Middle East
Dismantling freedom of expression: Live coverage of political shows banned
Afghanistan is now considered as one of the worst countries for journalists and free flow of information. The Taliban since their return in 2021, has imposed several restrictions against media independence, freedom of expression and self-censorship.
In the latest move, the Taliban have banned live media coverage and ordered the media outlets to share their analytical and political programs with the Taliban officials before publication and publish them after their approval.
However, the decision has raised the concerns of media and journalists supporting institutions inside and outside Afghanistan. They have emphasized that with such a situation, the activities of the media, which continued for the past three years despite restrictions, for freedom of expression and people’s access to information, have been practically dismantled.
However, some journalists working covertly inside the country say that the Taliban see journalists as spies and want a tougher crackdown and wider restrictions on the media and journalists.
According to them, even the media that have been completely at the service of the Taliban’s propaganda are also suspected by the Taliban.
In an official meeting, the Taliban ordered the owners and top officials of the private media outlets in Kabul that they can no longer broadcast political programs live. According to this order, political programs must be recorded and published after the approval of the Taliban.
According to the sources, the Taliban have warned the domestic media that no media is allowed to broadcast content critical of the group’s policies and laws.
Also, the Organization Supporting Afghan Journalists confirmed this issue and released a statement, saying that Taliban have banned the live broadcasting of political programs in the media in a new move.
Taliban introduced their trusted people as experts in the analytical and political tv programs
The Taliban have introduced their trusted people as experts in the analytical and political programs of the media, according to the statement. It also said that the Taliban destroyed freedom of expression in the country by imposing severe censorship against the media.
“The Taliban hold frequent meetings with media managers in the center and provinces, and in these meetings, the decisions and restrictions of the Taliban are mainly communicated orally,” an Afghan journalist said.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, he told Harici that in these meetings, the media are instructed on what to publish and what not to publish. “In the latest case, the selection of guests in programs and the recording of political programs that used to be broadcast live and its publication after the approval of the Taliban, is another blow to freedom of expression,” he added.
Meanwhile, a female journalist said access to information has become very difficult for journalists, especially female journalists, and said that it is challenging to be a journalist.
She said that female reporters cannot work independently on any subject because they do not have access to information and it is difficult for them to obtain the necessary information to prepare reports and news.
Taliban called the critics as destructive tool, considered them “rebellious”
In the current situation, local journalists across provinces can only cover topics that are compatible with the spirit and accepted by the Taliban.
According to him, the Taliban have repeatedly warned that they will not accept journalists from media operating from outside the country. “Being a journalist under the rule of the Taliban is considered a crime and this group considers journalists as spies,” she said, wishing anonymity due to security reasons.
She added that if the Taliban find out that a local journalist is cooperating with the media in exile, the journalist’s life will lead to prison or death.
These concerns are raised while Taliban officials have previously prohibited criticizing and asking questions about the activities of this group and even considered the critic to be killed.
Taliban’s head of ministry of higher education, Mohammad Nadeem had recently said that the critics should stop and called them a destructive toll and should be killed. Those who destroy the Taliban regime with their tongue or pen are “rebellious and liable to be killed”, he added.
In the latest move, the Taliban’s Prime Minister’s Office has issued a declaration to further suppress freedom of expression and ban critical thinking, which has led to stricter control over the public intellectual and religious space in the country.
In this statement, the Taliban have prevented “controversial and contentious discussions and debates” and have emphasized that debates and discussions through the media should be avoided.
This is despite the fact that banning discussions and debates, instead of providing a logical solution to prevent conflict, will lead to the elimination of diversity and the continuation of stagnation and intellectual stagnation in the society.
Reporters Sans Frontier said that Taliban targeted journalists on a wider scale and multiplied the number of pretrial detentions.
According to the report on freedom of expression in the world in 2024, the situation of freedom of expression in Afghanistan has reached a state of crisis and Afghanistan has become one of the worst countries in this field. The Global Expression organization has announced that Afghanistan is in 155th place among 161 countries. The findings of this organization show that in the last five years, from 2018 to 2023, Afghanistan has fallen 47 places in the ranking of freedom of expression.
Reporters Without Borders has also announced that the Taliban have arrested 141 journalists in the last three years. According to this organization, the Taliban have targeted journalists on a wider scale and have multiplied the number of pre-trial detentions. Reporters Without Borders added that the Taliban treat journalists like criminals and imprison them under various pretexts.
