The extrapolation of a recent report compiled by IHS Markit has revealed that American citizens are almost as likely to be spied on as are the Chinese, each by their respective regimes. While China boasts one security camera for every 4.1 people, America ranks at 4.6 people per camera deployed, notes the report’s author, IHS Markit analyst Oliver Philippou. Activists bemoan the fact that China is constantly and unashamedly pushing video surveillance into civil society, but the US state and private monitors are almost as ubiquitous.

Long demonised as a totalitarian state, the People’s Republic of China under Mao Zedong was, indeed, an unashamedly totalitarian construct. The historical vestiges linger, notwithstanding China’s modernisation of the last two decades, and the Communist Party remains the sole political option, with dire consequences for detractors.

That said, whether it is better or worse to watch third party infiltration as is happening in the US, rather than surveillance by the state itself, is debatable. The report noted that the highest number of surveillance cameras in the US were deployed by private enterprise, such as those in hotels, malls and office complexes. For many, it remains a moot point as to whether a camera is installed by state or private entities, as both the Chinese and US regimes can legally commandeer just about anything in the name of national security, thus making private surveillance footage state property.

A billion cameras for the kids

The youth of 2019 will likely be growing up in a world filled with all-seeing eyes. IHS Markit has estimated there will be around one billion surveillance cameras in operation by 2025. The growth in surveillance is being driven by price competition and technological advances – allowing for greater deployment at a lower cost – but also respective government funding and a pressing need for public safety, as is the official line.

Critics disagree, and note that the wanton abuse of privacy through surveillance “for the public good” is a precedent set long ago. They fear that in spite of the impetus being public safety – something yet to be definitively and unambiguously linked to increased surveillance – the likelihood that the state will use it to spy on its citizens, crush dissent and broadly and quietly impose whatever stranglehold best suits its purposes, is almost a foregone conclusion.

With China leading the pack and North America a close second, third place for monitoring its citizens goes to Taiwan, with one camera for every 5.5 residents, the UK in fourth position at 6.5 citizens per camera deployed, and Singapore in fifth place, sporting one surveillance camera for every 7.1 people.

With the current figures being 349 million cameras deployed in China and 70 million in North America, Big Brother has never looked so ominous. Or seen so much. Philippou notes that reporting from the surveillance arena has largely focused on Beijing’s roll-out of monitoring via cameras and AI in public spaces, whereas the US deployment has been almost as ambitious. He concludes by saying that “future debate over mass surveillance is likely to concern America as much as China.”

Even though a larger percentage of surveillance is currently being funded by private enterprise in North America, government agencies have not been absent from the arena. For many years, the Baltimore Police Department enacted aerial surveillance of its citizens, and Detroit has cameras pointed at public housing residents. Many police departments are also advocating tech giant Amazon’s Ring, essentially creating a network of citizens monitoring one another.

Civil rights advocates are warning of the dangers of such enhanced surveillance, disputing any real link between increased surveillance and a reduction in crime, while noting that the technology is all too often abused by political agendas, where innocent people are spuriously targeted or privacy completely eradicated through such surveillance.

L'articolo US Domestic Video Surveillance Almost On Par With China proviene da InsideOver.

After over five years of fighting in eastern Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin finally found himself at a table with his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky. Putin last met a Ukrainian leader three years ago during the administration of Petro Poroshenko. Unlike Poroshenko, Zelensky does not have a background rooted in politics, having only been president for seven months, and therefore bears less animosity toward Moscow. 

Putin and Zelensky met in Paris at a summit hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. At the heart of the meeting was how to move forward following years of Russian-instigated civil unrest. By provoking and arming separatists in Ukraine, Putin has destabilized the state since he decided to annex Crimea in March 2014. 

For Zelensky, the ultimate goal is to return control of the eastern part of his nation from separatists and, in brief, to simply restore order. In order to secure it, he is willing to implement the 2015 Minsk II peace agreement, which is everything that Moscow could want, so naturally, Putin was predisposed to accept its implementation as a win from the Paris summit.

The Minsk II deal, as the name implies, was the second attempt at forging peace between the two states after the Minsk Protocol failed the previous year. Militarily, the components of the deal include a complete ceasefire, pull-out of heavy weapons, prisoner exchange, disarmament of rebel militias, and ceasefire monitoring. 

