Irano: GLATaj aktivulinoj estis kondamnitaj al morto: Two LGBTQ activists Condemned to death in Iran

Bildo: Manifestaciantoj protestas kontraŭ la ekzekuto de du gejaj adoleskantoj  la 5an de Aŭgusto 2005 en Manilo (Filipinoj)

el neniammilitointerni

Two LGBTQ activists Condemned to death in Iran

The UN declared that it was "Very concerned" after the death sentence judgement in Iran against two same sex rights activists. They are accused of promoting homosexuality. 

Both women, 31 year old Zahra Sedighi Hamedani and 24 year old Elham Chubdar were condemned to death by a tribunal in Urmia in the northwest of Iran. 

"We are deeply concerned by the decision to sentence two LGBTQ activists to death in Iran" said Liz Throssell spokesperson for the bureau of rights at the UN. 

She lamented that the two women were condemned "on the basis of a vague charge of `corruption on earth` and denied a fair legal trial". 

This verdict is often given to those accused of violating the religious laws. 

Homosexuality is prohibited in Iran, whose penal code punishes sexual relations between men and between women.

But the punishments for Sedighi Hamedani and Elham Chubadar are especially severe. Amnesty International and other Non-governmental Organisations are opposing these sentences. 

The NGO Human Rights in Iran (based in Norway) declared, that the lives of both activists "can be saved by the immediate and forceful reaction of the international community and civil society".

Two LGBTQI activists sentenced to death: the facts

Take Action: https://action.allout.org/en/m/66561cda/ Iranian judiciary has sentenced two LGBTQI activists to death for corruption on earth 6Rang calls for the immediate retraction of the death sentence, and the release of Zahra Sadighi Hamedani (Sareh) and Elham Choubdar. Sareh and Elham were sentenced to death last week due to their work as LGBTQI rights activists, under fabricated charges. The Islamic Republic of Iran has a long record of repressing activists in this field, as well as ordering executions based on false charges. See the factsheet to find out more. https://6rang.org/english/3331/ Take Action: https://action.allout.org/en/m/66561cda/ 

 

Irano: GLATaj aktivulinoj estis kondamnitaj al morto: Unuiĝintaj Nacioj sin deklaras tre maltrankvila

UN deklaris sin « tre maltrankvila » post la kondamno al morto decidita en Irano kontraŭ du aktivulinoj pri rajtoj de samseksemuloj. Ili estas akuzitaj fari promocion de samseksemo.  

Ambaŭ virinoj, Zahra Sedighi Hamedani, 31-jara kaj Elham Chubdar, 24-jara estis kondamnitaj al morto fare de tribunalo de Urmijo, nord-okcidente de la lando.

« Ni estas profunde maltrankvilaj pro la kondamno al morto decidita kontraŭ du GLATaj aktivulinoj en Irano », deklaris Liz Throssell, porparolanto de la buroo de la rajtoj ĉe UN.

Ŝi bedaŭris, ke ambaŭ virinoj estis kondamnitaj « surbaze de la malklara akuzo nomita "koruptado sur la Tero", post proceso, kiu ne estis garantiata de laŭleĝa kaj justa procesa proceduro ».

Tiu verdikto estas ofta en Irano kontraŭ personoj akuzataj, ke ili malobservis la religiajn leĝojn.

Samseksemo estas malpermesita en Irano, ĝia punkodo punas la seksajn rilatojn inter viroj kaj inter virinoj.

Sed la punoj deciditaj kontraŭ Sedighi Hamedani kaj Elham Chubdar estas aparte severaj. Internacia Amnestio kaj aliaj NeRegistaraj Organizaĵoj jam kontraŭis tiujn kondamnojn.

La NRO Iran Human Rights, bazita en Norvegio deklaris, ke la vivo de ambaŭ aktivulinoj « povas esti savita per tujaj kaj fortaj reagoj de la internacia komunumo kaj de la civita socio ».  

 

 

Uncommon Sense - scattered thoughts on Constitutions and Monarchy

 

Elizabeth II has died, which isn't news to most people given the global media blitz. I'm not really that interested in this development, I typed up a short bit and got bored after about three paragraphs. What's more interesting to me though is the concept of constitutional monarchy in general and its role in governance. Viewed from the outside it's easy to write off as just another anachronism but currently there are over 30 nations with variations on this system, so it must have something going for it.

I've been active in republican circles for a few years, I rarely bother to bring up this topic here, as I assume its one of the few topics that would have universal agreement that all aristocratic systems should be shown the door. But given that I can't escape it for at least another week I might as well take the opportunity to get this down. Arguments from supporters of monarchy are usually not much to worry about, they tend to come in two varieties, a strange D&D - or Game of Thrones if you're more familiar - fantastical traditionalism or just nakedly bizarre sycophancy. 

I've encountered one exception, and its the constitutional monarchy makes for stable governance. I'll let Emma Ashford senior fellow at the Stimson Center (whatever that is) outline it.

A constitutional monarchy is one of the best systems of government available. The monarch has little-to-no real power, but fills the role of figurehead and acts as a constitutional block, making it harder for demagogues and would-be dictators to abuse their power.

Why this definition? Honestly, just because its the most recent version I've come across. I'm not exaggerating when I say I've seen variations of this argument over a hundred times. Usually there will be a link to an article or graph showing the standards of living in Western Europe. Essentially the argument is that out of all the various systems of government that the human race has tried across the globe and throughout time, the one that's delivered the best results have been constitutional monarchies.

The annoying thing to this argument is that there is some truth to it. I think it's undeniable that this system has strong advantages, but those advantages are not for the people or subjects, the benefits lay with those who make up the governors of society. Regarding the system used in the UK and other European nations as they're the ones I'm most familiar with, the Crown is an important anchor for the system. Most critics of monarchy call these kings and queens political figureheads, and in most cases this is correct though many critics jump to the conclusion that this makes them largely superficial and can be ignored if the individuals in the fancy hats are behaving themselves,which I feel is a mistake.

