November 1, 2024No Comments

The Harris-Walz Ticket and the Future of the Democratic Party

by Anurag Mishra - USA Team

As the world’s most awaited political battle commences, the ideological schism in American politics appears to be wider than ever. The two major parties remain divergent on almost every issue concerning contemporary American politics. While the Red Ticket packs an emboldened, fiercer (but older) Donald Trump with a very conservative up-and-coming senator from Ohio, J.D. Vance, the Blue Ticket offers the first woman Veep in American history with a dubbed-radical governor from Minnesota, Tim Walz. Both tickets stretch the rope further towards the right and left, and even four years hence, no American unity is in sight.

The Harris-Walz ticket is arguably the most progressive presidential ticket in America’s recent history. While Kamala was a natural choice to succeed President Biden on top of the Democratic ticket, Tim Walz’s naming was a bit of a surprise. While several pundits expected an attempt at ideological ticket balancing, given Harris’s liberal credentials, Tim Walz’s inclusion is presumably an attempt to encash Walz’s midwestern cool-dad image and muster the votes of the pro-choice women and young/first-time voters.

The Harris-Walz Ticket – Democratic Unity or Compromise?

Kamala Harris secured her nomination without contesting the primaries. A public mandate on her work as VP is yet to be duly recorded. The last time she contested for an elected position was the 2020 democratic primaries, where she put up a dismal show, failing to gather even a solitary delegate’s support. All of that together does not help her democratic vita. Amid Republican accusations that Kamala Harris is a handpicked candidate and lacks popular support, Kamala’s choice of a liberal governor with a midwestern appeal to accompany her on the ticket is, at best, a very curious political move. The pairing raises questions about the internal compromises or divisions within the Democratic party and if the pair carries a broad national appeal.

Recently at a press briefing, President Biden remarked that Kamala has been vital in everything his presidency has achieved and worked for and that Kamala is “singing from the same song sheet.” This, again, falters Kamala’s “call for change.” On the other hand, Tim Walz’s perception has been amorphous. The Minnesota governor started as a very bipartisan, moderate congressman but has steadily turned left over the years. The abortion bill that he signed into law removed “all restrictions to abortion,” and the following “shield law” makes it easier for women from other states to get abortions in Minnesota with no legal repercussions. All of this has played out in favor of President Trump and the GOP.

On Policy Front

The Biden White House registered strong numbers in post-Covid job creation and economic growth but has grappled with soaring gas prices and general inflation. Ms. Harris, while inheriting this troubled legacy, is promising to build an “opportunity economy” stilted on promises of mortgage assistance for first-time homebuyers, a tax credit for parents of newborns, and bans on price gouging at the grocery store. Harris has repeatedly said that her presidency will not be a continuation of Biden’s presidency but has remained unconvincing and unclear on what she would do differently. Her stance on abortion access (Tim Walz’s inclusion on the ticket is the biggest stressor) is expected to be fiercer compared to President Biden as she has been the most vocal critic of Roe v. Wade’s reversal. On gun safety laws, Kamala Harris, as president, is almost certain to undertake stricter measures, as she has been steadfast in support of a stricter gun law regime throughout her career. 

The issue where she might take a leap ahead of President Biden is her policy on crime; Ms. Harris has lately been non-committal on her personal stances on all three. Kamala Harris, then a senator, had supported the First Step Act of 2018, which provided for a lesser sentence for offenders and early releases, and hailed it as a step in the direction of “righting the wrong” in the criminal justice system. Ms. Harris also supports legalizing marijuana, although she has a disconcerting record of procuring more than 2,000 convictions for marijuana possession when she ran the justice department in the state of California. Ms. Harris will find it difficult to maneuver while being accused by the Republicans of being “soft on crime”. Her unrestrained praise for the “Defund the Police” movement is a veritable question mark on her crime policies. On Climate issues, Kamala Harris, both as a senator and as Vice President was averse to fracking and dependence on fossil fuel. However, close to the elections, she has taken a more moderate stance on fracking by replacing dependence on fossil fuels with dependence on foreign oil. However, once elected to office, Kamala Harris as president is likely to introduce aggressive measures to minimize fracking and reduce the country’s dependence on fossil fuels while opening the doors for a bigger Green New Deal.

Source: by Gage Skidmore - flickr.com

The handling of the southern border was one of the most burning election issues in 2016 as well as in 2020 and has continued to remain one even in 2024. While Ms. Harris has maintained a more humane approach to dealing with immigration, she seems to have toughened her stance on the same with elections approaching close. Her claims of tapering border immigration and a kinder yet terse appeal of “Don’t” (Don’t Come) have seemingly made her stance on border immigration difficult to predict. Amidst the policy uncertainty, Republican accusations against Harris (dubbed the Border Czar) for the mishandling of the southern border, the narrative against Haitian immigrants being pet-eaters, etc., are already proving to be a difficult punch to dodge.

