“Death to the dictator.” 

These were the words chanted by petrochemical workers in Assaluyeh, a city in the oil-rich province of Bushehr in Iran, on Monday, Oct. 10. This scene took place during a wave of oil strikes and protests across the country, four weeks after the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini who was detained under the pretense of violating Iran’s dress code. 

As of Oct. 6, 185 people — including 19 children — have been killed during protests, according to an Iranian nonprofit. This number will likely rise substantially as a result of the oil strikes that have begun. 

Iran’s oil sector, which has long fueled the Iranian economy, now risks widespread shutdown because of the worker strikes. Some sources even claim that workers have threatened to “destroy everything we [the workers]have built.”

These strikes will draw international attention to the issue of gendered persecution in Iran, as the world will watch to see how Iran and its substantial oil sector will suffer without its workers. 

However, the Iranian government may swiftly retaliate to prevent international skepticism about its oil supply as the protests continue. Iran hopes to capitalize on the global oil shortage. As Western countries ramp up sanctions on Russia for their invasion of Ukraine, Iran’s regime wants to fill this void and convince the West to lower their sanctions on Iranian supplies to help furnish the shipment of oil into Europe. Oil strikes counter this initiative, giving the Iranian government another reason to quell these strikes quickly. 

Oil strikes are nothing new in Iran. For years, oil strikes have popped up as workers demand better hours and higher wages. In fact, oil strikes and other merchant protests helped bring the clergy to power during the Iranian Revolution, revealing just how much power oil strikes in Iran can hold. 

Although past protests, particularly oil strikes, have attracted international attention, this foreign observation has failed to prevent bloody government retaliation. As recently as 2019, Iranians took to the streets to protest the regime and rising oil prices; Iranian security forces killed hundreds in an effort to quell the protests. A similar harsh crackdown occurred during the 2009 Green Movement.

It is clear that the oil strikes will elicit a response from the Iranian government. What does this mean for the larger protest movement in Iran? And how do labor protests more broadly play a role in national political movements, whether in Iran or abroad?

The oil industry is of critical importance to the Iranian economy, more so than ever right now. Iran has a highly oil-based economy, with oil comprising 17.75% of Iraninan GDP. With rising oil prices stemming in part from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Iran sought to use oil as a means to bring itself out of its COVID-19-induced economic malaise. 

Striking oil workers seem to be putting a damper on this plan.

The unique impact that Iran’s oil workers can have on the Iranian economy puts them in a powerful position to demand change. Large scale, politically motivated strikes tend to fail, unless they can put pressure on the economy as a whole. 

This is one reason why strikes in diversified economies like the United States tend to be focused solely on economic gains for the striking group. However, in a country like Iran which relies heavily on one industry, even small-scale strikes can seek lofty goals. 

Iran in particular has a history of oil strikes being used to incite massive political change. During the 1979 Iranian Revolution, strikes by oil workers were pivotal in leading to the Shah’s downfall.  By leveraging economic and social discontent, organizers were able to grow the broader social movement and increase the impact it had on the Shah. Today’s oil workers are in a similar, if not more powerful, position to pressure the Iranian government on oil production, simultaneously hurting its coffers and obtaining assistance from abroad. 

The strikes in Iran’s oil sector have also started to spread to other industries. Workers in Iran’s sugar industry, while a much smaller sector of the economy, have joined its oil workers in stopping production. Merchants have shuttered main centers of commerce in Tehran and Shiraz to show support for the protest movement and force a broader societal reckoning with their demands.

Labor in Iran has a unique capability to put pressure on all levels of society to demand change. Oil workers in particular are in a key position to put pressure on their government. Labor organizers have realized this and, combined with the unique history of labor movements in Iran, have used their power to demand change. 

Furthermore, Iran has had a long history of labor organizing. Iran’s oil workers have developed their strikes into a significant tool for wielding political and economic power. 

This power has only been growing. Earlier this year, Iranian oil workers dramatically reorganized their labor organizations, increasing their strength as a political unit. Iranian oil workers have also demanded greater power in the production process. These more militant worker organizations are being given a chance to wield their newfound power, and so far it appears to be mighty.

Awareness of Iranian oil workers’ political leverage has always been high. However, it is now higher than ever. With this newfound galvanization, oil workers see an opportunity to repeat the victory of their predecessors in overthrowing the Shah’s rule. 

It has been this awareness which has often led to victories in the past, creating a positive feedback loop as Iran’s oil workers are able to build more power, use it to incite change and then build even more power. Iran’s oil workers are perhaps in an even more powerful position than they were in 1979, as the Iranian oil industry is even more insulated from outside demands.

While the current protests in Iran may seem like a slow burn, not doing much to actually change the behavior of its government, this parallels the history of the Iranian Revolution. The revolution did not happen overnight. Rather, it took several months of concerted effort from political and labor activists. 

Iran’s oil strikes may  not represent an immediate victory for those wishing to vindicate the death of Mahsa Amini, but they are nonetheless important fuel for a victory well-fought.

The post Iranian Oil Strikes and the Political Power of Labor appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

On Sept.13, 2022, Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Kurdish Iranian visiting Tehran was taken into custody by the morality police and transported to a “re-education center” because she was accused of improperly wearing her headscarf. Since 1979, in addition to numerous other restrictions on their freedoms, women are obligated to wear head coverings, and the Iranian morality police have progressively become more violent and arbitrary in their enforcement.

Three days later, briefly after entering a coma, Amini died in police custody. Although state officials claimed that she died of a heart attack, Amini’s family rejected that claim due to her having no prior heart-health problems. Additionally, photos of Amini in the hospital jolted the nation, backing up witness claims of her being violently beaten by the police.

Iranians have quickly taken to the streets, protesting their growing frustrations with an oppressive regime and an unjust death. Thousands of Iranians in over 50 cities, both men and women have been protesting, and at least 41 people have been killed so far. Hundreds of protestors have been injured, and dozens have been detained.

Protestors are shouting “WOMEN, LIFE, FREEDOM,” a phrase originating from Amini’s Kurdistan. In outward defiance of this regime’s restrictive laws on women’s freedoms, Iranian women are bravely burning their hijabs and cutting their hair. These protests had been occurring on a smaller scale prior to Amini’s death, since July 2022, when the Iranian government began to enforce morality laws on a stricter and larger scale. One female dissident of the morality police was forced to give a seemingly forced public apology on national television, prompting further outrage from Iranians.

These protests are only a small part of a larger frustration with the Iranian government, and chants like “death to the dictator” reflect these frustrations. Iranians are currently battling economic insecurity, inflation, and western sanctions over the Iran nuclear program that caused the country’s economic collapse. In addition to its suppression of women’s rights and its economic instability, Iranians are also infuriated by the brutality and violent repression from Iranian security forces. In some of these protests, Iranians are burning images and statues of prominent forces from the Islamic Revolution and, most notably, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran.

As the protests grow increasingly violent in nature and the people become increasingly dissatisfied with the government’s inadequate response, the government is turning to the internet to crack down on organizing, to suppress uprisings, and to silence dissenters. Instagram, WhatsApp, YouTube and TikTok are just a few of the apps that have been temporarily restricted, as Iran’s biggest mobile phone operator is disabled. This time, not even VPNs can get past every restriction, though these are still being used by protestors to mobilize. In the past, the government was able to temporarily shut down the internet— most recently in 2019 after an eruption of protests in response to rising fuel prices. This time, however, the protests appear to almost be irrepressible, because of their size, number and the feminist rage fueling the force of the protests.

In addition, the data from this crisis — the number of protestors, the number killed or injured — is increasingly inaccessible as information from the Internet becomes increasingly untraceable and statistics from the government hide ulterior motives. The demonstrations are being hidden from the international community, in addition to the Iranians who use technology to access information about protests.

