Networks of powerful elites in Guatemala are using social media platforms to orchestrate coordinated online smear campaigns. These are targeting anti-corruption activists, environmental defenders and Indigenous leaders, Global Witness today reveals.

A new report by the investigative organisation details how popular social media platforms including X, Facebook and TikTok are being flooded with thousands of abusive, hateful, defamatory and misleading posts targeting activists and Indigenous leaders in the country.

The report draws on interviews with Mayan leaders, including some who are in prison or exile. It examines how these smear campaigns lay the groundwork for spurious criminal charges that threaten victims with decades in jail.

Driving digital repression

The investigation maps the powerful networks of political and economic interests behind many of the attacks. Campaigners say the attacks are helping to silence dissent and undermine Guatemala’s fragile democracy.

Corrupt networks, particularly within Guatemala’s justice system, have spent years working to erode democratic institutions and repress legitimate opposition in the Central American country.

The report uncovers how these same forces are now mobilising fake news sites and anonymous online accounts. They’re spreading disinformation that defames their political and ideological opponents and threatens them with criminal charges.

Campaigners say these online attacks are not isolated or spontaneous. Rather, they form part of a wider strategy to discredit dissent, intimidate communities, criminalise activists and protect entrenched power.

Global Witness senior policy advisor Javier Garate said:

What we are seeing in Guatemala is not random online abuse; it’s a coordinated strategy to silence those that threaten powerful interests.

These online abuse campaigns weaponise disinformation to destroy reputations, intimidate communities and clear the way for extractive violence. Far too often we see online smears of this kind preceding physical attacks, including lethal violence.

Guatemala shows us how failures in platform governance by companies such as Meta, X and TikTok have devastating consequences for communities and individuals around the world, as well as the rights and land they seek to defend.

Smear campaigns intensify

This surge in digital harassment is unfolding amid Guatemala’s fragile political landscape. This suffers from entrenched corruption, close links between political elites and organised crime. And there’s been a prolonged struggle to shed the legacy of military dictatorship and chronic impunity.

Anti-corruption candidate Bernardo Arévalo secured a surprise victory in the 2023 election. But state prosecutors refused to recognise the outcome, orchestrating efforts to overturn the result. Observers described the events as an “attempted coup”, which failed following massive Indigenous-led protests and international pressure.

The same forces behind the attempted coup now appear to be punishing protesters who defended the legitimacy of the election. And they’re driving coordinated smear campaigns against those who demonstrated to protect the democratic vote.

The report shows that Indigenous leaders and land activists asserting legitimate territorial and land rights are also frequent targets of these campaigns. Smear campaigns frequently frame Indigenous or land activism as criminal, extremist or foreign-influenced. This is reinforcing long-standing patterns of discrimination and repression against Mayan communities in Guatemala.

Global Witness warns that the aim of such attacks is to isolate defenders from their communities, pave the way for criminalisation, and delegitimise Indigenous claims to land and rights. Last year, key leaders of the pro-democracy movement that surged after the 2023 elections were arrested and could face decades in jail.

Social media enabling abuse

The report highlights how weak regulation and enforcement by global social media companies is enabling these smear campaigns.

Most attacks documented in the report occurred after companies such as Meta and X rolled back key fact-checking and safety measures. Those decisions faced wide criticism for exacerbating disinformation and human rights harms.

Global Witness argues these social media companies are failing to enforce their own rules prohibiting harassment, hate speech and incitement to violence.

The report underscores how the criminalisation of land and environmental defenders increasingly begins online, where coordinated harassment and disinformation sets the stage for more traditional forms of repression.

Garate added:

We tend to think of criminalisation as something decided by a politician or judge. But increasingly, the social and ideological groundwork is laid online, on the very platforms we use every day.

These tactics weaponise stigma, fear and social isolation to strip defenders of their legitimacy, eroding their reputations with the public and within their own communities.

When these narratives take hold in digital spaces, defenders can lose long before they see a courtroom.

What is happening to defenders in Guatemala is a profound threat to democracy and human rights – and an indictment on Big Tech’s failure to act.

Global Witness says social media companies must be accountable for their failure to enforce their own anti-harassment policies.

Stronger platform governance, combined with broader accountability measures, is essential to weakening the grip of corrupt actors over Guatemala’s justice system and creating safer conditions for defenders of democracy, the environment, and human rights to carry out their vital work.

Featured image via Rafael Gonzalez / Global Witness

Joël Reland considers why the UK government’s announcement of the EU legislation ‘in scope’ for the UK-EU ‘SPS’ deal is significant, both for UK businesses and politically. 

This week the government published a list of EU legislation ‘in scope’ for the UK-EU ‘SPS’ deal. Translated into normal English, that is the list of EU laws which the UK will have to adopt in order to cut red tape on trade in animal and plant goods.