The Future of the Harris-Walz Democratic Party

Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are arguably the most progressive faces of the Democratic Party. While both of them never rallied behind President Biden except for the sake of partisan unity, they have both thrown their weight behind the Harris-Walz ticket and celebrated the Minnesota former teacher’s inclusion as Harris’s running mate. Tim Walz,  also known as the champion of progressivism (and given the unkind moniker Tampon Tim by his rivals), has suggested, through his works at the Minnesota gubernatorial office, his appetite for socialistic and progressive policy changes. On most issues of national importance, Walz either matches pace with Harris or is a step ahead. Walz supports gender-affirming care, calls abortion healthcare, and is in favor of creating a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, as opposed to Trump’s call for the “biggest deportation operation.” A conclusive public mandate in favor of the Harris-Walz duo is almost certain of changing the Democratic Party’s character and making its entry into an entirely new world of politics. Is this another George McGovern moment for the Democratic Party? We will find out soon.

October 28, 2024No Comments

Dr. Jozef Hrabina on Russia’s Strategic Game: Shifts, Doctrine, and the Ukraine War

Dr. Jozef Hrabina talks about Russia's strategic culture and the effect of the war with Ukraine on regional hierarchy in post-Soviet space. Dr. Hrabina is geopolitical risk advisor, scholar, and founder of GeopoLytics. 

In this session, Dr. Hrabina explains the background of Russia's strategic culture helping to understand how it was formed during different historical periods. Together we discussed the effect of the Ukrainian war on post-Soviet Eurasia regional hierarchy and European security architecture. We also could not miss the actual topic of the shifting dynamics in frozen conflicts where Russia used to act as a mediator, as well as we explored key interplay between strategic biases with the West in context of nuclear rhetoric and recent remarks to Russia's nuclear doctrine. 

Interviewers: Alexandra Tsarvulanova, Denise Gianotti, Will Kingston-Cox

October 21, 2024No Comments

Anastasiia Kazakova on the UN Convention Against Cybercrime

In this series, Anastasiia and ITSS Verona discuss how different ideas, worldviews, and positions of the multistakeholder debate clashed and shaped the UN’s first convention on cybercrime – and how the outcome of this debate will shape the future of the Internet and its users.

Anastasiia Kazakova talks about the UN Convention Against Cybercrime: Actors, Developments, Implications. Anastasiia Kazakova is a Cyber Diplomacy Knowledge Fellow at Diplo Foundation.

Interviewers: Oleg Abdurashitov (Artificial Intelligence, Cyber Security and Space Team) & Mattia Ostini (Human Rights Team)

October 14, 2024No Comments

Mpox Crisis in the DRC: Healthcare Challenges Admist Conflict 

By Michela Mansoldo - Human Rights Team

Introduction

On August 14, 2024, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the Mpox crisis a public health emergency of international concern. This declaration comes as the outbreak spreads broadly across the overall Western and Central African region, with two-thirds of the cases recorded in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). This situation exacerbates the already existing challenges within the country’s internal political system and deteriorates the ongoing human rights crisis. The Congolese population faces enormous aggravations due to ongoing armed conflict, high food insecurity, and continuous human rights abuses, particularly in the mining sector. This article will examine how the Mpox outbreak in the DRC highlights broader social challenges in the country, including the impact of the mining industry on the already burdened healthcare system.

What is Mpox?

Mpox is an infectious disease that spreads through close and/or sexual contact, and it poses a significant risk to individuals with weakened immune systems, especially pregnant women and children, whose contractions can be fatal. While the initial outbreak was identified in 2022, Mpox has been reported in the DRC for over a decade. The situation worsened in 2024 with the emergence of a new strain, resulting in over 26,000 cases and 833 deaths to date.

In response to the outbreak, vaccination campaigns commenced in September 2024, but the rollout faced delays, making it challenging to keep up with the rapidly increasing case numbers. This situation raises critical questions on equitable access to healthcare in the country, where over 7 million people are internally displaced and around 25 million face food insecurity. Among the most vulnerable populations are children, especially those who are undernourished and live in refugee camps, where sanitation and access to clean water are limited.

According to the Global Director of Health and Nutrition at Save the Children, the DRC records some of the highest levels of child insecurity globally and in 2023, violence, displacement, and killings reached alarming peaks, as reported by UNICEF. Furthermore, issues such as lack of sanitation, sexual abuse and child labour, significantly affect the contraction rate of Mpox amongst another vulnerable group in the DRC: miners.

Cobalt Mines and Human Rights Issues

Owning approximately 70% of the world's cobalt resources, eastern DRC has become a hotspot for conflict and exploitation. The mining industry has caused significant human rights violations in the country, triggering numerous interventions and peacekeeping efforts. The exploitation of Congolese labour dates back to the Belgian colonial period, and both internal and international actors have profited from it ever since.

The demand for cobalt has intensified with advancements in technology and the production of batteries, yet this surge has not been accompanied by a secure and sustainable approach to extraction. In fact, cobalt is highly toxic to inhale and leads to a number of healthcare complications for artisanal workers. Although mining may appear to be one of the better-paid jobs for locals, it comes with significant social and medical obstacles.

