 p.m. at the Joe McCauley Gallery.

The gallery is located in room 2507 at the Instructional Commons Building (ICB) on HCCs Normal campus.

The exhibit goes through March 4.

Originally posted here:

Art exhibit at Heartland Community College showcases oppressed lives of women in Iran - CIProud.com

Good afternoon, Uphill readers. Todays edition focuses on the upcoming implementation of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act. This isnt comprehensive, by any meansthere are still a lot of unclear details on what enforcement will look likeand Im particularly interested in covering how smaller businesses are preparing for this, which I didnt get into during this piece. If you or someone you know is going to be working on this in the months ahead, feel free to send me an emailhaley@thedispatch.com. Id love to chat. (I also welcome dog photos.)

Congress overwhelmingly approved a ban on imports from the Chinese region of Xinjiang last year, but strong enforcement of the new law depends on how the government navigates an unwieldy set of logistical and political hurdles in the months ahead.

The stakes are high: Countries around the world want to see how implementation of the bill unfolds to determine how to enact their own forced labor prevention measures as China continues its brutal campaign against Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities.

Chinese authorities are carrying out a genocide in Xinjiang, including arbitrary mass detentions in concentration camps, involuntary abortions and sterilizations, and a sweeping forced labor regime that has permeated supply chains around the globe.

Importing goods made with coerced labor into the United States has been illegal for nearly a century. But in recent years, as Chinas oppression of ethnic minorities has mounted, companies have increasingly been complicit in selling products made with forced labor. The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which passed the House 428-1 and without any opposition in the Senate, is intended to address the crisis. The law imposes a new presumption that all goods produced in part or in whole in Xinjiang are tainted with forced labor.

The import ban will go into effect in June. It is expected to affect about $64 million in direct imports from Xinjiang, according to the firm Paul Hastings LLP. An estimated $119 billion in imports from China as a whole could be impacted by enforcement of the measure.

Already corporations are raising fears that it is impossible to comply with the law. The bill previously stalled for more than a year after initial House passage as some major brands quietly lobbied against it. While there are still unanswered questions about how exactly the government will roll out the new rules, and businesses may have to dedicate greater resources to the issue, experts push back on the idea that compliance isnt possible.

Industries had a pretty sizable ramp-up window to be able to think about this, research these connections, identify these issues at scale, said Kit Conklin, the director of global client engagement at Kharon, which helps clients comply with sanctions laws.

Many of the indicators the American government relies on to identify instances of forced labor in Xinjiang have been publicly available since July 2020, when the State Department released a business advisory alerting companies to the risks of sourcing from the region. There are several red flags to look out for, including a lack of transparency regarding ownership and any mentions of education training centers, poverty alleviation efforts, ethnic minority graduates, or vocational training. Another key warning sign is location. Factories near prisons or internment camps are likely to be involved in forced labor practices.

Just because the information is difficult to find does not mean that it is not publicly available, Conklin, a former U.S. government official, said of these warning signs. He added that his team has found tens of thousands of entities that represent risk in the China context alone for this issue."

Products and goods from Xinjiang have a massive footprint in the international marketplace. A 2020 report from the Congressional-Executive Commission on China found that global supply chains are increasingly at risk of being tainted with goods and products made with forced labor from Xinjiang. Goods suspected of being made with forced labor range from electronics and textiles to tomatoes and other food products. Major brands like Nike and Coca-Cola have been implicated in having forced labor from Xinjiang in their supply chains.

But the problem isnt physically limited to Xinjiang.

Researchers from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute estimate that at least 80,000 Uyghurs were moved to other parts of China to work between 2018 and 2019. The report found 27 factories in nine Chinese provinces that had used Uyghur labor transferred from Xinjiang since 2017. The factories in question purported to be in the supply chains of 82 well-known global brands.

The legislation requires a government task force to determine how to target these practices, first by identifying organizations and entities involved in transporting ethnic minorities out of Xinjiang to work. The task force will also release a broad strategy on how the government will implement the forced labor law, as well as detailed enforcement plans for high-risk sectors like cotton and tomatoes.

Businesses will have a chance to weigh in soon, during a mandated public comment period. Customs and Border Protection, which is tasked with carrying out the law, will have to tell Congress what resources it needs to effectively identify and block goods made with forced labor.

Companies will have the option to rebut the presumption of forced labor if they can prove with clear and convincing evidence that their supply chains are not tainted.

The government is expected to issue guidance on the burden of proof to obtain exemptions in the coming months, but one thing is certain: Congress did not intend it to be an easy bar to meet. And lawmakers are in a strong position to make sure the law is rolled out as they want it to be, particularly because the legislation requires Customs and Border Protection to publicly share any exceptions it grants to the import ban, along with the evidence backing such a decision.

Anyone whos looking at whats happening, saying, We have to gear up so that we can rebut this presumption with product made in Xinjiang, I think theyre probably either deluding themselves or just not really aware of whats going on, Frederic Rocafort, an attorney with the international law firm Harris Bricken, told The Dispatch.

Conducting due diligence to root out forced labor practices is notoriously difficult in China, let alone in Xinjiang. Rocafort, who said he has participated in more than 100 audits, most of which were related to intellectual property protection, said there are a number of limitations to the work. Not only are many suppliers hesitant to be transparent, he said, but there can also be language barriers and competence issues among the auditors.

"There are concerns with retaliation, both with the auditors and the persons with whom they talk, Rocafort added. Another issue with audits is that even in the case of the more reputable audit companies, by the time you go down the line to the people who are conducting these audits, in many cases there can be something of a disconnect. The head office might have the intention of acting in an ethical manner, but that doesnt always trickle down to the auditors out in the field. And even if theyre not necessarily on the take or anything like that, theyre going to be concerned. In many cases, these auditors are from the country where they are working, or they live there. Theres a human element to all this.

Audits involve compiling relevant documents, such as factory codes of conduct, personnel records, time cards, and pay stubs.

Auditors also carry out site visits to check if a suppliers purported position in a supply chain makes sense. For instance, Rocafort said, auditors may be told that production is taking place entirely within one facility, so they will check if that adds up given the work being done in that facility. He recounted one instance in which his team discovered a factory was working with a prison nearby, with incarcerated people making its products.

