Can Labour government usher in a new era of UK-Arab engagement?

Analysis Can Labour government usher in a new era of UK-Arab engagement?
The message for Labour’s Keir Starmer is that Britain’s sizable Muslim community has found its voice and its political power, and its support can no longer be taken for granted. (Reuters)
Short Url
Updated 09 July 2024
Follow

Can Labour government usher in a new era of UK-Arab engagement?

Can Labour government usher in a new era of UK-Arab engagement?
  • Some experts think policy focus will shift from migration, counterextremism to Palestine, closer Gulf ties
  • Loud and clear election message is that support of Britain’s Muslim community cannot be taken for granted

LONDON: Before last Thursday, few British voters outside of the east London constituency of Ilford North had heard of Leanne Mohamad, the independent candidate running for election in the seat held by one of the Labour Party’s biggest names.

Mohamad’s name was no better known after the election, in which Wes Streeting, Labour’s shadow health secretary, held on to the seat he had captured from the Conservatives in 2015.

But the success of the 23-year-old British-Palestinian in coming within a whisker of defeating Streeting was one of several warning shots fired across the bows of a Labour Party which has now woken up to the fact that the UK’s Muslim community might have an equal or even greater say in its chances of remaining in power for more than one term as the UK Jewish lobby, which the party has spent the past five years courting assiduously.

Streeting, who is now Labour’s new health secretary, squeezed back in by just 528 votes — 15,647 to Mohamad’s 15,119 — an unprecedented collapse of support over a single issue of foreign policy.

He was not the only senior party member who felt the wrath of the Muslim community and its supporters over Labour’s half-hearted stance on Gaza.




Labour’s new prime minister is on tricky ground over Gaza. (Reuters)

In the constituency of Holborn & St. Pancras, even Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer’s 2019 majority of 36,641 was slashed in half.

His chief opponent was another independent, Andrew Feinstein, a former South African politician and the son of a Holocaust survivor who criticized Starmer’s pre-election position on Gaza, having previously argued that the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement is “a peaceful mechanism to weaken and thus force concessions from” an “apartheid Israel.”

Over 120 miles north in Birmingham Ladywood, long-serving Labour MP Shabana Mahmood, who secured 79 percent of the constituency’s votes in 2019, saw her majority cut in half and almost equaled by Akhmed Yakoob, yet another pro-Palestinian independent candidate.

In the neighboring constituency of Birmingham Yardley, Labour’s Jess Phillips saw her 2019 majority of 10,659 slashed to fewer than 700 votes by newcomer Jody McIntyre, running for the Workers Party.

Her setback came her November 2023 resignation from the shadow cabinet in protest over her party’s stance on the Israel-Hamas conflict, declaring she had to vote “with my constituents, my head, and my heart, which has felt as if it were breaking over the last four weeks with the horror of the situation in Israel and Palestine.”




The new health secretary, Wes Streeting, narrowly escaped defeat to Pro-Palestine independent Leanne Mohamad. (Reuters)

And they were the lucky ones. In 21 seats in the UK where more than one-fifth of the population is Muslim, Labour saw its share of the vote fall by 25 percent, and four MPs lost their seats to independents on pro-Gaza tickets.

The message for Labour, which has been received loud and clear, is that Britain’s sizable Muslim community has found its voice and its political power, and its support can no longer be taken for granted.

As Shabana Mahmood said after holding on to her Birmingham Ladywood seat, “we have bridges to rebuild … we have trust that we must earn back from my own community.”

There are already signs that Britain’s new government, whose program of social and economic reform is dependent upon securing a second term in office five years from now, is taking steps to do just that.

Starmer, whose wife is Jewish, inherited the leadership of the Labour Party in April 2020 from Jeremy Corbyn, a staunch supporter of the Palestinian cause whose five years as leader were overshadowed by persistent accusations that the party he presided over was antisemitic — allegations that Corbyn and his supporters saw as an orchestrated campaign motivated by Labour’s support for Palestine.




Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, a staunch supporter of the Palestinian cause, regained his seat as an independent candidate. (Reuters)

A report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the UK’s human rights watchdog, published in October 2020, concluded there were “serious failings in the Labour Party leadership in addressing antisemitism and an inadequate process for handling antisemitism complaints.”

The report had a Catch-22 air about it, concluding as it did that Labour’s protestations that the multiple accusations of antisemitism against it — from organizations including the Jewish Labour Movement, the Campaign Against Antisemitism and Jewish Voice for Labour — were manufactured smears, was, in itself, evidence of antisemitism.

Starmer set out to rebuild the trust of the Jewish community, declaring that he would “tear out this poison by its roots and judge success by the return of Jewish members.”

It seems to have worked. In the 2019 general election an estimated 11 percent of British Jews voted Labour; last Thursday it was closer to 50 percent.




Staremer, whose wife is Jewish, told The Guardian, “half of the family are Jewish, they’re either here or in Israel.” (AFP)

But Labour’s new prime minister is on tricky ground over Gaza. As he told The Guardian in an interview last month, “half of the family are Jewish, they’re either here or in Israel.”

Now that the election is over, and his party has been badly bruised at the ballot box by the perception that it has turned its back on the plight of the Palestinians, a cause traditionally close to Labour’s heart, Starmer faces the puzzle of how to retain UK Jewish support while bringing Muslims back on board.

“Labour has been very vocal about the need to counter antisemitism, and this now puts it in a very awkward position,” Kelly Petillo, program manager for the Middle East and North Africa at the European Council on Foreign Relations, told Arab News.

“On the one hand, they have portrayed themselves as the people who are going to clean up the Labour Party, but on the other they have to grapple with the reality that many independent candidates won because Labour’s stance on the war in Gaza was unsatisfactory for many.”

It is possible, she believes, that Labour will tread water on the issue of Gaza and the broader question of Palestinian statehood until the outcome of November’s presidential election in the US is settled.




Israel has been conducting a devestating military assault on the Gaza Strip since October last year. (AFP)

If, as seems increasingly likely, Donald Trump returns to the presidency, “there could well be alignment with the Trump administration, leading to a bias toward Israel, which is already evident in the nature of some of the candidates Labour selected to run in the election.”

For example, one of Labour’s new parliamentarians is Luke Akehurst, the MP for North Durham and former director of the pro-Israeli activist group We Believe in Israel, who has described Israel’s actions in Gaza as proportionate.

But for now, at least, the new UK government’s foreign policy is already showing signs of taking a turn for the pro-Palestinian.

Before the election, the then Conservative government had challenged the decision by the International Criminal Court to consider approving the chief prosecutor’s request for arrest warrants to be issued against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, for alleged war crimes in Gaza.

The UK questioned the ICC’s jurisdiction in the case, but the new Labour-led government has hinted it may withdraw the objection.




Israel’s military campaign in the Palestinian enclave has killed more than 35,000 people. (AFP)

The news leaked after two early calls to leaders in the region by Starmer. In one, he spoke to Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, expressing his concern about “the ongoing suffering and devastating loss of life” in Gaza, and restating the support for a Palestinian state that David Lammy, his foreign secretary, had already articulated.

Starmer’s other call was to Netanyahu. According to a Labour transcript, the new prime minister spoke of the “clear and urgent” need for a ceasefire in Gaza, adding that it was “also important to ensure the long-term conditions for a two-state solution were in place, including ensuring the Palestinian Authority had the financial means to operate effectively.”

Opinion

This section contains relevant reference points, placed in (Opinion field)

Starmer also urged the Israeli leader to act with caution in his dealings with Hezbollah on Israel’s northern border.

Meanwhile, Lammy has said that the Labour administration will reexamine legal advice given to the Conservative government that UK arms being sold to Israel were not being used in breach of international humanitarian law.