In mining areas, the risk of injuries is high due to the constant collapse of pits, often burying workers alive, including children. Reports indicate that tens of thousands of children are involved in the cobalt industry, which often leads them to abandon their education. Moreover, their prolonged exposure to toxic substances can severely damage internal organs, further aggravating immune responses to infections, which are very common in mining communities. Besides the rare access to sanitation facilities in mines, another issue is related to sexual abuses, which often results in the contraction of sexually transmitted and debilitating diseases. 

This situation underscores the vulnerability of individuals with already compromised health, further exacerbating the spread of mpox in Eastern DRC, where most mines are located.

Challenges for Healthcare

Despite ongoing efforts to deliver vaccines, the WHO remains optimistic about eradicating Mpox. However, the situation in mining areas poses significant challenges to this vision. Key obstacles include the remote locations of some communities and a lack of awareness about Mpox among local populations. Many individuals lack basic knowledge about the diseases they may contract and the preventive measures necessary to limit their spread. In fact, with the fourth-largest population in Africa and a substantial number of displaced people, the DRC faces an even more complex health burden. Many diseases affect the population - including malaria, HIV, and tuberculosis - and only a portion of these are transmittable. Apart from Mpox, vaccination efforts against other infectious diseases remain insufficient, with geographical coverage remaining low. According to the WHO, the lack of childhood immunisation in the DRC has reached alarming levels, with nearly 2 million children classified as zero-dose or under-immunised.

In times of emergencies, it is important to not only highlight the challenges in ensuring timely responses but also to examine the underlying causes of these issues. In the DRC, limited access to healthcare is influenced not only by geographical barriers or population density but also by the ongoing conflict. Insecurity, high population mobility, and resource exploitation are contributing factors to the spread of Mpox in the country, and they point to gaps in both governmental efforts and regional cooperation.

Source: Russell Watkins/Department for International Development'. (https://shorturl.at/C142R)

Root Causes and Systemic Failures

The underlying causes of conflict in the DRC contribute to various challenges affecting healthcare stability. For instance, displacement, food insecurity, and economic uncertainty can lead to behaviors such as transactional sex, which may increase the spread of diseases. Additionally, difficulties in establishing accountability among political actors can hinder efforts to strengthen community resilience. The country's high level of militarization has also contributed to local distrust of both internal and external actors, which may extend to healthcare and humanitarian personnel.

Effectively addressing the Mpox crisis requires a multifaceted approach. Beyond implementing measures to control the spread of the disease, integrating conflict resolution strategies into healthcare efforts is essential. To restore a system facing significant challenges and improve human rights protections in the DRC, a comprehensive reevaluation of societal issues is needed.

Although finding definitive solutions is highly complicated, there is a large space for improvement. For instance, involving the local population in the management and participation of health programs is essential. As proposed by Bashwira, Mihigo and Duclos from the Social Science in Humanitarian Action Platform (SSHAP), initiatives such as mapping conflicts and assessing organisational patterns could prove beneficial for larger-scale responsiveness.

Conclusions

Access to healthcare is a fundamental human right, and global accountability plays an important role in advocating for those with limited means to voice their needs. Promoting equitable healthcare access, while also addressing the socioeconomic factors that contribute to health disparities, is essential. Implementing community-led programs can help create sustainable solutions to the challenges faced by vulnerable populations. Collaborative efforts between local actors and international NGOs can support the delivery of essential services and resources.

In conclusion, the Mpox emergency is not solely a medical issue but is closely connected to broader societal challenges. Addressing it from a wider perspective can provide not only immediate health interventions but also contribute to reducing the underlying factors that increase population vulnerability. Through comprehensive efforts, there is potential to improve health outcomes for the Congolese people and uphold their fundamental rights.

October 10, 2024No Comments

Antifa: Evaluating Claims of Democratic Threat and the Debate over Terrorist Classification

By Agostino Bono, Rodney Ekow Buah, Isabelle Despicht, Sophie Herzog Sønju - Crime, Extremism and Terrorism Team

Introduction

The name Antifa was first used in Nazi Germany by a coalition of far-left parties which were created to oppose the growing power of Nazism. The term Antifa is a shortened form of antifaschistisch (anti-fascist). Its members were driven and are still driven by beliefs which combat fascist, racist and right-wing ideologies, through any means both legal and illegal.

Antifa, a decentralised movement, follows both anarchist and communist ideologies. This is reflected in the group's symbols, which incorporate the red flag of the 1917 Russian Revolution and the black flag of 19th-century anarchists.

Conservative pundits and politicians, including former President Donald Trump, have repeatedly accused Antifa of participating in left-wing protests against police brutality and racism in the United States, particularly from the mid-2010s and during the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.

This article will explore whether Antifa poses a threat to democracy and whether it can be defined as a terrorist group. Much of the relevant literature suggests that Antifa is not a threat to democracy and lacks the characteristics of a terrorist group. The origins of Antifa are rooted in anti-authoritarianism and anti-fascism, which some argue align it more closely with democratic principles. However, others believe that Antifa's violent and occasionally illegal tactics pose a threat to democracy, emphasizing that such methods may undermine free expression, a fundamental aspect of democratic society.

