The rise of the global middle class threatens to blow up the environmental envelope. Can the link between income and emissions be broken?
This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.
-
The report published on March 16 revealed that the monthly average of demolition of Palestinian houses by the occupying Israeli authorities has increased by 65% in 2021 as compared to 2020. In the month of February alone, at least 305 Palestinians, including 172 children, lost their homes and were displaced due to demolition of homes by the Israeli authorities.
The post Demolition Of Palestinian Houses Continues appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.
This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.
-
This post was originally published on TIBET, ACTIVISM AND INFORMATION.
-
The post News on China | No. 43 first appeared on Dissident Voice.
This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
-
A wide view during the 19th Session Human Rights Council. 15 March 2012. Photo by Jean-Marc Ferr As the Trump administration drew to a close, anti-death penalty advocates were devastated by an unprecedented series of federal executions. Candidate, and later President-Elect Joe Biden, expressed his opposition to the death penalty as the killing spree continued, leading death penalty opponents to hold high hopes for swift action to both end the federal death penalty and implement the incentives to move states toward abolition of which Biden frequently (if vaguely) spoke.
During the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review of the US, many countries made recommendations about the death penalty. Those recommendations ranged from an immediate moratorium on executions and abolition of the death penalty, to steps to ensure that racial discrimination does not play a role in the death penalty, to ensuring that those who face the death penalty are adequately represented.
When a UN member country accepts a UPR recommendation, it is committing to working toward its implementation, and must report on its progress in doing so at the next UPR cycle. There is no penalty, beyond some potential embarrassment, for failing to complete the job. Acceptance of these death penalty recommendations would provide the underpinning for strong movements by the administration, via both appropriate executive actions and pressure on other necessary actors, including Congress and state government officials, to help the US keep its commitments.
Despite previous strong statements from President Biden about his opposition to the death penalty, however, the US response to these invitations from its Human Rights Council peers was muted, at best. It only partially accepted most death penalty recommendations, and dodged making firm commitments in favor of excuses based on federalism and the powers of the executive branch of government.
Worse, in its remarks to the Human Rights Council at the adoption of the UPR outcome, the US opined that the recommendations it received on the death penalty “reflect continuing differences of policy, not differences about what the United States’ international human rights obligations require.” This is not, in fact, a matter of mere policy difference. As we have previously explained, the federal government’s application of the death penalty has been squarely in violation of the international human rights obligations of the US.
The US delegation representative went on to “note that President Biden supports legislatively ending the death penalty at the federal level and incentivizing additional states to follow the federal government’s example,” but provided no insight into how the administration plans to accomplish these objectives.
Can President Biden eradicate the federal death penalty with the stroke of a pen? No – but he can commute the sentences of everyone currently on federal death row, and he can instruct the Department of Justice to adopt a policy that US Attorneys are not to seek the death penalty going forward. He can make the passage of recently introduced legislation to abolish the federal death penalty a top administration priority. Can President Biden end the death penalty in US states through executive action? No – but he can ensure that every available federal measure is used to make continued executions come at a great cost. That will take a concerted effort by a number of government agencies to review funding programs and other mechanisms for applying the necessary pressure (including FDA oversight of the use of pharmaceutical products for lethal injection), which the President should initiate immediately. It will take bolder statements and bolder action by President Biden to push death penalty abolition forward during his Presidency.
The US did fully accept one death-penalty related recommendation, one for which The Advocates specifically lobbied the country that gave it. Belgium recommended that the US ensure those facing the death penalty have adequate legal representation. Now, it is the responsibility of the Biden administration to begin to implement that recommendation not just at the federal level, but at the state level, where most death sentences are issued. As we discussed last Fall in connection with World Day Against the Death Penalty, the legal representation made available in many US states to poor defendants in death penalty cases (and they are almost always poor) is abysmal. President Biden can dramatically reduce the imposition of new death sentences simply by taking steps to ensure that everyone facing a potential death penalty trial has a good, qualified lawyer.
Progress has been made toward ending the death penalty in the US in recent years, despite the horrific series of federal executions carried out by the Trump administration. Executions in death penalty states have been slowly declining for decades. Virginia officially abolished the death penalty just last month, and there are hopeful signs that Wyoming and Nevada may soon do the same. In Georgia, which has not abolished the death penalty, new death sentences plummeted after the state created a capital defender office to provide qualified counsel to every defendant in a capital case. The Biden administration must seize the opportunity to build on this momentum, not simply watch from the sidelines and root for it to continue.
The Advocates for Human Rights is a nonprofit organization dedicated to implementing international human rights standards to promote civil society and reinforce the rule of law.
Curious about volunteering? Please reach out. The Advocates for Human Rights has an opportunity for you.