Those points are solid and mostly expected. Zelensky said both parties agreed to a 100-per cent implementation of the Minsk II agreement and a prisoner exchange will take place before the end of 2019. However, Zelensky’s acceptance of the deal includes creating a special status for the eastern districts of Donetsk and Luhansk. This caveat carved into the original Minsk Protocol and carried over into Minsk II is a differentiating factor between how the two nations will end their spat. Compared to Ukraine, Russia is essentially giving up nothing in the deal aside from pulling out its forces. 

In return, it gets to dictate Ukrainian constitutional reform to the extent of compelling the creation of special districts. In this manner, Moscow gains control, at least in part, of Ukraine internal affairs with the establishment of special, Russian-favored districts.

“I would like to have seen more,” said Mr Zelensky, speaking at a joint news conference following the summit. Of course, he would like to have seen more – what has Russia given as part of the deal? Its assurance that it won’t annex another chunk of Ukraine or fight for control of more districts in the future? 

To his credit, Zelensky was not part of the group that ironed out the Minsk agreement, so he was working in part with what had been handed down to him. However, it should have been evident to Merkel, who was a member of the 2014 group that drafted Minsk, how one-sided the arrangement was. To the casual observer, it would appear that they bought off Putin instead of fighting for Ukraine’s sovereignty, and they said nothing about the illegal annexation of Crimea, which makes the entire situation even more strange. 

Zelensky is taking fire from his people for not doing more and giving in to Putin’s demands too easily, and it is easy to see why they are frustrated. Poroshenko could not negotiate a fair deal and spent half a decade in a stalemate. Now all Zelensky could do was fall back on Poroshenko’s agreement, which was terrible enough that it was never implemented. On his own, Zelensky has tried to appease Putin by removing Ukrainian troops from the frontline, but Moscow did not do the same, signalling who is really in control of the situation. 

Control of Ukraine’s border with Russia was the only facet of the deal Zelensky pressed Putin on. Before political components are implemented, Zelensky’s government must have full power of its border. While this is a condition of Minsk II, Putin argued the other conditions should be satisfied first. The text of the agreement leaves the order of the steps ambiguous.

The group concluded the meeting with a resolution to meet again in four months.

“There are a lot of questions we haven’t succeeded to solve today, and it’s necessary to be done in the future,” Mr Zelensky said. “I am sure we will definitely do it, together.”

The crisis demanded attention so Zelensky working on the issue and meeting with Putin is part of the way forward. However, Ukraine has everything to lose when dealing with Moscow and if the Minsk II agreement is held to the letter, it has already given into Putin.

L'articolo Zelensky Risks Giving Ukraine Away After First Meeting with Putin proviene da InsideOver.

The World Trade Organization’s appellate body was at a standstill on Wednesday, as the US refused to approve replacement judges.

Just one member remains on the seven-member body, as the Trump administration continues its assault to dismantle the global trade system in favour of US control. Whether headed by the WTO or Trump, global trade has been in rapid decline since 1995, when the WTO was formed.

In May 2017, Saudi Arabia announced a $20 billion investment in US infrastructure. The announcement, which came during President Trump’s visit trip abroad as president, named Blackstone Group LP – the largest alternative investment firm in the world – as the beneficiary to the investment.

“You have two financial interests here – obviously of the Saudi sovereign wealth fund which is putting the money in and wants to make money, and you have Blackstone which is in the business of making money,” reporter, Arash Massoudi said. “They’re going to target deals where they can make money for themselves, ultimately.”

In December 2018, non-profit consumer advocacy organisation, Public Citizen, (which brands itself as an “advocate” for the people), published a report titled: “’Self-Funded’ Trump Now Propped Up By Super PAC Megadonors.” The report disclosed that CEO of Blackstone Group LP, Stephen A. Schwarzman, donated $344,000 to Trump’s re-election campaign. Following his election, Trump appointed Schwarzman as the chairman of the White House Strategic and Policy Forum.

In April 2017, International Business Times reported that Schwarzman oversees “regulatory, energy and infrastructure policies that could enrich Blackstone”. Wisconsin Democratic Senator, Tammy Baldwin would call for Schwarzman to step down from his Trump-appointed position.

“President Trump said he would drain the swamp, yet time and time again he breaks that promise, granting wealthy Wall Street insiders more access, power and influence in Washington,” Baldwin said.

“Mr Schwarzman should submit to federal ethics laws and recuse himself from influencing public policy that enriches his bank account. The last thing we need in Washington is more billionaires making a rigged game worse.”

Trump, a physical manifestation of all the limitations of a globalist economy, markets himself to the proletariat as the solution to their problems. The poison, disguised as the cure, Trump’s presidency is further embodiment of how big business ruined the world for the financial profit of a few.