Historical Background

The Antifa movement emerged in Germany and Italy in opposition to the rising Nazi and fascist ideologies. This is exemplified by groups such as the Antifaschistische Aktion in Germany and the Arditi del Popolo in Italy. The anti-fascist ideology gained momentum and spread its influence beyond Germany and Italy. In October 1936, tens of thousands of anti-fascists reacted to a march of British Union fascists on Cable Street and Whitechapel by throwing rocks and homemade bombs.

While anti-fascism decreased worldwide due to the fall of Nazi Germany, it reemerged in the 1970s to counter an increase in Neo-Nazi activity in Europe, Asia and the United States.

Since the 1980s, the United States has witnessed the highest level of anti-fascist protests. For example, the Anti-Racist Action Network, which operated between 1987 and 2013, and the Puget Sound John Brown Gun Club are examples of active anti-fascist and anti-racist movements.

In 2016, the election of Donald Trump strengthened the activity of anti-fascist groups. Furthermore, following the death of George Floyd in 2020, there was evidence of increased anti-fascist activism as a reaction to police brutality. However, the FBI later stated that ordinary criminals were responsible for the acts of violence and looting and not groups like Antifa.

Antifa groups are also operating in Europe in countries such as Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Ukraine. In Germany, for example, in October 2016, far-left groups in Dresden led a peaceful protest on the occasion of the anniversary of the German reunification on 3 October, for "turning Unity celebrations into a disaster". Furthermore, Antifa sympathizers took to the streets in Hamburg during the 2017 G20 summit, some say, in reaction to Donald Trump’s accusatory rhetoric.

Tactics & Activities of Antifa

The Antifa movement employs a variety of tactics aimed at countering far-right and authoritarian ideologies. Central to its approach is the belief that direct action is necessary to confront these threats. Protest demonstrations are a common method, where participants gather to voice their opposition to fascism and xenophobia. These protests often escalate into clashes with far-right extremists, particularly during significant events like the Charlottesville rally and protests in Portland. Antifa’s militant tactics can include physical altercations, raising concerns about public safety and the ethical implications of violence in political activism.

In addition to street confrontations, Antifa groups engage in community organising and outreach to raise awareness about far-right extremism. They frequently utilise social media to mobilise supporters, disseminate information, and document the activities of far-right organisations. Authorities in various countries have increased scrutiny of Antifa due to concerns about violence and public safety. The EU's TE-SAT report has highlighted the rise in violent actions linked to left-wing extremism, prompting law enforcement to strengthen their responses.

In this context, some Antifa members in Austria took part in 2022 in training camps designed to equip activists with skills for protest, self-defense, and community organisation. These camps serve as spaces for learning techniques related to civil disobedience and strategic communication, but they also raise concerns about radicalisation and the potential for increased violence. While Antifa’s actions are rooted in a commitment to antifascism, they face ongoing scrutiny regarding their methods. Critics argue that violent tactics can undermine broader anti-fascist goals, complicating the movement's public image and effectiveness. As Antifa continues to navigate these challenges, its capacity to adapt its activities in response to the evolving political landscape will be pivotal in determining its long-term impact.

Source: Gregor Fischer - https://www.flickr.com/photos/gonzo_photo/406787012

Global Presence and Influence

Antifa’s global presence has expanded significantly in recent years. Its influence is remarkably evident in countries like the United States, where it engages in direct action against far-right extremism. As a decentralised movement, Antifa lacks a formal structure, allowing it to spread and operate independently across the world. The movement is viewed as “a reaction to the extreme right by concerned left-wing activists”. As far-right extremist politics gain momentum globally, anti-fascist movements have risen in response. According to the European Parliament, Antifa is not a single organisation, but a “collective name” used by various informal, autonomous groups claiming to be anti-fascist”. This broad, open identity allows anyone opposing fascism to align themselves with the movement. 

With the growing influence of the far-right political party Alternative für Deutschland there has been a significant increase in the presence and potential threat of the anti-fascist movement in Germany. Modern militant German Antifa groups  have been involved in violent confrontations, notably between 2018 and 2020, attacking and singling out German neo-nazis. The same applies to Sweden, where the far right political party Sverigedemokraterna(SD) has had a surge in popularity, with an increase of around 20% in the polls in the past 20 years. Consequently, Swedish Anti-fascist Aktion (AFA) and Swedish Revolutionary Front have carried out acts of political violence, including an attack on former SD politician Vávra Suk.

In the US, Antifa grew in popularity and presence during Donald Trump’s presidency in 2016-2020. This was partly due to his reported alignment with far-right groups such as the Proud Boys, but also due to the increased engagement regarding far-right politics in general in the US. Trump’s rhetoric, including his refusal to condemn white supremacist groups, shifted political discourse and drew attention to Antifa’s opposition. Antifa protesters frequently countered far-right demonstrations, sometimes engaging in violent confrontations. This led to the movement being labeled by critics as rioters and looters, with Trump at one instance saying “Somebody’s got to do something about antifa and the left because this is not a right wing problem.”

Conclusion

Antifa's history, decentralised structure, and focus on anti-fascism have shaped its role as a modern movement. While often associated with far-left ideologies such as anarchism and communism, its primary goal is to resist fascism, racism, and authoritarianism. Although its use of violence and militant tactics has sparked debate, many studies suggest that Antifa is neither a terrorist group nor a direct threat to democracy. Its anti-authoritarian stance is sometimes seen as aligned with democratic values, opposing what it considers oppressive forces. However, critics argue that its violent methods may undermine democracy by limiting free speech and opposing viewpoints.