Amini’s case has quickly gained global traction, and her death has become the face of an unprecedented women’s rights movement in Iran. Numerous countries, including the United States, have condemned the violence, with Antony Blinken, the U.S. Secretary of State, calling on “the Iranian government to end its systemic persecution of women and to allow peaceful protest.” International governments, human rights organizations, and even private corporations like Elon Musk’s Starlink are all lessening sanctions to provide greater Internet access, advocating for just legal practices and offering their own internet services. It appears that the international community stands in solidarity with the women that are fighting for their freedoms. There is no one leader in the movement; just a tragedy driving a burning desire to achieve equality in Iran.

There are a few combatting forces in this crisis, the first obviously being Iran’s suppressive leadership; they are unbudging. Most recently, Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi declined an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour because she refused to wear a headdress of any kind, amplifying the solidity of his stance and sparking international outrage. An anonymous former security official (for safety reasons) claimed that Khamenei “may [even]order a massacre” targeting the Iranian protestors. The rigidity of his stance prompts fears about the future of this revolution.

As previously mentioned, there is also no leader in this protest. There’s no clear organization, and no method of mobilizing remains impenetrable in the face of Iran’s dismissive crackdowns on the internet and violent interactions with protestors. As of now, it is unsure if the protests will grow in size, and how the Iranian government will react to the domestic and international fury with its unequal and inhumane treatment of women.

However, what we do know is that the Iranian government faces an uphill battle— with everyone. An already unstable and brittle government is slowly and surely crumbling under the pressure of an international stance almost universally against its oppression and immoral treatment of women. 

The international community also knows that the women in Iran will not back down without a fight. These recent protests, some of the largest in the country’s history, are fervent and unparalleled. Women openly defy the government’s morality police by burning hijabs, because one woman is killed by the state for improperly wearing one. Men stand alongside women in a fight to be treated humanely against a patriarchal, male-run regime that dates back decades. These protests are feminist in nature, but unlike in the past, when women were just involved in the revolution, they’re now the central topic of conversation. These brazen protestors continue to move the conversation forward and catapult Iran onto the international stage, where it can be challenged for its outdated ideologies and cruel treatment of women. In unprecedented times, we see women demanding freedom, and this time, we may just finally see change.

The post An Unprecedented Feminist Revolution in Iran appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Imploring the world to act and condemn China for its actions sends a strong message to the oppressors: Injustice and abuse have no place in our world, and those that perpetrate them must and will be held accountable. The Chinese government is committing gross human rights violations against its Uyghur population. Since 2014, Chinese abuses have not only denied ethnic Uyghurs the right to religion but also the universally guaranteed right to life. 

The world’s hypocrisy must be questioned, and the overwhelming silence of many influential institutions — for example, USC — sets a wildly dangerous precedent. The administration has been silent on the issue with no signal of even acknowledging the genocide. The silence of key figures, notably the USC Board of Trustees and President Carol Folt, on the issue has been disappointing to many, especially the Muslim community.  The world was quick to take action against Russian aggression and stand in solidarity with Ukrainians in Ukraine and around the world. 

As Muslims around the world celebrate Ramadan — a month of fasting, prayers and reflection — USC students took to the streets of the University Park Campus on April 14 to express their solidarity with Uyghur Muslims in Chinese occupied East Turkestan. In collaboration with Delta Phi Epsilon, USC’s Foreign Service Society, the Muslim Student Union stood firmly against oppression and called out China for its human rights violations. 

The incoming president of the USC Muslim Student Union, Aisha Patel, reaffirmed the commitment of the Muslim community on campus towards always siding with justice. She said, “Our religion is embedded in standing up for the oppressed and doing something beyond merely sharing words. The Muslim Student Union recognizes the importance of supporting humanitarian issues and is committed to spreading awareness.”

Many Muslim students were joined by students of diverse backgrounds for the common cause of advocating for human rights, marching across campus. Here’s why: 

China’s abuse of human rights and lack of government action is alarming with increased persecution of Turkic groups living within its borders, such as the Uyghurs, Kazakhs and Kyrgyz. Unlike the Han Chinese majority, who are primarily Chinese speakers, the Turkic groups are predominantly Muslim and have their own languages. A consensus concluded that Uyghurs and Kazakhs made up 46% and 7% of the population in Xinjiang, respectively. 

There are currently over 3 million Uyghur Muslims in Chinese detention camps. Many stand true to their Muslim faith as opposed to abandoning their religion. The detention camps are like prisons, forcing Uyghurs to renounce their ethnic identities through forced indoctrination and torture. 

The extermination of Muslim minority groups speaks to the Chinese government’s long history of human rights violations. Uyghurs, for example, are a predominantly Muslim ethnic group in the northwestern region of Xinjiang. While Uyghurs are recognized as one of 55 minorities in China, they are continuously discriminated against by the government both culturally and ideologically. They aim to homogenize Chinese society by erasing Uyghur identity — an alarming message from the world’s most populous country. The oppression of Uyghur Muslims by the Chinese Communist Party needs to be called what it actually is:  a modern-day genocide. 

However, the ongoing genocide in China has not received the same swift attention from international media, nor has it been the subject of diplomatic and foreign policy efforts. World powers slapped Russia with drastic economic sanctions and came to aid Ukraine. While on the other hand, China has still not been held accountable for its violations. The common policy of inaction by world leaders in holding China accountable is alarming, and they need to take concrete action, and they need to do it now. 

For instance, the government-mandated detention prisons carry out forced sterilization of women in an attempt to curb and eventually exterminate the Uyghur population of China. Uyghur women are subject to intrusive sterilization surgeries, forced birth control and forced abortions. Not only have the detention camps created conditions to decrease the number of Uyghurs in China, but they have also carried out sexual violence against Uyghur women. Women in these camps are being systematically raped, tortured and assaulted. If the women resisted and tried to fight back, they are beaten and mutilated. 

The conditions of Uyghurs in detention camps during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic are grim, with heavily restricted and monitored access to health care. Their treatment during the holy month of Ramadan has been especially alarming: Uyghur Muslims in the camps are being forced to eat pork and drink alcohol, and those who observe the Ramadan fast are force-fed. 

Moreover, these same detention camps were designed to break families apart by separating children from their parents and segregating men and women. Children as young as three were forced to give up school and sit in stressful positions, such as squatting, for long hours. The men are exploited for labor, and the women are forced to serve the sexual needs of Chinese officers in the prisons. However, the Chinese government refuses to acknowledge these violations, labeling the prisons and detention centers as “re-education camps” and “ boarding schools.”.

The protest was led by the current president of the USC Muslim Student Union, Ephar Khan Anwar, who is ethnically Uyghur. She is a senior studying International Relations and Global Business. Her family is originally from Chinese-occupied East Turkestan, now called Xinjiang, and 93 of her relatives are now missing. She fears ever going back to visit her ancestral home because, for her, it would mean “being held in a concentration camp or even death.”  

The Uyghur solidarity protest made a bold statement, with all participants dressed in blue in support of the millions of Uyghur Muslims being held forcefully in detention camps in China. The crowd chanted phrases such as “Stop the Genocide” and “Hold China accountable.” Protesters also specifically USC’s inaction: “USC, break your silence,” “USC, stop being complacent to the genocide,” “How many is too many?”

However, it has been very disappointing to see the USC administration and other important organizations remain silent and stand on the side of injustice. Khan Anwar said, “USC has been notably silent on the Uyghur genocide, where they usually speak up on other human rights issues. It’s clear that greed will always remain on the pedestal.” Economic ties with China are prioritized at the cost of human lives. 