What have we learnt from this announcement? On a technical level, we now know that there are at least 76 pieces of EU legislation with which the UK will align, covering areas ranging from animal health, welfare and hygiene to food marketing rules and additive and pesticide restrictions.

But, stepping back from the legal minutiae, the statement sends an interesting political signal about just how keen the UK government is to get the SPS deal done. Two aspects in particular stand out.

First, there is the unfussy manner in which the government accepts the need for alignment. Most UK announcements about any form of closer cooperation with the EU are couched in obfuscatory language about ‘sovereign decisions’, value for money, and keeping matters under review. It often takes a deep dive into the supplementary annexes to properly understand what is going on.

Not so here. The press release essentially says: we want to cut red tape for importers and exporters; here are the EU rules that we need to align with to do that. The two sides continue to negotiate on a few limited cases where the UK may be exempted from alignment (namely some rules on genetic editing and animal welfare) – but the vast bulk of relevant EU law will be accepted without further scruples.

Second, the statement is clearly designed to get firms started on the process of adaptation. Normally, businesses would only learn of the outcome of a negotiation once the final, agreed text is published. This announcement is in effect a way of giving them advance sight of the deal – including guidance on what specific sectors need to do – so they can begin preparations for the new regime while the final details are haggled over.

There seems to be a concerted effort to avoid the errors of Brexit past, where the implementation of various new regimes was hampered by a lack of clear messaging about the way ahead and, therefore, a lack of preparedness on the business side.

This uncharacteristic assertiveness from a regime renowned for its caution tells us of the growing importance which EU policy plays in the government’s wider economic agenda. Last month, the Chancellor publicly stated her desire to make a “political argument” about the economic benefits of a closer EU relationship – making the implications of the ‘EU reset’ policy more explicit. Her argument – that “economic gravity is reality, and almost half of our trade is the EU” making better EU trade the “biggest prize” for the economy – is not something you would have heard a year ago.

But the government needs evidence to make that case, and this is why the SPS deal seems so prized. There is a tangible, everyday quality to the agreement which other deals on carbon pricing and electricity price auctions do not have, allowing the government to tell a clear story about how closer ties to Brussels can bring economic benefits at home – in terms of lower food prices for consumers and export opportunities for British fishers, farmers and small businesses.

It is telling that it the SPS deal is the only bit of business emanating from last year’s UK-EU summit for which the government has set a clear target date (2027). Whether it can deliver the anticipated economic and political rewards, however, is far from certain.

After all, just because government starts telling business to get ready doesn’t mean the deal is in fact done. Some important details are still subject to negotiation, and a best-case scenario would probably see the text agreed this summer. But, even then, the UK still needs to go through the process of adopting the necessary EU legislation – the parliamentary mechanics of which take time, especially if MPs seek close scrutiny of the process.

Then there is the question of business adaptation, with farming industry groups already arguing that a transition period may be necessary given the scale of divergence in UK-EU rules in areas like pesticides. The government says that most sectors should experience ‘minor or minimal’ change, but it will consider ‘targeted transitional arrangements’ for the most-affected – potentially adding many months before the deal is operating at full capacity.

An optimistic reading is that the agreement could come into full force 18-24 months before the next general election (if it takes place at the latest possible date of mid-2029). Is that enough time for voters to feel the benefits? Unlikely, given that the overall economic gains from the deal appear quite marginal, and any savings for consumers are likely to come in the form of lower food price inflation (rather than costs coming down) which will probably be blown out of the water by a spike in energy costs anyway.

The government is to be credited for being clear with industry about the way ahead on the SPS deal. Early and consistent messaging will be essential for a speedy adaptation process. But for it to win the “political” argument about the benefits of closer EU ties, it will probably need to set its ambitions a lot higher.

By Joël Reland, Senior Researcher, UK in a Changing Europe.

There is much to do. Mitsubishi Electric surveyed UK homeowners last year and found that just 5.5 per cent are currently heating their homes with a heat pump.¹ In the commercial sector, heat pump adoption data hasn’t been tracked, meaning we don’t even know the true size of the challenge, let alone the decarbonisation opportunity it offers.

The targets which have been set out now give us something to aim for, but making sure heat pumps are being adopted at the pace needed will only happen if:

1. homeowners and business owners know about them
2. they make financial sense
3. we can meet the demand for installing them

The opportunity to transform the UK’s building stock, boost its manufacturing base, and recruit and train renewable heating engineers cannot be underestimated.

Now is the time for a clear strategy for reaching these milestones.

1. Drive public awareness

Adoption cannot be boosted without people knowing about heat pumps.