Independent audits are impossible to conduct in Xinjiang, and due diligence remains difficult in other parts of China. The U.S. government has noted reports of auditors being detained or intimidated. In 2020, five audit organizations announced they would withdraw from Xinjiang, as the Chinese governments oppressive conditions in the region made it too difficult to conduct the work.

Any company that thinks that theyre going to audit their way out of this needs to reassess that idea, Rocafort said.

He added that companies are doing less than they should in the areas they can control. That includes drafting internal guidelines, providing training to staff, and modifying supplier contracts to have robust forced labor language.

Companies are, in general, not doing a very good job of protecting themselves, Rocafort said.

Corporate pushback to the new regulationsand the surprise in some quarters that Congress would move so aggressively on the matterunderscores how the forced labor prevention landscape has shifted in the past few years.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, early enforcement of the longstanding broad ban on imports made with forced labor was minimal. Between 1930 and the mid-1980s, per the CRS, there were only eight instances of a product or goods exclusion from importation under the ban.

The United States rules against selling products made with forced labor didnt initially emerge out of particularly humanitarian concerns. Soon after the end of slavery in the United States, lawmakers grew worried about market competition from goods made with prison labor. They banned imports of all products made with convict labor, followed by another law in 1930 expanding the prohibition to forced and indentured labor. But there was an important catch, which explains why enforcement wasnt strong: Congress carved out a broad exemption for products like coffee, tea, and rubber that at the time were not made domestically to the extent necessary to meet American demand.

There was a period of renewed interest in targeting forced labor practices between the mid-1980s and the late 1990s, although it soon tapered off with increased economic collaboration with China. In that period, Customs and Border Protection issued several withhold release orders per year, per the Congressional Research Service. Withhold release orders come after the CBP finds evidence that merchandise from specific areas or entities should be blocked from entering the United States.

From 2000 to 2015, Customs and Border Protection did not issue a single withhold release order. But in 2015, Congress eliminated the consumptive demand exemption, growing the number of products subject to the forced labor prohibition.

Customs and Border Protection soon began blocking more imports in accordance with the law.

According to CBP data, the amount of cargo detained under withhold release orders grew from 6 detainments in fiscal year 2018a combined value of $218,000to 1,469 in fiscal year 2021, worth $486 million.

Companies are able to appeal for release of their products within three months in the event that a shipment is detained, if they have evidence their supply chains are clean.

Penalties for violating the law can sting: In August 2020, CBP collected $575,000 in fines from a stevia producer that imported products made with prison labor in China.

Some industries have had a head start in moving their sourcing out of Xinjiang. The U.S. government banned imports of tomatoes and cotton from Xinjiang, and products made with those goods, a year ago. During the summer, Customs and Border Protection further took aim at solar panel materials from major producers in the region.

But forced labor is pervasive in supply chains, and some brands that have pledged to move their production away from Xinjiang are still connected to the region.

Buzzfeed News Alison Killing and Megha Rajagopalan, who have done excellent work in the past exposing the massive network of factories underpinning Chinas forced labor regime, reported last week that a Guangdong-based subsidiary of a textile company, Esquel Group, sources its cotton from a branch in Xinjiang. Large brands, including Hugo Boss, source from Esquel.

Given the scope of the problem, members of Congress are urging a boost in resources for CBP. In April, a group of House Democrats called for an additional $25 million to empower CBPs forced labor division. The members said the funding would pay for at least 75 employees to work on forced labor prevention.

According to the CRS, before 2016, CBP handled these matters through an informal internal forced labor task force, which sporadically pulled approximately 8-12 staff from other divisions on a temporary basis. The agency has formalized the task force into a division within the office of trade, with 13 full-time positions as of mid-2020. Last summer, Ana Hinojosa, executive director of the CBPs forced labor division, told the Wall Street Journal CBP was in the process of doubling the staff of the division.

Olivia Enos, a senior policy analyst in the Asian Studies Center at the Heritage Foundation, wrote in Forbes last week that dedicating more resources to the division is essential.

This increase would go a long way towards ensuring CBP has the resources it needs to combat rising instances of forced labor abroad, she said.

Given the remarkably strong congressional consensus on combating the Uyghur genocide and forced labor in China, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act likely wont be the last step lawmakers take on the matter. Beyond boosting CBP funding, members of Congress may consider other actions to encourage companies to address forced labor in their global supply chains. Some experts are concerned that some large businesses, in complying with the law, will seek to rid their supply chains of forced labor for the products they sell in the United Statesand not the products destined for international markets with less stringent regulations.

Michael Sobolik, a fellow in Indo-Pacific studies at the American Foreign Policy Council, suggested Congress could look into establishing mandates for federal contracts, grants, and other forms of government funding. Such legislation could require entities to present a plan to scrub globalnot only products for sale in Americasupply chains from forced labor concerns, and after a reasonable amount of time provide clear and convincing evidence they have done so, in order to qualify for some forms of funding.

This dynamicenforcement of UFLPA, and how firms will lobby for loose regulations and/or seek to skirt them after implementationwill become ground-zero in the China human rights space, he said.

The Senate is in this week, despite previously being scheduled to have a recess. Democrats will try to change the chambers rules to allow passage of sweeping voting rights legislationbut they arent expected to have enough support to pull it off. You can read more background in Fridays Uphill, here.

The House is also in this week. Among several other bills, members are expected to consider legislation to automatically enroll eligible veterans in VA health benefits.

A House Homeland Security subcommittee will hold a hearing on the state of Americas seaports tomorrow afternoon. Information and livestream here.

A House Foreign Affairs subcommittee will meet to discuss transatlantic cooperation on supply chain security. (Fellow Trade Talks fans will be thrilled to hear Chad Bown is testifying at this one.) Information and livestream here.

The House select panel on modernizing Congress will meet for a status report on its recommendations Thursday morning. Information and livestream here.