Others at the protest also shared the same sentiment that Muslims are under-represented, with no recognition or respect of Muslim festivals and traditions. USC, and many other U.S. universities, do not offer halal meal plans to Muslims on campus or accommodations during Ramadan. They felt unheard and said the university was quick to stand with Ukraine and issue a statement with resources for Ukrainian students but remained silent on the Uyghur issue. 

An anonymous protester, who is a Chinese Muslim, condemned the Chinese Communist Party for their actions against Uyghur Muslims and other minorities in China. They told Glimpse from the Globe that they wished to keep their identity a secret due to the repercussions their family in China might face if identified by the Chinese government as a supporter of the Uyghur cause. 

The Uyghur genocide is not an isolated incident. Like the Holocaust, what started as cultural and ideological persecution of a religious minority has now escalated to a mass termination. The dark chapters of the past should serve as a constant reminder to us all to take action to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide when we encounter it.

We must not allow ourselves to repeat past mistakes. The world needs to consider the voices of the oppressed, the ones being silenced, the ones facing a constant reminder of hatred and standing bold against oppressors such as China.

Uyghurs are more than just statistics to use to undermine China. They are actual people on the brink of mass extinction. While the flow of information from the region is limited due to the censorship by the government, there is a need now more than ever for the world to inform themselves on the issue. The genocide is happening, and how we act in this decisive moment matters above all else.

The post Break the Silence: Students Protesting the Uyghur Genocide appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

HONG KONG — While many countries have been devastated by the pandemic, Hong Kong has done fairly well in containing the spread of the virus. In total, the country has only accumulated approximately 12,000 cases within a population of 7.5 million. 

However, the vaccination program that began in late February has been underwhelming, despite an abundance of supply, with merely 10.7% of the population receiving the first jab as of April 23. Efficacy issues associated with the Sinovac vaccine and general distrust toward the local and Chinese government has led to the poor vaccination rate.

Hong Kong is not known as an anti-vaccine city. Citizens are generally aware of public health issues and willing to participate in mass vaccination programs, especially after the SARS outbreak in 2003 took almost 300 Hongkongers’ lives and dampened the city’s economy. Between late 2019 and mid 2020, an estimated number of 1.2 million Hong Kong residents received flu vaccinations under government programs. 

Since February, Hong Kongers have been able to choose between two COVID-19 vaccines: Sinovac, developed by Chinese biopharmaceutical company Sinovac Biotech and endorsed by the Hong Kong government, and BioNTech, jointly developed by American company Pfizer and German company BioNTech. However, efficacy issues with Sinovac has made the vaccine-accepting public more resistant toward taking the Chinese vaccine.

Sinovac, a COVID-19 vaccine candidate developed by Chinese biopharmaceutical company Sinovac Biotech, began its Phase III clinical trial in July 2020. However, the company has not made its development process transparent. Normally, vaccine companies publish data from their Phase III clinical trial in peer-reviewed journals before obtaining approval from authorities. Sinovac has not published details on its vaccine in a journal. In contrast, Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna released their Phase III trial data in the New England Journal of Medicine in December 2020.

In January, before the vaccine was rolled out in Hong Kong and other countries, Sinovac was reported to have an efficacy rate of about 50%, according to Butantan Institute, a Brazilian medical research center. Chile’s recent vaccination program with Sinovac boosted the estimated rate to 56.5%, raising it slightly above WHO’s efficacy requirement of 50%. In comparison, BioNTech is reported to have about 90% efficacy rate, while AstraZeneca’s vaccine is estimated at approximately 75%.

Another concern with Sinovac is its efficacy within elderly populations. During its Phase III trial in Brazil, Sinovac did not gather enough data for its effect on individuals over the age of 60. Only 413 participants over 60 completed two doses in the clinical trial, not enough to have statistical implication.

The company has even released a disclaimer about the lack of data on elderly individuals. According to Pak-leung Ho, leading microbiologist at the University of Hong Kong, the Chinese government does not recommend the Sinovac vaccine for individuals over 60. He suggests that Hong Kong can learn from Macau’s vaccination policy, where individuals over 60 will need to consult medical professionals before taking the vaccine.

Currently, Sinovac is being distributed in countries across all continents, including Brazil, Turkey and Indonesia. Many government officials from these countries have reassured their public about the Sinovac’s effectiveness, including Khairy Jamaluddin, Malaysia’s science minister who posted on Twitter after taking the first shot of the vaccine. Singapore, however, has let its Sinovac supply sit in storage after receiving them in February, citing the lack of data as the reason the government has not approved the vaccine yet.

Despite all this, regulators approved the vaccine for use in Hong Kong in February of this year. Local media outlets cast doubt over the rushed approval process, though the government defended its decision and dismissed doubts as a “misunderstanding of the mechanism for authorising vaccines for emergency use.” 

Many citizens in Hong Kong remained wary of Sinovac. In a survey conducted by the University of Hong Kong in January, fewer than 30% of respondents considered Sinovac an acceptable vaccine, compared to a 56.5% acceptance rate for the BioNTech vaccine, the other vaccine option in Hong Kong.  

Another major reason behind Hong Kong’s low vaccination rate is the public’s deep distrust of government. Since the city’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam instigated mass protests over an extradition bill two years ago, her approval ratings have plummeted to historical lows. Her government is also widely regarded as pro-Beijing, especially amid recent electoral reforms where only “patriots” are permitted to run for office.

Residents are particularly skeptical about Lam’s enthusiastic endorsement of the Chinese manufactured Sinovac. When an alliance of hospital employees warned older residents about Sinovac’s lack of sufficient trial data, Lam slammed the group for spreading misinformation. In another case, a private clinic was dropped from the government inoculation programme after it promoted BioNTech over Sinovac and cited their efficacy rates as evidence. 

So far, 15 people have died after receiving vaccines in Hong Kong, 12 of whom received Sinovac jabs. Health officials have repeatedly stressed that the deaths are not linked to the vaccines, though the public remains highly skeptical.

“According to the government, none of the deaths are related to the vaccine,” Hong Kong resident Belinda Lin told the Associated Press. “Most of the patients had cardiovascular conditions, so there must be some association, but the government seems to be trying to dissociate it.”

In March, the government suspended BioNTech shots for two weeks after a batch was discovered to have defective packaging. Authorities threw away the batch, a decision that several medical professionals questioned and likened to destroying evidence.

“I am quite surprised that the Hong Kong authorities said that they had already discarded all the problematic bottles,” said Alvin Chan, a co-chairman of the advisory committee on communicable diseases and a council member of the Medical Association. “To investigate the problem, at least these faulty bottles need to be examined meticulously by the company.”

These incidents have all raised concerns about a political agenda not just behind the vaccination drive, but the government’s endorsement of the Sinovac vaccine. 

As Ramon Yuen, a district councilor from the city’s pro-democracy opposition, told Bloomberg Quint, “many people are saying the government has its own agenda, and this will impact the effectiveness of public health policy.” 

By the end of March, the number of people who scheduled, but skipped, their Sinovac appointments stood at around 20%, compared with a 5% no-show rate for BioNTech appointments.

Recently, the vaccination drive has seen a big boost as the government said it would ease social-distancing restrictions for inoculated people. Bookings on the day of the announcement jumped up to nearly double the number on the previous day. Around 13,500 people made online reservations for the BioNTech vaccine on the first day of the announcement, compared with 3,300 who signed up for Sinovac.

Nonetheless, no matter the incentives offered, as long a lack of public confidence in not just the vaccines, but the government, remains high, the vaccination drive in Hong Kong will stay sluggish.

The post Vaccination Campaigns in Hong Kong Struggle to Gain Public Trust appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Over the last few years however, one facet of Thai society, the monarchy, has increasingly come into question. A USC student from Thailand, speaking anonymously for safety concerns and hereafter referred to as TS, said that “people are taking examples from Hong Kong and protests elsewhere” to determine what place, if any, the monarchy has in a modern Thailand.