Lammy has also suggested the UK might reverse its decision to stop funding UNRWA, the UN’s Palestinian relief agency. In January, major donors to the agency, including the US, the EU, the UK and Germany, withdrew funding when it emerged that a dozen of UNRWA’s 30,000 Palestinian employees were suspected of having been involved in the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel.




Britain’s newly appointed Foreign Secretary David Lammy leaves Downing Street. (Reuters)

By April, most of this international funding had been restored and “the UK is now in the weird position where it is one of the few countries that has not restored UNRWA funding,” said Petillo.

Despite Lammy’s pronouncements, “I think Starmer is being advised internally to delay this as much as possible, keeping the UK in line with the US, which has blocked it until March 2025. This type of deflection is probably a tactic they will use to address some of the domestic tensions they are under.”

Because of this and other issues, UK policy in the Middle East “will continue to be dictated to a certain extent by US politics and the US line; you could argue that we won’t see a huge change from foreign policy in this area under the Conservatives.

“On the other hand, one can anticipate change just because the bar set by the Conservative government was so low, partly because of all the distractions they have faced, but also because of the narrow lens through which they have looked at Middle East policy, focused mostly on migration and countering extremism and, of course, through a reduction in aid budgets, which has affected countries like Yemen and Syria massively.”




Smoke billows during Israeli bombardment on the village of Khiam in south Lebanon near the border with Israel. (AFP)

Lammy has already made plain that Labour intends to reengage with the Middle East through a new policy of what he called “progressive realism,” and has also spoken of the need for the UK to mend relations with the Arab Gulf states.

This would be timely and highly welcome in the region, said Petillo.

“The UK has definitely shifted its attention a bit away from the region,” she said. “It was a big part of the international support for Ukraine and lately has been looking at the Gulf states solely through the narrow lens of energy.

FASTFACTS

• SR83.31bn Total Saudi-UK trade in goods and services in 2023.

• SR116.54bn Total UK-UAE trade in goods and services in 2023.

•SR37.56bn Total UK-Qatar trade in goods and services in 2023.

“This has really frustrated the Gulf countries, but Lammy has been traveling to the region, even before the war in Gaza, to address this grievance, and since then has been using the war as an opportunity to widen the conversation.

“There is a conversation right now among the Gulf states about building a regional security architecture, into which the process of Arab-Israeli normalization fits, and the new UK government is very keen to enter this conversation in a way that the Conservatives were not.”




Rishi Sunak’s Conservative Party lost power in an election landslide to Labour. (Reuters)

The new UK government, Lina Khatib, director of the SOAS Middle East Institute and associate Fellow of the Chatham House Middle East and North Africa Program, told Arab News, “has the mandate to implement the needed foreign policy resets that the Labour party had prioritized ahead of the general election. Repairing relations with Arab countries in the Gulf and taking action toward a ceasefire in Gaza and resurrecting the Israel-Palestine peace process are two such priorities.”

According to Khatib, Labour has “rightly framed the Gulf as an important partner for security and economic growth.

“However, the UK government must pursue a more comprehensive strategy toward the Gulf which also takes into consideration the region’s geopolitical interests,” she said.

“This includes adopting a bold approach in addressing the destabilizing role of Iran and its proxies in the Middle East, which the previous UK government had merely skirted around.”




Labour will tread water on the issue of Gaza until the outcome of November’s presidential election in the US is settled, analyst Kelly Petillo indicated.

The UK “must also strengthen its diplomatic, cultural, and business engagement with the Middle East and North Africa. This will help nurture areas of growth across those sectors in the region and bolster the UK’s own standing.”The Labour Middle East Council, established in January this year by British politicians and former ambassadors to the region, with “the fundamental goal of cultivating understanding and fostering enduring relationships between UK parliamentarians and the Middle East & North Africa,” was “one avenue for facilitating such engagement.”