The House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on voter suppression and threats to democracy Thursday morning. Information and livestream here. A House Homeland Security subcommittee will also meet Thursday for a hearing on protecting democracy against election interference and voter confidence. Information and livestream here.

A House Science, Space, and Technology panel will convene Thursday at 11 a.m. to examine NASAs Artemis program and the goal of exploring Mars. Information and livestream here.

Bipartisan Senate delegation meets with Ukrainian leaders amid Russia tensions

Liz Cheneys Wyoming nemesis is an Oath Keeper who was at Capitol rally

Katko is third impeachment-backing Republican to head for exit

Sen. Sherrod Brown has some thoughts about Succession

Place your order for free at-home COVID-19 tests

See the article here:

What's Next for the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act - The Dispatch

THE SITUATION. Cebu City Mayor Michael Rama on Wednesday, January 19, said he won't enforce National Capital Region's "no vaccination, no ride" policy in his city. Until there's an order from the national government, he said, public utility vehicles here may accept everyone, including the unvaccinated. Meaning, he will follow the national order only when it comes.

But on the "no vaccination, no entry" policy, Mayor Mike embraced the rule in his January 19 executive order banning, among others, the unvaccinated from malls and indoor venues in the city.

Cebu Governor Gwendolyn Garcia, on the same day, said she disapproves of the "no-vaccination, no ride" policy. She also put her foot down on the "no vaccination, no entry" policy implemented by other LGUs like Cebu City, backing her principle with a January 19 memorandum order (3-2022) to all mayors in the Capitol's jurisdiction to refrain from "requiring the presentation of a vaccination card for any educational, employment and other similar government transaction."

WHAT STRIKES THE PUBLIC at once is this: The chief local executives of the two biggest LGUs in Cebu have contrasting beliefs on an important matter -- the vaccination cards -- in the government response to the pandemic. The mayor wants it used to encourage vaccination; the governor sees it as a tool of oppression.

Mayor Mike favors the no vax, no entry rule against the unvaccinated and includes it in his executive order. Guv Gwen disagrees with the no vax, no entry policy and reminds her mayors to avoid it from any government transaction. Mike will implement the no vax, no ride rule once it comes from Manila. Gwen does not like it but doesn't say if she'll disobey a national order to enforce it here.

NO DEFIANCE. Neither LGU leader is defying national government policy, for now.

The governor appears to comply with national policy under Republic Act 11525, which establishes the vaccination program against the coronavirus. She cited the part that says "vaccine cards shall not be considered as an additional mandatory requirement for educational, employment, and other similar government transaction purposes." Her memo to the mayors echoes that prohibition of the law and doesn't go beyond that.

Notice that Gwen's memo doesn't touch on any ban on private establishments catering to the public. That gives private owners the discretion to impose their own rules, provided none will violate any express government order. Thus, in the 44 towns and six component cities of Cebu, malls and similar businesses may or may not require the vax cards, while in Cebu City, there is an express order from City Hall to require the cards for admission.

NO COLLISION, YET. The governor has expressed her opposition to the no vax, no ride policy, calling it "anti-poor" and repeating once more her belief that vaccination is a matter of choice. "Give that respect to the individual," CNN quoted her Wednesday. Yet it has not come to the point where she is defying the order. There's no order yet. With the confusion in Metro Manila, it may not come soon but when it does, she can make her choice, as she did in that imbroglio last year over airport arrival protocol.

Different rules among the LGUs -- because of different mindsets of their leaders -- but they don't directly clash or collide yet. Still, it is setting up the stage for similar incidents in the earlier part of the coronavirus emergency when rules in Cebu City differed from those in the province. One time, the governor called out an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) official, a councilor, for interfering with Capitol rules at the airport.

TOO SOON TO FORECAST failure of the agreement among Metro Cebu mayors and the governor regarding a united front on the anti-Covid campaign.

Last January 7, Cebu Province and the tri-cities of Cebu, Mandaue and Lapu-Lapu announced they agreed that the anti-Covid policy of entire Cebu should be uniform. The three city mayors met the night before with the mayor and Presidential Assistant for the Visayas Michael Lloyd Dino and discussed the need for similar guidelines and regulations in dealing with the pandemic. Typhoon Odette increased the urgency of being united so as to speed up rehabilitation and recovery, Guv Gwen stressed.

They started the posture of a "One Cebu" by agreeing on similar border restrictions.

THE LAST WORD. Now the apparent differences of policy seen from the mayor and the governor are still mostly talk. As cited earlier, there is yet no direct and frontal clash. And local policy-making has not yet crossed lines of national fiat. The gap may still be bridged but surely, the posture shaping up does not look like the kind they want to present to their public and the decision makers in central government.

It could bolster the IATF and Palace argument for having the last word over the LGUs in a time of emergency and crisis.

See more here:

EXPLAINER: Different mindsets of Mayor Mike, Guv Gwen on using vax cards against the unvaccinated. But could any LGU defy central government policy? -...

India claims to be the biggest democracy in the world. But looking at the recent trends one wonders, whether this claim holds any substance. Since its independence India concocted an image of secular democratic republic as stated in its constitution. But it could not hide the reality from the world for too long. Over the years, the atrocities against the minorities and the oppression against dissent contradicts the Indian claims of democracy and exposed its real face for what it truly is; electoral autocracy.

Democracy pertains to the basic principles of equality, freedom of speech, inclusiveness, and participation of public in decision making in a nation. The death of democracy in India entered into its final stage as the BJP, champion of Hindutva ideology, came in power in 2014. Hindutva, as a matter of ideology considers Hindus superior to other religious communities; considers them as true Indian as opposed to members of other faiths. The basic democratic principles were slammed in India, and a religio-nationalist and fascist movement has taken a national stage. The key target of hate and violence since then have been the Muslims of India which constitute 14% of the population. Not only Muslims but other religious minorities in India were also mistreated and targeted by Hindutva aligned groups since BJP came into power.