The anti-monarchy movement began to take hold following the death of King Rama IX in 2016 and the subsequent appointment of his son, King Rama X. The new king, who spends most of his time in Europe and is notorious for his playboy attitude, is not nearly as popular among the people as his father was. His ascension to the throne coincided with political turbulence that had been present and ongoing since 2014, when a successful military coup took over the government and installed Prayuth Chan-ocha as the prime minister of Thailand. The coup occurred after months of protests and conflict between the administration of Yingluck Shinawatra, the previous prime minister, and other political parties. Chan-ocha, who was the general that led the coup, was the only candidate in an election that was essentially a formality. Dissatisfaction and political frustration continued to rise in the country until it finally boiled over in 2019. 

In December 2019, thousands of people took to the streets of Bangkok to protest a ruling by the Thai Constitutional Court that banned and eventually dissolved, the Future Forward party from the Thai Parliament. The party housed some of the most vocal political opposition to Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha. According to Amnesty International, the charges were politically motivated; the court ruled that a loan of approximately $6 million to Future Forward from party leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit counted as a donation instead and so violated the approximately $316,000 donation limit. The protests were also a response to Chan-ocha’s reappointment in March 2019, following an election of questionable legitimacy. 

“When they [the Thai Constitutional Court]dissolved the party, that was the first trigger of the protests. People had been trying to fight for democracy through very peaceful means, both in and out of Congress, and when the attempt inside of Congress didn’t work and the party was now very unfairly gone, people started to get really angry,” TS said.

After a months-long break due to efforts to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, the protests resumed in July 2020, largely led by university students and orchestrated through social media. The turning point came in August when a statement by Panusaya Sithijirawattanakul, a 21-year-old student, clarified the demands of the protestors and united them behind a goal of reforming the monarchy and democratizing the government. Sithijirawattanakul was arrested in October 2020 and, as of publication, remains in detention and on her 22nd day of a hunger strike.

TS, who attended four protests during the height of the movement from October to December, described the protests as being highly organized despite having no centralized leader and being pulled together solely through Facebook, Twitter and Telegram. During the protests, people would pass messages back and forth, sending along requests from the front lines for “supplies like umbrellas and helmets to protect against the water guns.”

The protests continued throughout the rest of 2020, and by the end of the year at least 234 people were charged with crimes relating to the rallies, including nine leaders of the movement who are still jailed and awaiting trial. Tensions rose in early 2021 as the government stepped up its response by declaring involvement in the protests illegal and instructing the police to use harsher methods of deterrence including tear gas, rubber bullets and water cannons. This has gradually caused protest sizes to shrink from their peak of up to 30,000 people, but protestors still turn out in the 1000s. 

Additionally, Thailand’s lèse-majesté law, which under the king’s orders had been minimally enforced since 2018, is being put to use again to punish protesters. Under the lèse-majesté law, also known as Article 112, insulting or defaming the royal family carries a severe penalty. In January 2021, a 60-year-old former civil servant was sentenced under Article 112 to 43 years and six months in prison (after a four year pretrial detention) for posting audio clips to Facebook in 2014 that were deemed to be critical of the monarchy. The increasing usage of the lèse-majesté law is directly tied to the king, according to TS.

“There’s no written evidence of this but everyone just knows that the king got really mad [about the protests]and told top military people to start using 112 again,” TS said.

The protests died down for a short while following the implementation of these harsher measures but have picked up again in recent weeks, rekindled by the fight for democracy in neighboring Myanmar, where a coup recently installed a military government. In the protests following the coup, activists in Myanmar gave the three-finger “Hunger Games” salute of resistance favored by Thai protestors. Showing solidarity in return, protests in Thailand resumed to the soundtrack of clanging pots and pans, the method of dissent used by protestors in Myanmar. 

Thailand and Myanmar join Hong Kong and Taiwan as two more countries in Asia where democratic movements have recently taken hold. Online activism by protestors has created strong bonds between organizers in the four countries and led to the formation of the so-called Milk Tea Alliance, which recently got its own Twitter emoji — a white cup set against a background of milk tea colours from the countries where the alliance initially formed. Roger Huang, a lecturer on political violence at Sydney’s Macquarie University, says that “the milk tea alliance could potentially turn into a genuine transnational anti-authoritarian movement.”

Despite the COVID-19 pandemic and the lèse-majesté law leading to dwindling numbers, the protests of this last year have made great progress in changing public perception of the monarchy and differ greatly from past civil unrest in Thailand. Dr. Tamara Loos, a professor at Cornell University’s Department of History, notes that today “Thai citizens openly challenge the role of the monarchy in Thai cultural and political life, which reveals a revolutionary cultural shift. Self-censorship and lese majesté laws that once prevented Thais from publicly expressing their concerns about the role of the monarchy in politics no longer apply. The institution of the monarchy is now subject to public debate and discussion.”

“We’ve never really had a movement from the bottom up like this,” TS said. “The younger generation definitely has a very different view on the place of the monarchy in Thai society that kind of spreads out to other generations as well [through the protests], and people on the fence are maybe reconsidering or at least reflecting on why they have always had those views.” 

Though protests are still happening, their demands have shifted to the return of their jailed leaders rather than the initial lofty goals of reforming the monarchy. Without clear leadership or direction, the campaign is losing steam and at risk of dying out. According to Dr. Tamara Loos, a likely scenario is “a continuation of protests and arrest of its leaders until the movement is drained of momentum,” followed by “a future conflict between those who want genuine change in Thailand’s political institutions and the military.”

“In the shorter term there’s not really a solution; we’re kind of stuck in a gridlock, but I think there’s been a shift internally and we’re going to see that definitely come out as real changes in the next 10 or 20 years,” TS said. 

The post Foreign Perspective: An Inside Look at the Thai Anti-Monarchy Movement appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

However, for a significant portion of Qatar’s population — the over two million migrant workers in the country — the World Cup has brought a more nefarious and dark context to the country. For over a decade, human rights abuses under the kafala system, the sponsorship-based employment used by many countries in the Middle East to exploit migrant workers and trap them into a modern-day version of slavery, have persisted — all in an attempt to prepare the country for the 2022 games. Most of Qatar’s foreign workers are employed on projects directly or indirectly connected to the World Cup, such as constructing infrastructure for the new city being built for the event, and will transition to work in service-oriented roles as the tournament draws closer.

Apart from Qatar, the other countries that allow the kafala system are Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan and Lebanon. Each country has its own specific provisions and legal framework, but all share the same basic concept: government agencies, local individuals or companies in the country employ foreign laborers through sponsorship permits. In addition to salary, the sponsors cover travel expenses from the workers’ home country as well as housing, usually in communal dormitories or, for domestic workers, in the sponsor’s house.

Legally, the kafala system is under the jurisdiction of interior ministries instead of labor ministries, so sponsored workers do not have the protections extended to other workers under the host country’s labor laws. As a result, many experience forced labor, unpaid or unfair wages and excessive working hours.

Additionally, since only sponsors can extend or end the permits allowing workers to be in the country, private citizens have an inordinate amount of control over their workers’ legal statuses without oversight. Workers cannot switch jobs, quit before the end of their contract or leave the country without the permission of their employer. The penalty for doing so depends on the country but can range from revocation of the workers’ legal status to imprisonment or deportation, even if they were trying to escape abusive circumstances (which is not an uncommon situation). 

Though the kafala system applies to all foreign workers, racism plays a large role in how workers are treated. People from Africa or South Asia are typically relegated to lower paying jobs and face much higher levels of discrimination than Europeans or Americans. Additionally, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, the contracts offered to Westerners are less restricting and have fairer terms than the ones given to workers from other countries. Gender-based violence is also common; women, especially domestic workers, experience high levels of harassment and sexual assault but often do not report it to authorities, fearing retaliation by their sponsors.