We know there is an untapped market of homeowners open to new clean heating technology. When we asked those surveyed about the Boiler Upgrade Scheme, we found that 31 per cent of homeowners said they were unaware of it, but that it would make them more likely to switch.¹

The new Warm Homes Agency has been tasked with improving awareness, and it must be treated as a priority objective. We’d like to see funding and resources committed to creating targeted awareness campaigns. And the same has to be done for businesses for us to see the necessary rise in demand.

With a quarter of people being influenced by negative news about heat pumps, it’s even more important that misconceptions are challenged.² Without that, the public won’t be convinced of the opportunity of adopting a heat pump for their home or business.

2. Make heat pumps make financial sense

The billions in grants and loans available through the Warm Homes Plan will make heat pumps, solar panels and batteries a possibility for millions more households. This funding is ringfenced for its designated purpose, to provide the public with certainty that potential future decisions will be covered.

Beyond the upfront costs, we have to make the running costs of heat pumps cheaper.

Currently, UK electricity prices are typically linked to the cost of volatile gas prices, despite the majority of electricity coming from renewable sources, and electricity levies put a greater burden on consumers. The government’s moves on reducing the energy price cap are to be welcomed, but more is needed to further rebalance these levies and reduce the price of electricity compared to gas.

This would create a huge step change and make clean heat a truly economical option. There’s no better advertising than word of mouth, and money saved on bills would create conversation and stimulate demand.

3. Preparing installers to meet surging demand

Having enough installers to meet the scale of ambitions for installations is a challenge which must be addressed – but is also a huge opportunity to provide skilled renewable jobs across the UK.

The expansion of the Heat Training Grant funding will help make this possible, and government must follow through on its commitment to collaborate with industry to make training a success. A well-trained workforce will mean positive experiences for customers and create more goodwill for the sector.

Installers will also play a big role in raising awareness about heat pumps and supporting interested homeowners to invest. This means arming installers with the right information so that they can educate homeowners and guide them towards heat pumps as an option for their home.

Creating demand and making an impact

To truly accelerate the adoption of clean heat in the UK, we need more homeowners and businesses to know about the benefits, more people to be able to afford to buy and run them, and more people to install them.

Mitsubishi Electric is already supporting heat adoption in the UK by manufacturing low-carbon, highly efficient heat pumps at its Livingston plant and by training the workforce at its training sites across Britain. To achieve its targets, the government must work with us and the wider industry to drive action and deliver for the economy and the environment.

References

1. An Opinion Matters survey of 2,000 homeowners in August 2025, commissioned by Mitsubishi Electric
2. Opinion Matters, August 2025

The Spanish government has recalled Spain’s ambassador from Israel. The decision comes as Israel continues to smear the Sanchez government for opposing its genocide in Gaza and its wars of aggression on Iran and Lebanon.

Announcing the order, Spanish PM Pedro Sanchez said:

At the proposal of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the European Union and Cooperation, and following deliberation by the Council of Ministers at its meeting on 10 March 2026, I hereby order the termination of Ms Ana María Sálomon Pérez’s appointment as Ambassador of Spain to the State of Israel.

Spanish citizens in Israel needing assistance will be directed to a “⁠chargé d’affaires” who will remain at the embassy.

Featured image via the Canary

Terri Bloore is the Conservative candidate for Mayor of Newham.

Keir Starmer is no Churchill, that is something Trump and I can agree on. In moments of international crisis, indeed war, national leadership needs to be strong and decisive. Certainly not dithering.

Starmer in the space of 48 hours managed to not just upset the President of the United States, our most important ally, but also Iran – a state not known for measured responses in relation to opposition. Over the course of a few days, his government first signalled that Britain would not back the United States in its escalating confrontation with Iran, only to reverse course within a day and allow the United States access to British military bases.

He is a joke, and making Britain – once known for our diplomacy, level-headed intelligence and insight – a joke with him.

Britain now appears hesitant at precisely the moment when clarity is needed. Allies question our reliability while adversaries see uncertainty. The damage is not simply reputational. It strikes at the heart of Britain’s long standing claim to be one of the West’s most dependable partners in matters of security and defence.

Churchill understood that alliances require visible commitment. When Britain stands with its allies, it must do so decisively. Hesitation only weakens collective resolve.

The irony is that recent history offers a powerful example of the very resilience Starmer now seems unable to demonstrate. Since the beginning of Russia’s full scale invasion, Ukraine under the leadership of Volodymyr Zelenskyy has shown extraordinary discipline in managing its relationships with Western partners.

Ukraine has endured immense frustration. Weapons deliveries have been delayed. Financial packages have been debated and watered down. Political winds in Western capitals have shifted repeatedly. Yet throughout this ordeal, the Ukrainian government has remained committed to its allies.

