التصنيف: estaql

نشرت في: 14/11/2023 – 02:49

2 دقائق

اتهمت باريس الإثنين أشخاصا مرتبطين بأذربيجان بوقوفهم وراء حملة تضليل تهدف إلى تشويه سمعة فرنسا كمضيفة للألعاب الأولمبية المقررة الصيف المقبل في العاصمة.

وارتفعت حدة التوترات الدبلوماسية بين فرنسا وأذربيجان، بعدما اتهمت الدولة السوفياتية السابقة باريس بدعم عدوتها اللدود أرمينيا واتباع سياسة “العسكرة” في جنوب القوقاز.

تبذل فرنسا قصارى جهدها لاستضافة ألعاب أولمبية ناجحة بين 26 تموز/يوليو و11 آب/أغسطس المقبلين.

ووفقا لتقرير صادر عن هيئة الرقابة الرقمية الحكومية الفرنسية “فيجينوم”، بدأ تحقيق في أواخر تموز/يوليو بعد مشاركة “العديد من الصور المرئية التي تدعو إلى مقاطعة أولمبياد 2024” على نطاق واسع على موقع “إكس” (تويتر سابقا).

ويشتبه التقرير بأن قرابة 90 حسابا وراء هذه المنشورات، وقالت “فيجينوم” إن 40 منها تم إنشاؤها في تموز/يوليو 2023 ونشرت “محتوى وحيدا” يدعو إلى مقاطعة ألعاب باريس 2024.

وكشف التحقيق أنه من بين هذه الحسابات التسعين، “كان لنسبة كبيرة رابط واحد على الأقل بأذربيجان” مثل صورة تظهر العلم الأذربيجاني أو مقتطفات من خطابات الرئيس الأذربيجاني إلهام علييف.

وقال التقرير إن الأخطاء الإملائية في كتابة أسماء بعض المناطق الفرنسية مثل بوردو ومونبيلييه، كانت “علامة أخرى على عدم الأصالة”.

وحددت هيئة الرقابة أيضا حسابا يشكل أصل المحتوى الذي بدأ نشره لاستهداف ألعاب باريس 2024، قائلة إن حساب MuxtarYev الذي نشر 15 صورة تدعو إلى المقاطعة وأعيد نشرها على حسابات غير حقيقية على موقع “إكس” مرتبطة بأذربيجان، “يعزز فرضية المناورة المنسقة”.

ويزعم الحساب الذي أنشئ في حزيران/يونيو 2023، أن موقعه أذربيجان.

ويتطابق اسم موكستار ناجييف وصورة الملف الشخصي للحساب مع هوية رئيس منظمة مقاطعة سابيل التابعة لحزب أذربيجان الجديدة، الحزب الحاكم في الدولة السوفياتية السابقة.

وبحسب التقرير، يمكن أن يكون المواطن الأذربيجاني أورخان رزاييف الذي يدير شركتين من بينهما “ميديامارك ديجيتل”، مرتبطا بحملة التشهير.

فرانس24/ أ ف ب

Melbourne, Australia – Dozens of people have been walking out of immigration detention in Australia after the High Court ruled indefinite detention was illegal.

While the arbitrary detention of asylum seekers and refugees is a breach of international law, successive Australian governments have continued to detain refugees arbitrarily since a 2004 decision found it legal under Australian domestic law.

But that all changed on November 8 when the High Court ruled the practice was unlawful.

Following the decision, 80 people – refugees as well as people held by immigration for other reasons – were released immediately into the community, with at least 92 more eligible for release. Experts say 300 more cases could also be affected by the decision.

“This is a hugely significant decision, which will have life-changing consequences for people who have been detained for years without knowing when, or even if, they will ever be released,” Josephine Langbien, a senior lawyer at the Human Rights Law Centre, told Al Jazeera.

“People who have lost years of their lives may finally have a chance at regaining their freedom and returning to their families and communities.”

While Australia provisionally accepts 13,500 people each year for resettlement through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees programme, those arriving by other means – such as by boat from Indonesia – are detained in prison-like facilities.

Since 2013, Australia has implemented Operation Sovereign Borders, which the government describes as “a military-led border security operation.”

Detention in harsh offshore processing centres is another arm of this policy, which the Australian government says is necessary to assess refugee status and possibly grant a temporary visa.

However, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and other human rights organisations have long argued the policy contravenes international law including the UN Refugee Convention – which forbids arbitrary detention of refugees and stipulates that seeking asylum is not illegal – and the Convention Against Torture.

Critics, such as author and former detainee Behrouz Boochani, also say the aim of the policy is to create conditions so onerous that potential refugees are deterred from seeking asylum in Australia in the first place.

Langbien told Al Jazeera that on average, refugees have been detained for an average of 708 days either on the Australian mainland or in offshore detention facilities in remote islands such as Nauru.

“Earlier this year, the government disclosed that the longest period it had detained a person in immigration detention was 5,766 days – that is nearly 16 years,” she said.

In comparison, the United States holds refugees for 55 days, while in Canada, refugees are held for just two weeks before a decision is made on whether they can remain in the country.

‘Not prison’

The plaintiff in the High Court case was a Rohingya man using the pseudonym NZYQ who had been detained indefinitely due to a lack of deportation options. As a Rohingya, he cannot return to Myanmar where the mostly Muslim minority was stripped of their citizenship in the 1980s and targeted in a brutal military crackdown in 2017.

Controversially, however, NZYQ had previously been convicted of child sex offences, had been jailed and had his visa revoked.

Under normal circumstances, a non-Australian would be deported after serving a sentence for such serious crimes.

But because NZYQ was without citizenship when he was released on parole in 2018, the Australian government was unable to do so.

As such, NZYQ remained in detention with no realistic prospect of removal and it was this indefinite detention the court ruled illegal under the Australian Constitution.

“The court found that indefinite detention is beyond the constitutional limits of the government’s power,” said Langbien.

Langbien also told Al Jazeera it was important to recognise that while NZYQ had committed a serious offence, he had served his sentence and should be released into the community like any other offender would be under domestic law.

“Immigration detention is not prison,” she said. “These two systems [immigration law and criminal law] are and must be entirely separate. The constitution does not allow immigration detention to be used for punitive purposes. The Australian government has never had the right to use immigration detention as a way to punish people or to extend sentences.”

The decision overturns the 2004 precedent in the High Court case known as Al Kateb, which ruled a stateless Palestinian man’s indefinite detention was lawful within the realm of Australian law.

Yet, Langbien said this should never have been the case and that the ruling will extend to more than just people who are stateless, but to many who cannot return to their country of origin for reasons such as fear of persecution.

“The High Court’s decision will bring about the release of people who should have been released many years ago,” she told Al Jazeera.

“Everyone, regardless of their citizenship or visa status, has the right not to be unlawfully or arbitrarily detained by our government.”

‘A beautiful joy’

While there were celebrations as dozens of detainees were released, the abrupt freedom has created a new set of challenges for people who have endured the prolonged uncertainty of indefinite incarceration.

Hannah Dickinson, the principal solicitor and head of the Legal, Human Rights Law Programme at the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, told Al Jazeera that the reaction from those who had been released was “quite extraordinary and very moving”.

“We’re receiving texts from our clients with pictures of them with their families. They’re driving home from the detention centre, finally, after 10 years separated. So there’s a beautiful joy.”

However, she added there was also concern.

“There is a fearfulness and also a pain arising from having been detained for that long and a worry that something is going to be done to take that freedom away,” she said.

Refugees who are released into the Australian community are often placed on restrictive temporary visas which include limits on work and are often subject to regular review.

Dickinson told Al Jazeera that visas issued to those released last week “had 18 conditions attached”.

“And they might be things like reporting conditions. They might be things like the type of work a person can undertake. And they typically include conduct conditions like not committing any criminal offending. They’re very comprehensive and quite restrictive in nature,” she said.

Ian Rintoul, from the Refugee Action Coalition, said the government has a responsibility to ensure a supportive transition into the community.

“The government can’t just dump these people, who have been held unlawfully for years, into the community without proper support,” he said.

“Indefinite detention has been a serious breach of human rights that has had devastating consequences including suicide and other self-harm attempts.”

Their extended detention means many of those held will find it difficult to establish a new life.

“Many have lost families and family connections as a result of the years in detention. They have lost income, lost years of possible study that has limited their life opportunities,” Rintoul said.

“Many of them have mental health issues caused by the years of unlawful immigration detention that will make finding work and holding down a job a real challenge.”

Minister for Immigration Andrew Giles would not comment on the future implications of the High Court’s decision, stressing the need to “ensure community safety is upheld”.

