US vetoes another UN Security Council resolution urging Gaza war ceasefire
Majority of members voted to call for an immediate ceasefire in Israel’s war on Gaza that has killed more than 29,000 people. The United States has vetoed another United Nations Security Council draft resolution on Israel’s war on Gaza, blocking a demand for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. Arab nations, led by Algeria, put the draft resolution to a vote on Tuesday with the expectation that it would not pass after the US – Israel’s key ally – had warned it would not back the text and proposed a rival draft instead. The US was the only country to vote against the draft text while the United Kingdom abstained. The UN Security Council’s 13 other member countries voted in favour of the text demanding a halt to the war that has killed more than 29,000 people in Gaza, according to Palestinian authorities, and displaced more than 80 percent of the population. For a UN Security Council resolution to be adopted, it requires at least nine votes in favour and no vetoes by any of the five permanent members: the US, UK, France, Russia or China. Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the US ambassador to the UN, said her country was vetoing the resolution over concerns it would jeopardise talks between the US, Egypt, Israel and Qatar that seek to broker a pause in the war and the release of hostages held by Hamas. She rejected claims that the veto was a US effort to cover for an imminent Israeli ground invasion into the southernmost Gazan city of Rafah, where some 1.4 million displaced people are sheltering. In introducing the resolution on Tuesday, Amar Bendjama, Algeria’s ambassador to the UN, said the Council “cannot afford passivity” in the face of what is unfolding in Gaza, and that silence is “not a viable option”. “This resolution is a stance for truth and humanity, standing against the advocates for murder and hatred,” he said. “Voting against it implies an endorsement of the brutal violence and collective punishment inflicted upon them [the Palestinians].” Algeria, the current Arab member of the Security Council, put forward an initial draft resolution more than two weeks ago. The US said on Monday that it had proposed a rival draft resolution calling for a temporary ceasefire and opposing a major ground offensive by Israel in Rafah. Palestinians gather near the ruins of houses and buildings destroyed in Israeli strikes, in Nuseirat refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip, in November 2023 [File: Ibraheem Abu Mustafa/Reuters] ‘Softening’ of language “The Algerian draft had been negotiated for weeks,” said Al Jazeera’s James Bays, reporting from the UN headquarters in New York. “So people were rather surprised that the US came up with its own draft.” Bays said the US draft had not yet been formally presented to Council members, and it was unclear if or when it would be put to a vote. However, he added that in the draft text, seen by Al Jazeera, “there is a softening of the US language … and for the first time the US is using that word ‘ceasefire’, [previously] controversial for the US”. Until now, Washington has been averse to the word “ceasefire” in any UN action on the war, but the draft resolution text echoes language that US President Joe Biden said he used last week in conversations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The US draft resolution would see the Security Council “underscore its support for a temporary ceasefire in Gaza as soon as practicable, based on the formula of all hostages being released, and calls for lifting all barriers to the provision of humanitarian assistance at scale”. The US draft also warns Israel not to launch a ground offensive in Rafah, saying: “The Security Council should underscore that such a major ground offensive should not proceed, under the current circumstances.” The Algerian-drafted resolution, vetoed by the US, meanwhile called for an “immediate” humanitarian ceasefire, based on last month’s interim order by the International Court of Justice, which obliges Israel to take measures to prevent acts of genocide in the territory. It also separately demanded the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages. Washington traditionally shields Israel from UN action and has previously vetoed two other Security Council resolutions since the war began on October 7. Adblock test (Why?)
Why does an archipelago off the coast of Argentina belong to the UK?