In December 2019, the Institute for Policy Studies, Focus on the Global South and the Transnational Institute, published an alarming report on the global far-right movement. Titled: “The Battle for Another World”, the report concluded that the rise of far-right movements worldwide, are as a result of deep anxieties concerning economic and cultural dominance.

“An international reaction to economic globalization has been key to the right’s success,” it reads. “Unlike the internationalist left, the new right has been more effective at channelling discontent into political success at a national level.”

Nationalism and localisation has been taken to the extreme in an ironically global backlash towards globalisation: the (extreme) right’s hatred for globalisation is a global movement.

Although also steeped in other forms of discrimination, these anti-globalist ideologies are a backlash against the World Trade Organisation’s quasi-total dominance of the economic policies of individual nations.

The World Trade Organization shapes our global economy. It claims that it opens markets globally and provides “the legal ground-rules for international commerce”.

“Although negotiated and signed by governments,” it continues, “the goal is to help producers of goods and services, exporters, and importers conduct their business while allowing governments to meet social and environmental objectives.

“The system’s overriding purpose is to help trade flow as freely as possible – so long as there are no undesirable side effects – because this is important for economic development and well-being.”

Although it claims to put social and environmental objectives at the forefront, critics on both the left and the right political spectrum have criticised the WTO’s policies.

For the right-wing, the WTO is a force of evil, because it led to globalisation, which opened the market for manufacturing jobs to be outsourced to poorer countries, such as in 2001, when China joined the organisation. When Trump claimed he would “drain the swamp”, his promises referred to the power big business had attained, because of WTO policies.

For the left-wing, the WTO is a force of evil, because its economic policies drive a wedge between the proletariat. As the global population fights for economic survival among themselves, they are too divided to demand change from mega-corporations, who solely benefit from the WTO’s policies.

Lori Wallach, Director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, argues that the WTO is solely interested in hyper globalization, at grave cost to the people’s social, economic, labour and environmental rights.

Economically, nations who do not comply to their trade rules and laws face trade penalties worth millions of dollars. Of 242 completed WTO cases, only 22 cases were won by countries fighting to uphold their domestic policies over those of the WTO. Many of the 22 cases won were unrelated to trade.

Our global world has reached a dystopia of ultimate corporate domination, as business leaders such as Bezos, Trump and Zuckerberg gain wealth by sacrificing consumer and labour rights.

The WTO was a deliberate attempt to privatise the world. Its vision of globalisation was a hypercapitalist dream of monopolistic corporate power, not one of mass transnational socialist movements. It consistently favoured trade deals over labour, consumer and environmental groups. For the left today, globalisation can still be saved through socialism; for the right, globalisation will be defeated through tribalism.

In “The Battle for Another World”, it is concluded that the Global Green New Deal is the left’s only solution to the rise of global fascism.

“A Global Green New Deal wouldn’t just address the environmental crisis. By creating enormous numbers of well-paying jobs, it would also speak to those left behind by economic globalization. Such a narrative would undermine the new right’s anti-globalist appeals while offering up a positive vision to rally around within and across borders.”

And yet, the proliferation of extreme right-wing views cannot be blamed solely on the weaponisation of economic policies in the twentieth century. Many who support these movements have previously occupied positions of social and economic power. The rise of Trump, Farage, Le Pen, Bolsonaro and more is indicative of a pushback against a New World Order that favours socialism over conservativism.

It is “the great replacement”, which argues that “minorities, with help from ‘globalists’, will usurp the privileges of the dominant group”. The great replacement, the Institute for Policy Studies report states, “has proven appealing to both an extremist fringe and more mainstream conservatives.”

The desecration of our global economic system only served to mushroom discriminatory ideologies previously laying still. Without the World Trade Organization, the destruction of the global economic system will simply continue at a faster speed. The battle for another world is rapidly becoming a war.

L'articolo How the World Trade Organization Propelled the Rise of the Global Far-Right proviene da InsideOver.

Since formally establishing a diplomatic and economic relationship in the 1960s, Japan and South Korea, respectively the third and eleventh biggest economies of the world, have always had a tumultuous love-hate relationship. Both enjoyed cooperation in many areas such as politics, economy and even sports (2002 Japan-South Korea World Cup).

Despite these positive developments, both countries are continuing to witness the horrors of the past. These historic political disagreements have always blocked these two “Bigs” of Eastern Asia to have a zero-problem relationship. Among ongoing disputes, those coming from the era of Japanese rule on the Korean Peninsula between 1910 and 1945 emerged as a burden in liaison of the two countries.

