Qatar’s first-ever election unsettles its neighbors

By Giorgio Cafiero

Qatar's maiden Shura Council elections are being heavily scrutinized for their potential domestic and regional ramifications. While voter eligibility criteria has caused ripples within the country, some Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) neighbors fear the Qatari vote will widen demands for representative government among their own citizens.

Qatar's autocratic neighbors look on with unease as Qataris prepare to cast votes in their first-ever Shura Council elections.

Qatar plans to hold its first elections to the Shura Council in October of this year. While these elections will not transform Qatar into a democracy, they will almost certainly bring about greater citizenship participation in the country’s fledgling legislative process. This would be a small step towards democratization, and it is for that reason that some other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states find Qatar’s electoral opening highly problematic.

The Shura Council is Qatar’s dominant legislative body. To date, the Qatari head of state has appointed the body’s 45 members, but starting in October, Qatari voters will directly elect thirty of these members, with the the remaining fifteen appointed by Emir Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani. While the legislative body has the authority to propose laws, approve annual budgets, and sack ministers, the Qatari emir retains the ability to veto decisions of the Shura Council.

To be sure, there’s been much talk about elections to the Shura Council throughout this century. And after a Qatari constitutional referendum was held in 2003, the plan to elect two-thirds of the legislative body was finally formalized.

On past occasions (in 2007, 2010, 2011, and 2017), the leadership in Doha pledged to hold Shura Council elections, but they never came to pass. As Dr. Khalid al-Jaber, the director of MENA Center in Washington DC, recently wrote: “One of the reasons for the delay was Doha’s concern about influence on one of the elected Shura Council members by a neighboring country. Another, was the lack of popular pressure to turn the Shura Council into an elected body.”

Timing is everything

Considering the sensitive issues that sidelined elections in the recent past, why is Qatar now planning to hold the long-promised Shura Council elections with much fanfare? There are at least four important factors in play:

First, these elections could help boost Doha’s image internationally as a forward-thinking and reform-oriented Gulf country in the lead-up to the 2022 World Cup, hosted in Qatar. Opening the country’s main legislative body to elections could counter arguments that because Qatar is an “undemocratic and backwards nation” it should not host the global event – an argument that western Orientalists have been advancing ever since Qatar won the bid in 2010.

Second, the three-and-a-half year blockade against Doha has significantly impacted attitudes and popular sentiments among Qatari citizens. Today, the Qataris are less politically apathetic and more driven to mobilize. “[The Qataris] want to contribute, and the [Qatari] government wants to give them the opportunity to now participate,” says Dr. Andreas Krieg, a senior lecturer at the School of Security Studies at King’s College London, Royal College of Defence Studies.

Third, the leadership in Doha views the holding of elections to the Shura Council as critical to Qatar National Vision 2030, which is “a master vision and roadmap towards Qatar becoming an advanced society capable of sustainable development with the goal of providing a high standard of living for all citizens by the year 2030.”

These elections are “part of [Qatar’s] development and the next step in its political development,” according to Dr. Krieg. “It is a form of public participation with quite sincere impact on policy decision-making, because the Shura will have a lot more powers under the new law that will potentially set in motion a process that might end up in something more – maybe a constitutional monarchy.”

Fourth, with social contracts in the wider Arab region coming under higher levels of stress because of ‘Arab uprisings’ and economic downturns, Qatar’s leadership has likely decided to proactively introduce reforms and empower its citizens before they demand it on the streets.

So how will these elections to Qatar’s Shura Council impact intra-GCC relations? Almost eight months after the Al-Ula accord (the agreement between Qatar on one side, and the remaining five GCC members and Egypt on the other, which resulted in the lifting of the blockade against Qatar) was signed, there has only been partial reconciliation within the Gulf. None of the divisive issues over Doha’s support of political Islamists or its engagement with Iran and Turkey have been resolved, nor has Qatar’s independent streak been brought to heel.

Pushback from neighbors

If anything, the upcoming Qatari elections keenly demonstrate that Qatar continues to toe its own line on matters domestic and regional. The Shura Council vote is unsettling its direct neighbors, who see potentially dangerous ‘democracy’ implications for the internal dynamics of their autocratic states.

In a period in which Arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf prepare for the post-hydrocarbon era, social contracts have been weakened, economies have faltered, and new, often-unprecedented forms of taxation have been introduced. As the relationship between state and citizenry shifts, some of Qatar’s fellow GCC members have concerns about their own citizens making demands for greater and more direct representation in government. Of all its neighbors, Saudi Arabia seems to have the most anxiety over Qatar’s looming public vote.