In my view I believe these figureheads are key features of the wider political order and have proven to be invaluable in buffering them from systemic opposition. You may think I'm referring to their popularity, but I think that's only part of it. The popularity of the crown is the work of propaganda, not just through the media but through all branches of society. This level of manufactured (I do not mean fake here) popularity can be achieved for political leaders of all kinds. I've seen Americans treat current and former Presidents with the same reverence British royalists treat the Windsors, and the French have a complex relationship to De Gaulle in a way that's not dissimilar to dynastic legacies. And practically every dictator is criticised for trying to get their people to love and worship them. 

And this propaganda can also back fire, there have been several occasions where the Crown was extremely unpopular in British history, Victoria had to dodge several assassins and the death of princess Dianna and that infamous televised interview with Prince Andrew stick out as obvious examples. 

In the UK the crown is officially an unelected, and unaccountable but quiet head of state, while the legislative and executive functions of the state are handled by parliament. This means that all the really unpopular actions of government, taxes, war, service cuts, laws etc, are handled by the elected politicians with the Crown providing a rubber stamp function. This essentially channels discontent at parliament since they're the ones causing problems while the rest of the British system appears to be functioning as intended. And since parliament is elected the easiest and quickest way to address pressing current issues isn't fundamental reform or revolutionary action, its voting for the opposition to replace the Prime Minister. Or at least that's what appears to be the easiest and quickest way to get things done in this system.

It's also worth keeping in mind how the UK monarchy became constitutional. Originally the Kingdoms of England and Scotland had very powerful Kings with little in the way of checks and balances and sharing of power. Events forced these two kingdoms and the later combined kingdom to adapt and make room. Magna Carta, the Civil Wars and the Glorious Revolution were noticeable flash points that set the course for constitutional rule. But these moves while popular with the commoners were directed and controlled largely by other powerful groups, the Barons and the landed gentry, and the slower push to strengthen parliament at the expense of the aristocrats over the 1700s-1900s was pushed heavily by the rising class of industrialists. So it doesn't really surprised me that a political process dominated by these groups produced a system where they more or less coexist and overlap.

Now I don't think this is the only reason why Norway and the UK and the Netherlands are more politically stable than other countries, but I think its a factor in explaining inertia. To take an anecdotal example, I don't like paying taxes and in the UK the monarch is the head of the tax services the HM in HMRC, but if the monarchy is abolished the tax system would still work as before, so my best bet is to support the dismantling of the whole social and economic order and support the creation of a new one, but this is difficult, takes a long time and is very dangerous and dependent on the involvement of others. I can also vote for a rival party with a taxation policy I find less egregious. 

This inertia gives the system some time to sink in and develop, which adds tradition and custom to the tools of governance. I don't find either particularly compelling but quite a few people do respond positively to both, and after a few years have passed there's a strong impression of inevitability that's very difficult to counter. I don't just mean in questions of how the state should be run and how its head is chosen, I've found this to be the case generally when trying to advocate for change of any kind. If what we're opposing has been around for a length of time the biggest obstacle to getting people onboard is this sense of inevitability, even if they already agree that change is needed. 

I know I'm speaking generally here, despite this pressure valve there have been times when many constitutional monarchies have faced turmoil, and some republics have enjoyed long stretches of social passivity. Despite being the best argument monarchists have it still has its flaws.

I'm not really interested in a political republic so much as I'm interested in challenging reactionary ideology and the support structures of the political order. And since the land I live in and a large chunk of the planet and its population live under this system I think it's worth exploring.

I don't wish to give the impression that this is a perfect tool for statecraft. Despite how long lived many of these kingdoms are they have their flaws and vulnerabilities. By maintaining aristocratic relations the UK and others are declaring that they as societies have accepted that some humans are born to special positions of power and stewardship. Which is probably an added incentive to keep these expenses relics around for the wider political establishment. Republican capitalism has to rely on the myth of meritocracy alone, rewards come to those who work hard. The UK uses an uncomfortable mix of both ideals, when critics of the royals get too noisy to ignore a common defence is a loud claim that the royals are in fact hard working, which may or may not be true, but it raises complications over their wealth and privileges and why exactly they should be entitled to them. Are they entitled to palatial estates because they're special, or because they work so hard? If it's the latter why not abolish titles and let them keep earning, if the former why have them work at all? 

Contradictions and frictions like that are why criticism from even the bourgeois politicians never goes away no matter how popular individual monarchs are. 

I think the overall role and its effect is why despite record dissatisfaction with the royal family in the UK the main republican groups have failed to have much of a presence, and why their positions are so trivial sounding. Republic effectively just wants to replace the Crown with a European style presidency, with the rest of the British system remaining as is. Why bother dedicating time and resources for years to such a minor change? And why don't these groups commit themselves to more substantial reforms? 

Thanks to France we know that the republic alone is not sufficient to build a society free of inequalities, exploitation and violence. So to narrow their scopes to minor constitutional tinkering shows they are either are fine with the fundamental injustices of modern capitalist society and are not interested or capable of playing a role in the struggles for a better way of life.

Monarchy regardless of its flavour is incompatible with communism so any serious move towards it would have to be anti-monarchist to some degree. It is possible to be a republican without being a communist but I don't really see the appeal. 

Does any of this actually matter?

In a nutshell these groups also get in the way. It's quite frustrating really, I think the response from much of the British left and the trade union officials is a good example of the practical effects of this system. Many MPs and political commentators were quick to publicly express sympathy and condolences and the CWU and RMT have cancelled upcoming strike action, and Extinction Rebellion called off a demonstration. I don't know if all of the people here are personally royalists or not, and a fear of unpopularity may be the main motivator, but I also think an awareness that to challenge the crown is an escalation of their activities on more radical ground. The TUC unions and Labour's left try to confine their action and disputes to limited fights with private companies and the government ministries that are connected to those industries. And even then the focus is on applying pressure to get leverage at negotiations. 