Eager to see change? Give to our mission, our vision, our work. Your gift matters.
This post was originally published on The Advocates Post.
-
The US delegation appeared before the US Human Rights Council in Geneva this morning for the interactive dialogue on the outcome of the Council’s Universal Periodic review of human rights in the United States. As we mentioned in our preview of the appearance yesterday, the written submission by the US indicating whether it accepted the recommendations made by its peer delegations contained a few surprises, particularly on the topic of systemic racism and police violence.
During the Trump administration, the US had taken the rather unsurprising (at the time) stance that systemic racism in the US simply did not exist, and that it certainly did not play a role in disparities in police violence. Last summer, when the Council convened an urgent debate on the topic, the Trump administration had hotly opposed the process and refused to participate, but furiously worked behind the scenes to ensure that all references to the US were deleted from the resolution that was ultimately issued. The Trump administration’s rejection of the role of systemic racism in policing continued when the US delegation made its presentation for the UPR interactive dialogue, during which many other member countries nevertheless recommended that the US take steps to address the problem.
The Biden administration took office before the written response of the US to the UPR recommendations was due to be submitted. The response submitted on March 4 accepted a number of recommendations on the need to address police violence and to ensure that race is not a factor in policing but failed to accept the recommendations that expressly called for systemic racism in policing to be eradicated. Given the forthright statements previously made by both President Biden and Secretary of State Blinken acknowledging the need to do exactly that, it came as a surprise that the US did not accept these recommendations.
In its oral presentation to the Council this morning, however, the US took a decidedly different position. Acting Assistant Secretary of State Lisa Peterson stated:
Last summer, as protesters marched to demand justice following the tragic death of George Floyd, we were reminded, once again, of how pervasive systemic racism is in the United States and the urgent need to address it. What many Americans did not see, or had simply refused to see, could not be ignored any longer. Floyd’s death was a flashpoint within a longstanding national conversation around police brutality against African-Americans and persons of color that galvanized a global call to end the injustices of systemic racism across the globe. We saw this very Council take up this issue last summer during its Urgent Debate on Racism. And in that regard, we welcome the High Commissioner’s statement that the implementation of HRC resolution 43/1, stemming from that debate, will reflect and amplify the voices of victims, as well as their families and communities in all countries. The United States is dedicated to eliminating racial discrimination and the use of excessive force in policing. The Department of Justice has issued guidance stating unequivocally that racial profiling is wrong and has prohibited racial profiling in federal law enforcement practices. Many states have done the same. Our Department of Justice prosecutes individual officers who violate someone’s civil rights and investigates police departments that might be engaging in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of their rights. We also seek to proactively prevent discrimination or the use of excessive force by participating in increased training of federal, state, and local law enforcement officers across the country.
As a general rule, accepted recommendations are the ones that officially “count” in the UPR. Accepted recommendations are the ones the member country will be expected to work toward implementing, and for which it will be called to account for its progress at the next UPR cycle. But “noted” (or not accepted) recommendations are frequently implemented anyway. And both Council members and civil society organizations like The Advocates will certainly press the US to live up to its words this morning, in addition to the letter of the recommendations it accepted.
The Advocates for Human Rights is a nonprofit organization dedicated to implementing international human rights standards to promote civil society and reinforce the rule of law.
Curious about volunteering? Please reach out. The Advocates for Human Rights has an opportunity for you.
Eager to see change? Give to our mission, our vision, our work. Your gift matters.
This post was originally published on The Advocates Post.
-
By Charlie Dreaver, RNZ News political reporter
The New Zealand Children’s Commissioner is even more concerned about the deportation of a 15-year-old from Australia, now that he has had a briefing.
Judge Andrew Becroft sought information about the case after the deportation of the minor was made public earlier this week.
Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta was notified last week of the boy’s imminent deportation.
The boy has family in New Zealand, but little information has been made public about the teen to protect his privacy.
The minister said the circumstances of the case were very complex, but signalled he was not a 501 deportee.
When asked yesterday, Mahuta said New Zealand had had no advice suggesting Australia had breached any international law.
However, Children’s Commissioner Andrew Becroft did not believe Australia had stuck to its international obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
‘We can’t play fast and loose’
“It is the most signed convention in history, we can’t play fast and loose with it.“I think there is every reason to conclude, on what I know at the moment, that while two countries have signed that convention only one is really applying it and abiding by it,” he said.
Judge Becroft said the briefing he had received had left him even more concerned than he already was.
“Why put him on a plane by himself, without support to a country that I understand, we need to check this out, he has never been to before,” he said.
“By any analysis it seems to me to be outrageous on what we know so far and it needs to be taken up by the highest authorities and I understand it is being.”
Those concerns were echoed by Australian Lawyers Alliance’s Greg Barns.
