foreignpolicy--2020-01-31--Wuhan Virus Boosts Indonesian Anti-Chinese Conspiracies

“ Throw out your Xiaomi mobile phones !
” the viral WhatsApp image read .
“ The coronavirus comes from China and is spreading through the server , coming out from Xiaomi speakers !
” “ Your life is more important , ” the message underneath explained .
“ It is best if you throw away your Xiaomi phones.
” Conspiracy theories are part and parcel of many global events in the social media age .
Natural disasters , disease outbreaks , and suicide attacks are all susceptible to fake news .
Most hoaxes are generally harmless , if potentially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But in Indonesia , conspiracies around the Wuhan coronavirus have taken a sinister and racist turn .
While many are simply rumors of hospitalized patients ( “ be careful of XY hospital in ZZ town ” ) or self-protection theories about eating garlic and drinking lots of water—ideas also shared by citizens of China—a concerning number of theories are targeting Chinese citizens and Indonesians of Chinese descent .
Jakarta resident Drevina Andarini said her mother warned her to avoid busy public places , not to eat or use Chinese products , and not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people ” ( meaning Indonesians of Chinese heritage ) .
“ I have no idea where these over-the-top theories are coming from , ” Andarini said .
“ My mom said she read them on some website and that the author said they were a doctor.
” There ’ s a long history of prejudice against Chinese in Indonesia .
Ethnic Chinese make up just 1.2 percent of Indonesia ’ s population , but their success in business and historical links to communism make them vulnerable .
Most Indonesians of Chinese heritage are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less than 5 percent are Muslim .
In 1965-1966 , hundreds of thousands of suspected communists—many of them of Chinese descent—were killed across the archipelago after the military alleged an attempted coup .
In 1998 , after the fall of the dictator Suharto , the violence of massive riots was directed at ethnic Chinese , who were accused of profiting from his regime—resulting in more than 1,000 deaths and almost 100 rapes .
Older people seem particularly susceptible to believing hoaxes .
Most of the WhatsApp messages Foreign Policy saw , like dad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people ’ s parents or extended family members .
But younger born-again Muslims , who have undergone a spiritual process of finding themselves known in Indonesian as hijrah , also appear to be vulnerable .
“ I try to explain [ the hoaxes ] to them , but it ’ s very difficult , ” said the 28-year-old Yona , who works at a large international NGO in Jakarta .
“ If the hoax uses terms like ‘ azab ’ ( doom ) and ‘ punishment from Allah , ’ then no one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Unfortunately , this reaction is not new—religion has become a key part of these rumors , adding an unearned credibility .
“ They just say , ‘ Maybe our understanding of religion is different , ’ ” she added , before saying her mother also sends her news about the Wuhan coronavirus .
“ At least my mom is sometimes willing to listen to me.
” On social media , Twitter , Facebook , and Instagram posts encourage people to stay away from places where Chinese citizens or Chinese-heritage Indonesians work and live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this Monday will see workers from China return to Indonesia , ” one tweet read .
“ Be aware of the coronavirus at the BRI 2 and Generali buildings !
” BRI 2 is where the large Jakarta office of the Chinese telecommunications firm Huawei is located .
The tweet tagged the Directorate General of Immigration and the Health Ministry for their attention .
Major media outlets are also complicit in spreading anti-Chinese conspiracies .
A morning talk show session titled “ Biological weapon behind the coronavirus ?
” aired on Kompas TV @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Western conspiracy theories ; the hosts persistently encouraged panelists to agree with them that the virus was a Chinese creation .
Other conspiracies focus on concern for Uighur Muslims in China , the victims of a concerted cultural and religious campaign of oppression .
“ Don ’ t be tricked by the deception of the Chinese Communist government !
” a Facebook post read .
“ The spread of the coronavirus in Wuhan is a deadly weapon launched by the Chinese Communist regime as part of their national program to eradicate Muslims.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how its treatment of Uighur Muslims gained the [ negative ] attention of the Islamic world , ” the author wrote .
“ Now with the spread of this deadly virus , there is a justification for the Communist Chinese regime to isolate the residents of Wuhan and identity all Muslims to be executed in the same way they were in Uighur [ territories ] .
” The author went on to defend her post in the comments , suggesting those who disagreed might be “ Chinese agents.
” English-language conspiracies aren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ development specialist in Jakarta told Foreign Policy : “ There is a tendency among Indonesians to think if something is written in English that it must be true.
” Even many well-educated people can not differentiate between reliable and unreliable sources , with English-language tabloid newspapers and gossip websites a popular source of information .
With hoaxes spreading wildly across social media and WhatsApp groups , the Indonesian Health Ministry has been imploring people to remain calm .
“ Coronavirus is not our enemy .
Our current enemy is information that makes the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kuwat Sri Hudoyo told the media on Tuesday .
Surprisingly , despite huge numbers of Chinese tourists , no cases of the Wuhan coronavirus have been confirmed in Indonesia so far .
At least eight patients are under observation in hospitals across the country , but another 12 have tested negative .
Indonesia is the only country among the top 10 destinations for international flights from Wuhan without a confirmed case .
But none of this will stop the anti-Chinese conspiracy theories , which have taken on a new intensity in recent years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tjahaja Purnama—who is Christian and of Chinese heritage—became governor of Jakarta in 2014 , anti-Chinese sentiments have been increasingly taken up by hard-line Islamist movements like the Islamic Defenders Front ( FPI ) .
FPI accused Ahok of being anti-Islamic and successfully pushed for a charge of blasphemy ; Ahok was controversially sentenced to two years in jail .
During his time as governor , large plastic banners warning residents of “ the latent danger of communism ” appeared on main thoroughfares , while digital groups such as the Muslim Cyber Army frequently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from secularism , communism , and Christianity , using hashtags like # WaspadaKomunis ( “ be aware of communists ” ) , # GebukPKI ( “ beat up the Indonesian Communist Party ” ) , and # MuslimBersatu ( “ Muslims unite ” ) .
China ’ s growing influence and presence in Indonesian markets has also given new punch to conspiracy theories , laying the groundwork for today ’ s paranoia .
In 2016 , accusations of imported Chinese chilis purposefully infected with bacteria made the rounds , while a year later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of millions of mainland Chinese workers taking local jobs .
In the riots that followed the May 2019 presidential election result announcements , claims that Chinese police had shot rioters while working undercover as Indonesian police went wild .
A media conference was even held to dispute this theory , with four young pale-skinned policemen paraded in front of the cameras and made to introduce themselves to prove that they were Indonesian .
So while the Wuhan coronavirus is new , the target largely remains the same .
Discrimination and racism against ethnic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simply taken on a new form .
But as with previous hoaxes , this conspiracy too has the potential to turn fatal if certain groups were to act on it .
This paranoia , so far , poses a greater threat in the country than the virus itself .
It ’ s not hard to imagine demands for the isolation of ethnic Chinese communities in major Indonesian cities or attacks on hospitals where suspected coronavirus patients are being treated .
Social media accounts like Turn Back Hoax are doing their best to combat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bit like trying to hold back a rising tide .
The authorities must get a hold on misinformation before it ’ s too late .

“Throw out your Xiaomi mobile phones!” the viral WhatsApp image read. “The coronavirus comes from China and is spreading through the server, coming out from Xiaomi speakers!”
“Throw out your Xiaomi mobile phones!” the viral WhatsApp image read. “The coronavirus comes from China and is spreading through the server, coming out from Xiaomi speakers!”
“Your life is more important,” the message underneath explained. “It is best if you throw away your Xiaomi phones.”
Conspiracy theories are part and parcel of many global events in the social media age. Natural disasters, disease outbreaks, and suicide attacks are all susceptible to fake news. Most hoaxes are generally harmless, if potentially panic-inducing, and are easily dismissed.
But in Indonesia, conspiracies around the Wuhan coronavirus have taken a sinister and racist turn.