Dr. Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, a fellow for the Middle East at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, explains that “Bahrain has more of a participatory element although this has been watered down significantly in recent years, while the UAE has had a mix of elected and appointed members of the FNC since 2006. The move toward greater representative inclusion in Qatar could be watched most closely in Saudi Arabia, given that the Saudi Shura Council will, by 2022, be the only remaining such body in the Gulf that is wholly appointed.”

And, according to Dr. Krieg, “whatever happens in Qatar [matters to Riyadh] because Saudis look toward Qatar, so for the Saudi regime the issue of elections is one of regime security. They’re saying, if the Qataris have the right to vote and participate in policy making, then Saudis will probably ask for the same rights, particularly as the social contract in Saudi Arabia is failing and the regime is unable to provide as much as they used to provide in the past. The logical consequences of that would be more participation.”

Part of the resentment from some of Qatar’s neighbors stems from the fact that the social contract in Qatar is far stronger than in some other GCC states that have less wealth, and larger populations and territories. For Doha’s leadership, gravitating toward a more representative system of governance comes with far lower risks than for other GCC governments.

In Qatar, there is virtually no genuine domestic opposition to the ruling government – nor do citizens endure any real poverty. This cannot be said about other GCC countries, where anti-regime movements and organizations have been present and active over the years.The rulers of these states fear how free and fair elections with universal suffrage could challenge their legitimacy and the status quo.

Indeed, it would be difficult to imagine the Al-Saud rulers, for example, agreeing to any electoral opening in the Saudi kingdom, especially with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) at the helm. The risks would be too high, and the consequences, potentially too dire and predictable.

The weeks ahead

With the elections slated for October, what can we expect in the interim from Qatar’s neighbors?

“What we expect, and what we’ve already seen over the past couple of weeks,” says Dr. Krieg, “are efforts, especially in the information space, to implement fake trends through trolls and bots that attack the integrity and reputation of the elections, trying to make the elections look as though they are illegitimate or unsuccessful.”

Just as Saudi and Emirati media outlets have long cited Kuwait’s internal problems as justification for continued autocracy in the region, there will likely be further efforts from some of Qatar’s neighbors to depict these elections as ‘disastrous.’

“They will look at voter turnout in particular,” says Dr. Krieg. “If voter turnout is low, Saudi Arabia and the UAE will try to make it look like a failure, and portray it as such in their local press because they need to make sure this looks unsuccessful, showing their own public that this is something you don’t want – democracy in this part of the world doesn’t work. We’ll probably have to expect that there will be more information campaigns, particularly as the election is taking place over a two-week period. In that time, we will probably see more interference by [Qatar’s] neighbors in the information space.”

On 10 August, Dr. Marc Owen Jones, an associate professor at the Hamad Bin Khalifa University in Qatar, shared his analysis of the Twitter “Qatar Revolts” hashtag. The Doha-based scholar demonstrated that there were “approximately 1789 fake accounts, all dedicated to promoting hashtags around the Qatar elections – more specifically, hashtags meant to portray the country as being in a state of revolt.”

Tribal sensitivities and eligibility controversies 

This is not to say that the Shura elections expect to be entirely smooth-sailing inside Qatar. The country is indeed grappling with several election-related challenges, which may explain why its leaders have shied away from a public vote in the past. These difficulties relate mainly to tribal elements inside Qatar, and questions of eligibility that are highly sensitive among locals.

There are concerns about the significant role that tribes are bound to play in these elections to the Shura Council. The MENA Center’s Dr. Al-Jaber explains that “tribal loyalty, particularly in Qatar’s rural areas, has remained very strong, to the extent that there are worries that tribesmen will simply vote for their tribe’s candidates on the basis of their affiliation, rather than their policies or proposed agenda.”

As an example, one of Qatar’s largest tribes, the Al-Murra tribe, is also heavily present in Saudi Arabia and has had a history of conflictual relations with the Qatari state. This month, there have been a number of rare protests in Qatar, with Al-Murra tribal members voicing their opposition to the Shura Council law that governs who can vote. “The controversy centers on the question of who counts as a full Qatari, as the country takes tentative steps toward democratization,” explained Dr. Annelle Sheline, a research fellow for the Middle East at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

Under the law, eligible voters and those permitted to run in elections must be Qatari citizens, aged 18 and above, who can prove that their family was residing in Qatar prior to 1930, over four decades before the country gained independence – effectively, excluding members of the Al-Murra tribe and others from both voting and running in the elections. The current law denies about 20 to 25 percent of Qatari citizens the eligibility to vote.