It is bizarre in the extreme to see people whose jobs and identities are supposed to be about representation and support of the workers and vulnerable in society prostrate themselves before institutional wealth and social hierarchy but simply put, they don't really care that much how the state is arranged and so don't want to risk undermining themselves by getting into a wider spat over how power is exercised even on this limited plane.

Its less that the TUC, Labour et al should be diehard Jacobins* and more that this country has a very large and quite well connected labour movement the vast majority of which is perfectly fine with things carrying on as they are overall. And the lack of serious challenge to the Crown even on the rare occasion it becomes an active impediment to what this movement does like to do is a pretty good example of this crippling limitation.

Bastani's response to the massive backlash is that this comment was value neutral and not a contradiction with his stated republican views. I struggle to read it in that light, and if that was the intention rewriting would be the better option. It also makes an equation ala Louis XIV "I am the state" which I wouldn't go as far.

On paper the Crown should be the most vulnerable part of the whole political establishment. Even by the logic of capitalism rewarding a few families large sums of money, land, and access to government because four hundred years ago their ancestor married someone else, just doesn't make sense. Especially when you consider that most royals in the world today are capitalists in their own right.  And yet frequently the reality is that it proves to be quite resilient. 

So, what is to be done? Well, focusing on the Crown to exclusion of all else, the way of Republic doesn't seem to have born much fruit, but on the other hand ignoring it as a relic or minor institution as is common amongst the more radical parts also doesn't seem to have worked out very well. I suppose I'd argue directly challenging it where it has an impact and keeping it in the wider criticism of the whole political and economic system**. Not because I believe a thriving republican movement can springboard a revolution of the proletariat, but because they simply are part of the wider political and economic system along with transnational corporations, land owners, state run industries, etc. 

Essentially try to make it the vulnerable point it should be but as a wedge to expose the rest of the system instead of settling for a re-enactment of the French Convention.

I think the Class War Federation had an approach that was close to what I'm thinking of. They didn't focus on the royal family but would produce material and actions when it seemed relevant.

_________________________________________________________

*my years in republican circles have largely been disappointing, but they did mean I met several key figures in Britain's left, so I can say with certainty that quite a few of them as private individual think this whole blue blood thing its nonsense, 

**I haven't really touched on this much but the modern aristocracy in the UK are capitalists in their own right, owning land and companies and I know from experience with my local Earl they use their privileges and status as much as possible in pursuing their business interests

Well that's it then she's dead

 

I like this photo, it looks like a servant is tugging on the string to make her talk

Today Elizabeth II died aged 96, I found out when a 70s music marathon on a local tv station was interrupted, the song was all by myself if you're curious. I'd expected more emotion really, I have been spending much of the afternoon waiting for announcement by trying to wind up royalists on twitter, but even the level of sycophancy has been muted. At least that's how it appears to me, time will tell whether this is an important sign of the times or whether the patriotic machine needed some time to kick into gear.

I know when Philip died I avoided tv and talk radio like the plague for a week, record complaints over the officially mandated mourning period shows this wasn't an isolated experience. Checking back in an hour later all five national channels have round the clock tributes posing as news broadcasts but the extra channels on the freeview remain unsullied. 

Well I hope this'll be the final mortal wound that ends the institution. The monarchy has been rotting away for some time, I've lost count over the years how many people who differentiated their positive feelings for the queen from their growing indifference or in the case of the sleazier ones open contempt for the rest. The overseas commonwealth nations that have the monarch as the head of state are shrinking in number and Charles has done nothing to endear himself despite nearly a years head start. I kinda hope they do go through with their planned compulsory mourning with no sport and comedy and constant solemn sessions, it'll be hell for a week or two but it'll kill a lot of the lingering good feelings.

If this is the beginning of the end I'll take it, but I'm a little annoyed it went the whimper route and we didn't get a bang like this.

Ukraine's border guards deport refugees

After Russian forces began offensive operations in February much of the work of the state in Ukraine was put on hold as the country shifted to a war footing. And that included the bureaucratic processing of foreigners. Many people who had applied for residency or asylum and had been waiting in limbo for years had even more obstacles. In recent months much of the Ukrainian state services have started to resume normal operating procedures, and this has meant that for many people living in the country they now face harassment and deportation by its border and migration services.

Deportation and forcible detention are shocking and violent everywhere they're used, but with the added traumas and dangers of open conflict and the added insult that many of those targeted had supported Ukraine in its defence efforts either through going the Territorial Defence units or volunteering, it seems like the Ukrainian government is saying thanks for the help, now get out. 

I've seen reports that Belarusians are being targeted because the system for their entry into Ukraine required frequent renewal but the process to renew was frozen during the invasion. And recently I've just learnt that Ilshat Sharafullin a Tartar nationalist who advocates for an independent Tartarstan who had requested asylum in Ukraine in 2020. During the invasion he joined a defence unit for Kyiv and had been trying to join the Ukrainian armed forces when he was detained by the Ukrainian Security Service which has attempted to deport him to Moldova, though the Moldovan border guard refused to accept him, so he is currently stuck on the border between the two countries.

From the website of the Free Idel-Ural Movement

"Free Idel-Ural" learned that on September 6, the Security Service of Ukraine will deport Tatar nationalist Ilshat Sharafullin, who publicly advocates Tatarstan's exit from the Russian Federation, to Moldova.

Sharafullin from the city of Yar Challa, Republic of Tatarstan. He is 47 years old. In 2020, he illegally crossed the border with Ukraine and asked for political asylum. He lived in Sumy for a year and a half and was waiting for a decision on his status. Later he moved to Odessa.

On February 26, two days after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, he arrived in Kyiv and joined the ranks of the Territorial Defense of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, wanting to take part in the battles against the Russians.