While many are simply rumors of hospitalized patients (“be careful of XY hospital in ZZ town”) or self-protection theories about eating garlic and drinking lots of water—ideas also shared by citizens of China—a concerning number of theories are targeting Chinese citizens and Indonesians of Chinese descent.
Jakarta resident Drevina Andarini said her mother warned her to avoid busy public places, not to eat or use Chinese products, and not to touch or go near “Chinese people” (meaning Indonesians of Chinese heritage).
“I have no idea where these over-the-top theories are coming from,” Andarini said. “My mom said she read them on some website and that the author said they were a doctor.”
There’s a long history of prejudice against Chinese in Indonesia. Ethnic Chinese make up just 1.2 percent of Indonesia’s population, but their success in business and historical links to communism make them vulnerable. Most Indonesians of Chinese heritage are Christian, Buddhist, or Confucian; less than 5 percent are Muslim. In 1965-1966, hundreds of thousands of suspected communists—many of them of Chinese descent—were killed across the archipelago after the military alleged an attempted coup. In 1998, after the fall of the dictator Suharto, the violence of massive riots was directed at ethnic Chinese, who were accused of profiting from his regime—resulting in more than 1,000 deaths and almost 100 rapes.
Older people seem particularly susceptible to believing hoaxes. Most of the WhatsApp messages Foreign Policy saw, like dad spam everywhere, had been forwarded by people’s parents or extended family members. But younger born-again Muslims, who have undergone a spiritual process of finding themselves known in Indonesian as hijrah, also appear to be vulnerable.
“I try to explain [the hoaxes] to them, but it’s very difficult,” said the 28-year-old Yona, who works at a large international NGO in Jakarta. “If the hoax uses terms like ‘azab’ (doom) and ‘punishment from Allah,’ then no one is brave enough to question it.” Unfortunately, this reaction is not new—religion has become a key part of these rumors, adding an unearned credibility.
“They just say, ‘Maybe our understanding of religion is different,’” she added, before saying her mother also sends her news about the Wuhan coronavirus. “At least my mom is sometimes willing to listen to me.”
On social media, Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram posts encourage people to stay away from places where Chinese citizens or Chinese-heritage Indonesians work and live.
“After Chinese New Year, this Monday will see workers from China return to Indonesia,” one tweet read. “Be aware of the coronavirus at the BRI 2 and Generali buildings!” BRI 2 is where the large Jakarta office of the Chinese telecommunications firm Huawei is located. The tweet tagged the Directorate General of Immigration and the Health Ministry for their attention.
Major media outlets are also complicit in spreading anti-Chinese conspiracies. A morning talk show session titled “Biological weapon behind the coronavirus?” aired on Kompas TV on Jan. 29, picking up on Western conspiracy theories; the hosts persistently encouraged panelists to agree with them that the virus was a Chinese creation.
Other conspiracies focus on concern for Uighur Muslims in China, the victims of a concerted cultural and religious campaign of oppression.
“Don’t be tricked by the deception of the Chinese Communist government!” a Facebook post read. “The spread of the coronavirus in Wuhan is a deadly weapon launched by the Chinese Communist regime as part of their national program to eradicate Muslims.”
“The government of China learned from how its treatment of Uighur Muslims gained the [negative] attention of the Islamic world,” the author wrote. “Now with the spread of this deadly virus, there is a justification for the Communist Chinese regime to isolate the residents of Wuhan and identity all Muslims to be executed in the same way they were in Uighur [territories].”
The author went on to defend her post in the comments, suggesting those who disagreed might be “Chinese agents.”
English-language conspiracies aren’t helping, either. A senior development specialist in Jakarta told Foreign Policy: “There is a tendency among Indonesians to think if something is written in English that it must be true.” Even many well-educated people cannot differentiate between reliable and unreliable sources, with English-language tabloid newspapers and gossip websites a popular source of information.
With hoaxes spreading wildly across social media and WhatsApp groups, the Indonesian Health Ministry has been imploring people to remain calm.
“Coronavirus is not our enemy. Our current enemy is information that makes the public anxious,” Health Ministry staffer Kuwat Sri Hudoyo told the media on Tuesday.
Surprisingly, despite huge numbers of Chinese tourists, no cases of the Wuhan coronavirus have been confirmed in Indonesia so far. At least eight patients are under observation in hospitals across the country, but another 12 have tested negative. Indonesia is the only country among the top 10 destinations for international flights from Wuhan without a confirmed case.
But none of this will stop the anti-Chinese conspiracy theories, which have taken on a new intensity in recent years. Particularly since Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama—who is Christian and of Chinese heritage—became governor of Jakarta in 2014, anti-Chinese sentiments have been increasingly taken up by hard-line Islamist movements like the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI). FPI accused Ahok of being anti-Islamic and successfully pushed for a charge of blasphemy; Ahok was controversially sentenced to two years in jail.
During his time as governor, large plastic banners warning residents of “the latent danger of communism” appeared on main thoroughfares, while digital groups such as the Muslim Cyber Army frequently encouraged their supporters to defend their religion from secularism, communism, and Christianity, using hashtags like #WaspadaKomunis (“be aware of communists”), #GebukPKI (“beat up the Indonesian Communist Party”), and #MuslimBersatu (“Muslims unite”).
China’s growing influence and presence in Indonesian markets has also given new punch to conspiracy theories, laying the groundwork for today’s paranoia. In 2016, accusations of imported Chinese chilis purposefully infected with bacteria made the rounds, while a year later, rumors swirled around a fictional influx of millions of mainland Chinese workers taking local jobs. In the riots that followed the May 2019 presidential election result announcements, claims that Chinese police had shot rioters while working undercover as Indonesian police went wild. A media conference was even held to dispute this theory, with four young pale-skinned policemen paraded in front of the cameras and made to introduce themselves to prove that they were Indonesian.
So while the Wuhan coronavirus is new, the target largely remains the same. Discrimination and racism against ethnic Chinese—whether Indonesian citizens or from China itself—have simply taken on a new form. But as with previous hoaxes, this conspiracy too has the potential to turn fatal if certain groups were to act on it. This paranoia, so far, poses a greater threat in the country than the virus itself. It’s not hard to imagine demands for the isolation of ethnic Chinese communities in major Indonesian cities or attacks on hospitals where suspected coronavirus patients are being treated. Social media accounts like Turn Back Hoax are doing their best to combat these theories, but it’s a bit like trying to hold back a rising tide. The authorities must get a hold on misinformation before it’s too late.


foreignpolicy--2020-01-31--Trump’s Peace Plan Is Palestinians’ Worst Nightmare

ABU DIS , West Bank—If Jared Kushner gets his way , Abu Dis will be part of the capital of the future state of Palestine .
What was once a sleepy village outside Jerusalem that offered picturesque views of the Dome of the Rock is now a decrepit , lawless enclave abutting Israel ’ s separation wall .
For years , rumors circulated that this would become the Palestinians ’ future capital ; in fact , it was supposed to house the Palestinian parliament .
After the Oslo Accords were signed in the 1990s , the building was erected as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out to be substantiated—emerged among Palestinians that it would come to symbolize a relinquishing of the principle of a state whose capital is in Jerusalem proper , including its Old City .
The building was mostly done but then quickly abandoned for fear that it would be an omen of events to come : a temporary solution which became permanent .
Since the start of the peace process , Palestinians have negotiated for East Jerusalem ( the half of the city east of the “ Green Line , ” its internationally recognized boundary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future state .
Most of the international community views it as occupied land , and therefore common consensus was that its fate would be determined through final-status negotiations .
But what U.S. President Donald Trump ’ s plan for Middle East peace , unveiled on Jan. 28 , proposes is to let Israel ’ s separation wall ( built on the pretext that it ’ s a temporary security precaution ) be its eastern border , letting the Palestinian Authority ( PA ) take responsibility for areas east and north—including the largely ungoverned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ camp and Abu Dis—and name them al-Quds , or “ The Holy One , ” a designation that applies to the city of Jerusalem proper , not its outlying villages.Trump ’ s plan would render the Green Line meaningless and push the border of East Jerusalem back beyond the actual city ’ s periphery , into its hinterland .