The same topics appeared once again, after South Korea’s Supreme Court ordered some Japanese companies to pay compensation for using Koreans as forced labourers during the Second World War. This decision quickly awoke dormant problems and started an escalating economic and political tension between Tokyo and Seoul. Tokyo denied the court ruling, claiming that the dispute was settled with the normalisation treaty in 1965 and asked Seoul to intervene in the matter.

However, South Korean officials ruled out such an interference with the judiciary. After accusing the South Korean government of not stopping the rekindling of such an issue, Japanese officials quickly countered the decision by imposing export restrictions in July 2019. The restrictions were on chemicals which were essential for the production of memory chips, putting South Korea’s key industry into crisis.

Nevertheless, Japanese officials constantly denied that economic measures had anything to do with the court ruling, and reiterated that the decision was motivated by national security concerns. Representatives of both countries later took the issue to WTO and bilateral diplomatic meetings were held but failed to obtain a possible outcome. The issue complicated further after Japan decided to remove South Korea from its “White List,” causing Seoul to lose its status as Japan’s most favoured trade partner. This decision was strongly criticised by South Korean authorities. President Moon Jae-in said that his country won’t be defeated again by Japan, just days before removing Tokyo from its “White List”. The tension was also felt by citizens as nationals from both countries continued to protest one another, boycotting products and reducing travels between the two countries.

The economic sector wasn’t the only area under stress. Repercussions could also be seen in other areas. For example, another key moment of the ongoing dispute emerged when South Korea decided not to renew the General Security of Military Information Agreement, which was seen as a key tool to monitor threats from Kim Jong-Un’s North Korea. The unexpected decision had a snowball effect with the attachment of other remaining non-economic disputes. Among these, the visit of South Korean lawmakers to disputed islets, known as Takeshima in Japan and Dokdo in Korean, was denounced as a provocation by Japan. The move increased fears that even other territorial disputes may re-emerge such as Tsushima/Daemado Island controversy or East Sea dispute (Sea of Japan by Tokyo, Korean Eastern Sea by Seoul).

Another disputed action came from Tokyo, when a group of Japanese officials, excluding Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and members of his cabinet, paid a visit to Yasukuni Shrine. The visits to the shrine were termed controversial by South Korean authorities as the structure houses some Japanese war criminals. The move was seen as a provocation not only by Seoul but also by Beijing as the move is considered an apology for wartime period. The “Comfort Women Dispute” was also another historic dispute that resurfaced among all the other topics. The debate closed in 2015, with the signing of a compensation agreement by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and South Korean President Park Geun-Hye. Four years later, President Moon Jae-In has reopened the issue as a dispute, seriously damaging previous accords.

As we can see, the ongoing trade wars are just a small part of the much bigger iceberg. We can assume that wartime controversies will most probably be ignited every time another dispute arises between the two countries. Most of the analysts see the current situation as one of the worst points in their history after the 1965 treaty. A situation like this may require an international mediator to intervene to bring back normalization in the region. The most suitable candidate seems to be the United States, due to its historically good diplomatic ties with both nations. However, Washington’s baby steps in resolving the crisis may cause others to be involved in the case; either China or Russia.

There may be several ways to end this crisis but resolving contemporary disagreements, such as trade frictions and the end of the General Security of Military Information Agreement will only serve as temporary fillers due to historical backgrounds. The real path to resolve all conflicts lie in terminating once and for all the disputes before 1965. Recent examples clearly show that whenever a dispute occurs, it will be supported by long-time problems. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and South Korean President Moon Jae-In, need to renew their normalization accord, leaving aside all previous enmities. Such a move will help both countries to expand their foreign policies and will also help the region conclude longstanding problems.

L'articolo Tokyo Vs. Seoul: More Than A Trade War proviene da InsideOver.

Students from universities and schools in Hong Kong are to take part in a class boycott in September, following weeks of protests in the city against the Government’s planned extradition bill. The boycott follows the news that prominent pro-democracy campaigners including Joshua Wong and Agnes Chow were arrested on Friday 30 August in what appears to be a government crackdown.

Reports suggest that up to 10,000 students from around 200 schools could boycott classes at the beginning of next week. 10 universities are also due to take part in the walk outs, set to commence on September 2. A joint statement released on Friday from Secondary School Student Organizations and Students’ Unions of Higher Institutions outlined the motives behind the boycott:

“How is it possible, when the Government brutally tears Hong Kong apart and turns every street and district into battlefields, for us to sit down at our desks in school like nothing happened?”