In Qatar, foreign workers make up approximately 95% of the total labor force, with the vast majority working jobs related to the World Cup. A report from The Guardian found that these migrant workers live and work in poor conditions and that over 6,500 South Asian workers have died in Qatar since it began World Cup preparations ten years ago, an average of 12 deaths each week. Nick McGeehan, co-founder of FairSquare Projects, an advocacy group for migrant workers in the Gulf, said that these deaths are directly related to the World Cup.

“A very significant proportion of the migrant workers who have died since 2011 were only in the country because Qatar won the right to host the World Cup,” he said. 

According to the Guardian, the death toll is very likely higher than what is reported from the Qatari government since the findings do not include people from Southeast Asia or Africa, where a significant number of Qatar’s workers come from. 

Because of the spotlight the World Cup has placed on Qatar, the country has pledged to make reforms to the kafala system — though many of these have not materialized. In 2014, Qatar claimed it was abolishing the kafala system and proposed changes that would institute new regulations and penalties to ensure workers are treated fairly and remove the need for permission from an employer for a worker to leave the country or switch jobs at the end of their contract. These changes were implemented in December 2016 and promptly reversed by the emir three weeks later in January 2017 without explanation.

Following the lack of progress on foreign workers’ rights, Qatar signed an agreement with the United Nations International Labour Organization in November 2017 that has led to some lasting reforms. The government has since passed laws allowing workers to collect compensation for abusive situations and establishing dispute committees to fairly mediate conflict between workers and employers. In January 2020, Qatar announced that migrant workers will no longer need permission from employers to leave, though advance notice is required for domestic workers and employers can apply for a permit requiring up to 5% of their foreign staff to seek prior consent to leave. Additional reforms enacted in September 2020 set a higher minimum wage for all workers and allowed migrant workers to switch jobs without employer permission.

However, this string of positive changes may soon be coming to an end. Following the September 2020 kafala reforms businesses argued that the changes were infringing on their rights as employers and the revised laws were sent to the Shura Council, Qatar’s legislative body, for review. After months of deliberation, the Council issued recommendations in February 2021 that would undo much of the progress that has been made. According to Amnesty International, the suggestions include “removing the right of migrant workers to change jobs during their contract, limiting the number of times they can change jobs during their stay in Qatar to three, restricting the number of workers in a company that can change jobs to 15% unless agreed otherwise by the company, and increasing the percentage of workers who require exit permits to leave Qatar from 5% to 10%.” A decision to accept or deny the Shura Council’s recommendations has not yet been made, but the previous reversal of reforms in January 2017 occurred after similar suggestions from the council.

Throughout the last decade, despite the constant push for improved workers’ rights in Qatar, FIFA has been remarkably quiet on the matter. After Amnesty International published a report on migrant workers in Qatar in 2015, FIFA put out a statement saying that they “are on the right track and [are]committed to continue improving to further contribute to the protection of workers’ rights at the FIFA World Cup stadium projects.” FIFA also established its Human Rights Policy in 2017 and published its World Cup Qatar 2022 Sustainability Strategy in 2019, pledging to leave behind “a legacy of world-class standards and practices for workers in Qatar and internationally”, but none of these mention specific actions it is taking beyond “supporting the Qatari government with continued reform.” 

In March 2021, following reports in the media on migrant worker deaths, FIFA President Gianni Infantino acknowledged the tragedy of the deaths, but ultimately warned against a boycott of the 2022 World Cup.

“Our position at FIFA has always been, and will always be, engagement and dialogue is the only and the best way forward to make changes happen,” Infantino said.

Since FIFA has not taken a firm stance on the issue, teams competing in World Cup qualifiers are taking things into their own hands. Players on Norway’s national soccer team lined up before their game against Gibraltar on March 24, wearing shirts that read: “Human Rights — on and off the pitch.” Teams from Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark have followed suit with similar protests.

Though FIFA has historically been opposed to political statements during games and has previously fined teams for taking such actions, a spokesperson for the organization said that they would allow players to continue with such demonstrations.

“FIFA believes in the freedom of speech and in the power of football as a force for good,” FIFA said. “No disciplinary proceedings in relation to this matter will be opened by FIFA.”

The international response has been similarly muted; apart from the European Parliament, which demanded in 2020 that FIFA send a strong message to Qatar that the World Cup should not be “delivered by the assistance of modern slavery,” no other countries or blocs have spoken out, despite efforts by non-governmental organizations to convince them to do so. In 2014 a case was brought against Qatar by the UN International Organization for Labor over the treatment of migrant workers, but this was dropped in 2017 after the country committed to the reforms that the Shura Council recently recommended reversing.

International sports competitions such as the World Cup bring together people from all over the world in a way that transcends cultural and political differences and allows countries to deepen their relationships in a low-stakes environment. Michel Raspaud, a professor at Grenoble Alpes University whose research focuses on the sociology of sports and sports tourism, writes that Qatar is particularly noteworthy for its use of sports diplomacy and has made “sports a major diplomatic axis that provides the country with international recognition, affirming its role as a regional player and contributing to its security [as]a sort of all-purpose safety valve for tension in the short and medium term.” 

However, Raspaud goes on to say that the positive message Qatar is trying to convey through the 2022 World Cup is “undermined by the contradiction between the values of sports that are emphasized (respect, progress, fairness, etc.) and the social and political situation in a country where labor rights and the status of women and foreigners remain problematic.”

As the World Cup draws closer, attention on Qatar will continue to increase and the country will continue to face scrutiny for the actions it takes that affect migrant workers. Qatar is at a major crossroads, and the over two-thirds of its population at the mercy of the kafala system is waiting to see whether it bends to the Shura Council’s recommendations and returns to the traditional restrictions or concedes to international pressure and maintains its recent reforms.

The post The Modern-Day Slavery Behind the 2022 FIFA World Cup appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

This 14-year long plan was announced in 2016 by Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and aims to reduce Saudi Arabia’s dependency on the oil industry. This plan includes several infrastructure, education and renewable energy projects, but by far the most ambitious project within this 2030 vision is the city of Neom. 

The city of Neom is the prince’s crown jewel and he expects that it will put the country on the international stage and not only manage to be the face of sustainable development, city building and living, but also a major hub for travel, tourism and transportation. 

The city is planned to be developed in the Tabuk province, which is located in the northwest part of the country. The area borders the Red Sea to the south, Jordan to the north and the Gulf of Aqaba to the west, across from which is Egypt’s Sinai peninsula. 

Construction has already begun after Neom’s announcement at the Future Investment Initiative conference in Riyadh on October 24, 2017. Neom Bay, which includes some resorts and luxury apartments, has already begun construction. Additionally, Neom Bay Airport was inaugurated in 2019 and will serve as a temporary hub until the main airport is finished. 

The project has been estimated to cost around $500 billion dollars and set to open the first stage by 2025 with the main attraction being The Line, a city shaped in a straight line that will run 170km from the coast towards the inland desert and would take up $200 billion from the budget. The city is planned to be a fully sustainable project that would rely 100% on renewable energies to run. The project would also, according to the Saudi government, create 380,000 jobs and increase its GDP by $48 billion. 

“Why should we sacrifice nature for the sake of development?” Prince Mohammed said in the televised announcement of The Line in January. “We need to transform the concept of a conventional city into that of a futuristic one.”

According to the Saudi government, The Line would consist of three different levels. On the ground floor there would be an uninterrupted pedestrian walkway with parks. The second level would have the services, stores and other commercial spaces. And the third level would be what is being called The Spine. 

In the same announcement made by bin Salman, he mentioned that the city is being built with a future population of one million people in mind. He further stated that all of these people would be just five minutes away from any good or service they would need for their day to day lives. 