This would render the Green Line meaningless and push the border of East Jerusalem back beyond the actual city ’ s periphery , into its hinterland .
“ It ’ s impossible for us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” said Rula Hardal , who teaches political science at Al-Quds University .
“ Our official stance has long been that East Jerusalem is our capital.
” When Trump won the U.S. presidency in 2016 , Palestinians were cautiously optimistic that his ad hoc , bombastic style and untested foreign-policy record could bring about the unconventional shift they were looking for in negotiations .
Instead , following a trip to Israel and the Palestinian territories in 2017 , Trump declared he would be moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s “ undivided ” capital .
This followed a series of policies in Israel ’ s favor that pummeled the shocked PA : Trump deprived the U.N .
Relief and Works Agency of the U.S. donations it depended on to continue providing services to Palestinian refugees , stopped aid to the PA itself , closed down the Palestinian diplomatic mission in Washington , and recognized Israel ’ s annexation of the occupied Golan Heights—unilaterally pulling some of the most fraught final-status issues off the table .
Last week , with much bravado , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the century ” to end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians , flanked by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House .
“ I would now like to introduce the Prime Minister of Israel , who ’ s worked so hard on this , ” said Trump as he let Netanyahu take the podium .
The plan basically consists of the most extreme right-wing Israeli negotiating positions discussed on each issue over the years—positions for which Netanyahu has long advocated .
The Israeli premier said the day would be remembered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ created in 1948 .
“ Mr .
President , I believe that down the decades , and perhaps down the centuries , we will also remember January 28th , 2020 , ” he said .
The Palestinians were never consulted .
In fact , they had not spoken to Washington in about two years .
For Palestinians , their worst fears were confirmed : plans for isolated Palestinian cantons adjoined by bridges and tunnels , with the assumption that all of Area C in the West Bank ( the majority of its land @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) would be annexed to Israel , including the Jordan Valley , the breadbasket of the West Bank .
Refugees would be resettled only in a future Palestinian state and if cleared by Israel , in third countries , or the states they currently reside in .
Israel would maintain its control of all borders and overall security , robbing Palestinians of any meaningful attempt to exercise self-determination .
Gaza would have no control of its territorial waters , would be linked with a tunnel to the southern West Bank , and would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ land near the Egyptian border .
PA President Mahmoud Abbas ’ s response to the plan was swift : “ a thousand noes ” to a plan that would give Palestinians less than any other U.S. president had offered in the past .
The “ deal , the conspiracy , will not pass , ” he proclaimed .
It would end up in “ the dustbin of history.
” For Palestinians , their worst fears were confirmed .
Abbas leapt to his usual go-to plan : a summit with representatives of Arab states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this time in Cairo on Feb. 1 , followed by meetings of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation , the Non-Aligned Movement , and the African Union .
“ The Cairo visit will be tough I believe , ” said Nour Odeh , a political analyst and former PA government spokesperson .
“ The Arab countries that already took public positions in favor of Trump ’ s plan can not walk these positions back.
” “ But Abbas is going there to force them to either say that out loud , in Arabic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end of the Arab League—or they have to fall in line to a degree and come up with an acceptable ‘ unified position , ’ ” Odeh said .
The institution itself , already teetering on the brink of irrelevance , could be kicked over the edge by this issue , as it has always been a controversial subject among members .
The Palestinian permanent observer at the United Nations , Riyad Mansour , said that Abbas would also be speaking at the U.N. Security Council within two weeks and that he hoped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s plan at that time .
“ The U.N. is a different ballgame , ” Odeh added .
“ That ’ s where Palestine can shine .
Trump ’ s plan is an assault on the U.N. Charter , on the rules all members obey .
They can ’ t simply say we ’ ll make an exception for Trump .
The U.N. will not offer immediate relief , but it will realign the international conversation .
Countries that may feel cornered and intimidated will have an easier time banding together.
” However @ @ @ @ @ @ @ veto any resolution critical of Israel , leaving it toothless , especially in the Security Council , where resolutions can be binding .
But other than attempting to shore up international support , the PA leadership doesn ’ t seem to have many options up its sleeve .
It is plagued with internal divisions , and its cause seems to have taken a back seat to regional dynamics and priorities .
In several polls , Palestinians have voiced their support for cutting off security coordination with Israel and even for the PA to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this in a speech he gave immediately after Trump ’ s plan was released , saying the “ function ” of the PA would change accordingly .
When Foreign Policy approached his aides and other Palestinian leaders asking what he meant , they all resoundingly said they did not know .
“ There are very few choices left aside from pronouncing Oslo null and void , ” Hardal said .
“ That includes ceasing security coordination with Israel .
… Yes , we run ministries and have municipalities , but in reality we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempting to shore up international support , the PA leadership doesn ’ t seem to have many options up its sleeve .
The Palestinian leadership has previously threatened , on several occasions , to discard the Oslo Accords , as well as to dismantle the PA , effectively leaving Israel with the pre-1990s task of managing the civil affairs of the West Bank and providing services to its current 2.5 million disenfranchised Palestinians .
Nevertheless , it is doubtful that the Palestinian leadership would ever relinquish its power as the authority in charge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is even more doubtful that Israel would once again take responsibility for the population living in the territory it occupies .
Since the Trump plan was announced , protests have erupted in the West Bank and Gaza Strip , as well as in neighboring Lebanon and Jordan .
Jordanian King Abdullah II was clear in the days leading to the plan ’ s release that he would oppose any elements of it that impacted his country negatively .
The Jordanian foreign minister , Ayman Safadi , said that only a two-state solution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acceptable for Palestinians and to ensure a lasting peace in the region .
During the unveiling , Trump did very little to reassure Jordan about its custodianship of Jerusalem ’ s holy sites .
“ Israel will work closely with a wonderful person , a wonderful man , the king of Jordan … to ensure that all Muslims who wish to visit peacefully and pray at the al-Aqsa Mosque will be able to do so , ” Trump said .
Palestinians were especially vexed to see that representatives of Oman , the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan ’ s unveiling in Washington .
Saudi Arabia was absent from the unveiling , but Riyadh called on Palestinians to examine the plan carefully and to start “ direct peace negotiations.
” Abbas is aware that there are limits to how much he can rely on the Saudis for support .
In November 2017 , when Abbas visited Riyadh , Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ( who is a confidant of Kushner , one of the plan ’ s key architects ) reportedly spoke to him of a plan for a Palestinian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limited sovereignty .
He also spoke of Abu Dis as a capital for this disjointed state .
Washington has long hoped—and prodded—Arab states , especially those in the Gulf , to pressure Abbas into submitting to such a plan .
“ It also doesn ’ t help when some Arab states are complicit , ” said Hardal .
“ As Palestinians , we are in a weak position on the leadership level and even on the popular level .
We are paralyzed with political bankruptcy.
” Many Palestinians have long been skeptical about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mediator , but without any choice but to proceed , they lumbered forward for the past 20 years , negotiating under less favorable terms with each subsequent administration .
Judging by what happens at the international level , Abbas may find himself isolated .
He may try to weather the storm by waiting for the results of Israeli and U.S. elections .
Or he may have no choice but to adhere to this charade of a two-state solution even as the current plan inches Palestinians and Israelis closer to a one-state reality together.Palestinians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two-state paradigm in favor of a single state with equal rights for all .
Israel is the single sovereign entity operating on the ground between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea , controlling what and whom it lets in and out .
The PA ’ s islands of administration in the West Bank are still subjected to constant night raids by Israel ’ s army , and the Hamas-governed Gaza Strip has effectively been under siege for about 12 years , suffering military assaults , electricity shortages , and a lack of potable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Palestinian Authority did not end the military occupation or the reality that Palestinians are first and foremost subjects of Israeli military courts , ” said Nour Joudah , a Palestinian geographer .
“ The map released as a new vision forward is nothing more than an attempt to cement once and for all the facts on the ground that Israel has been working toward for over 70 years.