In recent weeks, Ilshat has been trying to sign up for a contract with the Armed Forces, he has been living with one of our colleagues in Kyiv. On Friday, September 2, he stopped communicating, and on Tuesday evening he sent a message that he was detained by the SBU and taken to the border with Moldova, where they tried to deport him, but the Moldovan border guards refused to let him into Moldova. Now Ilshat is in the neutral lane, he does not know at which border crossing point he is. Moldova does not let him in and Ukraine does not take him back.

The deportation of Ilshat Sharafullin will inevitably result in his extradition to the FSB of the Russian Federation by Moldovan law enforcement officers. The SBU understands this, so it did not hand over the Tatar nationalist directly to the FSB. What awaits in the Russian Federation a person who openly advocates the independence of Tatarstan and joined the Territorial Defense of the Armed Forces of Ukraine is probably clear to everyone.

UPDATE . 21:00: Ilshat reported that he is at the Mamalyga border crossing point in Chernivtsi region. He was detained by the Lviv Department of the SBU and is trying to forcefully deport him to the territory of Moldova.

This isn't exceptional, Ukraine is doing what every country including the UK is. It finds certain kinds of people to be a burden and so opts to get rid of them, that this often puts these people at extreme risk of discrimination, persecution and even death just isn't something they care about. Currently the war is going very badly for the Russian Federation and Ukraine is rebuilding in many parts of the country, and this includes the Ukrainian government getting back to legislating and administering the country and its population. Unless opposition to polices like the Migration Services increase then more and more people who went to Ukraine seeking sanctuary will find themselves either at a border post or forced to live in the country illegally. 

An old socialist wisdom goes "the worker has no homeland" it is also just as true that the powerless have no genuine friends amongst the powerful, only alliances of convenience. 

In the UK the offensively cruel Rwanda flights were defeated by the actions of committed protesters who delayed the flights long enough to get each person a legal team to lodge injunctions, and in the process gave researchers time to publish the financial costs and the pain and injury inflicted on the detainees. And resistance to border force raids have grown and are slowly spreading. Solidarity when it goes beyond words is a powerful weapon. 

Concerning that Amnesty report on Ukraine

On the 4th of August noted human rights NGO Amnesty International released a report on the conduct of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) in its conflict with the Russian Armed Forces (RAF). Its called Ukrainian Fighting Tactics Endanger Civilians. That this report proved controversial is an understatement. Most Ukrainians I follow on social media were alarmed and criticisms included some accusations of bias and even pro RAF corruption. Meanwhile the small number of Putin propagandists I've encountered were ecstatic, even gleeful.

I've read the report and it left me with some concerns. I've relied on Amnesty International's research in the past so this isn't the first report by them that I've read. My previous experience with the group's work left me a bit surprised by this report. I don't have any proof of corruption, although you could make a case that the way its writing points towards an editorial bias I didn't think there was anything that could be singled out as conclusive in that regard. Until Amnesty International's Ukraine branch made a public statement about it that is, I'll get to that statement later.

The Report

Before becoming aware of the context of this report and its publication history the word that I would've chosen for this report was sloppy. Its premise is clear, it says upfront that it is a documentation of several instances were the AFU has in Amnesty's view put Ukrainian civilians in harms way. However to support this conclusion and in my view to make this look like a consistent tactic by the AFU its supported its limited evidence with incidents that don't really fit the pattern its trying to establish. 

It helpfully outlines its three key points at the top of the document.

• Military bases set up in residential areas including schools and hospitals  
• Attacks launched from populated civilian areas 
• Such violations in no way justify Russia’s indiscriminate attacks, which have killed and injured countless civilians

And its at the beginning that problems arise. Its all well and good saying that RAF attacks on civilians aren't justified, but the way the report is written gives a very strong impression that the AFU is the cause and the RAF bombardments are the effect. 

Such tactics violate international humanitarian law and endanger civilians, as they turn civilian objects into military targets. The ensuing Russian strikes in populated areas have killed civilians and destroyed civilian infrastructure. 

So, unless the reader is of the opinion that an army should take no actions against a hostile force than yes this does imply some level of justification. But implication and inference are subjective so let's move on to the other problems with the report. 

Early in the report this paragraph appears,

Not every Russian attack documented by Amnesty International followed this pattern, however. In certain other locations in which Amnesty International concluded that Russia had committed war crimes, including in some areas of the city of Kharkiv, the organization did not find evidence of Ukrainian forces located in the civilian areas unlawfully targeted by the Russian military.

This isn't the last time the report will acknowledge that RAF actions have followed the same pattern without AFU activity that is criticised in this report.  Its good that there is some attempt to be open about the limitations but this raises an important issue that isn't address in the report. How does Amnesty International know that the presence of the AFU is responsible for RAF military activities if it is well documented even by Amnesty that the RAF behaves in the same manner without the AFU being present? Well there are ways to increase the likelihood of a definitive answer, direct statements from the RAF, intercepted calls and leaked battle reports would be pretty solid evidence. Anything else is ultimately assumption even if it seems perfectly logical or what you would do if you were in the position of an officer in the RAF.

Some, of the incidents documented by Amnesty that include the AFU firing on RAF positions then those same positions direct fire at the AFUpositions seem pretty convincing, but there are few such incidents documented. But there are few such cases in the report, and most of them say the AFU was operating near civilian areas not within them. The report also states that most of these strikes were on AFU units well behind the front lines which would mean very little direct military action from the AFU toward the RAF.

Most residential areas where soldiers located themselves were kilometres away from front lines. Viable alternatives were available that would not endanger civilians – such as military bases or densely wooded areas nearby, or other structures further away from residential areas. 