The Neom project and more recently The Line have been heavily promoted online and are widely seeking additional foreign investment to help develop the city. Several YouTube advertisements and videos as well as viral explanatory videos have been key to the growing awareness of the project abroad. 

This ambitious project, however, has also raised some questions and concerns surrounding the true intentions behind its construction, as well as the ethical aspects that surround the city building as well as the country as a whole. 

One major controversy surrounding Neom is the current and future displacement of the Al-Huwaitat tribe. With around 20,000 people facing eviction and many Al-Huwaitat advocates being killed in the past years, the project has faced international backlash from several NGOs across the world. On April 13, 2020, Abdul Rahim al-Huwaiti, one of the main advocates from the tribe, was killed by Saudi security forces in what they allege was self defence as Al-Huwaiti had fired first. Al-Huwaiti was a major critic of the Neom project, and many suspect that this could have been the reason for his death. 

“They have begun the process of removing people, beginning with surveying homes with the intent of removing people and deporting them from their land,” said Al-Huwaiti on a video recorded on the day of his death referring to the Saudi forces reaching his hometown. “They arrested anyone who said they’re against deportation, they don’t want to leave, they want to remain [in]their homes, that they don’t want money.”

Despite highlighting on the promotional website that the city will be built on “virgin land,” the testimonies from local tribes say otherwise. This is one of the major controversies that the Neom project faces, but with the recent announcement of The Line it seems like the Saudi government will continue the city’s development. 

This project is also very important for Saudi Arabia, not only due to its potential revenue in tourism and investment, but it will also allow for Saudi Arabia to assume strategic control of trade and transit within the region and beyond. 

The area where Neom will be developed is adjacent to the Strait of Tiran, where the Saudi administered islands of Tiran and Sanafir lie just off Egypt’s beach resort city Sharm El Sheikh on the Sinai peninsula. Alongside the plan to build the city, there is a plan to build a bridge connecting both countries by land. 

This bridge would completely change the way the region works as transporting goods through land from Egypt to Saudi Arabia would become possible, completely bypassing the current need to go through Israel. The bridge would also give Saudi Arabia control over the Strait as well, which could potentially increase the country’s influence over Asian exports to Israel. 

This would also help Saudi Arabia become one of the main hubs for travel and transportation, although the development would face fierce competition from neighbouring Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, two countries which have established themselves as powerhouses in the aviation industry with their major airlines Qatar Airways and Emirates respectively. 

The government wants to incentivise investors by establishing Neom as a free trade zone with its own tax and legal system, the latter supposedly being structured around more open and progressive ideals. This contrasts the strict Sharia law that prevails within the rest of the country which has been criticized for numerous human rights violations. This is something similar to what the UAE has already done with Dubai since 2006, where the Emirati government established an international court system to better appeal to the international investors. 

The project as a whole is Prince bin Salman’s attempt at creating a place that can serve as a major source of revenue and international influence for the Saudi government, and which can put the country on the international stage to not only help diversify the economy, but to also extend the reach of the Saudi influence within the global community. 

The positive, progressive and innovative prospects that the city is set to have, however, must be looked at through a critical lens, as the Crown Prince has proved that he may disregard locals or other people that stand in the way of his projects, even when they are within their right to protest the development. 

It remains to be seen if the Saudi government is up to the task of constructing this massive and ambitious project, and if they will be able to deliver on all of their sustainability promises while bettering their efforts to secure an ethical development. 

The post What is NEOM? Saudi Arabia’s $500 Billion Megacity Project appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

SAN FRANCISCO — Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to demonstrate a real fear of rising opposition forces, fueled by Western social media platforms. On March 10, the Russian government announced it would be slowing down speeds on Twitter as part of a larger effort to crackdown on opposition within the country and impose sweeping national censorship. Russian authorities have increasingly attempted to intimidate social media platforms with warnings, fines and threats of blockage as they begin to mimic the oppressive internet initiatives under the Chinese government. 

The censoring of Twitter comes as a result of the Russian government arguing that social media platforms have played a major role in encouraging dissent nationwide. Alexei Navalny, the de facto head of the opposition movement in Russia, has used platforms like YouTube and Twitter to promote his anti-corruption agenda. Using the internet and other digital means has enabled Navalny to produce viral videos, including his documentary on Putin’s alleged palace, which has reached over a hundred million views on Youtube. 

Since Navalny’s most recent detainment and subsequent imprisonment in February, Russian citizens have been outraged, flooding into the streets to fight for Navalny and against the greater government corruption in the country. Navalny’s two-year sentence in Russia’s colony number two is at a correctional colony in Pokrov. Although Russia describes the facility as their average prison, in reality, Pokrov is considered the maximum level of imprisonment and an institution known for isolating its prisoners and destroying them psychologically. Navalny is one of several Russian political activists that have been imprisoned at this corrective colony. 

Due to Navalny’s success on platforms like YouTube, the Russian government has enacted greater measures to silence western social media platforms. Roskomnadzor, Russia’s federal executive body in charge of supervising media and mass communications, began the slowdown of Twitter in order to tighten the control of social media platforms following Navalny’s internet success. In February, Putin advocated for officials to monitor said platforms more closely, arguing they encourage children to participate in unsanctioned and illegal opposition protests. 

However, these attempts at censorship date back to 2012, when a law was implemented allowing the government to block or blacklist online content it deemed inappropriate. Since then, the Russian government has only increased its level of censorship. 

In 2014, the Russian State Duma passed a law requiring the personal data of Russian users to be stored on Russian servers. The government has continuously fined apps like Facebook and Twitter for their lack of action but have failed to ban either platform, possibly to avoid further public resentment. The Russian government successfully blocked LinkedIn in 2016, both because of its unpopularity in Russia and the company’s failure to adhere to Russian user data guidelines. 

During the Crimean crisis, Russian authorities banned Alexei Navalny’s blog and Kasparov.ru, owned by Garry Kasparov, a chess grandmaster and World Chess Champion, known for its condemnation of Vladimir Putin. Roskomnadzor often blocks specific Facebook or Wikipedia pages and blogs, like a 2014 Facebook page protesting the prosecution of Alexei Navalny for inciting violence or “unsanctioned mass protest”. 

In April 2018, Roskomnadzor banned Telegram for its refusal to grant the Federal Security Service access to encryption keys, but lifted the ban in 2020 due to its ineffectiveness and particularly Telegram’s ability to work around the limitation. 

In December 2020, the Russian government implemented a new bill for anyone defaming the government online and sentencing them to jail for up to two years. Another bill signed into law that same day bans online discussions of law enforcement officials and judges’ personal information or property ownership. In doing so, the government is able to silence any allegations of corruption on part of officials. 

The Russian government passed a new law in January 2021, that fines companies annual revenue by 10% if they fail to block illegal activity. One example of “illegal activity” is rallying the youth to participate in unsanctioned protests. In January, the government threatened and then proceeded to fine social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok and Vkontakte, a Russianowned social media platform, for allegedly promoting protests to minors. On January 28, Putin announced that he has given the government until the first of August to create more thorough rules for foreign tech companies choosing to work in Russia. Additionally, he is requiring those same companies to open offices in the country. 

Even though Russian officials have been mostly ineffective in definitively censoring popular social media platforms like Reddit, YouTube and others, their authority over television gives them lasting control. Television, Russia’s most popular medium for entertainment and information, is government-controlled. Nearly 74% of the Russian population watches national television channels. Of the three main nationwide news broadcasters in Russia, Channel One and Russia TV are government owned, while the third, NTV is owned by the state-controlled natural gas-giant Gazprom. The majority of the population that indulges in Russian news is thus fed government-propagated information rather than unbiased news. Due to television being predominantly in the hands of the government, social media has become an even greater outlet for younger generations to engage in critical debate. 