” Disillusioned with the status quo , especially following years of peace processing , Palestinians are increasingly voicing their rejection of the two-state paradigm in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights for all .
Such a new state would likely have a demographic balance skewed decidedly toward the Palestinians—a fact Israeli society at large may not be ready to stomach .
“ That we still feel the need to declare the end of the two state solution is indicative of a state-centric obsession with peace , ” said Joudah .
“ The two-state solution was dead on arrival .
It ’ s time to move on and start ( or go back to ) asking difficult questions of ourselves that are not confined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump is just a reflection of a pattern , which is the imperial control of our country , ” said the Rev .
Munther Isaac , a Lutheran pastor of Bethlehem and one of the most prominent Palestinian theologians .
“ Our youth have been engaged .
… What you will find in Bethlehem , and in Palestine overall , is very promising small initiatives that have not yet grown on a national level.
” Indeed , the next decade will be defined by the actions of a new generation which distances itself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , using new and innovative models to resist what they see as an unjust plan to strip them of their rights and homeland .
Regardless of what leaders in Israel , the United States , or the Arab world decide should be the Palestinians ’ future , this generation seeks to chart its own course , fulfilling its destiny as it sees fit .

ABU DIS, West Bank—If Jared Kushner gets his way, Abu Dis will be part of the capital of the future state of Palestine. What was once a sleepy village outside Jerusalem that offered picturesque views of the Dome of the Rock is now a decrepit, lawless enclave abutting Israel’s separation wall.
ABU DIS, West Bank—If Jared Kushner gets his way, Abu Dis will be part of the capital of the future state of Palestine. What was once a sleepy village outside Jerusalem that offered picturesque views of the Dome of the Rock is now a decrepit, lawless enclave abutting Israel’s separation wall.
For years, rumors circulated that this would become the Palestinians’ future capital; in fact, it was supposed to house the Palestinian parliament. After the Oslo Accords were signed in the 1990s, the building was erected as an interim solution, but fears—which turned out to be substantiated—emerged among Palestinians that it would come to symbolize a relinquishing of the principle of a state whose capital is in Jerusalem proper, including its Old City. The building was mostly done but then quickly abandoned for fear that it would be an omen of events to come: a temporary solution which became permanent.
Since the start of the peace process, Palestinians have negotiated for East Jerusalem (the half of the city east of the “Green Line,” its internationally recognized boundary) to be the capital of a future state. Most of the international community views it as occupied land, and therefore common consensus was that its fate would be determined through final-status negotiations.
But what U.S. President Donald Trump’s plan for Middle East peace, unveiled on Jan. 28, proposes is to let Israel’s separation wall (built on the pretext that it’s a temporary security precaution) be its eastern border, letting the Palestinian Authority (PA) take responsibility for areas east and north—including the largely ungoverned enclaves of Kufr Aqab, Shuafat refugee camp and Abu Dis—and name them al-Quds, or “The Holy One,” a designation that applies to the city of Jerusalem proper, not its outlying villages.Trump’s plan would render the Green Line meaningless and push the border of East Jerusalem back beyond the actual city’s periphery, into its hinterland.
This would render the Green Line meaningless and push the border of East Jerusalem back beyond the actual city’s periphery, into its hinterland.
“It’s impossible for us to accept Abu Dis as a capital,” said Rula Hardal, who teaches political science at Al-Quds University. “Our official stance has long been that East Jerusalem is our capital.”
When Trump won the U.S. presidency in 2016, Palestinians were cautiously optimistic that his ad hoc, bombastic style and untested foreign-policy record could bring about the unconventional shift they were looking for in negotiations. Instead, following a trip to Israel and the Palestinian territories in 2017, Trump declared he would be moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and recognize the city as Israel’s “undivided” capital.
This followed a series of policies in Israel’s favor that pummeled the shocked PA: Trump deprived the U.N. Relief and Works Agency of the U.S. donations it depended on to continue providing services to Palestinian refugees, stopped aid to the PA itself, closed down the Palestinian diplomatic mission in Washington, and recognized Israel’s annexation of the occupied Golan Heights—unilaterally pulling some of the most fraught final-status issues off the table.
Last week, with much bravado, Trump unveiled his vaunted “deal of the century” to end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, flanked by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House. “I would now like to introduce the Prime Minister of Israel, who’s worked so hard on this,” said Trump as he let Netanyahu take the podium.
The plan basically consists of the most extreme right-wing Israeli negotiating positions discussed on each issue over the years—positions for which Netanyahu has long advocated. The Israeli premier said the day would be remembered as equally historic as when Israel was created in 1948. “Mr. President, I believe that down the decades, and perhaps down the centuries, we will also remember January 28th, 2020,” he said. The Palestinians were never consulted. In fact, they had not spoken to Washington in about two years.
For Palestinians, their worst fears were confirmed: plans for isolated Palestinian cantons adjoined by bridges and tunnels, with the assumption that all of Area C in the West Bank (the majority of its land and also where Israeli settlements are located) would be annexed to Israel, including the Jordan Valley, the breadbasket of the West Bank.
Refugees would be resettled only in a future Palestinian state and if cleared by Israel, in third countries, or the states they currently reside in. Israel would maintain its control of all borders and overall security, robbing Palestinians of any meaningful attempt to exercise self-determination. Gaza would have no control of its territorial waters, would be linked with a tunnel to the southern West Bank, and would also get some barren tracts of desert land near the Egyptian border.
PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s response to the plan was swift: “a thousand noes” to a plan that would give Palestinians less than any other U.S. president had offered in the past. The “deal, the conspiracy, will not pass,” he proclaimed. It would end up in “the dustbin of history.”For Palestinians, their worst fears were confirmed.
Abbas leapt to his usual go-to plan: a summit with representatives of Arab states at an “emergency” meeting, this time in Cairo on Feb. 1, followed by meetings of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, the Non-Aligned Movement, and the African Union.
“The Cairo visit will be tough I believe,” said Nour Odeh, a political analyst and former PA government spokesperson. “The Arab countries that already took public positions in favor of Trump’s plan cannot walk these positions back.”
“But Abbas is going there to force them to either say that out loud, in Arabic, through the Arab League—which basically means the end of the Arab League—or they have to fall in line to a degree and come up with an acceptable ‘unified position,’” Odeh said. The institution itself, already teetering on the brink of irrelevance, could be kicked over the edge by this issue, as it has always been a controversial subject among members.
The Palestinian permanent observer at the United Nations, Riyad Mansour, said that Abbas would also be speaking at the U.N. Security Council within two weeks and that he hoped the council would vote against Trump’s plan at that time.
“The U.N. is a different ballgame,” Odeh added. “That’s where Palestine can shine. Trump’s plan is an assault on the U.N. Charter, on the rules all members obey. They can’t simply say we’ll make an exception for Trump. The U.N. will not offer immediate relief, but it will realign the international conversation. Countries that may feel cornered and intimidated will have an easier time banding together.” However, the U.S. government is certain to veto any resolution critical of Israel, leaving it toothless, especially in the Security Council, where resolutions can be binding.
But other than attempting to shore up international support, the PA leadership doesn’t seem to have many options up its sleeve. It is plagued with internal divisions, and its cause seems to have taken a back seat to regional dynamics and priorities.
In several polls, Palestinians have voiced their support for cutting off security coordination with Israel and even for the PA to dismantle itself altogether. Abbas alluded to this in a speech he gave immediately after Trump’s plan was released, saying the “function” of the PA would change accordingly. When Foreign Policy approached his aides and other Palestinian leaders asking what he meant, they all resoundingly said they did not know.
“There are very few choices left aside from pronouncing Oslo null and void,” Hardal said. “That includes ceasing security coordination with Israel. … Yes, we run ministries and have municipalities, but in reality we are still under occupation.”Other than attempting to shore up international support, the PA leadership doesn’t seem to have many options up its sleeve.