Looking ahead, Antifa's relevance may depend on the political landscape. As far-right extremism grows in some areas, Antifa could continue to serve as a counterbalance. Its decentralized structure allows for flexibility and adaptability. Nevertheless, reliance on violence could harm its cause in the long term, as public support may decline if it is viewed as more destructive than constructive. Increased scrutiny from authorities is also anticipated if violent incidents continue to be associated with Antifa.

The question of whether Antifa qualifies as an extremist group remains debated. While it employs militant tactics and occasionally breaks the law, its goals are centered on protecting marginalized groups rather than advocating for authoritarian control. This places Antifa in a complex position; despite operating outside mainstream activism, it is not typically regarded as an extremist movement.

September 16, 2024No Comments

 Rodrigo Duton on the Crime-Terror Nexus in Brazil

In this episode, Prof. Rodrigo Duton discusses the importance of the crime-terror nexus in Brazilian security. Prof. Rodrigo Duton is an Adjunct Faculty member at the George C. Marshall Center, originally from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Interviewers: Sarah Toubman, Dr. Rabiah Ryklief, & Giovanni Giacalone by the Central & South America Team.

Disclaimer: Rodrigo Duton is participating in this podcast solely in his academic capacity. He is not speaking on behalf of any Brazilian law enforcement agency or the government of Brazil. The views and opinions expressed are his own. 

August 31, 2024No Comments

Dr. Michael Barak on Iran Recent Developments

In this episode, Dr. Michael Barak talks about recent developments and policy changes in Iran, their impact on Israel, and the role of proxy actors following October 7th. Specifically, Dr Barak discusses the multifaceted dynamics involving Iran and its regional influence. He covers Iran’s relationships with various proxies, including Hezbollah and the Houthi’s, as well as its strategic partnerships with Russia. Additionally, Dr Barak examines Iran`s ongoing tensions with Israel and the corresponding Israeli responses.

Dr. Michael Barak is a Senior researcher at the International Institute for Counter Terrorism (ICT) where he serves as the head of the global jihad & Palestinian terrorism research desks. Additionally, Dr. Barak is a lecturer at the lauder school of government diplomacy and strategy at Reichman university.

Interviewers: Shahin Modarres & Shir Mor - Iran Team

August 27, 2024No Comments

The Italian Military export and its possible implications in the light of the Israel-Hamas conflict

By Alberto Trame, Aline Blanchard, Christian Gaole, Giacomo Bortolazzi - Italy Team

The Military Industry in Italy as a Leading Global Actor

It is widely acknowledged that Italy has a leading role in the European production and export of weapons, a trend that will probably continue to grow in the next years: at the end of March, the annual report to the Parliament on operations authorised and carried out for the control of exports, imports and transit of armament materials estimated that export licenses for a total value of 6.31 billion euros have been issued during the year 2023, causing an increase in Italian military exports from the sum of 5,289 million euros in 2022 to 6,311 million in 2023. The document also included a list of the States with the highest share in the total export of Italian weapons: the list includes countries such as France, the United States, Ukraine (whose ongoing conflict against Russia has resulted in a steep rise in military contributions), several Middle Eastern countries such as Türkiye, Azerbaijan and Kuwait, and Israel as the main beneficiaries.

Has Anything Changed After Al-Aqsa Flood?

The report also highlighted Israel's situation following the attacks conducted by Hamas on 7 October 2023. Although the volume of Italian military exports to Israel increased to a total value of 31.5 million euros, placing the country seventh among the largest importers, the annual report noted the consideration given to the issuing of new authorisations in light of the ongoing conflict. This cautious approach regarding military exports was also confirmed by the Italian Defence Minister, who responded to a Parliamentary interrogation on the issue by stating that no new authorisations have been granted since the attacks of 7 October 2023. The media observed that this statement seemed to differ from those made by other representatives of the Italian Government, including the Italian Prime Minister and, notably, the Head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who stated on 20 February 2024 that the dispatch of any kind of weapons to Israel had been suspended since the beginning of the conflict. The distinction between a “total” and a “partial” suspension has been at the center of an intense political debate and several journalistic inquiries conducted in recent months.

The Italian Military Export to Israel Analyzed in Light of Law 185/1990

The ongoing discussion related to the Italian military exportations to Israel, which has not been uniformly addressed by the national political establishment, assumes further importance when considering the potential implications under the Italian legal system, which regulates the import, export, trade, and transit of arms and ammunition through Law 185/1990. Article 1, paragraph 6, of this law prohibits the export and transit of military material towards countries engaged in armed conflict in violation of the “inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations,” as per Article 51 of the United Nations Charter (subject to any exception made through the Council of Ministers’ decision after the approval of the Parliament). The law also prohibits export to countries with policies that conflict with the rejection of “war as an instrument of aggression against the freedom of other peoples and as a means for the settlement of international disputes,” as per Article 11 of the Constitution, or whose governments have breached international conventions on human rights. Allegations of such violations have been raised in the context of the Israel-Hamas conflict, with concerns expressed about the actions of both belligerent parties.