The British foreign secretary arrived in the Falkland Islands on Monday to “reiterate the UK’s commitment to uphold the Islanders’ right of self-determination” in the face of Argentinian claims of sovereignty over the archipelago. Lord David Cameron, who was prime minister of the UK from 2010 to 2016 when he resigned following the Brexit referendum, is the first UK foreign secretary to visit the British Overseas Territory in the South Atlantic in 30 years. He was visiting ahead of his participation in the G20 Foreign Ministers meeting in Brazil on Wednesday. Cameron’s visit included a helicopter tour of the islands and the 1982 Falklands War battle sites. Despite being very nearly 13,000 kilometres (8,000 miles) from UK shores, with a population of only 3,200 people, the Falklands have occupied a weighty place in the British psyche ever since the islands became a 10-week battleground between British and Argentinian troops 42 years ago. Before his trip to the territory, Cameron made clear that British jurisdiction over the Falklands, the two major islands of which are East Falkland and West Falkland, is non-negotiable, “The Falkland Islands are a valued part of the British family, and we are clear that as long as they want to remain part of the family, the issue of sovereignty will not be up for discussion.” So why are the Falklands a British Overseas Territory and could they ever be handed over to Argentina? David Cameron, UK foreign secretary, right, on the opening day of the Munich Security Conference in Munich, Germany, on Friday, February 16, 2024, days before visiting the Falkland Islands where he stated that British sovereignty of the archipelago is ‘not up for discussion’ [Alex Kraus/Bloomberg via Getty Images] How did the Falklands become a British Overseas Territory? Several powers have laid claim to the islands since Englishman Captain John Strong made his landing there in 1690, naming the territory after his patron, Viscount Falkland. Over the centuries since then, the United Kingdom, Argentina, France and Spain have all established settlements on this nearly treeless group of islands where some one million penguins nest each summer. The UK has governed since 1833 and bases its claim to the islands on its longstanding presence there, as well as on the political will of the overwhelmingly pro-British islanders themselves. What is the basis of Argentina’s claim to the Falklands? Argentina has long disputed the UK’s right of sovereignty over the islands. The South American state maintains that it inherited the islands, known in Argentina as Las Malvinas, from the Spanish crown in the early 1800s, and that their close proximity to the Argentinian mainland is reason enough for its claim. Alasdair Pinkerton, associate professor in geopolitics at Royal Holloway, University of London, told Al Jazeera that Argentinian claims of sovereignty over the Falklands remain “deeply ingrained within Argentine politics and society, inculcated through the education system, street signage, banknotes and the Argentina constitution”. The dispute between Argentina and the UK reached a crisis point on April 2, 1982, when Argentina invaded the islands in a bid to take control of the archipelago. After a UK military task force was dispatched by then-British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to win back the territory, 74 days of conflict ensued. The UK prevailed, but 655 Argentinian and 255 British servicemen were killed in the conflict. A sign for the Malvinas Argentinas stands in the Los Cardales National Park in Valles Calchaquies, Salta, Argentina on March 22, 2023 [Ricardo Ceppi/Getty Images] What do the islanders want? In a bid to push back against intensifying Argentinian claims over the territory, Falklanders went to the polls on March 10 and 11, 2013 to vote on the following question, “Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?” More than 90 percent of those eligible to vote turned out. Out of the 1,517 votes cast, 1,513 voted in favour of remaining a British territory. But Alicia Castro, the then-Argentinian ambassador to London, dismissed the referendum as “a ploy that has no legal value”. “Negotiations are in the islanders’ best interests,” she told an Argentinian radio station following the result. “We don’t want to deny them their identity. They’re British, we respect their identity and their way of life and that they want to continue to be British. But the territory they occupy is not British.” Could there be another war over the Falklands? During a TV election debate last year, Argentina’s far-right populist President Javier Milei, elected in November 2023, dismissed any notion of a future war, “It is clear that the war option is not a solution. We had a war – that we lost – and now we have to make every effort to recover the islands through diplomatic channels.” However, Pinkerton said, “In reality, I suspect that Milei is not hugely motivated by the Falklands/Malvinas as an issue – it’s a distraction from his economic libertarian project – but feels the political need to perform an interest to assuage public demand.” But, while Pinkerton could not “envisage another 1982-style conflict any time in the foreseeable future” either, he added, “You can’t fully eliminate the possibility of some kind of confrontation if the conditions were right and there was a distinct trigger event, especially as the world becomes increasingly multipolar.” Pinkerton explained that issues such as the “growing challenge of overfishing” in the so-called Blue Hole – a disputed area of water close to the Falklands, and the uncertain future of the Antarctic Treaty’s Environmental Protocol when it comes up for review in 2048, “all bring challenges for diplomacy and security in the South Atlantic in coming decades”. Adblock test (Why?)