Australian authorities have indicated that the minor may have voluntarily been deported from Australian shores.
But Barns has vetoed that as a possibility.
‘Inequality of power here’
“To deport a child of 15 years of age is always involuntary, whatever the child may say.“There is a total inequality of power here, you’ve got the frightening force of the Australian border force and a young child and to say the child has consented to the action I find just extraordinary,” he said.
He said the convention clearly indicated the best interest of the child needed to be put first.
The convention also stated no child should be subjected to cruelty.
Barns said he could not see how Australia was acting in the child’s best interests.
“Children are put in immigration detention and whilst they might be separated from adults they’re in a facility that is completely inappropriate for children. It has none of the rehabilitative mechanisms or the care that is required,” he said.
“To then be shunted on a plane with border force security would be a frightening experience for the child.”
NZ needs to take a stand
He said New Zealand needed to take a stand.“It is getting to the point where the contempt with which Australia treats New Zealand in relation to this issue both with adults and now with of course children are at such a level that New Zealand needs to be taking strong action against Australia, including making complaints on the global stage,” he said.
A spokesperson at the Minister for Children Kelvin Davis’ office said any questions about Australia’s decisions were a matter for the Australian government.
In the meantime, they said Oranga Tamariki had been working extensively with authorities both in Australia and New Zealand to “support this young person’s arrival”.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
-
On 16 March, ADHRB has delivered an oral intervention at the United Nation Human Rights Council session 46 during interactive debate under item 4.
Madam President-
We would like to bring to the council’s attention the growing trend of culture of impunity among government officials in the Gulf Cooperation Council Countries.
In Saudi Arabia, the gruesome killing of former Saudi official and journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul is a vivid example of culture impunity. While for several years the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman was blamed and accused for the brutal killing. After the release of the US intelligence report it should be clear and beyond the reasonable doubt that the actual person responsible behind giving the orders of the killing is no one but Mohammad bin Salman. What made the Saudi Crown Prince engages in such crime is the believe that government officials can get away with any crimes of human rights just because they can and because they are above any accountability.
In Bahrain, the picture is not very much different. Where we have the son of the king Nasser bin Hamad Al-Khalifa engaged in consistent human rights violations where he personally tortured opposition figures, human rights defenders, and athletes. Instead of investigating the crimes he committed, the Bahraini king promoted him to a higher post in his government. This is yet another example of how culture of impunity has spread in Bahrain among highest officials in the country.
The only way this issue could be addressed comprehensively is when officials like MBS and Nasser bin Hamad face international consequences whether from this body or the security council or the new passed Magnitski Act.
The post ADHRB raises the Culture of Impunity among officials in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia appeared first on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.
This post was originally published on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.
-
On 16 March, ADHRB has delivered an oral intervention at the United Nation Human Rights Council session 46 during interactive debate under item 4.
Mr President,
We direct the Council’s attention to the ongoing war crimes occurring in Yemen as we welcome the Group of Eminent Experts’ third report which found that “Yemen remains a tortured land, with its people ravaged in ways that should shock the conscience of humanity.”
While we agree, the report itself is not free from major shortcomings as it fails to highlight the hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by malnutrition related diseases that could have been prevented if it were not for the Coalition blockade on food, medicine and fuel. While the first two reports referred to these crimes in general, the third report relegated these crimes to a footnote that pointed to a UN Development Program report projecting that over 130,000 people would have died as a result of worsening socio-economic, health and humanitarian condition by the end of 2019.
Mr. President,
This worsening situation is due to the Coalition blockade which has resulted in the death of over 300,000 civilians by use of mass starvation as a weapon of war. Neglecting to mention the number of civilian deaths due to the blockade in the first two reports and then relegating this crime to a footnote in the third report is the basis of our continual concern that the crimes affecting the overwhelming majority of the population are not being given the required attention by the Experts.
Accordingly, we call for a recommendation to the Security Council to transfer the case regarding the blockade to the International Criminal Court as these are crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity.
The post Oral Intervention at the Human Rights Council on the Humanitarian Crisis caused by the Saudi led Coalition in Yemen appeared first on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.
This post was originally published on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.
-
In its first major outing following its return to the UN Human Rights Council, the US delegation will participate on Wednesday, March 17, in an interactive debate on the outcome of the Council’s Universal Periodic Review of human rights in the US. Since the review took place in November of 2020, there’s been both a change of administration and a sea change in the US approach to the Council. Long before the review, the Trump administration had withdrawn the US from the Council, but it nevertheless participated in the Council’s US review.