Two perspectives on a historic relationship


MIRAN HASSAN, Founder and director, Labour Middle East Council

It’s about treating the UK-Gulf relationship with more respect and giving it the attention that it deserves. For example, if you look at the GCC-UK Free Trade Agreement, those negotiations have been going on for years with no meaningful progress. That’s a very good example of where the relationship needs to be enhanced and given the attention that it deserves, considering the bloc is one of our largest trading partners.

Not enough attention was paid by the Conservatives to the GCC as a priority trading partner, and I’m hopeful and quite confident that’s going to change under this government.

This is no longer a world where the UK and the US are the only partners available. Now you can just go over to China, Russia is making strategic alliances, and so on. It’s now a world where the UK needs to actually fight to be a partner and for opportunities. It isn’t that the region wants to turn its back on the UK, but one that commands respect. And if they don't have the right level of engagement, then naturally they will look elsewhere.

What’s important for us at Labour Middle East Council is to have the region viewed through the lens of how interconnected our foreign policy is. So, when we look at the issue with the Houthis and their attacks, for example, how has that impacted global trade as a whole and our interests in other parts of the world?

Domestically, migration is a huge priority for the UK government, and we need to be engaged with the region that is the source of a lot of that migration, especially as climate change plays a bigger role and has a huge impact on many countries, such as Syria, Iraq and Libya.

BURCU OZCELIK, Senior Research Fellow (Middle East Security), RUSI

The Labour government has inherited status quo-altering challenges on multiple fronts in the Middle East. With the epicenter in Gaza, conflict vectors reach across Yemen and the Red Sea, Iraq, Syria, and notably with Lebanon-based Hezbollah, where the threat of an escalated war looms large.

While voting results show that Labour gained the trust of a sizeable portion of the British Jewish electorate, largely thanks to rejecting the Corbyn era’s polarizing policies to a more centrist approach, how Labour behaves both in its domestic response to voter expectations, and in its foreign-policy posture in the Middle East, will be scrutinized closely by Jewish and Muslim voters alike, who look to the new government to reduce the devastating human cost of the conflict.

Foreign Secretary David Lammy is set to emphasize the pledge enshrined in the Labour manifesto to recognize a Palestinian state as part of a peace process toward a two-state solution “with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.” The issue is the extent to which Britain will play a proactive role in being pro-peace above all.

With the electoral campaign now behind us, voters will look to see tangible evidence that policies will match promises. This requires foregrounding a human-rights based approach equally all those civilians impacted, continuing to call for the immediate release of Israeli hostages held since Oct. 7, 2023, by Hamas, alongside pressure for a ceasefire, and urgent humanitarian aid to Palestinians. Unresolved issues will demand urgent attention, such as reviewing future means of funding that will permit the Palestinian Authority to govern effectively, legal concerns around UK arms sales, and the ICC’s ruling on Israel.

The Gulf states are poised — with the appropriate diplomatic assurances — to contribute to a necessary regional effort to support the rehabilitation, reconstruction and rebuilding of Gaza. Despite lulls and lags in the relationship, Labour now has an opportunity to engage with Gulf states (and societies) to facilitate a regional and sustained response to support Gaza, reassure Israel, and work toward the objective of Palestinian statehood.

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right allies will seek to buy more time. Britain can apply pressure to bring an end to the humanitarian crisis and support mechanisms — with strong buy-in from the Arab states — to begin planning for the day after.