‘Israel’s apartheid must end,’ South Africa says at ICJ hearing
The International Court of Justice will hear from 52 countries on the legality of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories. South Africa told the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague that Israel is responsible for apartheid against the Palestinians and its occupation is “inherently and fundamentally illegal”. South African representatives opened the second day of hearings at the ICJ on Tuesday and spoke on a request by the United Nations General Assembly for a nonbinding advisory opinion on the legality of Israel’s policies in the occupied Palestinian territories. “We as South Africans sense, see, hear and feel to our core the inhumane discriminatory policies and practices of the Israeli regime as an even more extreme form of the apartheid that was institutionalised against Black people in my country,” said Vusimuzi Madonsela, South Africa’s ambassador to the Netherlands, where the ICJ is based. “It is clear that Israel’s illegal occupation is also being administered in breach of the crime of apartheid. … It is indistinguishable from settler colonialism. Israel’s apartheid must end,” Madonsela said. He added that South Africa had a “special obligation” to call out apartheid wherever it occurs and ensure it is “brought to an immediate end”. South Africa, which has a long history of support for the Palestinians and has compared their struggle with its history under an apartheid system, has launched a separate case at the ICJ accusing Israel of “‘genocide” in its bombardment of Gaza. More than 50 countries are to present arguments to the ICJ on the legal implications of Israel’s occupation. On Tuesday, representatives from Algeria, Saudi Arabia, the Netherlands, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil and Chile presented their positions. The 15-judge panel has been asked to review Israel’s “occupation, settlement and annexation, … including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures”. Israel has pushed on with building illegal settlements across the occupied West Bank, now home to more than 500,000 Jewish settlers and three million Palestinians. Israeli settlers have become increasingly more violent. Their actions have been condemned by world leaders, especially in the past few months, as Israel attacks Gaza. But South African representative Pieter Andreas Stemmet told the court that the settlements have extended the “temporary nature of the occupation into a permanent situation in violation of the Palestinian right to self-determination”. (Al Jazeera) On Monday, Palestinian representatives asked the UN’s highest court to declare the occupation illegal. They said such an advisory opinion could contribute to a two-state solution and lasting peace. Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki called on the court in an emotional speech to treat Palestinian children as children, adding that “the identity of the group to which we belong does not diminish the human rights to which we are all entitled”. Israel has declined to attend the hearings and said in a written statement that an advisory opinion would be harmful to achieving a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians – even as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeatedly rejects the idea of a Palestinian state. On Monday, Netanyahu said Israel does not recognise the legitimacy of discussions at the ICJ, calling the case “part of the Palestinian attempt to dictate the results of the political agreement without negotiations”. While judges are expected to take about six months to deliver an opinion in the case, political analyst Gideon Levy told Al Jazeera he’s “afraid” that the ICJ case will have little impact on Israeli policies but it “depends a lot on the international community”. “The only question is if the world will be able to move from recrimination and condemnation into actions,” he said. Adblock test (Why?)
Four Egyptian officials back on trial in Italy over death of Giulio Regeni
Italy’s top court decided last year to proceed with the trial against the four officials, who will be tried in absentia. The trial of four Egyptian security agents accused of kidnapping and murdering an Italian student in Cario opened in Italy on Tuesday following a prolonged delay in the proceedings over its legality. Giulio Regeni, a postgraduate student at the United Kingdom’s Cambridge University, disappeared in the Egyptian capital in January 2016, where he was researching union activities among street vendors as part of his doctoral thesis. A month after his disappearance, the body of the 28-year-old was found on the side of a highway on the edge of Cairo, bearing cigarette burns, broken teeth, and fractured bones. A post-mortem examination showed he had been tortured before his death. Human rights activists also said the marks on his body were reminiscent of those resulting from widespread torture in Egyptian security agency facilities. Regeni’s parents, Paola and Giulio Regeni, attended the opening court session on Tuesday and posed outside the court with the banner “Truth for Giulio Regeni”. The Regeni family lawyer, Alessandra Ballerini, said after the short hearing, “We have been waiting for eight years this moment.” “We finally hope to have a trial against those who perpetrated all the possible pain in the world on Giulio.” People during a march and torchlight procession in memory of the Italian researcher Giulio Regeni, in Rome, Italy, January 25, 2018 [File: Andrea Ronchini/NurPhoto via Getty Images] Italian prosecutors believe four Egyptian officials were involved in the killing, but have not been able to track them down to issue summons, so they are being tried in absentia. Tuesday’s hearing marks the second time the four Egyptian officials have gone on trial on charges related to Regeni’s death, after proceedings originally opened in October 2021 but were immediately suspended after the judge questioned whether the prosecution would be legitimate if