It has come to negotiations ready to compromise. It has accepted difficult realities. Above all, it has understood a fundamental strategic truth: survival requires patience. Ukraine knows it needs the West more than it needs pride.

Zelenskyy and his government are playing the long game. That approach has required immense restraint. Ukrainian leaders have learned that diplomacy often means absorbing disappointment while maintaining unity with those whose support is indispensable. They have demonstrated strength through consistency, not theatrical gestures. Starmer’s government should learn from that example.

Over the years working with Ukraine, dating back before annexation of Crimea, I have seen how  hard Ukraine has worked to preserve relations with the West. Yes, it has been slow, yes faltering at times and yes, the power has sometimes been in the form of soft power – but support flowed from Europe and North America because Kyiv has proved itself a serious partner that can be trusted.

Today we stand in surreal reality where Ukraine has responded to the USA’s requests for help and “reacted immediately” sending interceptor drones and a team of drone experts to protect U.S. military bases in Jordan. “Of course, we will send our experts,” he said, that is a far cry from our indecisive leader.

Ukraine understands the strategic stakes. Compromises are painful but Ukraine has proved itself to be a trustworthy, brave partner. Trust that Starmer is now squandering. How can we be trusted as trusted partner when we cannot be trusted to make a decision one way or the other.

The emerging confrontation involving Israel, the United States and Iran presents difficult choices. No responsible government should treat them lightly. Yet the handling of such crises matters as much as the decision itself. By first signalling distance from Washington and then hurriedly opening British bases to American forces, Starmer has managed to offend almost everyone involved.

Yet today the image projected from Downing Street is not one of confidence or resolve. It is hesitant, it is indecisive and it is weak. Starmer has proved again that he would rather stare at his shoes than confront the consequences of leadership. That perception matters politically as well as strategically.

What does this mean for my sleep?

What does this mean for parents?

Any other thoughts?

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has banned the planned Al Quds Day march in London for Sunday 15 March. Mahmood no doubt needed little persuading, rendering the Metropolitan Police’s decision to side with the UK Israel lobby little more than a pretext.

Mahmood caves to Israel lobby

In a statement, the Met claimed that:

The Al Quds march is uniquely contentious having originated in Iran and in London is organised by the Islamic Human Rights Commission, an organisation supportive of the Iranian regime… The threshold to ban a protest is high and we do not take this decision lightly; this is the first time we have used this power since 2012.

The Metropolitan Police routinely polices hundreds of protests which have counter protesters. Free speech and the right to protest are protected in law and we have a proven track record of upholding these values.

The Met appears to think opponents of genocide and imperialism have forgotten the traps it laid for an entirely peaceful anti-genocide march in January 2025. That entrapment, despite abundant footage of police inviting marchers through police lines, was used to charge and prosecute leading peace organisers. The state continues to insist peaceful demonstrators ‘forced’ their way through.

Organisers of the march, the Islamic Human Rights Commission, have strongly condemned the decision:

IHRC strongly condemns the desicion by the Metropolitan Police to ban the Al Quds Day March.

However, a static Al Quds Day protest will still go ahead.

We hope to see you on Sunday 15th March InshaAllah.

We are seeking legal advice and this decision will not go unchallenged.

Advertisement

And they made it clear that Shabana Mahmood has made a political decision:

If it was not clear already, the police have brazenly abandoned their sworn principle of policing without fear or favour, and have capitulated to the pressure of the Zionist lobby. The Metropolitan Police unashamedly regurgitate Zionist talking points about IHRC without a shred of evidence. They cannot present evidence because there is none – we are an independent NGO. In essence, this is a politically charged desicion; not one taken for the security of the people of London

What right to protest?

The force’s statement also invidiously linked the march to threats and terrorism – and to claim that Iran is “attacking British allies”, rather than retaliating after unprovoked attacks:

We must also consider that the security services have been publicly clear about the threats we are facing on UK soil from the Iranian regime. In the last year MI5 and Counter Terrorism Policing have foiled over 20 Iranian state-backed attacks on the UK. Last week counter-terrorism officers arrested four people under the National Security Act after they allegedly spied on Jewish communities for the Iranian regime and, separately, at the weekend a man was reportedly stabbed by someone who had opposing views on the Iranian regime.

No evidence has so far been provided to the public for any of these arrests or ‘foiled attacks’.

In typical Orwellian style, the Met then claimed that it protects the right to protest, while warning that those who protest this weekend will “crossover [sic] into criminality [and] will face the full force of the law” and that:

We urge the organisers to comply with our conditions or face arrest.

Right.

The UK regime is an enabler of rogue-state terrorism and is more than willing to subordinate the rights of its citizens to the interests of Israel and the US.

Featured image via the Canary