The Palestinian leadership has previously threatened, on several occasions, to discard the Oslo Accords, as well as to dismantle the PA, effectively leaving Israel with the pre-1990s task of managing the civil affairs of the West Bank and providing services to its current 2.5 million disenfranchised Palestinians. Nevertheless, it is doubtful that the Palestinian leadership would ever relinquish its power as the authority in charge, and even if it did, it is even more doubtful that Israel would once again take responsibility for the population living in the territory it occupies.
Since the Trump plan was announced, protests have erupted in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as in neighboring Lebanon and Jordan. Jordanian King Abdullah II was clear in the days leading to the plan’s release that he would oppose any elements of it that impacted his country negatively. The Jordanian foreign minister, Ayman Safadi, said that only a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders would be acceptable for Palestinians and to ensure a lasting peace in the region.
During the unveiling, Trump did very little to reassure Jordan about its custodianship of Jerusalem’s holy sites. “Israel will work closely with a wonderful person, a wonderful man, the king of Jordan … to ensure that all Muslims who wish to visit peacefully and pray at the al-Aqsa Mosque will be able to do so,” Trump said. Palestinians were especially vexed to see that representatives of Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain attended the plan’s unveiling in Washington.
Saudi Arabia was absent from the unveiling, but Riyadh called on Palestinians to examine the plan carefully and to start “direct peace negotiations.” Abbas is aware that there are limits to how much he can rely on the Saudis for support. In November 2017, when Abbas visited Riyadh, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (who is a confidant of Kushner, one of the plan’s key architects) reportedly spoke to him of a plan for a Palestinian state that is noncontiguous and has only limited sovereignty. He also spoke of Abu Dis as a capital for this disjointed state. Washington has long hoped—and prodded—Arab states, especially those in the Gulf, to pressure Abbas into submitting to such a plan.
“It also doesn’t help when some Arab states are complicit,” said Hardal. “As Palestinians, we are in a weak position on the leadership level and even on the popular level. We are paralyzed with political bankruptcy.”
Many Palestinians have long been skeptical about Washington’s role as a fair mediator, but without any choice but to proceed, they lumbered forward for the past 20 years, negotiating under less favorable terms with each subsequent administration.
Judging by what happens at the international level, Abbas may find himself isolated. He may try to weather the storm by waiting for the results of Israeli and U.S. elections. Or he may have no choice but to adhere to this charade of a two-state solution even as the current plan inches Palestinians and Israelis closer to a one-state reality together.Palestinians are increasingly voicing their rejection of the two-state paradigm in favor of a single state with equal rights for all.
Israel is the single sovereign entity operating on the ground between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea, controlling what and whom it lets in and out. The PA’s islands of administration in the West Bank are still subjected to constant night raids by Israel’s army, and the Hamas-governed Gaza Strip has effectively been under siege for about 12 years, suffering military assaults, electricity shortages, and a lack of potable water.
“The creation of the Palestinian Authority did not end the military occupation or the reality that Palestinians are first and foremost subjects of Israeli military courts,” said Nour Joudah, a Palestinian geographer. “The map released as a new vision forward is nothing more than an attempt to cement once and for all the facts on the ground that Israel has been working toward for over 70 years.”
Disillusioned with the status quo, especially following years of peace processing, Palestinians are increasingly voicing their rejection of the two-state paradigm in favor of a single state with equal rights for all. Such a new state would likely have a demographic balance skewed decidedly toward the Palestinians—a fact Israeli society at large may not be ready to stomach.
“That we still feel the need to declare the end of the two state solution is indicative of a state-centric obsession with peace,” said Joudah. “The two-state solution was dead on arrival. It’s time to move on and start (or go back to) asking difficult questions of ourselves that are not confined by the 1967 Green Line.”
“Trump is just a reflection of a pattern, which is the imperial control of our country,” said the Rev. Munther Isaac, a Lutheran pastor of Bethlehem and one of the most prominent Palestinian theologians. “Our youth have been engaged. … What you will find in Bethlehem, and in Palestine overall, is very promising small initiatives that have not yet grown on a national level.”
Indeed, the next decade will be defined by the actions of a new generation which distances itself from the PA and rejects its policies, using new and innovative models to resist what they see as an unjust plan to strip them of their rights and homeland. Regardless of what leaders in Israel, the United States, or the Arab world decide should be the Palestinians’ future, this generation seeks to chart its own course, fulfilling its destiny as it sees fit.


foreignpolicy--2020-01-31--Trump Prepares for Victory Lap as Impeachment Trial Winds Down

Trump Prepares for Victory Lap as Impeachment Trial Winds Down President Donald Trump now looks all but set to be acquitted in his Senate impeachment trial as the Republican Party succeeded Friday night in voting down a motion to bring in witnesses and documents .
But Trump may be robbed of the opportunity to use his annual State of the Union address on Tuesday as a victory lap , since the final vote on acquittal in the third-ever impeachment trial of a U.S. president is now scheduled to take place the next day .
The nearly 2-week-old trial has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both sides arguing that their opponents would inflict terrible damage on the republic if they got their way .
The Democratic House managers said Trump ’ s acquittal would set a dire precedent for future abuses of power by a president , while Trump ’ s defense counsel argued that to mount a highly partisan impeachment effort and remove a president with an election only nine months away would open the door to regular abuse of the impeachment remedy itself .
The president ’ s defense prevailed in the Republican-dominated Senate , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monday .
Trump ’ s acquittal is all but foreordained on Wednesday since the Democrats aren ’ t close to gaining the two-thirds majority required for conviction and removal from office .
Most of the remaining suspense over how long the trial might last ended Thursday evening , when one of the few Republican moderate holdouts , Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander , said he would vote against a move to call for further witnesses .
On Friday , he was joined by Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski , who said she would vote alongside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic votes they could secure enough Republican votes to call for more testimony .
In a statement , Murkowski said , “ I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate .
I don ’ t believe the continuation of this process will change anything.
” She added : “ It is sad for me to admit that , as an institution , the Congress has failed.
” The final vote against allowing witnesses and further documents was 51-to-49 , with two other Republican moderates , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Susan Collins , breaking ranks with their caucus to side with the Democrats .
Trump ’ s impeachment entered the home stretch as new revelations dropped about the extent of his personal involvement in the Ukraine pressure campaign .
On Friday , the New York Times reported new details from former National Security Advisor John Bolton ’ s forthcoming book , in which he describes how he was asked by Trump last May to assist in efforts to pressure Ukraine to unearth potentially damaging information on the president ’ s political rivals .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Office meeting that was also attended by White House counsel Pat Cipollone , who has led the president ’ s defense during the impeachment trial .
Details leaked about Bolton ’ s book manuscript for the first time appeared to offer a firsthand account of the president ’ s direct participation in a scheme to leverage military aid in a bid to push Ukraine to announce an investigation into the Bidens—the basis for Article 1 of impeachment , abuse of power .
During the impeachment investigation , the White House issued a blanket @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testifying or handing over documents , citing executive privilege .
That led the Democrat-dominated House to vote in Article 2 , which alleges obstruction of Congress .
A number of Republicans seemed to warm to the idea of calling for further witness testimony in the wake of the Bolton revelations , first published on Sunday by the Times , but as the week wore on and the president ’ s defense team presented their arguments , most members fell back in line with their party .
In a statement explaining his decision not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broke with some Republican lawmakers defending Trump by saying it was “ inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation.
” But he added that he did not feel that it amounted to an impeachable defense .
His statement echoes the strategy put forward by the president ’ s defense team , which argued that the accusations made against Trump did not amount to an impeachable offense .
The Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz caused a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imply that Trump ’ s actions didn ’ t amount to an impeachable offense because he was acting in what he believed was the public interest .
“ Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest , ” Dershowitz said during a Senate Q & A .
“ If a president did something that he believes will help him get elected—in the public interest—that can not be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.
” The celebrity lawyer later said his words had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not say or imply that a candidate could do anything to reassure his reelection.
” Despite the prospect of losing the vote , Democratic impeachment managers made one last appeal to Republicans to change their mind as the next stage of the impeachment trial began on Friday .