“We call for the participation of all secondary school students and students of higher institutions in the upcoming class boycott starting on 2 September. Hong Kong is no longer what it was; students will not be willing to be the puppets of the Government that go to school every day as if nothing happened.”

The statement was released hours after prominent pro-democracy campaigners and members of the ‘Demosisto’ group Joshua Wong and Agnes Chow were both arrested and charged with inciting unlawful assembly for demonstrations that took place in the city on 21 June. Both have since been released on bail at HK$10,000. The case has been adjourned until November.

Moreover, reports surfaced on Wednesday that Ivan Lam, Chairman of the Demosisto group and one of the principal organizers of the upcoming student walkouts, has been charged, but not arrested due to currently being outside of Hong Kong.

Independence campaigner Andy Chan was also detained on Thursday evening while attempting to board a flight to Japan, and Former HKU Student Union President Althea Suen has been arrested and charged with conspiracy to destroy or damage property and entering the precincts of Legislative Chamber, following the storming of the building on July 1. At the time, the move sparked a heavy counter-reaction from police authorities, with pepper spray and rubber bullets having been deployed against protestors since then. Following Friday’s arrests, a protest scheduled for Saturday which had been organised by the Civil Human Rights Front, has now been cancelled due to public safety concerns, according to police authorities.

Meanwhile, in a dramatic twist in tensions between Hong Kong and Beijing, reports have surfaced of talks between Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam and the Chinese central government – in which Lam allegedly proposed that the controversial extradition bill be withdrawn in order to appease the protestors. Reuters reports that the Chinese central government refused to take Lam’s advice. On Friday, a Hong Kong Government spokesperson declined InsideOver’s request to confirm the reports.

The recent arrests involving specific individuals central to the pro-democracy cause in Hong Kong may give momentum to next week’s class boycotts, which will involve students skipping classes once a week to join rallies at schools over the city.

Young people in Hong Kong have become increasingly mobilized in political protests over recent years. In 2012, following a proposal by the Hong Kong government to introduce educational reforms that would bring the teaching curricula in the city closer to that of mainland China, a new group emerged – with Joshua Wong, Anges Chow and Ivan Lam all featuring with prominent roles in the group.

This collective, known as ‘Scholarism’ organized a series of demonstrations and managed to mobilize the student community in Hong Kong. The group managed to force the government to retract the reform plans and used the momentum to take them into the so- called ‘Umbrella revolution’ of 2014 – a series of uprisings against the Hong Kong government’s plans for electoral reform that would have seen Beijing vet potential Hong Kong leadership candidates.

This time around, protests have been ignited following the presentation of an extradition bill that would have given authorities in the city the right to deport suspected criminals from Hong Kong to China. However, opponents to the bill believe that the measures would have seen many pro-democracy campaigners exposed to the risk of facing deportation.

Meanwhile, on Friday, the EU’s Foreign Affairs Chief, Federica Mogherini condemned the recent developments in Hong Kong as “extremely worrying”.

“We expect the authorities in Hong Kong to respect the freedom of assembly, expression and association as well as the right of people to demonstrate peacefully,” Mogherini said, speaking after a meeting of EU Foreign Ministers in Helsinki.

“We will continue to pass messages publicly and privately and continue to work for the situation not to continue to go into the wrong direction but rather the opposite, to reverse to a more positive trend,” she added.

Joshua Wong has previously called for Europe to assist Hong Kong activists in their fight for democracy, as reports of police brutality become more and more commonplace. The European Parliament adopted a resolution in July that sought to put pressure on authorities in Hong Kong to desist from using force in the quelling of the demonstrations, as well as demand that an independent enquiry take place into the reports of police brutality.

L'articolo Children of Hong Kong to Boycott Class as Pro-Democracy Activists Arrested proviene da InsideOver.

In 2017, after the terrorist attacks in the Catalan cities of Barcelona and Cambrils, between 17 and 18 of August, there were many who suspected that something was wrong.

Ferran Requejo, political scientist and professor of philosophy at Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona, said in an interview to the Catalan newspaper El Món, that the Spanish security services did not share information previous to the attack with the Catalan police. That there was a barrier imposed by the Spanish security services between international organisations such as Interpol and Europol and the Mossos d’Esquadra, the Catalan autonomous police.

Belgian authorities got wind of the attacks, and notified the Spanish authorities – who then failed to disclose the information to their Catalan counterparts.

The information was confirmed by the then head of the Mossos, Major Josep Lluís Trapero – who will be tried by Spanish justice for the charge of sedition for refusing to take part in the violence perpetrated by the Spanish police during the referendum for the independence of the region held in October of the same year.