In this regard, the recent public call by the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court for the arrest warrant of Hamas’ Leader and Commander-In-Chief and of the Israeli Prime and Defence Ministers was issued in response to a series of alleged violations of the Rome Statute, such as “starvation of civilians as a method of warfare,” “intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population,” and “persecution.” The further call by the Prosecutor for adherence to International Humanitarian Law (IHL) gains relevance in light of the most recent report by the International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and Israel, which suggested that both Hamas and Israel may have committed several “violations of IHL and IHRL” during the conflict. These legal implications remain an open issue, meaning that if the allegations are found to be true, there could be significant legal consequences regarding Italy’s contribution to this conflict, all in light of the requirement to prohibit the export of arms to countries in violation of international human rights conventions as per Law 185/1990.

Foto di Eve Woodhouse su Unsplash

Concluding Remarks: The Importance of Being Earnest

In light of multifaceted debates and of the serious consequences that serious accusations such as those of violating international conventions might imply, the importance of transparent and complete information cannot be questioned. Even though occupying such a self-evident pivotal role, the concern expressed by many is that it may still be jeopardised: the new Parliamentary Bill modifying Law 185/90 could in fact result in the reduction of the kind and quantity of data to be included in the annual report to the Parliament if approved. Given this possibility, it is important to remember the importance of free information.

August 10, 2024No Comments

Iran, the new “progressive” presidency and LGBTQ+ rights

by Ilaria Lorusso (Iran Team) in collaboration with the Human Rights Team

Introduction

Iranian elections following former president Raisi’s death in May 2024 were called rather abruptly for this July and resulted in the appointment of Massoud Pezeshkian. Considered a moderate candidate, he campaigned for his election maintaining progressive stances both in internal and external politics, promising more liberties and equal rights – especially with regards to women’s issues, animating the Women, Life, Freedom movement – on one hand, and advocating for a renewed nuclear deal and relations with Western countries, particularly the US, aimed at relieving the sanctions that have weakened the Islamic Republic to this day. His political positions fuel refurbished hope for social justice in Iran. However, the fact that he does not seem to want to openly disrupt the system in place after 1979 revolution, and the persistence of a conservative parliament and the absolute authority of Supreme Leader Khamenei dilute the expectations of most human rights advocates vis-à-vis the efforts possible to mitigate the oppression of traditionally marginalised groups. The LGBTQ+ community is notoriously part of the latter. Even if the new president has not exposed himself explicitly on this topic yet, this piece aims at retracing the treatment of LGBTQ+ rights in Iran, making evident above all the risks queer citizens undergo in the country in the current status quo.

Sharia and LGBTIQ+ rights 

As an Islamic Republic after the 1979 revolution, Iran abides by the Shari'a system, following a strict interpretation of Islamic religious texts as a base for law norms1. As such, already when it comes to heterosexual relationships, the 2013 Iranian Penal Code2 condemns any form of sexual activity outside of a lawful marriage. Any extra-marital sexual relations, identified as zina, are illegal and subject to criminal sanctions. 

Zooming in, homosexuality – particularly among men – is forbidden (haram) and considered a moral, physical, and psychological disorder, comparable to the heterosexual zina. Article 234-239 of the Penal Code shows that the death penalty is imposed on citizens accused of homosexual acts, particularly for those performing a “passive” role in the relationship. This, combined with the relative indulgence with which homosexuality between women is treated, reveals particularly the will to preserve a certain type of masculinity that Iranian men are supposed to perform3. Lashing, prison and fines are the alternative and almost always applied punishments associated with acts that fall into the interpretation of “sexual deviancy” – lesbian relationships and cross-dressing being among these. Besides legislation, then, the LGBTQ+ community is subject to state violence and police prosecution, with reported mass arrests and torture under custody, and queer activists imprisoned for threatening national security and production of “immoral content”. 

LGBTQ+ community and the Iranian society

More importantly, because homotransphobia is widespread in Iranian society – up to 90% according to Equaldex’s 2022 findings4, discrimination then extends in every aspect of one’s personal and professional life, with limited access to housing, education, employment, judicial system and healthcare. Interestingly, The Islamic Republic of Iran offers limited subsidised support for gender confirmation surgery, hormone replacement therapy, and psychosocial counselling for trans people. This is due to the fact that the latter views are seen through the lens of gender identity disorders. This medicalisation has provided some legal recognition for trans individuals but has also reinforced the stigma that they suffer from psychological and sexual disorders and need treatment to become "normal"5. In a way, gender reaffirmation therapy is also perceived as a way to “correct” deviances related to non-heterosexual sexual orientations. Accordingly, trans individuals in Iran, whether recognised by the state, seeking recognition, or living without it, frequently face discrimination and abuse due to their gender identity, including hostile public attitudes, extreme violence, and the risk of arrest, detention, and prosecution.