“ There has never before been a full Senate impeachment trial without a single witness , ” Democratic Rep. Val Demings said on the Senate floor .
“ Today , we ask you to follow this body ’ s uniform precedence and your common @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trial ?
Without the ability to call witnesses and produce documents , the answer is clearly and unequivocally no , ” she said .
Update , Jan. 31 , 2020 : This story was updated to reflect the results of the Senate vote on the question of whether to call for further witnesses .

President Donald Trump now looks all but set to be acquitted in his Senate impeachment trial as the Republican Party succeeded Friday night in voting down a motion to bring in witnesses and documents. But Trump may be robbed of the opportunity to use his annual State of the Union address on Tuesday as a victory lap, since the final vote on acquittal in the third-ever impeachment trial of a U.S. president is now scheduled to take place the next day.
President Donald Trump now looks all but set to be acquitted in his Senate impeachment trial as the Republican Party succeeded Friday night in voting down a motion to bring in witnesses and documents. But Trump may be robbed of the opportunity to use his annual State of the Union address on Tuesday as a victory lap, since the final vote on acquittal in the third-ever impeachment trial of a U.S. president is now scheduled to take place the next day.
The nearly 2-week-old trial has been marked by angry partisan division, with both sides arguing that their opponents would inflict terrible damage on the republic if they got their way. The Democratic House managers said Trump’s acquittal would set a dire precedent for future abuses of power by a president, while Trump’s defense counsel argued that to mount a highly partisan impeachment effort and remove a president with an election only nine months away would open the door to regular abuse of the impeachment remedy itself.
The president’s defense prevailed in the Republican-dominated Senate, which will begin hearing closing arguments this coming Monday. Trump’s acquittal is all but foreordained on Wednesday since the Democrats aren’t close to gaining the two-thirds majority required for conviction and removal from office. Most of the remaining suspense over how long the trial might last ended Thursday evening, when one of the few Republican moderate holdouts, Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, said he would vote against a move to call for further witnesses. On Friday, he was joined by Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who said she would vote alongside the majority of her party, dashing Democratic votes they could secure enough Republican votes to call for more testimony.
In a statement, Murkowski said, “I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate. I don’t believe the continuation of this process will change anything.” She added: “It is sad for me to admit that, as an institution, the Congress has failed.”
The final vote against allowing witnesses and further documents was 51-to-49, with two other Republican moderates, Utah Sen. Mitt Romney and Maine Sen. Susan Collins, breaking ranks with their caucus to side with the Democrats.
Trump’s impeachment entered the home stretch as new revelations dropped about the extent of his personal involvement in the Ukraine pressure campaign. On Friday, the New York Times reported new details from former National Security Advisor John Bolton’s forthcoming book, in which he describes how he was asked by Trump last May to assist in efforts to pressure Ukraine to unearth potentially damaging information on the president’s political rivals. The directive was given during an Oval Office meeting that was also attended by White House counsel Pat Cipollone, who has led the president’s defense during the impeachment trial.
Details leaked about Bolton’s book manuscript for the first time appeared to offer a firsthand account of the president’s direct participation in a scheme to leverage military aid in a bid to push Ukraine to announce an investigation into the Bidens—the basis for Article 1 of impeachment, abuse of power. During the impeachment investigation, the White House issued a blanket directive barring current and former officials from testifying or handing over documents, citing executive privilege. That led the Democrat-dominated House to vote in Article 2, which alleges obstruction of Congress.
A number of Republicans seemed to warm to the idea of calling for further witness testimony in the wake of the Bolton revelations, first published on Sunday by the Times, but as the week wore on and the president’s defense team presented their arguments, most members fell back in line with their party.
In a statement explaining his decision not to vote for more witnesses, Alexander broke with some Republican lawmakers defending Trump by saying it was “inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation.” But he added that he did not feel that it amounted to an impeachable defense.
His statement echoes the strategy put forward by the president’s defense team, which argued that the accusations made against Trump did not amount to an impeachable offense. The Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz caused a stir on Wednesday as he seemed to imply that Trump’s actions didn’t amount to an impeachable offense because he was acting in what he believed was the public interest. “Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest,” Dershowitz said during a Senate Q&A. “If a president did something that he believes will help him get elected—in the public interest—that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.” The celebrity lawyer later said his words had been distorted, tweeting, “I did not say or imply that a candidate could do anything to reassure his reelection.”
Despite the prospect of losing the vote, Democratic impeachment managers made one last appeal to Republicans to change their mind as the next stage of the impeachment trial began on Friday.
“There has never before been a full Senate impeachment trial without a single witness,” Democratic Rep. Val Demings said on the Senate floor. “Today, we ask you to follow this body’s uniform precedence and your common sense.”
“Is this a fair trial? Without the ability to call witnesses and produce documents, the answer is clearly and unequivocally no,” she said.
Update, Jan. 31, 2020: This story was updated to reflect the results of the Senate vote on the question of whether to call for further witnesses.


foreignpolicy--2020-01-31--Human Trafficking Helps Terrorists Earn Money and Strategic Advantage

Twenty years ago , global leaders from nearly 120 countries joined forces through a new U.N. convention to agree on a universal definition of human trafficking and recommit themselves to ridding the world of it .
That same year , the U.S. government enacted the Trafficking Victims Protection Act to close gaps in U.S. law .
Yet , despite near-universal pledges to eradicate the crime , human trafficking and modern slavery continue unabated , affecting more than 40 million people worldwide .
This failure poses a global threat : While human trafficking is rightfully condemned as a grave affront to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unchecked .
As the United States renews its commitment to protecting freedom and ending slavery—with its annual observation of National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention this month , culminating on National Freedom Day on Feb. 1—it should address the many ways that human trafficking imperils global security .
Indeed , this practice supports terrorist and armed groups , bankrolls criminal organizations , enables abusive regimes , and undermines stability , according to a recent Council on Foreign Relations report written with my colleague , Rachel Vogelstein .
Part of the problem is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a direct tactic of war , generating profits and advancing their strategic aims .
Insurgent groups—from central Africa ’ s Lord ’ s Resistance Army to Libyan militias—have used captives to expand military capabilities and support operations , with victims forced to serve as combatants , messengers , cooks , porters , and spies .
Other terrorist organizations—including the Islamic State and Boko Haram—engage in sex trafficking .
They use enslaved women to attract and mobilize male fighters and generate significant revenue as well .
In 2014 alone , ransom payments extracted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 35 million and $ 45 million .
In other words , such groups use trafficking to expand their power and capabilities , thereby prolonging conflict .
Refugees and migrants are at particularly high risk of both labor and sex trafficking , and their numbers are increasing .
The scale of the problem is only growing , exacerbated by global challenges including forced migration .
Refugees and migrants are at particularly high risk of both labor and sex trafficking , and their numbers are increasing—by the end of 2018 , more than 70 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence , conflict , and persecution , close to double the figure a decade ago .
Their lack of legal status leaves refugees and migrants vulnerable to exploitation ; traffickers deliberately deceive workers about their country of final destination and their living and working conditions .
Transnational criminal groups in Southeast Asia , for example , prey on Rohingya refugees fleeing persecution in Myanmar , promising them lucrative employment in Malaysia only to hold them captive at sea in fishing vessels or in trafficking camps along the Malaysia-Thailand border .
Traffickers earn an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ victims into further exploitation or demanding ransom from captives ’ families , generating between $ 50 million and $ 100 million annually .
In Central America , smugglers , criminals , and traffickers—emboldened by restrictive and punitive U.S. immigration policies—capitalize on migrants ’ desperation to reach safety in the United States : Smugglers charge migrants exorbitant fees , and some leverage debt into forced labor or sexual exploitation .
In that way , human trafficking bankrolls operations for transnational crime syndicates and extremist groups ; forced labor produces an estimated $ 150 billion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the world ’ s most profitable crimes .
Beyond emboldening terrorist groups and bankrolling criminal activity , human trafficking also supports abusive regimes .