Among those released over the past week is Sirul Azhar Umar, who was part of the security detail for then-Malaysian Defence Minister Najib Razak and was sentenced to death for the high-profile killing of Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaaribuu. Sirul fled to Australia pending his appeal and while he was later arrested, Australia does not deport people to countries that maintain the death penalty.

In response to Al Jazeera, the Department of Home Affairs noted the full judgement had yet to be made public, and declined to comment on whether any legislative amendments would be made to close the legal loophole created with respect to the aim of Operation Sovereign Borders.

“The Department is currently considering the High Court’s orders and decision,” the department said in a statement. “The High Court has yet to provide written reasons for its decision, therefore it would be inappropriate to comment on the matter.”

Wellington Koo says tax investigation is aimed at dissuading Foxconn founder Terry Gou from running for president.

Taipei’s national security chief has said a Chinese tax probe into Taiwan tech giant Foxconn is “political” as its billionaire founder Terry Gou is running for president of the democratically ruled island.

Gou, who gave up Foxconn’s management reins four years ago, launched his presidential bid in August as an independent candidate in Taiwan’s January polls.

The Chinese state-run Global Times reported last month that Foxconn – one of the world’s largest contract producers of electronics and a key supplier for Apple’s iPhones – was under a “normal and legitimate” investigation for tax and land issues by mainland authorities.

Chinese authorities have not confirmed the probe and Foxconn has said it will cooperate on “operations concerned” while urging “confidence” in the company.

Taiwan’s National Security Council head said on Monday there was a “political aspect” to the Foxconn probe as election analysts have predicted that Gou’s entry into the race could split the opposition vote.

“They [China] certainly don’t want Terry Gou to run,” Wellington Koo, whose department falls under President Tsai Ing-wen, told reporters.

“Based on our observations, China does not want Terry Gou to split votes [within the pro-Beijing camp],” he said.

When Gou entered the race, some critics alleged his relationship with Beijing was a cosy one given Foxconn’s numerous mainland factories, but he said he had “never been under the control of the [Chinese Communist Party]”.

Taiwan is claimed by Beijing, which dislikes the Democratic Progressive Party’s government under Tsai as she has said the island does not belong to China.

Koo added that Foxconn has also been looking to diversify its supply chain lines away from China, which could “also be a factor” in prompting an investigation from Chinese authorities.

“If all assembly lines are moved out under the request of major US brands, the harm to China will be significant,” Koo said.

His comments echoed others made by Taiwan’s top officials, including Deputy Premier Cheng Wen-tsan, who said Taiwanese businesses in China should not be subject to “political interference”.

Foxconn is China’s largest private-sector employer, with more than a million workers nationwide.

But the country’s strict COVID policies – as well as a bout of industrial unrest and ongoing diplomatic tensions with the United States – have hurt production.

In May, it bought a huge tract of land on the outskirts of Indian tech hub Bengaluru and has since announced plans to expand its India operations.

Analysts say Gou has a slim chance of winning, with DPP candidate Vice President Lai Ching-te currently in the lead.

Widodo calls for a ceasefire ‘for the sake of humanity’ as he sits down with US president at the White House.

Indonesian President Joko Widodo has pressed his United States counterpart Joe Biden to do more to end “atrocities” in Gaza and help bring about a ceasefire.

The two leaders’ talks on Monday were overshadowed by the month-long Israel-Hamas war in which the US has given Israel its full support.

Widodo, who is popularly known as Jokowi, attended a joint summit of Arab and Muslim leaders in Riyadh at the weekend which condemned Israel and called for a ceasefire.

Indonesia is the world’s most populous Muslim country and has seen large protests in support of the Palestinians as well as a boycott of businesses seen as linked to Israel.

“Indonesia appeals to the US to do more to stop the atrocities in Gaza,” Widodo said in the Oval Office as the two presidents met in the White House in front of a roaring fire.

“A ceasefire is a must for the sake of humanity.”

Violence erupted on October 7 after the armed group Hamas, which controls Gaza, launched a surprise assault on Israel killing about 1,200 people and taking more than 200 captive. In response Israel imposed a total blockade on Gaza and has been bombarding the Gaza Strip ever since, killing at least 11,000 Palestinians.

US officials have said Biden is keen for Indonesia to “play a larger role” in the Middle East, which could include the “ceasefire issue” but also long-term goals such as a two-state solution after the war and rebuilding Gaza.