it were not clear that the accused even knew they had been charged. But Italy’s top court dismissed the decision in September last year, saying Egypt’s failure to cooperate should not impede the trial. Tranquillino Sarno, a public defender for one of the accused, asked for continued efforts to contact the four officials on Tuesday. He asked that the court ensure Egyptian authorities “can be officially informed of this trial in Italy, as today, we don’t even know if they are still alive”. Egypt has denied claims that it refused to help the investigation into Regeni’s death, saying its authorities cooperated with Italian officials and that its investigations concluded that Regeni’s killers are unknown. Officials also said that the Italian investigation was not based on consistent evidence, denying any responsibility from the country’s security apparatus. Egyptian police earlier claimed that Regeni was killed by gangsters who specialised in impersonating police officials, kidnapping foreigners, and stealing their money and that they were killed during an exchange of fire with the police. But Egyptian judges ruled that the men were not Regeni’s killers. The trial represents the first time Egyptian officials have been prosecuted abroad for alleged crimes that human rights groups have said have been committed on a larger scale in the North African country. After Tuesday’s preliminary motions, the president of the jury adjourned the proceedings until March 18. Adblock test (Why?)
How is Israel’s arms industry profiting from the war on Gaza?
Made in Israel, tested in Palestine. The war on Gaza seems to be a testing ground for Israel’s new weaponry, with devastating effect. Despite the country’s relatively small size, Israel is one of the world’s largest weapons exporters. In 2022, its arms sales reached $12.5bn, a 20 percent increase over the previous year. Praised for their innovation, Israeli manufacturers proudly advertise their “battle-tested” products but what is the cost to the test subjects, the Palestinians, especially in the context of the current bloodshed in Gaza? We look at how this brutal business is profiting from the destruction of Gaza as well as how technology, money and the lack of accountability are fueling the flames of war. Presenter: Anelise Borges Guests:Antony Loewenstein – Author, The Palestine Laboratory: How Israel Exports the Technology of Occupation Around the WorldSophia Goodfriend – JournalistMarwa Fatafta – Access Now, MENA Policy and Advocacy DirectorSaleh Hijazi – BDS Movement activist Adblock test (Why?)
‘Let me finally see my son’: Navalny’s mother demands body from Putin
Kremlin says widow Yulia’s accusations that Navalny was poisoned by a nerve agent are ‘unfounded and vulgar’. The mother of dead Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny has demanded that President Vladimir Putin hand over his body so that she could bury him. “I appeal to you, Vladimir Putin. Resolving this issue depends on you alone. Let me finally see my son,” said Lyudmila Navalnaya in a video message on Tuesday, making her plea as the Kremlin denied any involvement in the death of Navalny on February 16 while serving a sentence at the “Polar Wolf” penal colony above the Arctic Circle. In a video filmed in front of the prison, Navalny’s mother said she did not even know where her son’s corpse was. “For a fifth day I cannot see him, they aren’t giving me his body and don’t even tell me where he is,” she said, adding that she demanded his body be “released immediately so that I can bury him humanely”. On Tuesday, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov hit back at accusations made by Yulia Navalnaya, Navalny’s widow, that her 47-year-old husband had been poisoned by a nerve agent, calling her claims “unfounded and vulgar”. Peskov, who said he was “not familiar” with Navalnaya’s statement made in a video address broadcast on Monday, declined to comment further, saying that he was “taking into account that Yulia Navalnaya was widowed just days ago”. The Kremlin said Putin had not watched her video statement. In her video three days after her husband’s death and less than a month before Russia’s presidential election, Navalnaya signalled her determination to fight for a “free Russia”. She said the authorities had not yet handed over Navalny’s body to his elderly mother because they were waiting for traces of a Novichok nerve agent to leave his corpse. Navalny’s allies have quoted a Russian investigator as saying the authorities need at least 14 days to conduct various chemical tests on his body and cannot therefore hand his body over yet. Navalnaya also called on the European Union not to recognise the results of the presidential election, slated for March 15-17, which is almost certain to give Putin another six-year term. “A president who assassinated his main political opponent cannot be legitimate by definition,” Navalnaya said in her speech. Putin has warned that there will be a strong response if foreign powers try to meddle in the election. Calls for investigation rejected Peskov rejected the EU’s call on Monday for an “international investigation” into Navalny’s death following talks in Brussels with Navalnaya hosted by EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell. “We do not accept such demands in general – all the more so from Mr Borrell,” Peskov said. The West and Navalny’s supporters say Putin is responsible for Navalny’s death. The Kremlin has denied involvement and said that Western claims that Putin was responsible were unacceptable. Putin has made no public comment on Navalny’s death but it has further deepened a schism in relations between Moscow and the West caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Asked about the hundreds of detentions of Russians at events mourning Navalny’s death in recent days, Peskov said: “Law-enforcement agencies are acting in accordance with the law”. Russian authorities say that Navalny fell unconscious and died suddenly after a walk at the penal colony. Adblock test (Why?)