 


Croatia issues Serbia travel warning after saying nationals expelled

Croatia issues Serbia travel warning after saying nationals expelled
Updated 57 min 44 sec ago
Follow

Croatia issues Serbia travel warning after saying nationals expelled

Croatia issues Serbia travel warning after saying nationals expelled
  • The Croatian foreign ministry alleged “inappropriate and unfounded actions of Serbian authorities toward Croatian nationals“
  • Foreign Minister Gordan Grlic Radman on Wednesday said he would send a protest note to Serbia

ZAGREB: Croatia on Thursday recommended its nationals postpone non-essential travel to Serbia, alleging Belgrade had expelled five Croatian women citing security reasons.
The Croatian foreign ministry alleged “inappropriate and unfounded actions of Serbian authorities toward Croatian nationals,” in a statement.
Other Croatians had previously been accused of taking part in a recent wave of protests against Serbia’s nationalist government in an separate case.
Foreign Minister Gordan Grlic Radman on Wednesday said he would send a protest note to Serbia over the “detention of five Croatian women” there who all returned home safely.
He said the five attended a workshop involving NGOs organized by Austria’s Erste Bank foundation and were “detained without any explanation.”
He said Zagreb will inform the European Union delegation in Belgrade about Serbian authorities’ actions, “which put Croatian citizens in a humiliating position.”
Serbia’s foreign ministry said it was “inappropriate” for a Croatian official to “accuse Serbia of endangering the freedom of movement and speech of several Croatian nationals.”
The latter were “treated in Belgrade by the competent state bodies in line with legal procedures and usual international practice,” it said in a statement without elaborating.
Serbia’s interior ministry did not reply to AFP’s request for comment.
Ana Kovacic, an art historian from Zagreb who took part in the two-day workshop, told the newspaper Jutarnji list that it was attended by around 15 people from Bosnia, Croatia, North Macedonia, Romania and Slovenia.
After it ended, the participants were taken from their hotel to a police station where they were interrogated, she said.
They were given a document to sign saying that they were “threatening the security of the Republic of Serbia,” should leave the country within 24 hours and were banned from entering it for a year.
Croatian and Serbian human rights groups condemned the actions of the Serbian police, who they said “arrested and deported several persons” from those countries, describing those arrested as “activists.”
Two workshop participants from Albania also told local media in their country that they suffered the same treatment.
The Albanian foreign ministry said on Thursday it had summoned the Serbian ambassador over the case.
It “expressed regret and serious concerns regarding the detention” of the two, describing them as “representatives of civil society who participated in a seminar in Belgrade.”
Serbia has been rocked by regular protests since a deadly disaster at a train station in November ignited longstanding anger over corruption.
High-ranking Serbian government officials, without providing evidence, have claimed in their statements that the student blockades and protests are “influenced by Western intelligence agencies” with the aim of “overthrowing President Aleksandar Vucic.”
At the end of December, tabloid media close to the Serbian authorities accused a group of Croatian students of participating in the protests.
Ties between two former Yugoslav republics remain frosty since Croatia’s 1990s war of independence against Belgrade-backed rebel Serbs.


A federal judge temporarily blocks Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship

A federal judge temporarily blocks Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship
Updated 23 January 2025
Follow

A federal judge temporarily blocks Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship

A federal judge temporarily blocks Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship
  • US District Judge John Coughenour repeatedly interrupted a Justice Department lawyer during arguments to ask how he could consider the order constitutional
  • The case is one of five lawsuits being brought by 22 states and a number of immigrants rights groups across the country