Emphasis mine

I've bolded the last part of this paragraph because I think its rather telling. The report authors are aware that since there is in fact a war on, pragmatism has to take priority. Under the framework they've laid out here any presence of the AFU in or near a civilian population is a provocation to the RAF. Amnesty's report makes no attempt to prove this assertion in any of the cases it documents, and I for one would like to know how they came to that conclusion. To make such a statement they would have to know the complete dispositions of both AFU and RAF in the area, the balance of power between them and their strategic objectives. Since Amnesty couldn't possibly know any of this is just assumptions on its part. 

Under this definition any and all attempts to defend a population centre from capture or occupation fall under the umbrella term of human shielding provided someone could find a patch of open terrain in the rough area of the fighting. 

Though Amnesty needs to establish that this is the case because most of its documented incidents took place in areas that were frontline battlefield during the period April-July, and still are close to the fighting.

Survivors and witnesses of Russian strikes in the Donbas, Kharkiv and Mykolaiv regions told Amnesty International researchers that the Ukrainian military had been operating near their homes around the time of the strikes, exposing the areas to retaliatory fire from Russian forces. Amnesty International researchers witnessed such conduct in numerous locations.

These are all areas of fierce fighting with frontlines that have moved with offensives and counter offensives. Battles aren't easily directed and are not predictable so I'm not surprised that AFU units have gotten close to civilian areas considering there is a war for control of territory. While the survivors stories are horrible to hear, but they aren't proof of deliberate policy to bring civilians into harms way. To be blunt, what Amnesty's report is accusing the Ukrainian Army of doing is using its population as a human shield, as that is the only logical reason a military would place its military within a civilian population with no legitimate military reason to do so.

This accusation is not proving by any of the things the report brings up and is contradicted by the overwhelming number of RAF attacks on civilian targets all over Ukraine, from Kyiv to Lviv and Odessa, they have launched thousands of missiles at cities, towns and villages nowhere near the frontlines and so have made it abundantly clear that the presence of Ukrainians or even the Russian minority will not deter them from launching attacks.

 

Mykola, who lives in a tower block in a neighbourhood of Lysychansk (Donbas) that was repeatedly struck by Russian attacks which killed at least one older man, told Amnesty International: “I don’t understand why our military is firing from the cities and not from the field.” Another resident, a 50-year-old man, said: “There is definitely military activity in the neighbourhood. When there is outgoing fire, we hear incoming fire afterwards.” Amnesty International researchers witnessed soldiers using a residential building some 20 metres from the entrance of the underground shelter used by the residents where the older man was killed.

It would also help transparency if Amnesty dated its quotations, the report was compiled between April and July so I assume Mykola was interviewed in April but cannot be sure. The reason I assume this, is because Lysychansk has been under Russian occupation since July 1st after a bitter week of fighting which was after a month of fighting in the surrounding area with the AFU gradually withdrawing while the RAF made slow advances. Amnesty released this report yesterday (4th of August) yet this fact is not mentioned at all. This is schocking for a neutral organisation, as it stands Mykola's commentary reads as if the AFU were callously putting lives at risk with their presence, when Mykola had the misfortune to live in a key area of conflict. Lyschansk is in the Luhansk Oblast, and has been close to fighting and turmoil since 2014 and its capture was an open objective of the RAF.  Amnesty may well genuinely believe that the needs of defence do not justify the actions of the AFU in Lysychansk and other similar areas, and is entitled to that believe. But that does not justify deliberately withholding important context to make its case seem more damning. 

I'm not an expert on Ukrainian geography but Lysychansk in Donbas jumped out to me as I'd been following the Ukraine conflict quite closely during the battle for it. Since most of the other anecdotes come from similar frontline areas I wouldn't be surprised if a similar context presented itself.

Amnesty International researchers witnessed Ukrainian forces using hospitals as de facto military bases in five locations. In two towns, dozens of soldiers were resting, milling about, and eating meals in hospitals. In another town, soldiers were firing from near the hospital.

A Russian air strike on 28 April injured two employees at a medical laboratory in a suburb of Kharkiv after Ukrainian forces had set up a base in the compound.

Using hospitals for military purposes is a clear violation of international humanitarian law.

 Lot to unpack here. The key detail is using a hospital for military purposes. Its perfectly fine to make use of a hospital as a hospital provided its clearly designated as a hospital. This quotation is the extent of the reports comments on hospitals, it apart from saying the AFU fired from a position "near" a hospital without specifying none of the occasions listed contain any accusations of them using them for military purposes. Resting and eating and "milling about" aren't antagonistic acts.

The Geneva Convention's Article 19 states 

The fact that sick or wounded members of the armed forces are nursed in these hospitals, or the presence of small arms and ammunition taken from such combatants and not yet been handed to the proper service, shall not be considered to be acts harmful to the enemy.

The article also makes provisions for what should be done if it is believed that a hospital is being used for military purposes.  

The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit and after such warning has remained unheeded.

Simply Amnesty is being misleading here, the usage of civilian hospitals in war time is heavily regulated by the Geneva Conventions to allow usage by military forces. The only incident mentioned that would qualify as an act harmful to the enemy is the case where AFU forces fired on RAF positions near a hospital. And then the RAF response is supposed to follow a set pattern assuming the RAF believed the AFU fire came from the hospital itself. Though curiously the report doesn't mention the RAF's response in that case so we do not know if they complied with the Conventions.

The only time a RAF response is documented is an attack on a medical laboratory in Kharkiv on the 28th of April. But in that report there is no mention of the AFU taking any action harmful to the enemy. According to Amnesty they were targeted for "setting up a base in the compound" but doesn't say what that base was or what it was doing. That they don't say is kinda suspicious, and they also don't register any attempt by the RAF to issue a warning or a time limit to cease aggressive acts before their airforce bombed it. So this is evidence of a RAF violation of international humanitarian law but its framed as a Ukrainian violation.

This section should've been cut, it misrepresents international law and has no substantial commentary or evidence. Its inclusion is not a positive indicator.