For years, Roskomnadzor and the Russian government have been building an infrastructure to minimize the freedom of speech online. Many have argued that this push for censorship is akin to China’s government monitored internet. However, the main difference is that China’s censorship was embedded from the beginning of the internet’s expansion. As a result, the distinction between China’s government propaganda and its internet are blurred. The Chinese government strategically blocked potentially unsettling information regarding COVID-19 and any negative coverage on China’s handling of the virus. But, their censorship goes deeper than just blocking unwelcome information and rather uses specialized technology to create false, alternative narratives to controversial issues. In Russia, digital entrepreneurship was encouraged until the anti-government protests in 2011 and 2012, making it significantly more difficult for Russian officials to censor the free-internet in the same way as China. Although both regimes are similar in their oppressive tactics, Russia’s late entrance into the sphere of censored internet puts them at a significant disadvantage as social media companies have built an infrastructure to fight against government bans. 

But, Russian officials have been hinting at a “sovereign RuNet”, a platform designed to tie Russian citizens to the internet regardless of if they were to disconnect from the World Wide Web. The purpose, the government argues, is to block Western observers and intruders from cutting Russia’s communication link; yet, many activists believe this Russian controlled internet would allow for more censored content that is directly cut off from the external world.

Rather than directly force its citizens to join, officials are attempting to coax Russian social media users to switch platforms from Western apps to Russian social networks like VKontakte. Vkontakte, along with the Chinese-owned platform TikTok, have previously agreed to ban certain content that may encourage protesting in Russia. Vkontakte is known to be linked to the Russian government. 

In order to further their government-controlled internet bubble, Gazprom Media has committed to creating a video platform called RuTube in order to potentially replace Youtube. On top of that, the corporation also bought rights to “Ya Molodets”, an app that strives to resemble or, even better, replace TikTok.

The purpose of Russia’s government-run array of social media platforms isn’t only to better censor Western media content, but also to destroy the potential of viral videos that the Kremlin believes could promote dissent. That way, the government is better prepared for another Navalny figure who has the potential of encouraging younger audiences to revolt. Although they can’t directly replicate China’s successful government-censored social media platforms, they can and are trying to smear and suppress the platforms that go against their regime. 

Overall, this begs the question of whether or not Russia’s strategy for censorship will be effective in the long-term. Even though China has successfully incorporated their oppressive political tactics into their citizens’ everyday lives and thus acts as an example, Russia is unable to double-down in the same way due to their lack of control over free speech on the internet.  Jailing or eliminating opposition leaders and troublemakers as a means of censorship is nothing new. 

Yet, Putin is beginning to demonstrate a real fear that opposition is spurred on by the free internet. Russia’s inability to tackle Silicon Valley’s influence in its country could create a serious obstacle for their regime in the near future. However, Putin has curtailed similar mass protests before, like the 2011 protests, showing that Navalny might not be as real of a threat as the western media paints him to be. Navalny’s prior commitments to nationalist groups, his history of making xenophobic and controversial videos, along with his constantly fluctuating views on economic and social issues have caused Russian citizens and Western observers alike to be skeptical of a Navalny Russia. But, even if Navalny’s success as the de facto leader of the opposition is unsuccessful in dismantling Putin’s regime, the Kremlin’s lack of control over the free internet could pose significant problems for their future political success.

The post Creeping Veil: Tracking the Increase in Russian Internet Censorship appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

In what many see as a response to the Hong Kong protests of 2019, China passed the Hong Kong National Security Law in June 2020, which criminalizes offences of “secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces to endanger national security”. Johannes Chan, former Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Hong Kong, criticized the law as ambiguously worded and questioned how peaceful protests act such as chanting slogans and flying banners could be seen as violations of the law.

These policies prompted opposing statements from foreign countries. British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab asserted that it was “a flagrant assault on freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful protest,” while then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated that the “draconian law” destroys the territory’s autonomy.

Since then, countries have been taking action; most notably, a few governments have  enacted new immigration measures for Hong Kong’s citizens. In July 2020, the United Kingdom announced a policy proposal immediately after the law went into effect, opening an immigration tunnel for Hong Kong citizens who hold the British National Overseas passport (BNO). The BNO is a passport issued by the UK government for Hong Kong citizens born before July 1, 1997, the day of handover of the city. Citizens born after that day are eligible for the HKSAR passport issued by China instead.

The UK’s immigration policy stated that BNO holders and their dependants can apply for the BNO visa, which grants them the right to live and work in the UK.  Applicants will be able to apply for a permanent resident status after living within the country for five years.

Liu Xiaoming, China’s ambassador to the UK, claimed that Britain’s action has infringed on China’s sovereignty and undermined international norms. On January 29, 2021, the Hong Kong government announced that they would no longer recognise the BNO, meaning that BNO holders would not be able to enter or leave the Hong Kong border or demonstrate identity with the passport.

This means that for Hongkongers to depart, they would need an HKSAR passport. However, the British government has found a way around China’s response to their policies. The UK stated that BNO citizens do not need a valid BNO passport to demonstrate their BNO citizenship, thus they would not need a BNO passport to enter the UK. 

Other countries have also moved to enact similar immigration policies. Canada launched its Hong Kong Pathway immigration scheme, which allows all Hong Kong residents to apply for open work permits. Australia also loosened its VISA policies by allowing Hong Kong students to stay within the country for up to five years upon graduation from an Australian university. 

The threat to freedom of expression posed by the National Security Law has already made emigration a popular topic among Hong Kong citizens, and new immigration schemes by different countries have prompted debate. Jacky Yau, a student from the Chinese University of Hong Kong, said that the uncertainty of Hong Kong’s future is one of the key reasons why he thought about leaving the city.

“We don’t know how much time Hong Kong has before it becomes exactly the same as China,” Yau said. “We might lose all the freedoms that we once enjoyed, and that’s not something that many of us want to see.” 

When asked about what country he would want to move to, Yau suggested Taiwan as a preferable destination.

“Lots of people have raised concerns about the problem of discrimination in Western countries, and Taiwan is just both culturally and linguistically closer to Hong Kong,” Yau said.

Clarence Ip, a Hong Kong citizen currently studying at the University of California San Diego, wants to stay in North America after graduation. He considers Canada as a viable option because of its new immigration scheme.

“I’ve looked into countries like the UK, Canada, the [United States], and I’ve looked into both the BNO program and the Canada youth program,” Ip said. “I feel like the Canada youth program is more beneficial towards the younger people of Hong Kong, but I have not seen anything from the [United States] yet.”

In September 2020, Congress proposed the The Hong Kong People’s Freedom and Choice Act of 2020, which would provide temporary protected status for Hong Kong residents who have “well-founded fear of persecution if the individual asserts such fear.” After the bill was passed in the U.S. House of Representatives and moved to the Senate, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) blocked the bill, asserting that the bill was Democrats’ effort to advance their immigration agenda and would be used by China to send more Chinese spies into the United States.

With China further tightening its grip on Hong Kong, emigration is increasingly being seen as the best option for HongKongers to preserve their freedom. Fortunately, foreign countries are offering to take the city’s residents. But moving away from home and immigrating into a new country could prove to be another round of tough challenges for the Hong Kong people.

The post Amid China’s Tightening Grip, Countries Open New Immigration Paths for Hong Kong Citizens appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

In exchange, nuclear-related sanctions would be lifted once the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verified that Iran had taken the steps to roll back their nuclear program. The controversial agreement was designed to repair the relationship between the United States and Iran after numerous tumultuous decades. 

For moderate Iranians, the JCPOA ignited a sense of unprecedented optimism for a new beginning — one that could integrate Iran into the international community, allowing for economic prosperity and policy reform within the nation. These sentiments were echoed by the Obama administration, as their top Deputy National Advisor Ben Rhodes said that the agreement would produce an “evolution in Iranian behavior,” while simultaneously implying a reduction in the systemic human rights abuses within the nation.