SEATTLE: A federal judge in Seattle on Thursday temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order ending the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional” during the first hearing in a multi-state effort challenging the order.
US District Judge John Coughenour repeatedly interrupted a Justice Department lawyer during arguments to ask how he could consider the order constitutional. When the attorney, Brett Shumate, said he’d like a chance to explain it in a full briefing, Coughenour told him the hearing was his chance.
The temporary restraining order sought by Arizona, Illinois, Oregon and Washington was the first to get a hearing before a judge and applies nationally.
The case is one of five lawsuits being brought by 22 states and a number of immigrants rights groups across the country. The suits include personal testimonies from attorneys general who are US citizens by birthright, and names pregnant women who are afraid their children won’t become US citizens.
Coughenour, a Ronald Reagan appointee, began the hearing by grilling the administration’s attorneys, saying the order “boggles the mind.”
“This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” Coughenour told Shumate. Coughenour said he’s been on the bench for more than four decades, and he couldn’t remember seeing another case where the action challenged was so clearly unconstitutional.
Shumate said he respectfully disagreed and asked the judge for an opportunity to have a full briefing on the merits of the case, rather than have a 14-day restraining order issued blocking its implementation.
Trump’s executive order, which he signed on Inauguration Day, is slated to take effect on Feb. 19. It could impact hundreds of thousands of people born in the country, according to one of the lawsuits. In 2022, there were about 255,000 births of citizen children to mothers living in the country illegally and about 153,000 births to two such parents, according to the four-state suit filed in Seattle.
The Trump administration argued in papers filed Wednesday that the states don’t have grounds to bring a suit against the order and that no damage has yet been done, so temporary relief isn’t called for. The administration’s attorneys also clarified that the executive order only applies to people born after Feb. 19, when it’s set to take effect.
The US is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or “right of the soil” — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them.
The lawsuits argue that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees citizenship for people born and naturalized in the US, and states have been interpreting the amendment that way for a century.
Ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War, the amendment says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Trump’s order asserts that the children of noncitizens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and orders federal agencies to not recognize citizenship for children who don’t have at least one parent who is a citizen .
A key case involving birthright citizenship unfolded in 1898. The Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants, was a US citizen because he was born in the country. After a trip abroad, he faced being denied reentry by the federal government on the grounds that he wasn’t a citizen under the Chinese Exclusion Act.
But some advocates of immigration restrictions have argued that case clearly applied to children born to parents who were both legal immigrants. They say it’s less clear whether it applies to children born to parents living in the country illegally.
Trump’s order prompted attorneys general to share their personal connections to birthright citizenship. Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, for instance, a US citizen by birthright and the nation’s first Chinese American elected attorney general, said the lawsuit was personal for him.
“There is no legitimate legal debate on this question. But the fact that Trump is dead wrong will not prevent him from inflicting serious harm right now on American families like my own,” Tong said this week.
One of the lawsuits aimed at blocking the executive order includes the case of a pregnant woman, identified as “Carmen,” who is not a citizen but has lived in the United States for more than 15 years and has a pending visa application that could lead to permanent residency status.
“Stripping children of the ‘priceless treasure’ of citizenship is a grave injury,” the suit says. “It denies them the full membership in US society to which they are entitled.”


Spain says over 550 migrants reached its Canary Islands in 2 days

Spain says over 550 migrants reached its Canary Islands in 2 days
Updated 23 January 2025
Follow

Spain says over 550 migrants reached its Canary Islands in 2 days

Spain says over 550 migrants reached its Canary Islands in 2 days
  • The Spanish archipelago off northwest Africa is continuing to experience large numbers of migrant arrivals as more people mainly from West Africa
  • In the first half of January, 3,409 migrants reached Spain by sea

MADRID: More than 550 migrants have arrived in Spain’s Canary Islands in boats over the past two days, Spain’s maritime rescue service said Thursday. At least one body was found in one of the boats.
The Spanish archipelago off northwest Africa is continuing to experience large numbers of migrant arrivals as more people mainly from West Africa attempt the dangerous Atlantic crossing in ramshackle boats.
In the first half of January, 3,409 migrants reached Spain by sea, the vast majority to the Canaries, Interior Ministry figures showed. About as many migrants came illegally during the same period last year.
In 2024, Spain received a record number of migrants who crossed illegally via sea, with more than 61,000 people having arrived on boats. Nearly 47,000 of those landed in the Canary Islands. They included several thousand unaccompanied minors.
The islands are roughly 65 miles (105 kilometers) from the closest point in Africa, but to avoid security forces, many migrants attempt longer journeys that can take days or weeks. The majority last year departed from Mauritania, which is at least 473 miles (762 kilometers) from the closest Canary Island, El Hierro.
Earlier this month, the Spanish migration rights group Caminando Fronteras (Walking Borders) said that 50 people had died in the capsizing of a boat on its way to the Canary Islands. It reported that 44 of them were from Pakistan.
The European Union’s border agency, Frontex, said irregular crossings into the bloc in 2024 fell 38 percent overall but rose by 18 percent on the Atlantic route between West Africa and the Canary Islands. It attributed the rise in part to more migrants leaving from Mauritania, which has become a primary point of departure for people attempting to reach Europe.
The International Organization for Migration recorded at least 5,000 migrants who died or went missing on the migratory route since it began keeping records in 2014. But Caminando Fronteras (Walking Borders) says the real death toll is significantly higher, and that over 10,000 people died or went missing while attempting the route last year alone.
Caminando Fronteras says it compiles its own figures from families of migrants and rescue statistics.