The Ukrainian military has routinely set up bases in schools in towns and villages in Donbas and in the Mykolaiv area. Schools have been temporarily closed to students since the conflict  began, but in most cases the buildings were located close to populated civilian neighbourhoods 

I've highlighted the bit about school closures because the report accuses the Ukrainian government of taking no action to protect the civilian population since international humanitarian customs and law do in fact make provision for a military to defend urban areas the key plank in Amnesty's framing actually resides on a lack of measures to limit harm to the civilian population. But this is contradicted here since there is a policy of school closures in areas of active fighting or close to it like Donbas and Mykolaiv. I should also note that I have seen the Ukrainian government arrange evacuations for areas close to the frontlines including in Donbas and Kharkiv, which is another reason why a timeline of events is crucial information since it would show whether or not the AFU actions in this report happened before or during an evacuation policy in the areas they took place in. If all of these events took place before evacuation policies and curfews were put in place it wouldn't be enough to condemn the AFU but it would support Amnesty's view a bit, though in the interests of transparency they should acknowledge and note when those policies were applied in the areas covered.

Back to schools, I get why this is included and it's not a good sign. Simply put if a school is not in use and the army in question does not disguise it as if it is, then it's simply an empty building and fine for military usage. It is not against international law. However soldiers in schools i.e. the domain of children is an unpleasant image and I've seen similar reports about RAF occupation of schools for the same reason. Though at least their some of the schools were being shown because the RAF were accused of forcing civilians into them and refusing to let them leave even when there was combat, or there was evidence of torture. 

Amnesty just documents AFU members being in an empty building and then the RAF attacks them. 

International humanitarian law does not specifically ban parties to a conflict from basing themselves in schools that are not in session. However, militaries have an obligation to avoid using schools that are near houses or apartment buildings full of civilians, putting these lives at risk, unless there is a compelling military need. If they do so, they should warn civilians and, if necessary, help them evacuate. This did not appear to have happened in the cases examined by Amnesty International. 

No attempt is made by Amnesty International to establish a compelling military need or its absence, though again since it should be kept in mind largely confined to the Donbas and Mykolaiv oblasts, both sites of heavy fighting as both the AFU and RAF fight for control. 

Ukraine is one of 114 countries that have endorsed the Safe Schools Declaration, an agreement to protect education amid armed conflict, which allows parties to make use of abandoned or evacuated schools only where there is no viable alternative. 

This is true, but since the Amnesty report made no effort to establish a viable alternative and it is not clear whether or not they even have a framework for determination most of the section of the report regarding schools shouldn't have been including as the key determining factors for whether or not this would constitute a violation of international law have not been proved.

The final section is a brief section condemning indiscriminate attacks by Russian forces. At a glance this may seem like a welcome attempt to add some balance and allay fears that Amnesty is criticising the defenders in a war started by the other side, but it also includes some issues for the reports neutrality and accuracy. 

Many of the Russian strikes that Amnesty International documented in recent months were carried out with inherently indiscriminate weapons, including internationally banned cluster munitions, or with other explosive weapons with wide area effects. Others used guided weapons with varying levels of accuracy; in some cases, the weapons were precise enough to target specific objects.

This is true but it raises some issues, since the RAF widely use indiscriminate attacks then how exactly does it know that the AFU actions prompted the attacks? The evidence Amnesty uses is proximity of attacks to AFU positions that have also been determined to be in or near a civilian area. But the only time in the report the accuracy of the weapons used in RAF strikes is mentioned it is an indiscriminate attack using cluster munitions over a neighbourhood.

In one town in Donbas on 6 May, Russian forces used widely banned and inherently indiscriminate cluster munitions over a neighbourhood of mostly single or two-storey homes where Ukrainian forces were operating artillery. Shrapnel damaged the walls of the house where Anna, 70, lives with her son and 95-year-old mother. 

The presence of artillery makes this case a highly likely example of what Amnesty alleges in the report so its no surprise this is one of the few incidents to receive a detailed recounting. Ultimately Amnesty's report is up against the right of defence. Wars are situations of constant change but in situations were one nation has invaded another the main (though not sole) determiner of where the fighting happens is the aggressor power.

The defender which in this case is Ukraine is usually reactive and on a short notice, where it puts its troops and how often it depends on what the attacker is doing. So while it can be argued that the AFU's actions in many of these cases contributed to the harm or potential harm of civilians closest to them, that isn't inherently a breach of international law, it depends on what the military is doing in that area, what its opponents are doing, and if their are viable alternatives and crucially if the military leadership knew about these alternatives and made conscious decisions to not use them. So for these events to count as breaches we would need to know all of this information for every single incident documented otherwise what the AFU is doing is unfortunate but ultimately a result of the wider conflict.

And to be perfectly honest Amnesty International is clearly just using its reputation to do the work of proving its case for it. It says the AFU is doing these things for no real military reason and since Amnesty International are regarded as experts we're supposed to take them at their word. And as the Lysychansk incident previously covered has shown, even my extremely limited knowledge of Ukraine has given me reason to seriously question a lot of their judgements.

The report concludes with this statement.

Amnesty International contacted the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence with the findings of the research on 29 July 2022. At the time of publication, they had not yet responded.

Which did not stand out to me at the time of reading, but became important once the situation developed.

The context

After this report was published Amnesty International's Ukraine branch went public with a series of criticisms of the report. Their statement in Ukrainian can be found here. an English translation was provided here.

To summarise, this report while based on the work of Ukrainian Amnesty International workers, in an active warzone was written by the international office with the Ukrainian branch having no input in its compiling. In addition the Ukrainian office had voiced a series of complaints and worries about the report that were ignored by the higher office. Also the decision to ask for a response from the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence was a concession to the Ukrainian branch, only the report was published soon after the request was made. So that concluding statement about receiving no reply is a deliberate manipulation. 