There were many who suspected that the Spanish government was deliberately leaving the Catalan government in the dark, or even that they would have let the attacks take place as a way to harm the pro-independence movement – showing unequivocally that an independent Catalonia would not be able to protect itself from terrorist attacks. For Requejo, “in case they acted, they failed due to lack of information.”

Martí Estruch, director of communication of Diplocat, a consortium set up by the Catalan government devoted to promoting international awareness of Catalonia within the international community through public diplomacy tools, stated that “The state would rather put human lives at risk than the unity of Spain”.

The Spanish daily El País, which has a strong pro-Spain bias and is fiercely opposed to Catalonia’s separation, published an editorial on August 19, just two days after the attacks in Barcelona that killed 13 people. The report said “An attack of this magnitude has to be a knockdown that brings Catalan political forces back to reality – forces such as the Government, the Parliament, and the movements for independence which have made the secessionist chimera the sole focus of the Catalan political agenda in recent years. It is time to end this ‘democratic’ nonsense, the flagrant violation of laws, the games of deception, the political opportunism. It is time that our rulers, all our rulers, work for the benefit of the true and main interests of citizens.”

Today new evidence is emerging that perhaps there was some truth in the suspicions presented back in 2017.

According to an exhaustive investigation by Público newspaper, which brought together intelligence sources, confidential documents, and data extracted from the attack’s investigations, the Spanish secret service (Centro Nacional de Inteligencia or National Intelligence Centre – CNI) listened and had access to the terrorists’ cell phones. In addition, the intellectual mentor of the attacks, the Imam of the city of Ripoll, Abdelbaki Es Satty, was an informant for the CNI until the eve of the attacks in Barcelona and Cambrils, a fact that was confirmed by the then number two of the Spanish Ministry of Interior, José Antonio Nieto, in interrogation before Catalan deputies in July of this year.

Worse, Es Satty would have become an Imam with the help of the CNI and he became an informant not to be deported. He died in an accidental explosion the day before the attacks he had planned.

In other words, the autonomous police was prevented by the Spanish secret service from having access to information that might have helped them arrest Es Satty and the other terrorists before the attacks. And having not only information on the attacks, but also access to the terrorists’ cell phones, the Spanish secret service did nothing with the information.

The Spanish daily El Diario’s editor, Ignacio Escolar, however, believes that Público is in possession of  “several partial fragments of documents that we cannot contrast because, without knowing the source, they have nothing that allows us to prove their authenticity”.

Escolar states that the documents did not prove Público’s allegations and, aside from the documents, “the rest of the alleged facts that Público reports in its investigation rely exclusively on anonymous sources whose reliability we can neither contrast nor check”.

Despite Escolar’s statements, it’s striking that, in 2018, the Popular Party (PP), Ciudadanos (Citizens, C’s) and ruling Spanish Socialist Workers Party (PSOE), refused to open an investigation on the CNI after a request made by Catalan parties Republican Left of Catalonia (ERC) and Catalan European Democratic Party (PDeCAT).

To El País, it is all a “great conspiracy theory”.

History shows that Spanish politicians are indeed capable of sacrificing its own population as necessary means to maintain the country’s unity. The history of Francoism or the GAL (Anti-Terrorist Liberation Groups), a terrorist group that practiced state terrorism, during a period of Spanish history known as “Dirty War”, against the organisation ETA (Euskadi Ta Askatasuna) and its surroundings, give strength to the theory presented by the newspaper Público.

The terrorist group GAL was active between 1983 and 1987, during the first years of the governments of Felipe González (PSOE) and it was proved that it was financed by senior officials of the Ministry of Interior of the socialist government.

For Robert Manrique Ripoll, advisor of the Unit for the Attention and Assessment of People Affected by Terrorism, “there is no doubt that, at least in vigilando, the State is responsible for a very serious intelligence failure”. El País newspaper, quoting David Torrents, an agent of the Mossos, specialized in jihadism, concedes that there might have been at least negligence on the part of the Spanish authorities.

A phrase by José Calvo Sotelo, member of the Congress of Deputies and finance minister during the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera (1923-1930) is useful to explain the current political situation of Spain or its ethos: “Between a red Spain and a broken Spain, I prefer the first, which would be a passing phase, while the second remains broken in perpetuity.”

If the evidences presented by Público newspaper prove to be true, one could easily change “red” for “terrorised”.

L'articolo Did Police Negligence Help Terrorists in Barcelona? proviene da InsideOver.