Social media accounts have shown footage, purportedly from somewhere inside Qatar, of men protesting. One video featured a tribesman who sought to appeal to Qatar’s head of state, saying that “unfounded political inequality and selective citizenship could lead to divisions.” In response to such debates on social media, Qatar’s Interior Ministry decided to “transfer seven people to the public prosecutor for spreading false news and inciting strife.”

In a discussion on the Qatari Shura Council elections, Dr. Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, a fellow for the Middle East at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, says that “the issues of eligibility speak to the conduct of politics in its rawest form, who’s in, who’s out, and who gets to make that decision, as well as to issues of identity.”

What remains to be seen is whether the rules governing voter eligibility may loosen up a bit to make the electoral system more inclusive during future elections to the Shura Council, set to take place every four years. Either way, following the vote, Qatar is likely to experience ramifications domestically, perhaps both positive and negative. As for the consequences from its neighbors, they will have to wait and see.

Einar Tangen: Iran-China Deal Another Nail in US Hegemony Coffin

TEHRAN (FNA)- Einar Tangen, political and economic commentator, says the largest oil importer China attracts Iran and other oil rich countries in West Asia, jeopardizing the US’ position internationally.

Speaking in an interview with FNA, Tangen said, “The economics of the world are shifting eastward. You see the international wealth line that determines where the balance of wealth is, it has been moving steadily eastward since the mid-1900s. And, that will continue to go on, as we see tremendous amounts of investments by Europe and America in contradiction to the rhetoric that has been put up by the governments... You see the US that is looking at this situation in perhaps alarming term… No one really knows what is happening in the US economically.”

Einar Tangen is an American-Chinese Political and economic affairs commentator based in Beijing. He served as the President of the US State of Wisconsin International Trade Council, and the Vice-President for the American Association of Cost Engineers International (AACEI).

Below is the full text of the interview:

Q: China has been Iran’s top trade partner over the past decade, putting an end to 30 years of Germany’s leading role. Yet, the two have now moved to enhance their ties to strategic partnership following the recent endorsement of the Iran-China 25-year cooperation roadmap. How do you read either side's incentive behind this major step and what outcomes could this document produce for Tehran and Beijing?

A: This is a major geopolitical shift. Iran is turning away a Western-facing deal that was offered with the JCPOA. China was involved in that; it was hoping the deal will bring political and economic stability not only to Iran, but also to heal some of the wounds in the Middle East. At this juncture, that is not possible.

When you start looking at how it is changing, China has quite clearly seen this as a strategic not only opportunity, but necessity. Iran has had relationships with China since the 1930s; it has not always been the same because they had very different government systems, but I think there is understanding that each needs to pursue its own destiny, and that trade is one of the ways in which each can take care of needs of its people. For the Chinese side, investments of potentially 400 billion US dollars is smart as they need the oil. With this kind of mutual agreement over a long period, they can trade in currencies outside the US dollars, and this is a massive issue specially for Iran, as it has been blocked by the US to use the SWIFT system to deal legitimately with many countries, other than those which are under the US blacklist. By having a large market, Iran has decided to cast its lots eastward.

Q: China and Iran are both sovereign countries, free to make deals in various areas. Why does the US feel panicked over the widening cooperation between Iran and China under the Iran-China 25-year strategic cooperation plan?

A: You see a very hardline being pushed by the United States. There are concerns whether they can stay a hegemonic power in the Middle East, that is necessary for the US to maintain that, regardless of the costs, wars, etc.; simply because they believe that they are obliged to impose its version of liberal democratic free capitalism.

The United States is thirsty for energy, and oil can be associated at a certain price level with its fracking oil. So, there is not a great concern about the strategic necessity of having oil from the Middle East. We see this shift not only from Iran, but also other countries such as Saudi Arabia, which is entering to deals with China. The other counties include Qatar, and Oman, which is creating refineries outside the strait so that it can refine and export oil products, especially downstream products, without the necessity of having to deal with the kind of geopolitical risks and concerns.