In the past three years, the Taliban have imposed many restrictions against journalists, especially female journalists. According to the orders of the Taliban, women are prohibited from appearing in television shows and hosting programs without covering their faces. Also, the Taliban have banned women’s voices in the media in many provinces and ordered local radio stations not to broadcast women’s voices.
The Afghan Journalists Association has previously said that the Taliban have issued 17 media directives against the media law in the past three years, which include a wide range of media-related issues.
According to this organization, banning the coverage of civil protests, banning women from working on national radio and television, banning the music, covering women’s faces, banning women from appearing in plays, separating the positions of women and men in the media, banning women from interviewing men, and the media refraining from speaking, are the main opponents and critics of the Taliban.
Middle East
US waives human rights terms on $320m military aid to Egypt
The US State Department stated that it has waived human rights conditions on more than $300 million in military aid to Egypt.
The statement emphasised that this decision was taken in consideration of Cairo’s “helpful role” since the outbreak of the war against Iran.
Egypt began receiving substantial support from the US after signing a peace treaty with Israel in 1979.
Since the late 1980s, the country has received approximately $1.3 billion annually in US military assistance.
A portion of this aid is subject to conditions related to human rights and democracy, which can be waived on national security grounds.
Withholding funds, including during the administration of former US President Joe Biden, has caused tension between Cairo and Washington in the past.
A letter dated 21 September and addressed to various congressional committees, obtained by Reuters, stated that Secretary of State Marco Rubio “decided to waive the certification requirement under the fiscal year 2025 Foreign Military Financing programme for Egypt of $320 million.”
This waiver was subsequently confirmed by the State Department.
An accompanying memorandum justifying the decision stated that this portion of military aid was “essential for counterterrorism, border security, or non-proliferation programmes, or otherwise important to the national security interests of the United States.”
The memorandum, dated 4 September and bearing Rubio’s signature, stated: “Exercising this waiver authority is critical to the US-Egypt relationship and to US national security priorities, particularly given the helpful role Egypt has played in the aftermath of Operation Epic Fury.”
“Operation Epic Fury” is the designation used by the US military for the campaign launched jointly with Israel against Iran in late February.
The State Department memorandum, whose authenticity was confirmed by two sources in Washington familiar with the letter, did not provide detailed information regarding what was termed Egypt’s “helpful role”.
The State Department’s annual decision on military aid to Egypt typically covers funds allocated for the preceding fiscal year, which ends on 30 September.
A State Department spokesperson stated that Rubio waived the certification in the interest of US national security and that the US continues to cooperate with the Egyptian government across a range of issues.
In an emailed statement, the spokesperson said: “This waiver recognizes the importance of maintaining security cooperation with Egypt at a time of significant security challenges in the region.”
The Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not immediately comment on the matter.
The spillover effects of the Iran war have imposed a heavy toll on US security partners, including Egypt.
Owing to rising fuel prices and other disruptions, the Egyptian economy is passing through a difficult period.
Under the Biden administration, the US withheld portions of the annual military allocation on multiple occasions over Egypt’s human rights record.
In 2024, following the Hamas-led 7 October attack on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza, the Biden administration set aside human rights conditions, disbursing the entire $1.3 billion allocation to Egypt for the first time in its tenure.
Human rights organisations have long accused Egypt, under the administration of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, of widespread human rights abuses, including torture and enforced disappearances.
This week, Egyptian police detained six journalists from a fact-checking and investigative media outlet, accusing them of spreading false information on behalf of the banned Muslim Brotherhood.
Egyptian authorities state that they have taken steps to address human rights issues. Sisi said stability is paramount and that the government supports human rights by working to provide for basic needs.
Middle East
Britain expands curbs on arms exports to Israel over Gaza risks
Britain has significantly broadened its military export restrictions targeting Israel, suspending or rejecting more than 80 licences for items the IDF could use in Gaza.
This figure is nearly triple the number affected when the policy was first introduced in September 2024.
United Kingdom Minister of State for the Middle East Stephen Doughty said that as part of what he described as a “tighter system” for assessing exports to Israel, more than 50 further export applications have been refused since approximately 30 licences were initially suspended.
Under the initial decision taken in September 2024, 30 of roughly 350 licences were suspended after the British government concluded there was a “clear risk” that certain military exports could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza.
The affected equipment included components for military aircraft, drones, naval systems, and targeting gear.
Doughty said additional measures adopted this month established what he termed a “double safeguard” mechanism within the approvals process.
Export applications must now be assessed both against existing international humanitarian law criteria and in light of Britain’s position on the legality of Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territories.