ICC prosecutor seeks arrest of Taliban leaders over persecution of women

ICC prosecutor seeks arrest of Taliban leaders over persecution of women
Updated 23 January 2025
Follow

ICC prosecutor seeks arrest of Taliban leaders over persecution of women

ICC prosecutor seeks arrest of Taliban leaders over persecution of women
  • ICC judges will consider Khan’s application before deciding whether to issue warrants, a process that could take weeks or even months
  • After coming to power in 2021, Taliban quickly imposed restrictions on women and girls that United Nations has called “gender apartheid“

THE HAGUE: The International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor on Thursday said he was seeking arrest warrants against senior Taliban leaders in Afghanistan over the persecution of women, a crime against humanity.
Karim Khan said there were reasonable grounds to suspect that Supreme Leader Haibatullah Akhundzada and chief justice Abdul Hakim Haqqani “bear criminal responsibility for the crime against humanity of persecution on gender grounds.”
Khan said that Afghan women and girls, as well as the LGBTQ community, were facing “an unprecedented, unconscionable and ongoing persecution by the Taliban.
“Our action signals that the status quo for women and girls in Afghanistan is not acceptable,” added Khan.
ICC judges will now consider Khan’s application before deciding whether to issue the warrants — a process that could take weeks or even months.
The court, based in The Hague, was set up to rule on the world’s worst crimes, such as war crimes and crimes against humanity.
It has no police force of its own and relies on its 125 member states to carry out its warrants — with mixed results.
In theory this means that anyone subject to an ICC arrest warrant cannot travel to a member state for fear of being detained.
Khan warned he would soon be seeking additional applications for other Taliban officials.
Akhundzada inherited the Taliban leadership in May 2016 after a US drone strike in Pakistan killed his predecessor.
Believed to be in his 60s or 70s, the reclusive supreme leader rules by decree from the Taliban movement’s birthplace in southern Kandahar.
Haqqani was a close associate of Taliban founder Mullah Omar and served as a negotiator during discussions with US representatives in 2020.
ICC prosecutor Khan argued the Taliban was “brutally” repressing resistance through crimes “including murder, imprisonment, torture, rape and other forms of sexual violence, enforced disappearance, and other inhumane acts.”
Human Rights Watch (HRW) said in a statement the prosecutor’s actions should put the Taliban’s exclusion of women and girls from public life back on the international agenda.
“This is an important moment for Afghan women and girls who have been waiting much too long for justice,” HRW’s women’s rights deputy director, Heather Barr, told AFP, calling for “other efforts to hold the Taliban fully accountable.”
The move was praised by Afghan women activists, including Shukria Barakzai, an Afghan former lawmaker and the ousted government’s ex-ambassador to Norway.
“It’s a victory,” she told AFP from London.
“This also could be counted as (an) important achievement for feminism globally... and particularly for women in Afghanistan.”
The UN special rapporteur for human rights in Afghanistan, Richard Bennett, called the move “a crucial step... for accountability in Afghanistan” on X.
 After sweeping back to power in August 2021, the Taliban authorities pledged a softer rule than their first rein from 1996-2001. But they quickly imposed restrictions on women and girls that the United Nations has labelled “gender apartheid.”
Edicts in line with their interpretation of Islamic law have squeezed women and girls from public life.
They have barred girls from secondary school and women from university, making Afghanistan the only country in the world to impose such bans.
Taliban authorities imposed restrictions on women working for non-governmental groups and other employment, with thousands of women losing government jobs — or being paid to stay at home.
Beauty salons have been closed and women blocked from visiting public parks, gyms and baths as well as traveling long distances without a male chaperone.
A “vice and virtue” law announced last summer ordered women not to sing or recite poetry in public and for their voices and bodies to be “concealed” outside the home.
The few remaining women TV presenters wear tight headscarves and face masks in line with a 2022 diktat by Akhundzada that women cover everything but their eyes and hands in public.
The international community has condemned the restrictions, which remain a key sticking point in the Taliban authorities’ pursuit of official recognition, which it has not received from any state.
The Taliban authorities have dismissed international criticism of their policies, saying all citizens’ rights are provided for under Islamic law.