The Ukrainian office's criticism of this report was so strong that they have refused to share or translate it. The head of Amnesty International Agnes Callmard has branded critics of the report trolls, which includes the organisation's own Ukrainian office. The head of the Ukrainian office Oksana Pokalchuk has since resigned citing the refusal of Amnesty International's central administration to respond to her over this report. 

So the answer to this reports shortcomings is clear. It ignored the team on the ground and refused to acknowledge criticism. Before I read the criticism of Amnesty International Ukraine, I would've assumed that Amnesty International had bowed to the pressure of its neutral positioning and rushed out a report after receiving a handful of reports of the AFU potentially putting people in harms way. This would explain the vagueness of many of the incidents and the lack of follow up or proof for the parts that actually relate to international law. 

I thought this because Amnesty has written up several important reports and investigations relating to the activities of the RAF. Though of course, those reports were written by the same Ukrainian team now side lined. So, given the sheer overwhelming accounts of conflict atrocities laid at the hand of the RAF and its auxiliaries, Amnesty head office were worried that they needed to provide some criticism of the AFU for balance, and in the process sidelined their own hard working and life risking activists and staff in Ukraine.  

Its a terrible report whose shortcomings are being used as propaganda, and that Amnesty caused a rift with a dedicated human rights team in Ukraine to write it is pretty sad. Amnesty for its faults is an important resource for documenting and fighting injustice, I hope the damage this causes to the organisation and its reputation is not fatal but forces them to recognise this is the wrong way to go and they rebuild. 

The message that in war the civilian population pay the highest price is an important one to spread, but if you take a strict adherence to a legal framework like Amnesty does, you have to actually prove the requirements for a legal violation. This report deliberately distorts international law and takes a number of incidents many of which are highly dubious to allege a consistent and deliberate pattern. I sympathise with the civilians interviewed in the report, but their calamities were brought about by the conflict itself and so far their is nothing in Amnesty's report to prove that the AFU are acting recklessly or deliberately vindictively. 

There is also a danger that with this reports exploitation for propaganda and the destruction of trust between the international organisation and the Ukrainian office, if the AFU or Ukrainian government does embark on policies that violate human rights its unlikely that Amnesty will be able to mount an effective opposition. I am not a Ukrainian troll or patriot, the right to defence does not give a power and free hand to behave how it likes. If the AFU are committing human rights violations I want to know about it so we can take steps to stop it. But thanks to this report and the way it was published if Amnesty International is the source I'll have to await independent confirmation. 

The Revolutionary Called Nestor (no not Makhno, the other one)

 

The Russian revolution catapulted a Ukrainian peasant to world fame. Nestor Makhno the anarcho-communist military leader whose campaigns in Ukraine secured the survival of a federation of collectives across a territory large than England, and a population estimated in the millions. This federation became known as the Free Territory and its been an inspiration and a warning to many revolutionary minded groups and individuals ever since.

This is not that story. No, this is instead a commentary on the other Nestor active during the Russian revolution, Nestor Alexandrovich Kalandarishvili, born in Georgia on the 8th of July 1876, and killed in an ambush on the 6th of March 1922. Nestor Kalandarishvili isn't as well known as Nestor Makhno, but he is not totally forgotten. Wikipedia has an article about his life in several languages, including English. And the Anarchist historian Nick Heath included a short biographical sketch of him in a three part series on former Anarchists who joined the Bolsheviks. 

It was Nick Heath's work where I first discovered this other Nestor. I think his life is deserving of a wider recognition as it may have strong relevance for the movement today. Nestor Kalandarishvili seems to have been a bit of a `joiner` as over a period of 22 years he moved from one revolutionary group or party to another. He appears to have become active in the revolutionary underground of the Russian Empire in 1900 when resuming his studies after completing military service. Initially he fell under the Social Revolutionary party, and then later joined the Georgian Socialist-Federalist Revolutionary Party, before moving onto Anarchism after taking part in Batumi revolt, a local Georgian uprising that was part of the unrest during the 1905 Russian Revolution. Kalandarishvili also took part in an uprising in 1907 in the Gurian republic which was crushed by the Tsar during a campaign to roll back the gains of the 1905 Revolution. Kalandarishvili was imprisoned in Siberia, he would remain in Siberia for the rest of his life.

In 1917 when the February Revolution succeeded in toppling the Tsar an amnesty for political prisoners freed both Nestor Makhno and Nestor Kalandarishvili. Kalandarishvili built a small military unit of Anarchists which defeated a local counter revolutionary force made up of land owners and minor nobility. His forces grew to the equivalent size of a division and was recruited mainly from local peasants and workers and anarchists who had been exiled to Siberia for political crimes. During the civil war Nestor Kalandarishvili's forces operated throughout Siberia, and battle White Army forces led by Semenov, Kappel and Baron Ungern. His many victories made him famous under the nickname Grandpa, though a defeat in late 1918 forced him once to retreat into Mongolia with several hundred men. He was such a thorn that Admiral Kolchak the nominal leader of the White Army put a bounty of 40,000 roubles on his head. In 1919 as Nestor's band moved to the vicinity of Irkutsk and attack White forces in the area local Bolsheviks approached him with offers of an alliance. 

By 1920 this alliance had driven the White Army and their Japanese support out of Irkutsk and established a Soviet administration with the creation of the Far Eastern Republic. In 1921 Nestor Kalandarishvili was invited to a meeting with Vladimir Lenin. After the meeting Kalandarishvili publicly renounced Anarchism and became a Bolshevik, he was at the same time given supreme military command of the Far East Republic with the power to appoint or dismiss officers of the units under his command. He also became head of the Korean War Council, a body that was supposed to be the supreme body for Korean revolutionary fighting groups. He clashed with Korean Anarchist fighting units when they refused to accept officers he had promoted to lead them, including former officers of the White army.