Indias democracy has eroded over the years as extremist elements have ingressed in highest echelons of power corridor. The situation has deteriorated to the point where Freedom House has downgraded Indias position as a democracy to Partly Free. Sweden Varieties of Democracy Institute not only classified India as an Electoral Autocracy, it also made to the list of top 10 autocracies. The Economist List also downgraded Indias position in democratic countries ranking from No.35 to No.53. The condition is worsening day by day as the fascist Hindu ideology is on rise.

Since 2014, BJP government supported harassment, unwarranted arrests, and prosecution of activists, journalists, students, academics, and others critics of the government or its policies.

As soon as Modis reign began, dozens of murderous attacks on Muslims by Hindu mob were reported in Uttar Pradesh. The BJP government sided with the murderers in the name of religion while the judiciary stood idly toeing governments policy of appeasement towards Hindu extremists. It shows the reality of secular veil of India where only Hinduism is considered the Holy religion.

Muslims were attacked openly and the authorities accepted this culture as normal. Muslim majority areas were targeted. Even the special constitutional status of IIOJK was revoked in August 2019 as Modi government unilaterally nullified the constitutionally granted semi-autonomy to erstwhile state of Jammu & Kashmir.

Citizen Amendment Bill allows migrants from adjacent countries to apply for Indian citizenship if they dont follow Islam, implying that citizenship in apparently secular India is based on religious identity. Muslims have also been the victims of communal rioting and mob lynching on several occasions. Modis government and its allies constant anti-muslim rhetoric, along with the authorities lack of condemnation, has fueled the idea that such illegal and unconstitutional violence is tacitly supported.

The governments treatment towardspolitical opponents is the major predictor of democratic deterioration in India. Indian state has consistently shown contempt for dissent under Modi, attempting to portray critics of the administration as anti-national. Academics, activists, and journalists who criticize the powers that be, have been targeted by the central government. Authorities recently detained a young student climate activist, Disha Ravi on allegations of sedition for sharing toolkit to create and spread awareness about the farmers protest.

Several alarming political tendencies in the Indian nation have been identified, including the development of a Hindu-majority political brand. The executives overwhelming concentration of authority, as well as the governments crackdown on political dissent and the media. Much of the shift is linked with the prime ministers image, whose electoral appeal is based on his self-acclaimed desire to disrupt politics as usual. Despite multiple scandals, Prime Minister Narendra Modi enjoys enormous popularity. His hold on the popular imagination has not lessened, and its repercussions for Indian democracy are immense. Today, India is no less than a scam in the name of democracy where there is no freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, freedom of religion and basic rights.

*The author is an economist & independent researcher. She is a graduate of NUST & Quaid-i-Azam University. She served at the Ministry of Planning Development & Special Initiative as Young Development Fellow. She can be reached at [emailprotected]

See the original post here:

Unmasking The Autocratic Nature Of Indian Democracy OpEd - Eurasia Review

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, the most crippling form of poverty was seen as the poverty of dignity. To read all the letters and diaries and recollections of the time is to see that the severe economic hardship caused by the loss of a job was often considered temporary and survivable. But what destroyed the human spirit what petrified people the most was a loss of dignity caused by the loss of work.

The generation of the Great Depression demonstrated that economic poverty did not permanently cripple, as long as human dignity survived. That kept alive a spirit of hope and will. When a person lost dignity, however, he lost everything. A loss of money is recoverable; a loss of dignity often is not.

The word dignity seems to have gone out of favor. Politicians, educators, and media commentators rarely use that word very much. They talk about income and rights and inequality and discrimination, but almost never dignity.

Yet dignity has a much longer history in the human lexicon than any of those other words. Over centuries of human existence, dignity defined the highest of human ideals and pursuits. The work one does, the way one provides for and protects ones family, has historically been a crucial ingredient of human dignity.

For centuries, work has been bound with human dignity. But that connection appears to have weakened. Once seen as the party of working people, the Democratic Party has evolved into a party that considers work to be a burden, inconvenient, and even degrading. Such attitudes come out in the partys shifted economic and social agendas.

President Bidens Build Back Better plan, strongly supported by nearly all Democrats, sought to make more permanent certain unconditional government grants to adults with children, regardless of whether those adults were working. These grants were instituted by the American Rescue Plan, enacted by the Democrats last March, which changed the child tax credit to automatic taxpayer grants to adults with children, with no work requirement.

Admittedly, eliminating the child tax credit work requirement recognized the problems involved in finding a job during the Covid shutdowns, but the job market is now wide open. Therefore, as Republicans argue, the recent expiration of the Covid-inspired child subsidies presents an opportunity to return to the original scheme, which included a work requirement.

This dismissal of work, ironically, reflects an attitude that infused the Great Society social welfare programs instituted during the 1960s. But because those programs proved disastrous to people who became trapped in them, the 1996 welfare reform sought to reinstate work requirements and thereby restore work to an important value in social policy.

Despite the success of the 1996 reform, Democrats now want to return to the work-dismissive status of the 1960s. Even more ironically, this dismissal of work occurs when jobs and work opportunities are plentiful.

When a society dismisses and disregards a foundation of human dignity, it travels a path toward inhumanity and oppression. One consistent characteristic of oppressive, totalitarian regimes is the disregard for human dignity. Such regimes talk about income and rights and inequality and discrimination, but they completely disregard human dignity.

Throughout all of human history, dignity has been tied up with work. It is not money or consumption or leisure that confer dignity, it is work, because work builds the foundation of human independence, allowing individuals to set the terms of how they and their families will live. Work is the only way through which individuals can take responsibility for their lives and the lives of their families.

But Democrats seem to look at work as an injustice that no person, especially someone who is poor or of minority status, should have to endure. That dismissive attitude toward work perhaps explains why Democrats now struggle with the blue-collar and working-class vote. Democrats of course claim that these voters have become racist, but perhaps a more accurate reason they have left the party is because of Democrats degrading view of work.

The current leftist view of work has been solidifying for decades. Expanding the opportunities for work has increasingly taken a back seat to finding new protected categories of people and undermining social traditions. Indeed, the lefts focus seems to be on government benefit programs rather than job creation.

But it is only work that can create true individual independence and self-sustainability, as well as conferring the pride of accomplishment and contribution. On the other hand, maybe the left does not want independent, self-sustaining individuals; maybe the left wants the majority of society ultimately dependent on government.