What’s fuelling the deadly cholera outbreak in Southern Africa?
A severe cholera outbreak is currently ravaging communities in Southern Africa, spreading across borders in what experts say is the worst such crisis involving the illness that the region has seen in a decade. Thousands of people have died, and thousands of others have been infected with the acute diarrheal disease in at least seven countries. In some of the hardest-hit countries, the outbreak forced millions of students to stay back home in January. Across the region, emergency response centres have sprung up in school fields and stadiums, and are teeming with groaning patients in pain. Fears are mounting that if the outbreak is not tackled soon, healthcare staff could be overwhelmed. In an emergency summoning to address the outbreak earlier this month, leaders of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) said they were working to stop the spread, but a lack of clean water, weak cross-border checks, and a global shortage of vaccines could test that resolve. Here’s a breakdown of what’s causing the spread and how many people have been affected: How widespread is the outbreak? Caused by the vibrio cholerae bacteria, cholera infects the small intestine, producing toxins that the body works hard to expel by secreting large amounts of vomit or watery diarrhoea, leading to rapid dehydration. Mild cases can disappear after a few days of oral rehydration treatment, but in severe cases – approximately one in 10 – it could lead to death within a day if left untreated. Since January 2022, at least 188,000 people have been infected with cholera across seven countries in Southern Africa: Zambia, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, South Africa and the Democratic Republic of Congo. More than 4,100 people have died, according to the UN humanitarian agency, OCHA. The disease has been spreading since 2022. Although badly hit Zambia only reported its first case in October 2023, more than 18,804 people were infected by Thursday, in what authorities say is the country’s worst outbreak ever. At least 658 people have died since October. Malawi, with at least 59,000 cases since early 2022, is also reporting its largest cholera outbreak ever. In Zimbabwe, 21,000 cases since February 2023 make this epidemic the second-worst on record. DRC, which is also a member of the SADC, has the highest number of infections at 71,000, while South Africa has recorded the lowest number of cases, at 1,076 people. Monthly cases across the affected countries hovered around 2,000 infections since January 2023, but then peaked in January 2024 at 3,400 cases, suggesting higher transmission levels going into February. What’s fuelling this outbreak? Cholera typically spreads when people ingest water or food that’s contaminated. The disease is common in areas with poor sanitation, or in conflict zones where drinking water sources might be contaminated with faecal matter or wastewater from sewers. Although endemic to Africa and parts of Asia, experts say it’s rare for several countries to experience outbreaks simultaneously, as is the case in southern Africa. The outbreak was likely triggered by a cocktail of issues, rather than a single event. Regular, unchecked cross-border movement, for example, means infections can be transported: One 2023 study found that two sisters who had travelled from South Africa to a cholera hot spot in Malawi infected a third person on their return and that the strain that is currently spreading is originally from South Asia. While it’s rare for people to transfer the infection through casual contact, poor hygiene can lead to faecal matter from an infected person contaminating food meant for others. Poor sewage systems, alongside inadequate clean water sources for drinking, cooking and hygiene are also a persistent problem in the region. More than half of the population in rural communities in Southern African countries — except for South Africa and Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland — have no access to sanitation facilities like toilets (PDF). In South Africa, researchers say 80 percent of wastewater systems need upgrading. Increasingly frequent and more severe flooding linked to climate change has an impact too, experts have said. Anja du Plessis of the University of South Africa (UNISA) told Al Jazeera that cholera occurs more in the rainy season, which the region is currently experiencing. Flooding “results in more run-off containing more pathogens, increasing the risk of contamination,” she said. Cyclone Kenneth tore through Madagascar, Mozambique, Malawi, and Zimbabwe, in March 2023, and likely worsened cholera transmission. At the moment, cholera vaccines used both preventively and reactively are scarce, forcing the World