China is the largest importer of oil and energy. The US may consume more, but theoretically it can supply its own internal needs as long as the price of a barrel of oil is above forty five US dollars. It is importing less and less from the Middle East, and obviously not importing anything from Venezuela. But, there is plenty of supply out there, but the question is what price oil would be at? You are starting to see the world changing towards cleaner sources such as solar wind, hydrogen, and nuclear. In that kind of instance, oil will be still very important especially in downstream products, not so much the oil that you put into your car.

Q: What does the deal mean to the US-led West, when it comes to its trade war with China, and sanctions against Iran? Is it a shift from the US-desired unipolar world, to multipolarism, and could this move herald a rise of the East and Eastern civilization as a new block of power at world levels?

A: You see the economics of the world are shifting eastward. You see the international wealth line that determines where the balance of wealth is, it has been moving steadily eastward since the mid-1900s. And, that will continue to go on, as we see tremendous amounts of investments by Europe and America in contradiction to the rhetoric that has been put up by the governments. The actual corporation investors see not only China, but South East Asia, Asia and the Eastern world including India and Iran as prime opportunities. You are seeing everything is sliding that way. So, you see the US that is looking at this situation in perhaps alarmous term. They fundamentally believe that the US is superior and that all the countries should do obey them. Unfortunately, underlying that is forty years of basically drifting sideways. The American middle class has shrunk, and its spending power has remained basically flat. There is slight optic through this kind of sugar rock that Trump put into the economy, but that has to be paid for later. Giving you a trillion dollars, but then saying you are going to have to pay it back and they cannot see how they are doing to return that. With the pandemic not being handled very well, with the attack on the nations’ Capitol, taxes, storms when people were unable to get electricity; there are fundamental thoughts that the US cannot go longer as an aspirational country that it was perhaps during the 1960s to 1980s. Things have turned very quickly for the US economy. They are adding massive debt at the time China is reining in its debts, taking very fairly conservative actions in terms of monitoring fiscal policy to make sure it has a better future. No one really knows what is happening in the US economically.

Repercussions of Canada-China detainee exchange

Crescent International

Canadian media’s overly dramatized and emotional reporting of the detainee swap between Beijing and Ottawa ignores its broader repercussions for global politics.

Canada’s arrest of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou and China’s reciprocal arrests of two Canadian citizens was clearly political in nature.

Viewing the arrests on both sides primarily through the legal lens is sticking one’s head in the sand.

Even the British regime’s sophisticated propaganda outlet the BBC chose not to hide behind the veneer of “international law” to justify the action of Britain’s NATO ally and evaluated the case primarily through a political angle.

So, what are the wider global political repercussions of the captives’ exchange?

First, it clearly indicates that the days when a NATO member state could do as it pleased and exert political pressure on countries using methods they deem appropriate, are over.

The days when citizens of non-Western countries could be used as bargaining chips with no repercussions are slowly but surely coming to an end.

China’s response to the arrest of one of its citizens shows that there is no longer an exclusively Western club of privileged treatment of people before international legal norms.

Second, Canada’s uncalculated involvement in the US-China global standoff by detaining Meng Wanzhou will probably serve as a lesson to other states.

Hopefully, they will not interfere in tensions which have very little to do with them directly.

Beijing’s response will make others more reluctant in executing Washington’s arrogant policies.

This will affect America’s relationship with other countries.

The US request to others to execute its policies are now more likely to be dismissed, because there is clearly a cost in following such demands.

Third, the entire saga exposed the reality that we live in a global order where force and power are the primary pillars of international relations.

Not international law, unfortunately.

Legal technicalities used as a veneer to exert pressure on China due to its independent economic relations with Islamic Iran were quickly “fixed” once it was understood that Beijing is not going to passively accept Washington’s diktat.

Plethora of legal intricacies used to mask the political nature of Meng Wanzhou’s detention quickly got resolved, as if they were rules of an outdoor volunteer club.

China-Canada friction will now be used as a political precedent to resolve disputes.

It is one more example demonstrating that power and coercion are more effective than legal nicities.

This has been a reality of international relations for centuries but which now might either significantly decrease or increase.

If Western nations continue to refuse to accept the reality that the current multi-polar world order imposes significant restraints on their actions and instead forcefully attempt to hold on to their imperialist privileges, cases like Meng Wanzhou’s detention and that of Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig might increase globally.

On the other hand, if politicians learn from their mistakes—a big if—and realize the new deterrence mechanisms of the current multi-polar world order, force and coercion will no longer be the dominant tool in international relations.