While Washington has thrown its full support behind Israel, it has more recently begun calling for more restraint and “pauses” in the fighting that would allow the delivery of humanitarian aid or the release of the captives held by Hamas.

‘New era of relations’

The Jokowi-Biden meeting comes ahead of talks between Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping, as well as a key summit of leaders from APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation), which is taking place in San Francisco. China and Indonesia are both members of APEC.

The US aims to upgrade cooperation with Indonesia to a so-called comprehensive strategic partnership, the highest diplomatic level, as it deepens alliances in the Asia Pacific region. Biden unveiled a similar upgrade to ties with Vietnam on a visit to Hanoi in September.

“This will mark a new era of relations between the United States and Indonesia across the board, affecting everything,” Biden said as he sat next to Jokowi.

The deepening crisis in Myanmar was also up for discussion. The country was plunged into turmoil in February 2021, when the military seized power from the government of elected leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Fighting between the military and armed groups fighting against the coup has intensified in the past couple of weeks.

The US and other mainly Western countries have imposed sanctions but the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), while banning Myanmar’s top generals from its summits, has had little success in holding the military to account. Indonesia is the outgoing chair of the 10-member grouping that welcomed Myanmar as a member some 25 years ago with Laos next to take the helm.

“It’s going to be time soon for us to think about what our next steps are together to deal with a situation that is untenable,” the officials told Reuters.

Biden and Jokowi’s talks also covered new cooperation in areas of defence such as cybersecurity, and space as well as climate with the US due to announce steps with the Southeast Asian country on carbon capture and storage, supporting the electricity grid and improving air quality.

Amid rising geopolitical tension, Jokowi was keen to stress Indonesia’s long-held neutrality.

“Indonesia is always open to cooperate with any country, and not to take the side of any power, except to take the side of peace and humanity,” he said.

Authorities cite the popular Chinese video-sharing platform’s negative effects and ask internet service providers to close the app.

Nepal says it will ban TikTok, adding that social harmony and goodwill are being disturbed by “misuse” of the popular video-sharing app and that there is rising demand to control it.

Nepal’s Minister for Communications and Information Technology Rekha Sharma said the decision to ban TikTok was taken at a cabinet meeting on Monday.

Sharma said the decision was made because TikTok was consistently used to share content that “disturbs social harmony and disrupts family structures and social relations”.

“Colleagues are working on closing it technically,” she said, without specifying what triggered the ban.

TikTok has already been either partially or completely banned by other countries, with many citing security concerns.

More than 1,600 TikTok-related cybercrime cases have been registered over the last four years in Nepal, according to local media reports.

Nepal Telecom Authority chief Purushottam Khanal said that internet service providers have been asked to close the app. “Some have already closed while others are doing it later today [Monday],” Khanal told Reuters news agency.

TikTok did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the matter. It has previously said such bans are “misguided” and that they are based on “misconceptions”.

Hours after the decision was made public, videos on the ban had thousands of views on TikTok.

Opposition leaders in Nepal criticised the move, saying that it lacked “effectiveness, maturity and responsibility”.

“There are many unwanted materials in other social media also. What must be done is to regulate and not restrict them,” said Pradeep Gyawali, former foreign minister and a senior leader of the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist).

Gagan Thapa, leader of the Nepali Congress party that is part of the ruling coalition, said the government’s intention seems to be to “stifle freedom of expression”.

“Regulation is necessary to discourage those who abuse social media, but shutting down social media in the name of regulation is completely wrong,” he said in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter.

The decision comes days after Nepal introduced a directive requiring social media platforms operating in the country to set up offices.

TikTok, with around a billion monthly users, is run by the Beijing-based parent company ByteDance and is the sixth most used social platform in the world, according to the We Are Social marketing agency.

Multiple countries have sought to tighten controls on the app for allegedly breaking data rules and for its potentially harmful impact on youth.

Nepal’s neighbour India banned TikTok along with dozens of other apps by Chinese developers in June 2020, saying that they could compromise national security and integrity.

Another South Asian country, Pakistan, banned the app at least four times over what the country’s government terms its “immoral and indecent” content.

Parent company ByteDance rejects critics who accuse it of being under Beijing’s direct control.

Although it lags behind the likes of Meta’s long-dominant trio of Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram, its growth among young people far outstrips its competitors.