Some repressive governments traffic their own citizens and compel them to labor in harsh conditions in order to bolster the economy or suppress dissent .
The U.S. State Department estimates that the North Korean government , for example , has close to 100,000 forced laborers working abroad , mainly in China and Russia , often in harsh conditions .
By taxing those overseas workers , the regime has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , thereby helping it mitigate the effects of economic sanctions .
Even peacekeeping missions and military installations have contributed to an increase in human trafficking from the Balkans to Haiti to South Korea .
Between 2001 and 2011 , one study found that the presence of peacekeeping forces was positively correlated with forced prostitution , damaging public perceptions of the United Nations .
Last year , U.S. government inspectors uncovered abuses by Defense Department contractors participating in labor trafficking .
The contractors were allegedly hiring workers from third-party countries to work in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bases in Kuwait ( an issue previously documented on U.S. bases in Iraq ) ; investigators found that the contractors had illegally charged recruitment fees to the victims , housed them in substandard conditions , and withheld their passports .
Perpetrating sex and labor trafficking diminishes U.S. influence in tackling the very same crime .
The human cost that trafficking exacts on communities is detrimental and long lasting : the associated stigma—particularly in instances of sexual exploitation and children being used by armed groups—marginalizes survivors , creating a cycle of poverty that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts in post-conflict societies Despite the security implications of human trafficking , convictions for trafficking offenses are rare , programs focused on prevention and protection are underresourced , and most efforts to address human trafficking are detached from broader conflict prevention , security , and counterterrorism initiatives .
The issue of trafficking has been seen as a concern primarily of human rights activists , not of the national security community .
However , a growing body of research and evidence suggests that as security threats converge , human trafficking becomes a threat multiplier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and foments greater insecurity .
To prevent human trafficking and advance global security , governments should do more to disrupt the criminal networks and terrorist groups that exploit conflict-related human trafficking while prioritizing the prevention and prosecution of human trafficking in conflicts .
They should apply travel bans and asset freezes on human traffickers ; pursue trafficking and sexual slavery charges against Islamic State affiliates ; collect intelligence on human trafficking in locations where they already track drug and arms trafficking ; and lead by example by ensuring that their own practices don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Human trafficking is a threat to both human rights and global stability , bolstering terrorist groups , transnational crime networks , and repressive regimes .
Ignoring its spread undermines our collective efforts to advance a more peaceful and secure world .

Twenty years ago, global leaders from nearly 120 countries joined forces through a new U.N. convention to agree on a universal definition of human trafficking and recommit themselves to ridding the world of it. That same year, the U.S. government enacted the Trafficking Victims Protection Act to close gaps in U.S. law. Yet, despite near-universal pledges to eradicate the crime, human trafficking and modern slavery continue unabated, affecting more than 40 million people worldwide.
Twenty years ago, global leaders from nearly 120 countries joined forces through a new U.N. convention to agree on a universal definition of human trafficking and recommit themselves to ridding the world of it. That same year, the U.S. government enacted the Trafficking Victims Protection Act to close gaps in U.S. law. Yet, despite near-universal pledges to eradicate the crime, human trafficking and modern slavery continue unabated, affecting more than 40 million people worldwide.
This failure poses a global threat: While human trafficking is rightfully condemned as a grave affront to human rights and dignity, it persists unchecked. As the United States renews its commitment to protecting freedom and ending slavery—with its annual observation of National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention this month, culminating on National Freedom Day on Feb. 1—it should address the many ways that human trafficking imperils global security. Indeed, this practice supports terrorist and armed groups, bankrolls criminal organizations, enables abusive regimes, and undermines stability, according to a recent Council on Foreign Relations report written with my colleague, Rachel Vogelstein.
Part of the problem is that armed and violent extremist groups use trafficking as a direct tactic of war, generating profits and advancing their strategic aims. Insurgent groups—from central Africa’s Lord’s Resistance Army to Libyan militias—have used captives to expand military capabilities and support operations, with victims forced to serve as combatants, messengers, cooks, porters, and spies. Other terrorist organizations—including the Islamic State and Boko Haram—engage in sex trafficking. They use enslaved women to attract and mobilize male fighters and generate significant revenue as well. In 2014 alone, ransom payments extracted by the Islamic State amounted to between $35 million and $45 million. In other words, such groups use trafficking to expand their power and capabilities, thereby prolonging conflict.
Refugees and migrants are at particularly high risk of both labor and sex trafficking, and their numbers are increasing.
The scale of the problem is only growing, exacerbated by global challenges including forced migration. Refugees and migrants are at particularly high risk of both labor and sex trafficking, and their numbers are increasing—by the end of 2018, more than 70 million people had been forcibly displaced by violence, conflict, and persecution, close to double the figure a decade ago. Their lack of legal status leaves refugees and migrants vulnerable to exploitation; traffickers deliberately deceive workers about their country of final destination and their living and working conditions.
Transnational criminal groups in Southeast Asia, for example, prey on Rohingya refugees fleeing persecution in Myanmar, promising them lucrative employment in Malaysia only to hold them captive at sea in fishing vessels or in trafficking camps along the Malaysia-Thailand border. Traffickers earn an estimated $60,000 per ship by selling victims into further exploitation or demanding ransom from captives’ families, generating between $50 million and $100 million annually. In Central America, smugglers, criminals, and traffickers—emboldened by restrictive and punitive U.S. immigration policies—capitalize on migrants’ desperation to reach safety in the United States: Smugglers charge migrants exorbitant fees, and some leverage debt into forced labor or sexual exploitation. In that way, human trafficking bankrolls operations for transnational crime syndicates and extremist groups; forced labor produces an estimated $150 billion annually for perpetrators, making it one of the world’s most profitable crimes.
Beyond emboldening terrorist groups and bankrolling criminal activity, human trafficking also supports abusive regimes. Some repressive governments traffic their own citizens and compel them to labor in harsh conditions in order to bolster the economy or suppress dissent. The U.S. State Department estimates that the North Korean government, for example, has close to 100,000 forced laborers working abroad, mainly in China and Russia, often in harsh conditions. By taxing those overseas workers, the regime has generated more than $500 million annually, thereby helping it mitigate the effects of economic sanctions.
Even peacekeeping missions and military installations have contributed to an increase in human trafficking from the Balkans to Haiti to South Korea. Between 2001 and 2011, one study found that the presence of peacekeeping forces was positively correlated with forced prostitution, damaging public perceptions of the United Nations. Last year, U.S. government inspectors uncovered abuses by Defense Department contractors participating in labor trafficking. The contractors were allegedly hiring workers from third-party countries to work in a variety of support jobs—including food services—on U.S. bases in Kuwait (an issue previously documented on U.S. bases in Iraq); investigators found that the contractors had illegally charged recruitment fees to the victims, housed them in substandard conditions, and withheld their passports. Perpetrating sex and labor trafficking diminishes U.S. influence in tackling the very same crime.
The human cost that trafficking exacts on communities is detrimental and long lasting: the associated stigma—particularly in instances of sexual exploitation and children being used by armed groups—marginalizes survivors, creating a cycle of poverty that is difficult to break and impeding the recovery efforts in post-conflict societies
Despite the security implications of human trafficking, convictions for trafficking offenses are rare, programs focused on prevention and protection are underresourced, and most efforts to address human trafficking are detached from broader conflict prevention, security, and counterterrorism initiatives. The issue of trafficking has been seen as a concern primarily of human rights activists, not of the national security community. However, a growing body of research and evidence suggests that as security threats converge, human trafficking becomes a threat multiplier, since it finances other criminal activities and foments greater insecurity.
To prevent human trafficking and advance global security, governments should do more to disrupt the criminal networks and terrorist groups that exploit conflict-related human trafficking while prioritizing the prevention and prosecution of human trafficking in conflicts. They should apply travel bans and asset freezes on human traffickers; pursue trafficking and sexual slavery charges against Islamic State affiliates; collect intelligence on human trafficking in locations where they already track drug and arms trafficking; and lead by example by ensuring that their own practices don’t lead to more victimization.