This would be the desired outcome and ordinary people will not have to endure years in detention as a consequence.

CanadaChinaMeng Wanzhou

On the Second Summit of the QUAD Participants

 Vladimir Terehov

On September 24, the second summit of the QUAD leaders, including Australia, India, Japan and the United States, was held in Washington. It is important to note that, unlike the first summit held six months earlier, the event at hand was a live face-to-face meeting.

The NEO has been observing this project fairly regularly since it was updated (a year and a half ago) after fifteen years in a state of non-existence. That said, it seems quite obvious why it was necessary to extract it now from the stock of other projects.

Similarly, the US is also responding to the undeniable emergence of a new global power, the PRC. Much like the current world leader’s predecessors, this response is “historically conventional”: it is necessary to build a barrier to contain the spread of the influence of “undistinguished” competitors. Such a barrier in the way of the rapidly increasing prestige of the USSR was first Nazi Germany, and after its defeat, the NATO bloc, which served the same function.

In the current context, the role of the embryo of “Asian NATO” (this time anti-Chinese) was originally intended for QUAD. But this “historically conventional” logic was substantially complicated by the draftsman himself, who on September 15 this year announced the joint intention with the United Kingdom and Australia to “deepen diplomatic, security, and defense cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region.”

So what should be the base of the future “Asian NATO”, QUAD or AUKUS (Australia, the UK and the US)? Both of these configurations so far fit the definition of “undistinguished”. Because there are no founding documents that have been ratified by participating countries. Such as those that form the basis of NATO and the US-Japanese alliance.

In fact, the above question was at the heart of the intrigue that arose with the announcement of the formation of AUKUS. In particular, it has been suggested that Japan and India, i.e. two of the QUAD participants, may have a negative perception of the emergence of a “competing” configuration, apparently prepared in secret. However, Japan welcomed this fact after some reflection.

The author knows nothing about India’s official reaction to it. Although the emergence of the AUKUS configuration is mentioned in expert circles in the country among others (such as the consequences of the accelerated US withdrawal from Afghanistan, the “aggressiveness of China”) as an important component of the political background that accompanies the second QUAD summit.

The results of this event could in some way or other answer the question posed above, as well as the part of it that concerns India. Perhaps someone has already fully explained it to themselves (it wasn’t the author of this article).

Journalists tried to extract something meaningful from the connection of this issue to the AUKUS project during the September 22 regular press conference of White House spokesperson Jen Psaki. Her rather inarticulate words on the subject are interpreted as Washington’s lack of intention to involve India and Japan in AUKUS.

In connection with the latter, let us draw attention to the fears expressed in India about the possible “militarization” of QUAD. Such fears are quite reasonable, given that Delhi seems to clearly understand the “redlines” which, if crossed, threaten an irreversible deterioration in relations with Beijing.

Once again, however, we should note that India is already not that far away from them. For example, the original US-Indian naval exercises Malabar 2020 and 2021 involved Japan and Australia. In other words, they were in fact QUAD events, but not officially designated as such.

Because of all of the above, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s September 22 trip to the United States (already the seventh since he assumed the highest government position in India in 2014) deserves special attention. In Washington, he not only attended the QUAD summit, but also held talks with President Biden and Vice President Harris, and in New York he addressed the regular session of the UN General Assembly. He also met with the prime ministers of Australia and Japan.

The commentary notes that since Biden was declared the winner of the last US general election in November 2020, Modi has already communicated with the US president three times (on various occasions, including on the occasion of the first QUAD summit), but by videoconference. The latter took place, again, in the format of a face-to-face meeting.

The meeting with Kamala Harris was rather symbolic, since she is half Indian. In general, in the current US administration the number of officials of Indian origin occupying various positions runs into the dozens. This clearly demonstrates the long-standing and special interest of the US in developing a multifaceted relationship with India. As Biden noted in a meeting with Modi, “4 million Indian-American who make United States stronger.”

The Sino-Indian quarrel which took place on the eve of QUAD) over the culprit of last year’s clashes in Ladakh particularly illustrates that Washington’s views on strengthening all-round ties with Delhi have good grounds.

As for Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, his trip to the US was the last significant event not only during his one-year tenure at the top government post, but, evidently, in his political career as a whole. As previously noted in the NEO, at the beginning of September Suga announced his refusal to run for the presidency of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, which is to be determined at a party event on September 29. Consequently, he has no prospect of remaining prime minister of the country, regardless of the outcome of the upcoming general election.