Work, and the habits nurtured by work, have throughout human history provided the means by which people can acquire certain vital virtues, such as self-discipline, self-restraint, thrift, and delayed gratification. Work fosters ambition and responsibility. The constitutional framers believed that a prosperous democracy required a virtuous citizenry, and that virtue proceeded from work.

As one Democrat member of Congress said during a hearing about the lack of work requirements in Build Back Better, mention of the so-called dignity of work is like hearing fingernails on a chalkboard. This derision of one of the most foundational virtues underlying our society and democracy is what is most troubling about the Democrats.

If there is no dignity in work, then there should be no work, since no one should be forced to perform undignified activities. But if no one works, how are people to become virtuous citizens independent of their government? If no one works, where are all the tax dollars to come from?

What is most troubling about the Democratic agenda and the liberal outlook is not the price tag of their social and economic programs. What is most troubling is how the left continually seeks to fundamentally transform American society and culture.

At the very center of society is the individual, but the left wants to remove the individual from that role; the left wants government at the center. One way to do that is to remove the ability of the individual to serve as an independent foundation of government and society.

Degrading the dignity of work will certainly achieve that goal. Then, once dignity is removed, and then work degraded, all individuals will indeed be alike they will all be dependent on the government to tell them what rights they have and what benefits they will receive. Once that occurs, will there even be any questions as to how those government beneficiaries are to vote?

Patrick Garry is professor of law at the University of South Dakota, senior fellow at the Center for Religion, Culture, and Democracy, and author of The False Promise of Big Government (ISI Books).

See the rest here:

How Ending Expectations That Adults Work For A Living Erases Dignity - The Federalist

Feds recognition of Halftown is wrong

For the second time in two years, many of us are left frustrated by seeing videos and hearing reports of Clint Halftowns mercenary police carrying out another act of oppression against Cayuga Nation citizens trying to earn a living on their territory, while Seneca Falls and Seneca County police look on from the roadside.

As a scholar with lifelong ties to the area, researching governance politics and building relationships with Cayuga Nation citizens, I am disappointed to see these downstream effects of the federal governments wrongful recognition of Halftown as a representative of the Nation.

However, while social media reactions and local news coverage often focus on whether Halftowns mercenary police force is permitted by the federal government, and even suggest that local police should exercise jurisdiction, these analyses and solutions miss the point of why Clints police are illegitimate. The so-called Cayuga Nation Police and Tribal Court are illegitimate because they carry no authority under the Great Law of Peace. The rightful governing body of the Nation the Council of Chiefs and Clanmothers has removed Halftown from his role on Nation Council multiple times since the early 2000s. Their authority flows from their own law, the Great Law of Peace, while Clints authority flows only from his relationship to the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Rather than calling for local police to intervene more actively, we should instead collectively call on the federal government to respect the Council of Chiefs and Clanmothers authority and removal of Halftown.

Ed. note: Wolkin is a PhD student in the Department of Geography at the University of Washington.

More:

LETTER: Federal government's nod to Halftown as leader is wrong - Finger Lakes Times

I remember the day of 2nd oath-taking ceremony of President Hamid Karzai in an old beautiful palace in Kabul where I was invited as a guest with President Asif Ali Zardari. President Hamid Karzai apparently looked too interested in improving relations with Pakistan. But, with the passage of time, Afghanistan fell in the hands of India and India became the darling of Afghanistan.

If we see the historical pattern of Afghanistan-Pakistan relations we see the hard fact that the Afghan intelligence agency has always remained hostile towards Pakistan and kept the Afghan leadership away from Pakistan while remaining more closer to India.

It is interesting to note that NDS manipulated the first Taliban government and now the present one has also drifted into its clutches as we see its hostile attitude towards Pakistan. The reasons are that NDS is on the payroll of India. The manipulation is done from New Delhi.

Historically, all the successive governments in Afghanistan have drawn this consistent mindset from the anti-Pak groups within KHAD (Khadamat-e Aetla'at-e Dawlati) and WAD, State Intelligence Agency, which were the main military security agency and intelligence agency of Afghanistan during 1980s until 1996. Both were accused of human rights abuses in mid-1980s which included use of torture, use of predetermined "show trials", widespread arbitrary arrests, detentions and execution of prisoners without trial. Mohammad Najibullah remained the director of KHAD while Osman Sultani and Muhammad Fahim were the directors of WAD in the past. We all had witnessed how KHAD created a warzone in our country after Afghan-USSR conflict filled by WAD. The series of oppression and violence continued by the kHAD with its changed name to WAD and now NDS. The mindset of every Afghan government consistently remained anti-Pakistan as it has never accepted Durand Line as international border and we see the new Afghan government having the same old claims against Pakistan.

As interior minister, I did my best to bring Afghanistan closer to Pakistan along with international efforts and bilateral scope which is matter of public record.

It was proposed in a meeting with Richard Holbrooke (former US ambassador to UN) who facilitated the meeting between Haneef Atmar, the former interior minister of Afghanistan, and me where I was fully mandated by my government to proceed with it to improve relations with Afghanistan.

We met first during one of the conferences on our initiative of Friends of Pakistan and then in a hotel in Washington where we finalised a draft agreement to work out a doable draft. We both decided to take the draft agreement to our respective cabinets as it is mandatory to sort an approval of the cabinet.

Accordingly, I got the approval on my return and Amtar got the approval from his cabinet and eventually we met in Islamabad again. The ceremony was televised in the world and it was officially witnessed by John Mueller, the then Director of FBI, on my request.

It was about exchange of information on terrorists and exchange of terrorists. It was indeed a great step to improve relations. But. with the change of interior minister, it was torpedoed as the new minister Gen Bismillah was strong opponent of international border. Afghan government did not honour the agreement to allow us to set immigration and customs check post on Chaman border. The Afghani fighter jet once again destroyed our check post just a day before my visit to Chaman.