UK court hears horrific details of Southport girls’ murders as killer removed from dock

UK court hears horrific details of Southport girls’ murders as killer removed from dock
Updated 50 min 35 sec ago
Follow

UK court hears horrific details of Southport girls’ murders as killer removed from dock

UK court hears horrific details of Southport girls’ murders as killer removed from dock
  • After Judge Julian Goose refused to adjourn the sentencing, Rudakubana shouted “don’t continue,” prompting the judge to have him removed
  • Someone shouted “coward” as he left

LONDON: A British teenager who murdered three young girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance event was obsessed with violence and genocide, prosecutors said on Thursday after the killer was removed for repeatedly interrupting his sentencing.
Axel Rudakubana, 18, killed the three girls at a Taylor Swift-themed summer vacation event last July, with two of them suffering “horrific injuries which ... are difficult to explain as anything other than sadistic in nature,” prosecutor Deanna Heer said.
Rudakubana was removed from the dock at Liverpool Crown Court shortly after the start of his sentencing after shouting from the dock that he was unwell and suffering chest pains.
After Judge Julian Goose refused to adjourn the sentencing, Rudakubana shouted “don’t continue,” prompting the judge to have him removed. Someone shouted “coward” as he left.
On Monday, Rudakubana admitted carrying out the killings, in the northern English town of Southport, an atrocity that was followed by days of nationwide rioting.
He murdered Bebe King, 6, Elsie Dot Stancombe, 7, and Alice Dasilva Aguiar, 9, with two of the girls suffering at least 85 and 122 sharp force injuries, Heer said.
The prosecutor described a scene of horror, with the court shown video footage of screaming young girls fleeing the building. One bloodied girl was seen collapsing outside, provoking gasps and sobs from the public gallery.
He has also pleaded guilty to 10 charges of attempted murder relating to the attack, as well as to producing the deadly poison ricin and possessing an Al-Qaeda training manual.
Before Rudakubana’s outburst, Heer had said he was not inspired by any political or religious ideology.
“His only purpose was to kill and he targeted the youngest, most vulnerable in order to spread the greatest level of fear and outrage, which he succeeded in doing.” she said.
“Whilst under arrest at the police station after the incident, Axel Rudakubana was heard to say ‘It’s a good thing those children are dead ... I’m so glad ... so happy’.”
Heer said images and documents found on a computer at his home showed “he had a long-standing obsession with violence, killing and genocide.”
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has said there were “grave questions” for the state to answer as to why the murders took place.
The government has announced a public inquiry into the case after it said Rudakubana had been referred three times to Prevent, a counter-radicalization scheme, but no action had been taken.
Starmer has said the attack could show that Britain faces a new type of terrorism threat waged by “loners, misfits, young men in their bedrooms” committing extreme violence.