The White House’s press statement on the eve of the QUAD summit, written in general terms, drew attention to a number of points. First, the upcoming event itself is characterized as “an informal meeting with no military component”. Second, the US work in the QUAD format appears as evidence of the special focus on “diplomacy” (as previously mentioned by Biden at the UNGA session), which will now be favored by the US administration. Third, it is pointed out that QUAD and AUKUS “do not overlap with each other,” despite the presence of the US and Australia in both.

On the whole, again, the documents published on the subject of the second QUAD summit, including the extensive Joint Statement, did not add much clarity on the classification of this configuration. Perhaps the only thing that is more or less obvious comes down to stating the emergence of “something anti-Chinese”. Although the PRC itself is not directly identified as a source of various kinds of concerns of QUAD participants.

As for the previously mentioned prospect of the “militarization” of QUAD, the Joint Statement does not seem (and at first glance) to hint at this topic. But the reproduction in this document of an already established meme about the problem of “freedom of navigation” immediately evokes associations with the increasing frequency of various kinds of joint military exercises (e.g., “Malabar”) of the QUAD participants. In this case, we repeat, the organizers of such exercises do not use this abbreviation. But it is invariably used in the comments of (unaccountable) “experts”.

China calls all the barely concealed claims against it far-fetched. For example, on the topics of “threats to navigation” and “supply chain disruptions”. Beijing believes that Washington’s formation of QUAD (as well as AUKUS) is based on the “paranoid” idea of a strategic encirclement of the PRC. In particular, Beijing should be expected to react adversely to the statement of the leadership of Taiwan’s mission in the US about its desire to establish a “partnership” with QUAD.

Unfortunately, it seems that China is not mistaken in its assessment of both of these projects, the very fact of their appearance is hardly conducive to the formation of an environment of trust in the region.

Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Study: Antibodies in Fully Vaxxed with Pfizer, AstraZeneca Decline Steeply After Several Months

By Al Ahed Staff, Agencies

Antibody levels among fully vaccinated people wane faster than researchers previously thought, a major recent study performed in Sweden has concluded.

In total, over 2,000 healthcare employees have been included in the Community Study, whose goal is to learn more about immunity after COVID-19 and the effect of vaccines, inasmuch as how quickly immunity wears off.

For Pfizer-vaccinated people who haven't had COVID-19, antibody levels were halved after only three months. After seven months, only 15 percent of the original levels remained – a decrease of 85 percent, national broadcaster SVT reported.

Because the staff who received the AstraZeneca vaccine received the booster shot later, the researchers were only able to follow them for three months. Nevertheless, the decline was even steeper. After barely three months, AstraZeneca-vaccinated people had only one-fifth of the Pfizer-vaccinated antibody levels.

A handful of participants received Moderna's vaccine, but that group was too small and had a too short follow-up time for the researchers to say anything conclusive.

“The fact that antibody levels fall over time is fully expected, but I am surprised that it has dropped so significantly in such a relatively healthy and young group”, research leader Charlotte Thalin told SVT. “The low levels mean that we can have an increased spread even in vaccinated groups, and this can have consequences for our elderly. This is worrying and indicates that the elderly and fragile must receive a third refill dose as soon as possible”, she added.

SVT described the new findings as a piece of the puzzle why Sweden and several other heavily-vaccinated countries have begun to see more and more breakthrough infections among those who have duly received their two shots. However, researchers still don't know where the protection line goes.

“Antibodies are only part of the immune system, we know that high antibody levels are associated with protection against infection. But the immune system also contains memory cells that quickly supplement the antibody levels when we are exposed to the virus and we do not know exactly where the limit is for becoming infected or ill”, Charlotte Thalin.

Sweden, a nation of over 10 million, has vaccinated over 63 percent of its population. So far, it has had 1.15 million cases of the disease, with over 15,000 deaths.

While famous for not introducing any comprehensive lockdowns even at the height of the pandemic, unlike its neighbors, earlier on Wednesday 29 September Sweden lifted the last restrictions in place. In practice, this means that the number of guests at events is no longer limited, that Swedes are no longer recommended to work from home and that the distancing requirements disappear.

Hamas: Biden, Bennett Nix All Political Solutions for Palestinian Issue

By Al Ahed Staff, Agencies

Hamas’ Political Bureau chief says US President Joe Biden and “Israeli” Prime Minister Naftali Bennett stand up to whatever political solution that could resolve the Palestinian-“Israeli” conflict.