“We have so far suspended or refused more than 80 licences,” Doughty said, adding that he had personally examined each licence.
Despite the wider restrictions, British-origin parts entering the international F-35 fighter jet supply chain continue to be largely exempt.
The UK government argues that preventing British-made components from entering the global F-35 pool could undermine the programme as a whole and have serious consequences for the security of the UK and its allies.
Direct exports of F-35 parts intended specifically for Israel remain suspended.
Doughty defended maintaining the supply of components via the international programme, arguing that halting it could have severe ramifications for the broader European and allied security architecture.
Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Emily Thornberry challenged this position, arguing that the issue was political rather than purely legal.
Thornberry suggested adopting an approach similar to the Dutch model, under which components entering the international supply chain could be flagged as “not intended for aircraft bound for Israel”.
The initial suspension was implemented in September 2024 by then Foreign Secretary David Lammy.
Lammy stressed at the time that the measure did not constitute an arms embargo and applied solely to items assessed as usable in military operations in Gaza.
Since then, the policy has been tightened further under Prime Minister Andy Burnham.
The expanded export restrictions follow the Burnham government’s adoption of a more confrontational policy toward the Israeli government.
Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband drew sustained applause at the Labour Party’s annual conference in Liverpool after delivering a sharp critique of the Netanyahu government’s policies and defending the decision to ban trade with Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Accusing Israel of committing war crimes in Gaza, Miliband stated that the British government heard public outrage over the conflict, telling delegates: “We hear you. You were right.”
Middle East
Netanyahu holds secret UAE talks with Saudi Arabia and Arab officials
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with representatives of Gulf and Arab nations that lack diplomatic ties with Israel, including Saudi Arabia, during his weekend visit to the United Arab Emirates.
Sources close to the gathering told the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth on Monday that representatives from Morocco, Libya, Jordan, and Qatar also took part in the meeting.
Netanyahu made a unannounced visit to Abu Dhabi on Sunday, where he met with the country’s leader, Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan.
According to Israeli media, this marked the first time the United Arab Emirates officially confirmed a visit by Netanyahu.
The meeting was arranged by Mossad Director Roman Goffman “at the request of Saudi Arabia, which asked for Israel’s assistance against Houthi attacks in the Red Sea region,” according to Yedioth Ahronoth.
The discussions addressed Iran and the Houthi militia. The newspaper added that the Arab states heard from Israel that “Israel is prepared to assist countries in the region with air defence systems, just as it aided the UAE during the conflict with Iran.”
Conflict in Yemen intensified in September when Ansarullah militiamen launched a rapid offensive that seized Yemen’s entire Red Sea coastline, including the vital maritime corridor of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.
The Yemeni resistance also imposed a blockade on Saudi Arabia’s energy exports and staged multiple attacks against the kingdom.
Saudi Arabia reportedly sought military assistance from the US to counter Ansarullah.
Washington declined to attack the Houthis directly, but announced that it would provide intelligence and targeting support.
Reporting on the same visit, The Jerusalem Post said Netanyahu spent six hours in the UAE and that the principal subject of his discussions with MBZ was Iran.
Citing sources familiar with the matter, the newspaper added that the trip came “after Netanyahu exerted heavy pressure on the United Arab Emirates to arrange a meeting ahead of the Israeli elections on 27 October.”
Separately, the Associated Press, citing a person with direct knowledge of the meeting, reported that Netanyahu’s visit to the UAE was arranged in part to ask MBZ to deny reports that he had warned the Israeli prime minister of an impending Hamas threat prior to 7 October 2023.
According to Israeli media, Netanyahu’s office denied the AP report, issuing the following statement:
“Fake news. The visit focused solely on strengthening ties between the two countries and on regional issues.”
-
Europe5 days agoEuropean unions urge governments to scrap all Palantir deals
-
Diplomacy5 days agoEast-West Forum in Istanbul highlights irreversible shift to multipolarity
-
Europe1 week agoEmmanuel Todd says West faces collapse amid Ukraine and Iran crises
-
Europe1 week agoEuropean intelligence chiefs divide over risk of Russian attack
-
Middle East1 week agoSharaa says 7 October must not shape Israel policy on Syria
-
Diplomacy1 week agoEast-West Forum in Istanbul to debate multipolarity and global order
-
America1 week agoRepublican support for Trump’s war with Iran drops sharply in polls
-
Middle East1 week agoPalestinian factions confront legitimacy crisis at Istanbul talks