Human trafficking is a threat to both human rights and global stability, bolstering terrorist groups, transnational crime networks, and repressive regimes. Ignoring its spread undermines our collective efforts to advance a more peaceful and secure world.


So Long, Farewell

At 11 p.m. local time Friday , the United Kingdom will officially leave the European Union—making Brexit , for which British citizens voted in a 2016 referendum , a reality .
Ahead of Brexit Day , Ursula von der Leyen , the president of the European Commission , had some words for the departing nation .
She warned that the United Kingdom would have to uphold European values for continued special access to the European trade zone while also promising that the EU would do its best to work with its former member .
After the United Kingdom departs the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure all that happens will begin .
The full transcript is below .
As president of the European Commission , first of all , I want to pay tribute to all those British people who contributed so much to almost half a century of British EU membership .
And I think of all those who helped to build our institutions .
People like Commissioner Arthur Cockfield , who was known as the “ father of our single market.
” Or Roy Jenkins , president of the European Commission , who did so much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ currency .
I think of these thousands of European civil servants of British nationality who devoted their lives and their careers to Europe and have done so much to build our union .
They will always stay part of our family .
And I think of all those years , so many British MEPs [ members of the European Parliament ] have contributed to making this parliament and the union strong .
You have our gratitude and our respect—even more so for your resilience in the last three and a half years .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ will always keep up our friendship with you .
And you can count on us—as we know that we can count on you .
In the last plenary session , we discussed the issue of citizens ’ rights .
We will also be vigilant on the implementation of the agreement in Northern Ireland .
The power-sharing agreement in Northern Ireland gives us hope that a spirit of cooperation will continue to mark relations across the border .
Yet the withdrawal agreement is only a first step .
From now on , it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kingdom .
The negotiations are about to start .
Just to be very clear : I want the European Union and the United Kingdom to stay good friends and good partners .
The story is about old friends and new beginnings .
And we have a lot in common .
We both believe that climate change needs to be fought as a matter of urgency .
There is still scope to address these risks , but the window of opportunity is closing .
So let us join forces in protecting our planet .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ little power to break a fragile balance and to turn it into a full-blown conflict but that the true power lies in putting the pieces back together .
Therefore , we both believe in the power of development cooperation , and we know that our security is interlinked , and here , too , we should join forces .
For all these and many other reasons , we want to forge a close partnership .
But we also know that we have to sort out how to deal with the United Kingdom as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to trade , we are considering a free trade agreement with zero tariffs and zero quotas .
This would be unique .
No other free trade agreement offers such an access to our single market .
But the precondition is that European and British businesses continue to compete on a level playing field .
We will certainly not expose our companies to unfair competition .
And it is very clear .
The trade-off is simple : The more the U.K. does commit to uphold our standards for social protection and workers ’ rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other standards and rules ensuring fair competition , the closer and better their access to the single market .
And let me say that , just days ago , some of the largest business associations in Britain—particularly in the car and aerospace industry—asked their government to retain EU standards and rules .
I think this is in our mutual interest .
This is about jobs .
It is about common solutions for the world market .
And I believe that the United Kingdom and the European Union have a mutual interest in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partnership will bring back the benefits of being part of the same union .
But we have the duty to seek the best for the British and for the European people in a post-Brexit world .
On our side , we will seek the best for industries and farmers across our continent who ask for predictability .
We will seek our best for young British and young European students who want to study and who want to live across the [ English ] Channel .
And we will seek the best for all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explore the unknown and work for common solutions together in the European Union as well as the United Kingdom .
We will devote all our energy , 24/7 , to come to results .
And to our British friends and many—perhaps not all , but many—of our British MEPs here in the room , I want to use the words of the famous poet George Eliot .
She said : “ Only in the agony of parting do we look into the depths of love.
” We will always love you , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transcript is taken from the website of the European Commission .

At 11 p.m. local time Friday, the United Kingdom will officially leave the European Union—making Brexit, for which British citizens voted in a 2016 referendum, a reality. Ahead of Brexit Day, Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, had some words for the departing nation. She warned that the United Kingdom would have to uphold European values for continued special access to the European trade zone while also promising that the EU would do its best to work with its former member. After the United Kingdom departs the union, the real work of making sure all that happens will begin.
At 11 p.m. local time Friday, the United Kingdom will officially leave the European Union—making Brexit, for which British citizens voted in a 2016 referendum, a reality. Ahead of Brexit Day, Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, had some words for the departing nation. She warned that the United Kingdom would have to uphold European values for continued special access to the European trade zone while also promising that the EU would do its best to work with its former member. After the United Kingdom departs the union, the real work of making sure all that happens will begin.
The full transcript is below.
Honorable members,
As president of the European Commission, first of all, I want to pay tribute to all those British people who contributed so much to almost half a century of British EU membership.
And I think of all those who helped to build our institutions. People like Commissioner Arthur Cockfield, who was known as the “father of our single market.” Or Roy Jenkins, president of the European Commission, who did so much to pave the way for our single currency.
I think of these thousands of European civil servants of British nationality who devoted their lives and their careers to Europe and have done so much to build our union. They will always stay part of our family.
And I think of all those years, so many British MEPs [members of the European Parliament] have contributed to making this parliament and the union strong.
You have our gratitude and our respect—even more so for your resilience in the last three and a half years.
We will miss you, but we will always keep up our friendship with you. And you can count on us—as we know that we can count on you.
Honorable members,
In the last plenary session, we discussed the issue of citizens’ rights. We will also be vigilant on the implementation of the agreement in Northern Ireland. The power-sharing agreement in Northern Ireland gives us hope that a spirit of cooperation will continue to mark relations across the border.
Yet the withdrawal agreement is only a first step. From now on, it is about our new partnership with the United Kingdom. The negotiations are about to start.
Just to be very clear: I want the European Union and the United Kingdom to stay good friends and good partners. The story is about old friends and new beginnings. And we have a lot in common.
We both believe that climate change needs to be fought as a matter of urgency. There is still scope to address these risks, but the window of opportunity is closing. So let us join forces in protecting our planet.
We both understand that it takes very little power to break a fragile balance and to turn it into a full-blown conflict but that the true power lies in putting the pieces back together. Therefore, we both believe in the power of development cooperation, and we know that our security is interlinked, and here, too, we should join forces.
For all these and many other reasons, we want to forge a close partnership.
But we also know that we have to sort out how to deal with the United Kingdom as a third country.
When it comes to trade, we are considering a free trade agreement with zero tariffs and zero quotas. This would be unique. No other free trade agreement offers such an access to our single market.
But the precondition is that European and British businesses continue to compete on a level playing field. We will certainly not expose our companies to unfair competition.
And it is very clear. The trade-off is simple: The more the U.K. does commit to uphold our standards for social protection and workers’ rights, our guarantees for the environment, and other standards and rules ensuring fair competition, the closer and better their access to the single market.
And let me say that, just days ago, some of the largest business associations in Britain—particularly in the car and aerospace industry—asked their government to retain EU standards and rules. I think this is in our mutual interest.
This is about jobs. It is about common solutions for the world market. And I believe that the United Kingdom and the European Union have a mutual interest in the closest possible partnership.
Honorable Members,
No new partnership will bring back the benefits of being part of the same union. But we have the duty to seek the best for the British and for the European people in a post-Brexit world.
On our side, we will seek the best for industries and farmers across our continent who ask for predictability. We will seek our best for young British and young European students who want to study and who want to live across the [English] Channel. And we will seek the best for all the researchers and scientists who want to explore the unknown and work for common solutions together in the European Union as well as the United Kingdom.
We will devote all our energy, 24/7, to come to results.
And to our British friends and many—perhaps not all, but many—of our British MEPs here in the room, I want to use the words of the famous poet George Eliot. She said: “Only in the agony of parting do we look into the depths of love.”
We will always love you, and we will never be far.
Long live Europe!
This transcript is taken from the website of the European Commission.