The intent was quite clear that Afghanistan did not want good relations with Pakistan. In the meantime, the attacks by the Indian-trained Baloch boys under Brahamdad Bugti increased in Balochistan. I presented undeniable proofs of involvement of Afghan and RAW Intel with satellite images to President Karzai in his office in Kabul. They included video clips and pictures of the Indo-Afghan training camps in Qandahar that made President Karzai speechless in the presence of PM Yousaf Raza Gilani and the then ISI DG Gen Zaheer.

However, I must respect President Hamid Karzai that he admitted the presence of training camps. He clearly said it was not in his hands, hence Pakistan should talk to US to finish these, whereas he could help Pakistan only if Islamabad hands over Mullah Baradar to them who was imprisoned in Pakistan. It did not happen and the camps continued to operate despite the fact that we managed the migration of Brahamdad Bugti to Switzerland with the help of some friendly countries.

President Dr Ashraf Ghani, former NSA of President Hamid Karzai, followed President Karzai to keep Pakistan away from Afghanistan. I had serious arguments with him in Istanbul about unholy alliance between RAW and NDS against Pakistan.

Let me say that their national intelligence agency is the same coming from three successive regimes and all the SOPs are against Pakistan as matter of policy. As Afghan Taliban are now using the same anti-Pakistan bureaucracy and intelligence operators, we should not expect that the mindset of Afghans brainwashed by India can be changed. It is understood that Afghan Taliban had cemented their working relations much before the takeover of Kabul.

The present Afghan hostility goes back a long time and was well reflected by the Afghan forces attack duly led by the local commanders of NDS on our fence. We can see the real intent of new Afghan government. The Afghan refusal to accept friendly offer of PM Imran Khan in the IT sector further tells the intent of Afghan mindset. I appeal the Afghan Taliban to work for peace in the region and do not play in the hands of India.

The writer is former interior minister of Pakistan, author of five books, ex-Chairman Senate Standing Committee on Interior and Chairman IRR Islamabad. He can be reached at: rmalik1212@gmail.com, Twitter @Senrehmanmalik

See original here:

Why is Afghanistan ditching us? - The News International

On January 8, in a speech marking the 110th anniversary of the African National Congress (ANC), South African President and ANC leader Cyril Ramaphosa underlined his partys determination to help resolve various political and developmental challenges across Africa.

He not only disclosed plans for the ANC to strengthen its support for parties working to entrench democracy in Sudan, Libya and South Sudan, but also reiterated his partys commitment to finding African solutions to ongoing conflicts in countries ranging from Mozambique and Lesotho to Sudan and Ethiopia.

That the ANC used the occasion of its anniversary to voice its dedication to promoting democracy and economic development generally in Africa, and particularly in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region, is undoubtedly commendable.

Nevertheless, the ANCs continuing reluctance to honestly talk about, let alone do something to address, the economic and political crisis in neighbouring Zimbabwe despite it also having consequences for South Africa is raising questions about the sincerity of the partys self-declared resolve to find African solutions to African problems.

South Africas neighbour to the North suffered catastrophic economic policies and relentless oppression under Robert Mugabes rule for 38 years. And the land-locked country, which removed Mugabe from power in 2017, is still suffering from endemic corruption, uncontrolled inflation, stagnant salaries, widespread poverty and routine attacks on those calling for truly democratic governance and accountability under authoritarian President Emmerson Mnangagwa.

This permanent state of crisis has led hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans to seek better futures in other countries, and especially in South Africa, over the years.

The exact number of Zimbabwean migrants in South Africa is not known, but estimates range from a few hundred thousand to more than two million.

About 180,000 Zimbabweans are currently in possession of a Zimbabwean Exemption Permit (ZEP) a visa that excludes its holders from requirements of South Africas immigration and refugee acts and allows them to freely work, study or conduct business in the country. But many more Zimbabwean nationals are believed to be residing and working in South Africa without any visa or work permit.

In recent years, as South Africas own economy started to stumble and its unemployment rate reached record levels, some segments of South African society started to blame the large number of Zimbabwean migrants living and working in the country for their economic struggles. As a result, small political parties that employed anti-migrant rhetoric, such as ActionSA and the Patriotic Alliance, performed surprisingly well in the November 2021 municipal election.

In response to this growing anti-migrant, and especially anti-Zimbabwean, sentiment, the ANC sprung into action. Soon after the municipal election, the ANC government announced its intention to end the ZEP visa scheme and told all permit holders that if they do not obtain a different visa or voluntarily leave South Africa by December 31, 2022, they will face deportation. As most ZEP holders do not have the necessary qualifications to switch to work or study visas, this means they will either remain in South Africa as irregular migrants, or return home to try and make a living in an economy in permanent crisis.

The decision to end the ZEP scheme is hardly in line with the ANCs self-declared commitment to help other African peoples overcome political, economic, and democratic challenges. Indeed, the move will only push more Zimbabweans into economic precarity and will do nothing to help resolve the crisis that caused them to migrate to South Africa in the first place.

If the ANC genuinely wants to be the unifying and results-oriented political party that President Ramaphosa purported it to be in his January 8 speech, it needs to abandon its populist anti-migrant policies, and even more crucially, it needs to stop ignoring the devastating political and economic crisis at its doorstep.

Unfortunately, South Africa is not the only country where the government is hellbent on denying the existence of a crisis in Zimbabwe. Indeed, the entire SADC seems willingly blind to the damage the Mnangagwa administration is inflicting on Zimbabwe and the wider region with its ineffective economic policies and oppressive governing methods.

As recently as October 2021 the SADC claimed that Zimbabwes problems are nothing but consequences of the prolonged sanctions imposed on the country by Western nations. The regional body further stated that sanctions are a fundamental constraint and hindrance to the countrys prospects of economic recovery, human security and sustainable growth.

This is an erroneous, and dangerous, take. It is not foreign powers that are keeping the country in a permanent state of crisis, but its own government. If the Mnangagwa government is allowed to blame all of the countrys ills on foreign powers, without taking any responsibility for its many, obvious and damaging mistakes and missteps, Zimbabwe can never get back on its two feet and stop being a challenge for the region.