While the JCPOA was primarily viewed as a nuclear and economic agreement, there was hope that the deal would inspire a shift in the sociopolitical governing of the Iranian regime. Prior to the deal, Iran had a long-lasting history of alleged American hostage-taking, including the mysterious disappearance of Bob Levinson, a former Federal Bureau of Investigation Agent, and Siamak Namazi, an Iranian-American businessman. In the days preceding the JCPOA’s implementation, former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif worked to release ten U.S. Navy personnel who were taken into Iranian custody after straying into the nation’s territorial waters. 

On January 16, 2016, the day the JCPOA went into effect, Iran agreed to release all remaining jailed dual nationals, implying renewed diplomatic intentions. However, the same year, Iran further imprisoned several other dual nationals, making it abundantly clear that Iran’s true motives in regard to diplomatic and human rights relations had not reformed. Instead, Iran’s support for Houthi rebels in Yemen, a U.S. declared foreign terrorist organization, increased, initiating a concatenation of consequent violations. 

The largest human rights violations following the JCPOA’s implementation were the inhumane conditions within Iranian penitentiaries faced by free speech proponents which were carried out without basic due process. Prisoners continued to be executed, their deaths symbolizing the consequences of rebellion. Human rights activists and citizen journalists have carried the majority of the burden, as they uphold the reputation of being the regime’s most formidable threat. A majority of political activists’ executions are justified by the Iranian government through false convictions that require barbarous punishments or the clandestine selection of a scapegoat to pin government officials’ crimes on. 

According to an informed source, Hossein Jozi, a protest organizer during the 2019 riots, was kidnapped and murdered by the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC). Farhad Vosoughi, a 27-year old husband and father, was accused of killing Jozi and unlawfully subjected to solitary confinement — without ever having received legal assistance. During his sentence, his brother cited the fierce torture Farhad Vosoughi’s endured that led to his eventual death. Following his demise, prison judiciary officials further threatened Vosoughi’s family to equivocate the truth to the press.

Sina Ghanbari, another political activist, was incarcerated and rumored to have committed suicide in May of 2018. However, when Ghanbari was lowered into his grave, family members unveiled his head and found signs of a broken skull and smashed left eye. 

Aside from mysterious homicides, there were also direct accounts of inhumane treatment through the refusal of medical services within penitentiaries. Behnam Mahjoubi, a prisoner of conscience, was arrested for his involvement in anti-government protests in February of 2018. Despite requiring daily medication for a diagnosed panic disorder, Mahjoubi was intentionally denied proper medical care. According to Mahjoubi’s wife, the correctional physician substituted his prescribed medication with 14 to 17 sleeping pills, a night, which led to his paralysis and untimely death. Their deaths and cruel treatment represent a minuscule fraction of the overwhelming number of political prisoners who bear the burden of seeking free speech. 

It has become increasingly difficult to hear the muffled screams of Iranian citizens, as human rights abuses continue to be meticulously buried via government censorship. As there has been little information revealed on the subject, the situation on the ground is best understood through local activists. Shiela, an Iranian local advocate who has extensively studied the sociopolitical climate of the region, spoke to Glimpse from the Globe on the status of human rights post-JCPOA implementation.

“There has been an extensive amount of misinformation spread regarding the satisfaction of Iranian citizens, especially after the signing of the JCPOA,” said Sheila, who requested that her identity be kept anonymous. “Rouhani repeatedly expressed that Iranian citizens were overjoyed at the lifting of sanctions, when the reality is that Iranian families have received no economic assistance and are victims to inhumane living conditions… the painted narrative put forward omits the realities of our hardships. It becomes increasingly frustrating when there is no way to illustrate how human rights abuses have worsened.”

Government mandated censorship does not end at journalist inoculation; the concealment of human rights violations is equally crucial for the Iranian government. During the November 2019 protests, over 300 protesters died and over 7,000 were arrested. An Amnesty International report revealed accounts of relentless torture throughout their prison sentences, including beatings, electrocution, amputation, waterboarding and sexual violence. On the deadliest day of the protests, Iranian authorities purposely blocked all internet access within the nation to conceal the true extent of police misconduct. Till this day, there have been no official criminal investigations or accountability measures taken against the government for the blanket internet shutdown. During the shutdown, many American-Iranians residing in the U.S. turned to non-partisan organizations to shed light on the severity of the protests. While various organizations within Iran claim to be for the people, Sheila said this is not always the case.

“Non-partisan organizations such as the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) claim that they amplify the voices of the Iranian-American community, yet they continuously formulate false testimonies about our experiences and have been repeatedly linked to the Iranian government,” she said.

While the international community may not understand the depth of human rights violations, they have witnessed the multitude of protests that overtook the streets of Tehran in the past decade. Since January 2018, over 5,000 individuals have been imprisoned for engaging in protests surrounding inflation, unemployment and inequality. In May 2018, former President Trump declared that he was withdrawing from the nuclear deal and imposing severe economic sanctions and penalties on Iran. Consequently, Iran has been unable to access its tens of billions of dollars in assets held in foreign entities, mostly in the form of oil and gas exports. 

Despite these sanctions causing an increased cost of living, many Iranian citizens had hoped that the increased pressure on the regime could promote accountability, decrease human rights violations and even lead to an eventual government collapse. However, the imposed sanctions produced no change in governmental accountability, causing an eruption of mass dissent. The protests were multifaceted in their aim; while a portion of citizens were protesting the worsening human rights violations, others were opposing the rise of fuel prices and their crippling socioeconomic conditions.

Thus, citizens face a Catch-22 with no axiomatic resolution. During the JCPOA era, the Iranian government was able to access over 50 billion dollars in usable liquid assets to further strengthen their regime and perpetrate severe human rights offenses. However, even during the post-JCPOA era, increased economic sanctions led to civil uprisings, further provoking the government’s police forces to escalate state-sanctioned imprisonment and death rates amongst Iranian citizens. 

The entrance of the Biden administration onto the world stage could mark a new era in Middle Eastern affairs. However, reentering a revised deal will not be accomplished as easily as the United States may hope. Since the Trump administration previously withdrew from the deal, Iran has enriched their uranium from 102 kilograms to approximately 2,440 kilograms — more than 12 times the limit set by the JCPOA. They have also halted international inspections of nuclear sites, allowing for the accelerated development of atomic weapons. 

Iran has become more powerful, granting them greater leverage at the negotiating table. Although Iran’s economy is in shambles, Iranian hardliners are hesitant to negotiate a new deal following the killing of Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian general who commanded a wing of Iranian military forces. With the upcoming 2021 Iranian Presidential election, a tough fight between hardliners and moderates will indicate the future of U.S.-Iran relations, and more importantly, the future of human rights within the country. 

The most feasible and immediate solution for Biden’s administration may be an interim agreement to halt nuclear buildup in exchange for sanction relief and access to oil revenues, allowing an economic boost. Following a potential period of economic relief, popular support for a more moderate presidential candidate could allow the revisiting of a new deal that can further develop diplomatic ties between Iran and the international community. 

While economic benefits may be the key to reentering negotiations, the global community cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the number of Iranian lives at stake following the introduction of a new deal. In September of 2020, then-presidential candidate Biden promised to “call out the [Iranian] regime for its ongoing violation of human rights”, citing the execution of Iranian wrestler Navid Afkari as a “travesty” in a September 12th tweet. 

Iranians now, more than ever, are urging Biden to impose stringent economic sanctions until Iran is willing to accept accountability for their human rights violations. Only then can the global community and Iran negotiate a feasible nuclear and economic deal that sets human rights at the forefront.

The post Renegotiating the JCPOA: Human Rights Should Take Center Stage appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.