Health Organization (WHO) to abandon the usual two-dose oral application for a single dose. Some 29 countries reported cholera outbreaks in 2022, an increase from the average of 20 reporting countries annually. That uptick has stretched the estimated 36 million doses available yearly. There’s only one available manufacturer of the dose at the moment – South Korean firm EuBiologics — and it’s already producing at maximum capacity, according to WHO. While two doses of the vaccine can stop cholera for about three years, one dose reduces the immunity period to between six months and two years. How are SADC countries responding? At an emergency summit on February 2, SADC leaders promised to increase funding for water systems and to work on a cross-country response plan to monitor cholera spread, especially after climate change-linked natural disasters. The leaders also aim to start manufacturing cholera vaccines regionally, although they acknowledged they don’t have enough resources to buy medical supplies like test kits. But some are sceptical and say community-based campaigns in the short term might be more effective than SADC’s plans. “The response so far has been poor [and] we will have to see if their words are transformed into action,” du Plessis of UNISA said. “We can however not depend and wait on the governments to take action. Communities should be properly informed on WASH [water and sanitation hygiene] facilities and practices so that the rate of the outbreak can be curbed.” In Zambia, authorities delayed January school resumption for four million students by about a month
Who is Julian Assange? Will the WikiLeaks founder be extradited to the US?
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is making a last-ditch attempt to prevent his extradition to the United States to face criminal charges over espionage and the publication of classified information. WikiLeaks caused a diplomatic storm after it published a huge cache of secret military files in 2010 and 2011. Washington wants to try him for the leaks that it says damaged its national security. Here is what we know about Assange and his legal battle: What is the trial about? Two senior judges will hear arguments from Assange’s legal team over two days starting on Tuesday. A UK High Court in 2021 ordered Assange’s extradition, which was upheld by the Supreme Court a year later. Former home secretary Priti Patel cleared Assange’s extradition order in April 2022. The Australian-born Assange, who has been in prison since 2019, wants a review of former home secretary’s extradition order and to challenge the 2021 court order in the two-day hearing. What is WikiLeaks? In 2006, Assange launched WikiLeaks, an online platform where people can anonymously submit classified leaks such as documents and videos. In April 2010, WikiLeaks released footage showing a US Apache helicopter attack which killed a dozen people, including two Reuters journalists, in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad. This caused the platform to gain prominence. Also in 2010, it released more than 90,000 classified US military documents on the Afghanistan war, and almost 400,000 secret US files on the Iraq war. The leaks represented the largest security breaches of their kind in US military history. WikiLeaks also released 250,000 secret diplomatic cables from US embassies around the world, with some of the information published by newspapers such as The New York Times and Britain’s The Guardian. US politicians and military officials, angered by the leaks, argued the unauthorised publication of information put lives at risk. In 2013, Chelsea Manning, a former army intelligence analyst, was sentenced for leaking thousands of secret messages to WikiLeaks. She served seven years in a military prison before being released on an order of President Barack Obama. What is Assange charged with? Assange has been indicted in the US on 18 charges over the publication of hundreds of thousands of classified documents in 2010 by WikiLeaks. Seventeen of these counts are for espionage while one is for computer misuse. US lawyers say Assange is guilty of conspiring with Manning and attempting to hack into a Pentagon computer. The prosecution against Assange is made under the 1917 Espionage Act, which has never before been used for publishing classified information. Supporters of Assange argue he should be protected under the press freedoms granted by the First Amendment to the US Constitution and he had acted as a journalist to expose US military wrongdoing. Amnesty has released a statement appealing to the US authorities to drop the charges, deeming the government’s pursuit of Assange a “full-scale assault on the right to freedom of expression”. “Julian has been indicted for receiving, possessing and