Photo by Sima Ghaffarzadeh: https://www.pexels.com/photo/crowd-of-people-protesting-on-street-holding-flags-and-posters-14136859/

Queer activism, Mahsa Amini’s protests and the way forward

The 2022 national unrest related to the death of Mahsa Amini re-fueled not only women’s rights activists but also those belonging to the queer community.  in custody for allegedly wearing her hijab improperly sparked nationwide protests in Iran, met with deadly force by the government. During the protests, young LGBTQ citizens openly defied the regime by removing their hijabs and displaying same-sex affection publicly6. Activists have also used pro-LGBTQ slogans and symbols, increasing visibility but also facing backlash, as the later overturned death sentence to queer activist Sareh Sedighi-Hamadani in that period exemplifies7. Clearly, this shows that queer liberation is to this day a pressing issue in Iranian civil society, and links back to the general discontent that especially younger generation has towards the post-revolution religious élite. Whether the new presidency will be able to appropriately take up the demands of these movements, remains an open question. 


  1. Rehman, J., & Polymenopoulou, E. (2013). Is green part of the rainbow: sharia, homosexuality, and LGBT rights in the Muslim world. Fordham International Law Journal, 37(1), 1-52. ↩︎
  2. Center for Human Rights in Iran (2021, August). Fact Sheet: LGBTQ rights in Iran. https://iranhumanrights.org/wp-content/uploads/LGBTQ-Iran-Fact-Sheet.pdf  ↩︎
  3. Karimi, A., & Bayatrizi, Z. (2019). Dangerous positions: Male homosexuality in the new penal code of Iran. Punishment & Society, 21(4), 417-434. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474518787465  ↩︎
  4. https://www.equaldex.com/region/iran  ↩︎
  5. OutRight Action International (2016). Human Rights Report: Being Transgender in Iranhttps://outrightinternational.org/our-work/human-rights-research/human-rights-report-being-transgender-iran  ↩︎
  6. Iran protests: LGBTQ community rises up (2023). BBC Website, April 19thhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-64864132  ↩︎
  7. Good news: Sareh Sedighi-Hamadani’s death sentence overturned (2023). Amnesty International Australia Website, May 16th.
     https://www.amnesty.org.au/good-news-sareh-sedighi-hamadanis-death-sentence-overturned/  ↩︎

August 9, 2024No Comments

Iran in Transition: The Implications of the Raisi’s Death and the presidential election

by Shahin Modarres, Ilaria Lorusso, Margherita Ceserani, and Will Kingston-Cox - Iran Team

Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi died in a helicopter crash in northwest Iran on May 19, as announced by the government on May 20, with Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian and seven other passengers. The crash occurred as he was returning from the inauguration of a dam on the border with Azerbaijan, in adverse weather conditions while the aircraft was flying over a rugged, forested region. The death of Raisi, 63, ushers in a period of political uncertainty in Iran, already shaken by the war between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. 

Raisi, elected in 2021, was considered an ultraconservative and a favorite to succeed the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei. According to political analysts, Raisi lacked personal charisma and popular support. During his presidency, Raisi intensified the crackdown on dissent, particularly after the protests following the death of Mahsa Amini, and revived Iran's military nuclear program, after US withdrawal from the historic 2015 agreement. Raisi also strengthened ties with Russia and China and reestablished diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia. As such, his death prompted sympathetic reactions from various Arab leaders, such as those of Iraq and Qatar, and Iranian-backed militias, such as Hamas and the Houthis, as part of the "axis of resistance" against U.S. and Israeli influence. At the same time, in some parts of Iran his death was celebrated by the population. 

Following the incident, Vice President Mohammad Mokhber was appointed interim president, with presidential elections scheduled for June 28. Though Ebrahim Raisi was one of the most well-known figures in the Iranian regime, his death is not expected to cause major upheaval in the Iranian system. Despite this, elections for a new president will be held at a time of great instability for Iran, both internally and externally. This article therefore aims to present the profiles of the candidates for the presidential election, and the possible effects of Iran's new political leadership on current international relations. 

Following the passing of President Raisi, the urgent task of arranging snap elections has become the foremost concern in Iran's domestic affairs, prompting the election date to be rescheduled to June 28, 2024, as mandated by the constitution. With only 50 days allowed for elections following a president's demise, the need to fill the vacancy promptly is evident. However, the process is not devoid of controversies. 

The Guardian Council, recognized for its conservative stance, has greenlit only six out of 80 candidates, setting the stage for a pivotal political moment. The 12 members of the Guardian Council — six clerics named by the supreme leader, and six jurists named by the Majlis — have consummate veto power and their decisions on disqualification cannot be appealed. The pool of approved candidates include the mayor of Tehran, Alireza Zakani; member of parliament, Masoud Pezeshkian; former interior and justice minister, Mostafa Pourmohammadi; and head of Iran’s Foundation of Martyrs and Veterans Affairs, Amir-Hossein Ghazizadeh Hashemi. However, the clear frontrunners for victory are Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the parliamentary speaker with ties to the influential Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and Saeed Jalili, a hardliner and former chief nuclear negotiator. Ghalibaf, despite his technocratic approach and connections to the IRGC, faces scrutiny from ultra-conservatives due to his moderate positions and past electoral failures. Meanwhile, Jalili, strongly backed by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and the IRGC, represents a continuation of Raisi's policies, particularly in opposition to any dialogue with the US.