The Hague, August 9. The protesters march silently, a sizzling intensity surrounding them. No beating drums, no blaring megaphones. Just signs. I want to speak, reads a fluttering banner; I am robbed, states another. Police officers flank the noiseless procession – their job is to keep the peace. But should the veiled women stray into a public building – a hospital, say – that dynamic would change. In theory, at least. The Netherlands has joined a growing list of European nations to adopt a so-called ‘burqa ban’ – a law against full face coverings in public spaces. But with police, hospitals, transport providers and politicians vowing to snub the new law, many doubt its purpose and practicality.

For years, a ban on facial coverings had been mooted by the Dutch far-right, but proposals never advanced beyond the political fringe. That changed in 2018, when politicians approved the ‘Partial Ban on Face-Covering Clothing Act’, which came into force on August 1. Any item that obstructs the face – ski masks, full-face helmets, balaclavas and religious garb – are illegal in certain public areas, including hospitals, transport hubs and police stations.

Legislators deny that the new rules have a racial dimension, but there’s little doubt of the intended target – veil-wearing Muslim women. The phrase ‘burqa ban’ has become synonymous with the restrictions, though it is in fact the niqab – a less obscuring garment – that is invariably seen on European streets. Wearers of the banned attire will be given the chance to remove the offending item, the law states, or face a fine of up to €415.

But Dutch Muslims needn’t worry too much, it seems. Unanimous in their rejection of the new rules, medical and transport groups have said they won’t uphold the ban. “It is not the job of the hospital,” read a pithy statement from the country’s medical association; “…the law is unworkable,” stressed a railway spokesman. Lack of resources will likely hinder police enforcement also, said Rotterdam’s mayor Ahmed Aboutaleb, adding that his city “has bigger problems – murder, drugs, the undermining of society”.

Such definitive opposition hasn’t dampened the spirits of the ban’s most forthright proponent, Geert Wilders. First floating the idea in 2005, Wilders’ far-right ‘Party for Freedom’ has long championed the restriction on facial veils. “The next step [is] to make sure that the headscarf could be banned in the Netherlands as well,” he said as the new rules took effect, quashing any notion of the law’s religious neutrality.

Wilders is of a political ilk that now dominate European policy making. As the mid-decade migrant crisis drove a growth of nationalist populism, centrists across the continent – desperate to remain relevant – shifted rightward. Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Switzerland have all adopted burqa bans in some form or another. Even in the United Kingdom, where calls for action have been resisted, support for face-cover regulation hovers around the 50% mark.

In common with many of its ban-embracing neighbours, the Netherlands has relatively few niqab-clad citizens. While precise figures aren’t available, Dutch academics estimate that no more than 400 women wear the full veil. Those who do aren’t the victims of familial subjugation or misogyny, research suggests, as is often inferred by advocates of the ban. Rather than freeing the women of conservative Islam’s supposed strictures, the law infringes on their personal liberties, says Dutch anthropologist Annelies Moors.

Thus the movement against facial coverings appears to be largely symbolic. Fearing the wrath of an increasingly right-leaning electorate, Dutch politicians have alighted on the burqa ban as a way of burnishing their anti-immigration credentials. That’s according to critics of the regulation, who believe it is more surface than substance. But for niqab wearers, the real-world consequences could be devastating. With their garb forbidden in police stations and hospitals, their ability to seek help when it’s most desperately needed is, theoretically, in jeopardy.

Then there’s the threat of violence. While official police enforcement is unlikely, the prospect of vigilantism can’t be overlooked. Technically a crime, niqab-wearers run the risk of a citizen’s arrest, which would allow for their physical detainment until authorities arrive. Though no such incidents have been reported, threats involving the action are not uncommon, especially online. Coupled with the new restrictions on transport, veiled women are feeling “a chilling effect on their freedom of movement,” notes Tom Zwart, professor of cross-cultural law at Utrecht University.

But amid the adversity, a remarkable stirring of solidarity can be observed, says Zwart. Expressing their support, men and women of all backgrounds joined the Hague protesters – and a new group, ‘burqa buddies’, has emerged to protect those affected by the law. Enlisting the help of regular citizens, organisers hope to safeguard niqab wearers by pairing them with local volunteers. Two weeks since its launch, nearly 6,000 people have joined.

It’s a positive step, say opponents of the ban, but still the risk of criminality hangs above the women. And with the new law going unenforced, some worry politicians may double-down with even more restrictive legislation. This would be good news for the ban’s proponents, who say it promotes security and gender equality.