However, even if Zimbabwes dilemmas and failings were solely the consequences of modern imperialist schemes, it would not be acceptable for the SADC countries to make a few supportive statements and abandon Zimbabwe to its fate. If Zimbabwe is still under an imperialist attack, then SADC countries should step forth and introduce comprehensive measures to help their besieged brothers and sisters in the country.

Indeed, it is time for SADC nations, led by South Africa, to propose African solutions to African problems and establish country-specific migrant quotas and formal procedures to help deal with the demanding Zimbabwean situation. While SADC leaders can preach about mysterious imperial plots and pretend there is no debilitating political crisis in Zimbabwe, they simply cannot do away with the victims of oppression and bad leadership on the ground: the hundreds of thousands of migrants compelled to seek sustainable economic opportunities and jobs in SADC countries, especially in South Africa.

Many are low-skilled migrants who require entry-level jobs in the farming, manufacturing, transport and hospitality industries. Some are skilled migrants who seek jobs in, among other sectors, education and health. Others are informal traders and small business owners who want to establish sustainable enterprises. Without SADCs formal support and interventions, however, many will remain enormously deprived and subject to exploitation.

Hence, in 2022, the SADC has two options. It can either stick with the narrative that Zimbabwes problems are caused solely by foreign plots, and continue to turn a blind eye to Zimbabwes governing party ZANU-PFs tyrannical policies and omnipresent failures. But it should accept that if it chooses this path, its member states, and especially South Africa, will continue to see thousands of irregular migrants rushing to their borders. Or the SADC can choose another path and take the necessary steps to promote democracy and support economic development in Zimbabwe by accepting and exposing the failures of the ZANU-PF.

The former liberation parties that dominate the SADCs ranks have to admit that regional inaction has clearly bolstered the often unruly and violent regime in Harare. African nationalism and historical considerations should not be used to mollify Zanu-PFs leadership and obfuscate its sheer brutality and established incompetence.

One of the SADCs crucial shortcomings is the failure to monitor and help rectify problematic developments in Zimbabwe (and elsewhere) in good time. The SADC, for instance, did not anticipate the November 2017 military takeover that deposed former President Robert Mugabe or the flawed elections that followed the bloodless coup, but it eagerly endorsed both developments.

Today, there are credible fears that the government and the Zimbabwe Election Commission are conspiring to limit new voter registrations for the 2023 general and presidential elections and the SADC, as usual, is silent on such an injustice.

Systematic voter suppression does not bode well for a nation desperate to hold free and fair elections and gather global support for an economic turnaround. In fact, it will certainly lead to more Zimbabwean migrants flocking to the adjacent countries that support Harares dubious modus operandi but are rather displeased by irregular migration.

Going forward, the SADC must pay extraordinary attention to Zimbabwe and steer it towards holding credible elections. After all, the SADC has a responsibility to advance common political values, systems and institutions and safeguard the wellbeing of all its citizens including Zimbabwes distressed migrants. And the ANC, which reinstated its commitment to supporting democracy and economic development in the region on January 8, should lead these efforts.

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

Here is the original post:

Its time for the SADC region to hold Zimbabwe to account - Al Jazeera English

The formal handing over of the departments at Dublin Castle to the Provisional Government is to take place today. The Viceroy, Lord Fitzalan, will, as the King's representative, receive the Ministers of the Government as at a Privy Council.

Vast crowds assembled at the gates of Dublin Castle at midday today in anticipation of the entry of the eight members of the Provisional Government to take over the departments of Government transmitted their charge by the British authorities in accordance with the terms of the Treaty. No intimation had been given to the public as to the hour at which the event would be likely to take place.

Indeed no definite hour was arranged, but the people had a sense that what was about to happen would be the most momentous incident yet witnessed in the history so rapidly unfolding itself in these day of Anglo-Trish amity and they were prepared to wait, no matter how long, in order not to miss it.

Mr Michael Collins, who is acting as head of the Provisional Government, had been out in the country since Saturday's ratification of the Treaty and did not return to the city until late in the afternoon. He was then for some time in consultation with his fellow Ministers at the Mansion House concerning one or two questions connected with the taking over of Governmental powers and machinery.

It was not until about 20 minutes past one that they concluded their conference and telephoned a message to the Castle that they would arrive by 1.40. Punctually to the minute they arrived, driving from the Mansion House in three taxi-cabs.

Mr M Collins and Mr John McNeill were amongst those noticed in the first car and tremendous cheers were sent up by the waiting crowds as the cars swung through the gates and up the hill into the Upper Yard. A considerable portion of the crowd ran in through the gates after them, and so fast was the chase that some of them arrived in time to see the eight Ministers step out of the cars and enter the Castle Mr Michael Collins leading. The remaining seven were Messrs. Wm Cosgrave, Edmund Duggan, Patrick Hogan, Finian Lynch, Joe McGralh, John MacNeill and Kevin OHiggins.

A few moments later the Lord Lieutenant, Lord Filzalan, who had been warned of the Provisional Governments impending visit, arrived in a big car from the Vice Regal Lodge, accompanied by Major Holt, Controller of the Viceroy's household.

The Lord Lieutenant proceeded at once to the Priry Council Chamber and there received the members of the Provisional Government. The simple stateliness of the Chamber with its two great brass chandeliers, pendant over the red cloth-covered table, which occupies the centre of the room, must have impressed the new Ministers. The proceedings were private, but it is understood that the Viceroy, as representative of the King, received them as His Majesty would receive new Ministers.

Following this, the Provisional Government is formally to take over the department of the Castle.

An official statement of the proceedings will be issued later in the day.

Cork Examiner editorial: January 17, 1922

Dublin Castle has long been associated in the Irish mind as a symbol of oppression the outward sign of a system of rule against which freedom-loving Irishmen have instinctively rebelled. Castle rule, as the familiar phrase goes, was a widely-used synonym for injustice, and for the Irish people the repugnant story of Dublin Castle does not awaken pleasant memories.

It was the seat of British rule in this country, and its officials were almost invariably anti-Irish in their sympathies. We do not propose here to go back on its unwholesome history or to revive bitterness by recalling its association with oppression as a political lever. To be called a Castle hack was a mark of opprobrium for anyone who was described by such an epithet.