communicating information to the public of evidence of war crimes committed by the US government,” Assange’s wife Stella said. “Reporting a crime is never a crime.” Who is Julian Assange? Assange, now 52, was born Townsville, Australia, in July 1971. Assange is married to Stella Assange, a lawyer who met him in 2011 when she was hired as part of his legal team. Stella, originally called Sara Gonzalez Devant, changed her name to Stella Moris in 2012 to protect herself and her family while working with Assange. “His life is at risk every single day he stays in prison, and if he’s extradited, he will die,” Stella has said. Assange’s wife has been very vocal in defence of her husband. The couple has two children and married in March 2022. Arrest and Assange’s legal battle While the US only officially unsealed criminal charges against Assange in 2019, his legal battle spans 13 years. On November 18, 2010, a Swedish court ordered Assange’s arrest over rape allegations made by two female Swedish WikiLeaks volunteers. Assange denied the allegations and claimed the Swedish case was a pretext to extradite him, or hand him over, to the US to face charges over the WikiLeaks releases. In December 2010, Assange was arrested in the UK on a European Arrest Warrant but was released on bail. London’s Westminster Magistrates Court in 2011 ordered Assange to be extradited to Sweden, a decision he appealed. In 2012, his final appeal was rejected by the UK Supreme Court, after which he sought asylum in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London. The asylum was granted, but revoked in April 2019, after which a screaming Assange was carried out of the embassy. Throughout his asylum, UK police patrolled the embassy, saying Assange would be arrested if he left the building over his failure to surrender to bail earlier. His two children were born while he was holed up inside the embassy. In June 2019, the US Department of Justice formally asked UK authorities to hand Assange over to the US, where he would face charges. Swedish authorities dropped the rape investigation against Assange in 2019, saying the evidence was not strong enough to bring charges, partly due to the passage of time. The extradition hearings began in February 2020, but were adjourned after a week. In January 2021, in London, Judge Vanessa Baraitser concluded that Assange should not be sent to the US due to his frail mental health, adding there was a risk he would attempt suicide. Besides his mental health, Assange’s physical health has also declined in prison. In October 2021, he experienced a mini-stroke. He also broke a rib coughing. His wife has said he has aged prematurely. However, the US authorities won an appeal in December 2021 at London’s High Court against this decision, after giving a package of assurances about the conditions of Assange’s detention if convicted, including a pledge he could be transferred to Australia to serve any sentence. What are the possible outcomes of the hearing? If Assange and his legal team
Ten years ago Russia annexed Crimea, paving the way for war in Ukraine
On March 7, 2014, a husky man in his late 30s with closely cropped hair addressed an uneven line of four dozen “volunteers”. Next to him were three men in body armour and green uniforms, with no insignia. The crowd of men, aged 20 to 50, were gathered outside a white Stalinist-era government building in Sevastopol, a port in Ukraine’s Crimea. They were uphill from the seashore, next to huge sequoias, blossoming cherry trees and elderly ladies holding hand-written posters that read, “In Russia through a referendum” and “I want to go home to Russia.” Eight days later, Moscow would hold a “referendum” on the Black Sea peninsula’s “return” to Russia, and the men were a nascent “self-defence unit” that would “prevent provocations,” the man said. I approached them with a notebook and a dictaphone – and was immediately seized by two “volunteers”. “Got a spy here!” they yelled, twisting my arms and ready to beat me to a pulp. But the instructor told them and me to wait. He kept on talking for half an hour, telling the crowd that they would train at a military base outside Sevastopol and should arrive in “comfy clothes” and sneakers. One of the volunteers asked him whether they should bring firearms. Many others nodded approvingly. (Al Jazeera) “When you take up arms, we become an armed criminal group. But if something happens, each unit will be backed by fire,” the instructor said. After the meeting, he checked my press ID and told me he was a retired intelligence officer who had served in Russia’s volatile North Caucasus region and arrived in Crimea as a “volunteer”. “Our groups will have to respond to challenges, provocations because there is a shortage of policemen in town,” he