Ismail Haniyeh, who made the remarks on Wednesday, said the duo did not even brook formation of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, Turkey’s official Anadolu news agency reported.

The “Israeli” regime overran huge swathes of regional territories in a heavily Western-backed war in 1948 before claiming existence. In 1967, it staged a similar military campaign, capturing more such territories, including the occupied West Bank and the besieged Gaza Strip.

The regime was forced to withdraw from Gaza, where Hamas is headquartered, in 2005. It, however, has been keeping the territory under a crippling siege and constant military attacks.

“Their [Biden and Bennett’s] choices concerning the issue of occupation are not going to change much,” Haniyeh predicted.

Tel Aviv would keep up its policy of occupation and usurpation of Palestinian lands as well as violation of Palestinians’ rights in the West Bank and Gaza, the official said.

The United States too would refuse to effect any changes in its policy of outright support for the “Israeli” regime, he added, attributing this to the “interconnected” nature of Washington and Tel Aviv’s interests.

Separately, Haniyeh turned to the issue of the 2020-present US-facilitated trend of normalizations between the “Israeli” regime and some regional Arab states.

Some Arab states tie their legitimacy to the US, and believe that “the road to America goes through Tel Aviv,” the Hamas’ official was quoted as saying.

“This approach, however, does not reflect the truth,” he said, adding that the decision by a handful of states does not mirror the opinion of the world’s Arab peoples.

Sarkozy is a crook, says a French court

Crescent International

What? They want to send me to jail? I was too busy saving the world to worry about how many flags they should buy for my re-election campaign!

Former French president Nicolas Sarkozy, 66, has been found guilty by a Paris court of illegal campaign spending.

He was sentenced to one-year jail term although the putative ex-president is unlikely to be sent to prison.

Instead, the judge said the former president could serve his term at home provided an electronic tag was attached to his leg to monitor his whereabouts.

The case related to Sarkozy’s 2012 failed presidential bid in which he spent twice the legal amount ($26 million) and still lost to Francois Hollande.

True, $52 million is nothing compared to money spent on US presidential campaigns that runs into billions of dollars but France is not the US.

It is virtually a third world country where poverty stalks many communities.

Sarkozy was president from 2007 to 2012 during which time his anti-Muslim venom oozed out of every pore of his body.

France is one of the most Islamophobic countries in Europe, largely due to Sarkozy's cynical policies and hatred for Muslims.

During the 2012 presidential campaign that he lost, Sarkozy suggested France’s real problem is “we have too many foreigners”. Commenting on such political opportunism, Time magazine wrote: "Sarkozy’s Hungarian immigrant father has been warned," alluding to his Hungarian origins.

"If all that sounds like the conservative Sarkozy imitating National Front leader Marine Le Pen, that’s because it is—at least in the view of political analysts, pundits, and foreign observers. Many of those commentators interpret the president’s renewed embrace of positions dear to the extreme-right as a cynical yet desperate effort to recruit new backers to his uphill re-election bid. But while that strategy may have been vital to Sarkozy’s 2007 win, there are signs his 2012 re-do is failing to turn the rather grim re-election outlook around."

At Sarkozy’s trial in May and June, the prosecution told the court he had a “cavalier” attitude to the public money available to candidates during campaigning.

They also said he ignored repeated warnings from his accountants about the ballooning costs.

The presiding judge concluded it was “clear that Sarkozy must have known that his campaign team were spending over the legal limit.”

Like crooks everywhere, especially political crooks, Sarkozy pleaded ignorance of what was going on claiming he was busy with more weighty matters.

Obviously, without his presence, the sky would fall and the world would have ended.

In June, he told the court, “Can you imagine me going into a [campaign] meeting to discuss the cost of flags?”

He claimed he had “too much to do” to worry about such mundane matters.

Over-spending in election was not his only crime.

Last March Sarkozy was found guilty of corruption and influence peddling in another case.

In his corruption case, he was given a year in prison, and a two-year suspended prison sentence.

He still struts about as a free man because he has launched an appeal against the conviction.

Most observers see the verdicts as ending his political career.

Few people would miss this petulant man who actively promoted Islamophobia making it mainstream in France, and now in many other European countries.