The Castle backstairs has been regarded as the ladder on which snobs and anti-Irish Irishmen rose to titles and preferment. Dublin Castle, in a word, has long stood as a barrier to Irish freedom and progress, and it typified the rule of force which held Ireland in subjection.

British governments came and went, some professing friendliness and some openly advocating oppression, but the rule of coercion or extortion, or both, always persisted as the permanent officials at Dublin Castle remained, and Castle rule and oppression came to be regarded as interchangable terms. Even Mr Asquith, when he visited Ireland some years ago, frankly admitted that Dublin Castle was a failure.

Buttressed as it has been by British strength, it lasted too long, and the formal handing over of its Departments to the Irish Liaison Government is an event on which the country can congratulate itself.

Elsewhere will be found an account of the proceedings at which Lord Fitzalan received the members of the Provisional Government, and the official record of the historic function. It may be said that "time turns the old days to derision" when Dublin Castle and all it stood for in Ireland comes to be.

It will bring forcibly to the minds of Irishmen everywhere the complete metamorphosis that has taken place in Irish affairs, and make all vividly realise that one by one the obstacles that blocked the road to freedom are being removed, as one might say, by a magic touch.

The Irish Free State is being gradually evolved, and Dublin Castle, which hitherto ruled Ireland, will itself be ruled by the Irishmen it sought to oppress. The day is breaking in Ireland for which the country has long and patiently waited through tribulation and suffering, and if the people of this country were as emotional as some of their critics believe them to be, the entry of the Provisional Government into Dublin Castle yesterday, and the formal taking over of its Departments, should arouse them to exceptional enthusiasm.

Men trained in the school of suffering may not be effusive in displaying their emotions, nevertheless, the fact that Dublin Castle has, to all intents and purposes, changed ownership, is something that must be regarded as a stirring sign of the times.

See more here:

How the Examiner reported the handover of Dublin Castle, 100 years ago today - Irish Examiner

While Saudi Arabia has been trying to open up to the world through its recent tourism blitz, it has still not converted many believers to its commitment to human rights abuses and emancipation of women.

In an effort to boost its creditability, it determined to act as a destination for funding and support of filmmakers and artists across Africa.

Should films change the worlds perspective of a people? Or should a film change how people present themselves? Thats the question that immediately cropped up after the Saudi screening, at its Red Sea Film Festival of Becoming.

READ MORE Inside the rise of Mohammed bin Salman

Becoming, a series of five short films, is a project by a group of female Saudi filmmakers, Hind Alfahhad, Jowaher Alamri, Noor Alameer, Sara Mesfer, and Fatima al- Banawi. Together, they try to give the women in their stories power of control through their own narration.

Having been promoted and produced by the Red Sea Film Festival, Becoming is one of the projects that the Saudi-owned Ministry of Entertainment has sponsored. It can be argued to be a cultural product to whitewash Saudi Arabias violations against women, political activists, human rights defenders, as well as the LGBT community.

According to Amnesty International, among those harassed in Saudi Arabia, arbitrarily detained, prosecuted and/or jailed were government critics, womens rights activists, human rights defenders, relatives of activists, journalists, members of the Shia minority and online critics of government responses to the Covid-19 pandemic.

In a country where all known human rights defenders inside its borders have been either detained or imprisoned, efforts were made to launch an international film festival back in 2019. Its first edition was held in 2021.

The festival is the bridge between capital and art that the Kingdom is trying to blend together to change its image of an emancipated woman only interested in fashion and consumerism to one that can also contribute to the arts. The festival also has established new programming features and film markets to fund and support projects by filmmakers from all over the world, as part of its seeking to empower cinematic talents, preparing them to launch and succeed in the world of cinema.

We often hear phrases like The Tunisian film about sexual abuse, The Somali story of famine, The Kurdish film highlights female militancy, The Syrian film about female sexuality. In the case of Becoming, we risk labelling it as that film on womens rights rather than delving deeper into the storytelling methods and techniques that influenced each director.

The film tells five stories of different women from various classes, educational and societal backgrounds:

All women are in charge of their fate.

The theme of patriarchy is woven throughout the film, but more so due to its existence in society rather than state-imposed policies. Nevertheless, whether victims or victorious, the female characters take charge of the plot, similar to what the five directors are doing in the Saudi filmmaking scene.

Having said that, the filmmakers deconstruct different taboos and humanise the insecurities that the various characters face. The film achieves this simply by treating each taboo as an issue applicable to all women; not just those specifically to Saudi Arabia or elsewhere in the Middle East.

An example can be found in the fifth film: a female teenager feels awkward and panics due to her first menstrual cycle, not because she happens to live in Saudi Arabia, but because she is a female adolescent who has difficulty talking with her mother about intimate issues.

The film and its unique access to intimate stories should not be seen to as the cameras look into the hidden lives of these women where their faces and bodies are hidden from the outside world. But rather the cameras struggle to tell the stories of these women, regardless of if they are of the exotic east or the west, because these stories resound across borders.

Despite efforts to provide a cleaner version of its image through the festival, many may look the other way as the Kingdom can offer much needed monetary support. In particular, African filmmakers and storytellers searching for foreign entities to fund their projects amid a lack of state support, the Saudi Arabian Red Sea Film Festival will indeed be a destination for many.

It is expected the festival will support and fund films about Africa and the challenges that the continent is facing, from political oppression to persecution of women and the LGBTQ+ community.

For example, a $30,000 award was granted to the Tunisian film Contra in post-production. The film, directed by director Lotfy Nathan, centres on resistance as it follows the story of Ali, a young Tunisian who dreams of a better life over making his precarious life selling contraband gas at the local black market. The film is set after the anti-government protests which initiated the Arab Spring.

The Kingdom itself has tried to quell the Arab Spring within its borders since the first day it erupted in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen. Riyadh continues to support counter-revolution movements in these countries by intervening politically or militarily.

Read more here:

Is Saudi Arabia whitewashing female emancipation through its film festival? - The Africa Report