told me. “There’s NATO propaganda at work. “Our aim is to prevent the first shot. If the first shot happens, you won’t stop the mess,” he said. He politely declined to say what his name was. ‘Little green men’ The first shot didn’t happen, but what took place in Crimea 10 years ago paved the way for today’s war between Ukraine and Russia. On February 20, 2014, Vladimir Konstantinov, speaker of Crimea’s regional parliament and a Russian politician, said he “didn’t rule out” the peninsula’s “return” to Russia. On the same day, thousands of gun-toting men in unmarked uniforms appeared throughout Ukraine’s Crimea. They responded to the victory of pro-Western protests in Kyiv that would within days remove pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. Dubbed “little green men” or “polite people,” the servicemen didn’t interact with locals or reporters, while Russian President Vladimir Putin said in Moscow that “they are not there”. They appeared next to Ukrainian military, naval and air bases, and the interim government in Kyiv ordered Ukrainian servicemen in Crimea to leave without firing a single shot. Many servicemen – along with thousands of police officers and government officials – joined the pro-Russian “government” formed by Sergey Aksyonov, a minor political figure and former mafia boss nicknamed “Goblin.” Some servicemen were detained, including Ihor Voronchenko, deputy head of Crimea’s coastal defence at the time. “There was a solitary cell, without a window, when you lose the sense of time, space. It affects one psychologically,” Voronchenko told me in 2018 when he was head of Ukraine’s navy. No shots were fired, but blood was spilled. On March 4, a “self-defence” unit abducted a Crimean Tatar protester, Reshat Ametov. He was held with other hostages in Simferopol, Crimea’s administrative capital, and tortured for a week. His naked, bruised body was found on March 15, head wrapped in plastic, eyes poked out. A day later, the “referendum” took place. Only a handful of schools and government buildings were used as “polling stations” so that the jubilant pro-Russian “voters,” mostly the elderly nostalgic about their Soviet youth, would throng and fill them, creating an illusion of mass vote. Moscow said 90 percent of Crimeans voted to join Russia, but the “referendum” was not recognised by Ukraine or any other nation. On March 21, Russian President Vladimir Putin made Crimea part of Russia. The annexation propelled his sagging approval ratings to an atmospheric 88 percent, and some Russians saw it as a first step to restoring the USSR. In response to the Arab Spring, a series of mass protests in the Middle East, the Kremlin came up with the idea of a “Russian Spring,” stoking protests in Russian-speaking Ukrainian regions in the east and south. Why Crimea? Ancient Greeks, Romans, Mongols and Turks contested Crimea, the westernmost end of the Great Silk Road. It became a jewel in the crown of Russian czars, who annexed it in 1783 from the Crimean Tatars, whose Muslim state was ruled by the descendants of Genghis Khan and allied with Ottoman Turkey. The czars and communists understood Crimea’s utmost strategic importance in controlling the Black Sea, and Nazi Germany occupied it during World War II. Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin accused Tatars of “collaborating” with the Nazis and ordered their entire community of 200,000 deported to Central Asia. “Early in the morning, there was a loud bang on the door. I yelled, ‘Mum, Dad is back from the war! But there were two soldiers who told us to start packing,’” historian Nuri Emirvaliyev, who was 10 at the time, told me about the May 18, 1944 deportation. More than half of them died en route, including his younger sister. “During stops, soldiers yelled, ‘Got any dead? Bring them out!’” Emirvaliyev recalled. The rare survivors and their descendants were allowed to return to Crimea in the late 1980s only to see their homes occupied by ethnic Russians and Ukrainians and become a distrusted and vilified minority. Crimea was made part of Soviet Ukraine in 1954 during the construction of the North Crimean Canal which made agriculture in arid interior areas possible and triggered the growth of urban centres. Moscow turned Crimea into a Soviet Riviera, and millions of former Soviet citizens still reminisce about their holidays
The Day Before October 7
For decades, Gaza has been gripped by a chokehold. Life in the enclave has often been described as an open air prison. No one leaves without the express permission of its neighbour. This is nothing new. But in the weeks and days leading up to October 7, the feeling on the ground was changing. Dareen Abughaida presents this new digital series.Pinch Point, where geography and politics collide. Adblock test (Why?)