FranceIslamophobiaParisCorruption

Russian envoy says no conflict with Iran in Syria, blasts Israeli strikes

Russian Ambassador to Syria Aleksandr Yefimov says Moscow and Tehran are cooperating closely with each other to work out an effective solution to the ongoing Syrian conflict.

Speaking in an exclusive interview with Russia’s state-owned RT Arabic television news network on Thursday, Yefimov dismissed reports of disagreements between Russia and Iran over Syria.

“Allegations about differences between Russia and Iran over Syria have been going around for a while. They are being circulated by hostile parties, who are primarily interested in opening up a rift between the two countries and our common ally Syria. I am not, personally, aware whether Russia and Iran have such differences,” the Russian diplomat said.

Yefimov further noted that Moscow and Tehran are working in close cooperation with each other for a common cause in Syria. 

“The Islamic Republic of Iran, just like Russia, is present here legally at the invitation of Syrian authorities. It is helping the Damascus government overcome urgent problems arising from the crisis that has been going on for several years,” he said.

“There is constant interaction between Moscow and Tehran at all levels, including high-level contact, regarding Syria. It is yielding tangible results,” the Russian ambassador added.

Peace guarantors stress respect for Syria sovereignty, cooperation on eradicating terror

Guarantors of Syria’s ceasefire stress the importance of respect for the Arab country’s sovereignty and lay emphasis on eradication of terrorism.

Elsewhere in his remarks, Yefimov denounced Israeli airstrikes on the Syrian territory as “blatant violation of the international law.”

“Such raids not only violate the sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic, but also pose a threat to international air traffic. They generally exacerbate the already volatile military-political situation around Syria," he said.

“The Israelis claim that they are acting for their own security. Their attacks, however, are fairly provocative in nature, and do not ensure peace and stability in Syria in one way or another. Such assaults endanger innocent lives, and increase the risk of ... an uncontrollable military confrontation,” the Russian diplomat stressed.

Israel frequently targets military positions inside Syria, especially those of the resistance movement Hezbollah which has played a key role in helping the Syrian army in its fight against foreign-backed terrorists.

The Tel Aviv regime mostly keeps quiet about its attacks on Syrian territories which many view as a knee-jerk reaction to Syrian government’s increasing success in confronting terrorism.

Israel has been a main supporter of terrorist groups that have vainly been fighting since 2011 to topple the government of President Bashar al-Assad.  

Rockets hit US base in northeast Syria 

A barrage of rockets was fired Thursday at a base in Syria’s northeastern province of Hasakah where US occupation forces are stationed.

Russia’s Sputnik news agency, citing local sources, reported that the rockets struck the base near the al-Jabsah oilfield.

The sources said loud explosions were heard in the nearby town of al-Shaddadi, and huge plumes of thick black smoke could be seen rising to the sky.

The rockets, they said, came from the northwestern side of Shaddadi, which is an empty area and consists of hills, valleys and caves.

There were no immediate reports of casualties. No group has so far claimed responsibility for the attack.

The US military has stationed forces and equipment in eastern and northeastern Syria, with the Pentagon claiming that the deployment is aimed at preventing the oilfields in the area from falling into the hands of Daesh terrorists.

Damascus, however, says the unlawful deployment is meant to plunder the country’s resources.

Former US president Donald Trump admitted on several occasions that American forces were in Syria for its oil.

Army troops enter Tasil town in Dara'a

On Thursday, Syrian army troops entered another town in the country’s southwestern province of Dara’a and raised the national flag, as government forces continue driving Takfiri militants out of occupied territories.

Syria’s official news agency SANA said army soldiers started reinforcing their positions in the town of Tasil after local militants surrendered their weapons to the Syrian army as part of a truce deal brokered by Russia.

The development came hours after Syrian army troops took full control of Western al-Bakkar, Eastern al-Bakkar and al-Abdali villages.

Militants surrender weapons  

Separately, armed men in the town of Nawa started surrendering their medium and heavy weapons to government forces.

Earlier this month, Syrian army units entered Dara’a al-Balad neighborhood and raised Syria’s national flag there.

Back in 2018, Syrian army troops managed to establish control over Dara’a Province, which is bordered by Jordan to the south and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights to the west. 

Full government control over Dara’a is highly important because it borders the occupied Golan Heights, where the Israeli regime has treated wounded terrorists fighting against the Syrian government since 2011.

The territory’s return to Syrian government control could cut the much-reported collaboration between Israel and militants and deal a blow to Tel Aviv’s plans to annex the Golan Heights.