These are welcome advances, if ever they materialise, but their price – personal liberty and community cohesion – is simply too great for many. This costly trade-off helped confine the burqa ban to the Dutch political fringe for years. It’s out in the open now, and only time will tell the true consequences.

L'articolo The Dutch “Burqa Ban” Could Have Huge Consequences proviene da InsideOver.

There’s no nice way to say it – the Democratic Party as a whole is in disarray, and their message to voters is wildly incoherent. While some candidates try to steer a middle course, most are attempting to capitalize on the activist base where the party’s energy is focused. Although this may be a decent strategy during the primaries, the current field of Democrats are largely coming across as unhinged and unsure about what they want other than to beat President Donald Trump.

While disagreement is healthy and necessary during a primary, the Democrats have exposed the lack of a real, workable governing philosophy at the heart of their party. This incoherence is a problem when it comes to picking up swing voters and independents, not to mention politically passive Democrats who dislike Trump but are not very impressed with the Democrats either. Nonetheless, despite these criticisms, the second set of Democratic debates in Detroit on July 30 and 31 were an improvement over the embarrassing spectacle of the first set of debates in Miami earlier in the month. At least this time, the candidates marked clear ground on several issues of contention, and did not try to speak garbled Spanish.

Who Caught Voters’ Attention?

The standard horse-race analysis has it that former VP Joe Biden had an especially bad night, as did Mayor Bill de Blasio, while Cory Booker and Julian Castro did a surprisingly good job (the bar is low). Elizabeth Warren put in a solid performance, as did Marianne Williamson, with her denunciation of the Democratic party’s self-defeating and self-righteous approach to beating Trump.

In terms of speaking time, night one belonged to Warren, who got over 18 minutes, and Bernie Sanders, at over 17, while Marianne Williamson and John Hickenlooper clocked in at the bottom with just over eight; on night two, Joe Biden was gifted upwards of 21 minutes and Kamala Harris got over 17 (because, as she put it in a post-debate brag, she is one of the “top-tier” candidates). Andrew Yang and Bill de Blasio both spoke for around 9 minutes, with Beto O’Rourke somewhere in the same region of time with a forgettable showing, and Tulsi Gabbard also somewhere pretty close to being ignored. The rest of the candidates’ speaking time fell somewhere in the middle.

Despite already very high name recognition and a solid activist base, Bernie Sanders boosted himself even more with his strong performance. He came out swinging, and absolutely bulldozed several individuals onstage, such as Tim Ryan, who challenged Sanders about whether the Vermont Senator’s proposed Medicare For All bill would actually cover prescriptions, eyeglasses, hearing aids and dental care.

“You don’t know that,” Ryan quipped.

“I do know—I wrote the damn bill,” Sanders fired back.

Another punch-in-the-face moment came when Gabbard absolutely demolished Kamala Harris’ record on criminal justice, leaving the California Senator sputtering like a fish out of water.

Democrats Need To Get Their Heads in the Game

Booker’s bizarre statement that the debates were dividing Democrats too much against each other – which amounted to asking why people need to debate in a debate – was a good symbol of the woolliness of the party’s current mentality. As breakout star and spiritual guru Marianne Williamson put it, “political insider games” and “wonkiness” won’t win elections, and if Democrats keep hiding from their own complicity in the corruption and donor-run system affecting the current economic and foreign policy situation, “those who vote for Trump will continue to vote for Trump, and those who might not like Donald Trump will continue to stay home.” Williamson, who is attracting more and more positive and negative media attention alike, has a good point.

What’s Next?

The next debate is September 12th (and 13th if enough candidates qualify) at Texas Southern University in Houston, Texas. It is going to be much more difficult for candidates to qualify, so they will all be trying to make the absolute most of the opportunity if they do get a place onstage. The Democratic National Committee has announced that the third debate will be in September, but candidates will require at least two percent in four polls and 130,000 donors, with a minimum of 400 donors in at least 20 states, to get onstage. Although many lower-tier candidates polling at 0.5 and 1 percent will be shown the exit by September, it is quite possible that Gabbard, Yang and Williamson could make it by continuing to ride media controversy and attracting attention and support. Either way, the field in September will be much smaller, and the jabs will be much harder. If a Democrat really wants to beat President Trump, they will need to start clearly advancing a vision that can unify the party and attract voters, instead of pandering only to certain parts of the base or floating their own “woke” credentials at the expense of real policy.

L'articolo The Second US Democratic Debate Had Big Surprises proviene da InsideOver.