He used his influence to impede and disarmed units that wouldn't accept his authority until his death in an ambush in 1922 while fighting the Yakut rebels, one of the last actions of the civil war. After his death he was elevated into a hero of the Soviet state, many streets and factories and collective farms were named after him.

This ends the brief biography of the life and death of Nestor Kalandarishvili, a fuller account can be found with Nick Heath. 

So, to come back to the present day, I believe that the life and death of Nestor Kalandarishvili is a useful demonstration of the dangers of the popular talking point "Left unity" in practice. Much of the modern discourse at the state of what's commonly called the "left" is a lamentation that unlike the enemies in the right, the left just can't put its differences aside and unite against a common foe. This argument mostly rests on assumptions that have little foundation. For a start I don't believe the right are as united as is commonly believed, the civil war in Austria between the Fascist and Nazi parties, the bloody feud between the Romanian monarchy and the Iron Guard, and the bitter presidential campaigns between Marine Le Pen and Eric Zemmour are just a few brief examples. Furthermore I don't really see how much of the left as its commonly understood can actively work together in a way that doesn't mean many of the constituent parts give up fundamental elements of their theory and practice.

Nestor Kalandarishvili represents this. Its easy to read his conversion to Bolshevism as motivated purely by opportunism, it did coincide with funding, gifts and praise and awards from the Bolshevik government. But even if it was a genuine change in convictions, the effect was the same. This was a conflict where the Anarchists and Bolsheviks had co-operated for over a year, and yet as soon as one faction moved to establish itself as the government in the area it quickly provoked conflict where previously there seemed to have been accord. By appointing Nestor Kalandarishvili supreme commander and establishing military bodies like the Korean War Council all other military organisations lost their autonomy and were functionally rolled into the Bolshevik military and political program. Units that had fought effectively for years against the counter revolution were denied the right to choose their own staff and were expected to accept the promotion of former enemies without complaint. The unity of the Russian revolutionaries effectively died in Siberia the moment the Bolsheviks gained enough strength to assert dominance a phenomena that happened in Ukraine and Georgia at the same time and has been repeated since in Spain, the Greek underground and the post war Hungarian and Czechoslovakian states.

If unity between different groups for a common good is the true desire then I don't believe we would see this clear pattern, that groups in common only seem to be viable while no one group is strong enough to assert itself over the others and once that happens either a civil war erupts as happened in Kronstadt or the other groups cease to function in a way that matters and are subsumed and replaced by the dominant force as happened in the Popular Front government where the other forces were either liquidated or converted with the sole exception being several CNT columns who were too big to risk an open conflict over their continued acts of resistance like giving membership cards to POUM members. 

The Workers Union by Flora Tristan

 

The Workers Union is a book written by Flora Tristan a French Socialist and early feminist. It was published in 1843 after she managed to raise enough donations to pay for its first printing. It proved popular, so much so that it had two more printings in its first year of circulation. In a way Tristan was also a pioneer in crowdfunding. The book is an odd creation, or rather its become odd thanks to the passage of time. 

It was written during the last years of the July Monarchy, where radical voices were scrutinised and spied upon by the police, and gatherings of a political nature were limited to seven people at most. So it can be hard to put hindsight aside while reading it. But the effort is worth it. I believe Tristan's thought is a sort of mix and transition from the old co-operative and guild socialism of the early 1800s, the ideas of Fourier, Owen, St Simon etc, who are usually written off with the pejoratives Idealists, and Utopians, and the later socialist ideas. The translator of the book is keen to stress the connections and relevance her ideas have to the socialism of Marx and Engels, and I can see connections. But I was also strongly reminded of similarities with the Mutualist ideas of Proudhon who has a book La Celebration du dimanche, included in Tristan's recommended reading list for a hypothetical learning library for workers. And certain passages in the Workers Union could've been recycled into many a pamphlet on the merits of the One Big Union popularised by early syndicalists.

Tristan is open about her inspirations, St. Simon, Robert Owen and Fourier among others are acknowledged and praised, but also criticised for their shortcomings. The socialism of Flora Tristan represents a unique combination from a time of change and transformation. The American Anarchist Tom Wetzel believes Tristan to be a forerunner to International Workingmen's Association (IWMA) and this Workers Union is indeed an early proposal and rough blueprint for an international workers organisation. Its a flawed one mainly advocating that combination of all workers will empower and fund important projects including representation, welfare and educational enterprises (the workers palaces) and compel governments to grant the rights of work and organisation. 

I don't believe such a program was viable especially given that a key part of this Union was the appointment of a sole individual as its defender and champion in open copying of the Irish masses subscriptions for O'Connell in his work for constitutional reforms for Ireland. There is at least an acknowledgement that a dictatorial figure would be less than ideal and an attempt to control this hypothetical workers advocate with an idea of setting up a committee to examine their conduct and use of funds, and who can revoke their mandate if not satisfied. It's difficult for modern readers to understand the fixation on a singular great man but in the 1840s and long after even the socialist movement was dominated by powerful individuals. 

There is also a section dedicated to a series of draft appeals to the powerful in society, including the King and the Catholic church which are unthinkable in this day and age. But there is at least some method to this madness, the appeals were essentially politely worded charges of hypocrisy and in Tristan's own words would serve the dual purposes of soliciting support from the few progressives in society and the lack of response or critical rebukes to such appeals would serve as proof of general antagonism to the workers and their initiatives. 

So I don't think this work should be read seeking a practical strategy. It is an historic document. The longest appeal by far is addressed to women. Although called the Workers Union many pages are dedicated to the plight of women in 19th century society and advocating for improvements and inclusion within the working class. A modern feminist would have much to criticise, it leaves intact the family and a women's role within it, i.e. carer, but it does demand and advocate for education and condemns unequal pay practises in work. It also repeats Wollstonecraft's demand of a declaration of the rights of woman to be paired with the rights of man declared during the French revolution. 

It is an odd document that deserves to be read with open but critical minds.