The Iranian elections carry significance for the country's future direction, especially amid escalating domestic unrest and regional challenges. Low voter turnout in previous elections, coupled with concerns about the regime's legitimacy, represent the broader issues at stake. The regime must find a delicate balance between control and legitimacy, particularly as many Iranians have been disheartened by years of political upheaval and repression. Despite this, ultimate authority rests with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who can still wield influence over policy, making the choice of Raisi's successor critical. 

The current Iranian tense relations with the West, exemplified by Tehran's support for proxy militias targeting Israel in response to the Gaza conflict, emphasise the need for a leader who can manage Iran's foreign policy challenges effectively. Khamenei's speeches frequently indicate satisfaction rather than concern about sanctions and other issues, suggesting a preference for Jalili’s continuity over compromise. Yet, there remains a possibility that Khamenei could astonish observers by supporting a candidate open to dialogue with the West, though such a move would deviate from his usual stance advocating "resistance”. The impending election thus holds significant implications for Iran's domestic landscape and also for its international relations. The chosen successor will likely be expected to continue Raisi's legacy, maintaining Iran's current trajectory and policies. However, the regime faces a critical dilemma in ensuring voter participation and maintaining its legitimacy, given widespread disillusionment among the population. While Iran's electoral process includes democratic elements, key policies and candidate selections are significantly influenced by the clerical leadership, leading to discussions about the extent of democratic choice in the system. The selection of Raisi's successor will shape Iran's path, further impacting its interactions on the world stage. With tensions simmering both at home and abroad, the election outcome will reverberate far beyond Iran's borders, influencing regional dynamics and international relations.

The upcoming Iranian elections will also have significant geopolitical implications. These implications can be seen through two lenses: the international and the regional. Globally, the outcome of the election could see Iran seek to strengthen bilateral relations with China and Russia, in order to compensate for increased Western pressure. Such a solidification of relations could be both geopolitically and economically detrimental, as energy markets and international alliances react. Iran natural resource reserves are pivotal to global energy markets, and an election result that favours continued conservatism could lead to further fluctuations, disruptions, and conflict in and over the energy sector. 

Furthermore, if the conservative faction, as is predicted, remains in power, we can expect to see again, yet another solidification - this time, over nuclear negotiations. It would be likely to see tensions with the West escalate over increased uranium enrichment, rendering attempts to revive the JCPOA redundant and futile continuation of hardline sanctions policies.

Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hamas_leader_Ismail_Haniyeh_meeting_Iranian_Supreme_Leader_Ali_Khamenei.jpg

Regionally, a continuation of conservative dominance could see an increase in support for Iranian proxies in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and Iraq. Iranian support for Hezbollah in Lebanon would be expected to continue or intensify if conservative hardliners are re-elected. With Hezbollah increasingly active on the northern Israeli border, this could further entrench Hezbollah’s position within Lebanese politics and bolster its military capacity. 

For Yemen, Iranian support for the Houthis is likely to continue, if conservatives are re-elected. It is plausible that a hardline government in Tehran would provide increased aid, both military and financially, to the Houthis, prolonging the Yemen conflict. This scenario would likely intensify tensions between Saudi Arabia, which would threaten regional security all over the Middle East. 

For the conflict between Israel and Gaza, if the current projections materialise, hardliner governance could see increased support for Hamas. It would not be wrong to assume that hardliners would incite more aggression towards Israel through the proxy network, perpetuating military pressure on Israel without the need for direct Iranian military involvement. Iran does not want an all out war with Israel. To do so would threaten the very existence of Iran’s military, economy, and society. The election is likely to see an intensification of Israel-Iran relations through the proxy network, to both pressurise Israel but defend Iran’s interests, whilst avoiding direct military conflict. 

The sudden death of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi in a helicopter crash has plunged Iran into a period of political uncertainty. Snap elections, scheduled for June 28, 2024, highlight the conservative dominance within the Guardian Council, which approved only six out of 80 candidates. Key contenders include Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Saeed Jalili, with Jalili likely to continue Raisi's hardline policies, particularly in opposing dialogue with the West and strengthening ties with Russia and China.

Domestically, the election underscores the regime's struggle for legitimacy amid widespread voter disillusionment. The conservative grip on the political process raises questions about the authenticity of Iran's electoral system. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's influence remains pivotal, ensuring that key policies and candidate selections align with his vision.

Regionally, a conservative victory would likely intensify Iran's support for proxy militias in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and Iraq, escalating tensions, particularly with Israel. Increased aid to groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis could exacerbate conflicts, affecting regional security.

Globally, Iran's potential strengthening of alliances with China and Russia in response to Western pressures could reshape economic and geopolitical landscapes, particularly in energy markets. The international community remains watchful of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, with the election’s outcome crucial in determining the future of the JCPOA and broader diplomatic engagements.

In conclusion, the election following Raisi’s death is a critical juncture for Iran, influencing its domestic stability and regional dynamics. The regime's ability to manage internal discontent and external pressures will shape Iran's path in the coming years, with significant implications for global geopolitics.