As we noted back in November, the national report submitted by the Trump administration in advance of the review struck a rather defiant tone on some hot button issues. For example, in responding to recommendations from the previous cycle of the UPR about police violence and systemic racism, and anticipating an even greater focus on these issues in the current cycle, the US flatly rejected that systemic racism in US law enforcement is even a problem in need of solutions. By contrast, the Biden administration has readily admitted that systemic racism is a serious problem in US law enforcement, albeit while always carefully pointing out that the US is not alone in this.
After the recommendations of the other Council members were made orally at the review session, they were put into a written report, and the US began working on its response while former President Trump was still in office. Shortly after the change of administration, newly confirmed Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced that the US would resume its participation as an observer in the Human Rights Council and will run next year to regain its seat as a Council member. Earlier this month, the Biden administration submitted the US “addendum” to the report of the UPR working group, in which it indicated which of the recommendations made by other member countries it accepts, and therefore will work to implement, and which it does not accept. Many of the accepted recommendations dealt with the problem of police violence and the need to work to ensure that race is not a factor in police actions, but somewhat surprisingly, the US addendum did not support recommendations that referred expressly to systemic racism. How the US will reconcile the inconsistency between the statements of President Biden and Secretary Blinken acknowledging the problem of systemic racism with its failure to accept such recommendations remains to be seen at the upcoming Wednesday dialogue. The Advocates will be making an oral statement to the Council on police violence and systemic racism in the US on Thursday, March 18.
Other vitally important human rights issues were also raised by the recommendations received by the US, including several that were addressed in stakeholder reports and lobbying by The Advocates in advance of the review, including the death penalty, human trafficking, and the rights of immigrants. The written response of the US to those recommendations contains many hopeful signs, and we look forward to hearing these issues addressed by the US delegation on Wednesday.
The Advocates for Human Rights is a nonprofit organization dedicated to implementing international human rights standards to promote civil society and reinforce the rule of law.
Curious about volunteering? Please reach out. The Advocates for Human Rights has an opportunity for you.
Eager to see change? Give to our mission, our vision, our work. Your gift matters.
This post was originally published on The Advocates Post.
-
The final report on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) concludes that the project has been ‘the most successful anti-poverty movement in history’. Two key claims underpin this narrative: that global poverty has been cut in half, and global hunger nearly in half, since 1990. This good-news narrative has been touted by the United Nations and has been widely repeated by the media. But closer inspection reveals that the UN’s claims about poverty and hunger are misleading, and even intentionally inaccurate. The MDGs have used targeted statistical manipulation to make it seem as though the poverty and hunger trends have been improving when in fact they have worsened. In addition, the MDGs use definitions of poverty and hunger that dramatically underestimate the scale likely of these problems. In reality, around four billion people remain in poverty today, and around two billion remain hungry – more than ever before in history, and between two and four times what the UN would have us believe. The implications of this reality are profound. Worsening poverty and hunger trends indicate that our present model of development is not working and needs to be fundamentally rethought.
— Jason Hickel, Third World Quarterly , Volume 37, 2016 – Issue 5
*–*
How could these two cohorts, the 85 richest and 3.5 billion poorest, have the same amount of wealth? The great majority of the 3.5 billion have no net wealth at all. Hundreds of millions of them have jobs that hardly pay enough to feed their families. Millions of them rely on supplements from private charity and public assistance when they can. Hundreds of millions are undernourished, suffer food insecurity, or go hungry each month, including many among the very poorest in the United States.
Most of the 3.5 billion earn an average of $2.50 a day. The poorest 40 percent of the world population accounts for just 5 percent of all global income. About 80 percent of all humanity live on less than $10 a day. And the poorest 50 percent maintain only 7.2 percent of the world’s private consumption. How exactly could they have accumulated an amount of surplus wealth comparable to the 85 filthy richest?
Staggering, no, the memory hole shoveling going on and perpetrated by elites in commerce, weapons, media, education, a la industrial complexes in the second decade of the 21st Century? Like plagues of locusts. Leeches two hundred worth per hominid, and the tapeworm eats the last, next and current generation like a desiccating alien of our nightmares.
The more light shining on the criminals, spotlights onto the military war lords, floodlights on the entire punishment cabal in governments, in corporations, in policing and uniformed military agencies, the more that bearing witness just peters out. It flags the average Yankee, and the doodle dandy is football, flicks and frolicking with furious caloric intent.
Welcome to the West. Then, the mind-numbing retorts to the initiation of discourse, of legitimate discussion about the ails of the world, largely set loose by the captains of industries — the military-media-legal-medical-penal-computing-financial-education-energy-AI-real estate-poison-agriculture COMPLEX. And, boy, is it never really “complex” — it’s about the art of the steal, the art of the scam, the art of the grift, the art of the toll-fine-fee-garnishment-penalty-tax-attachment set forth by the lobbies of the lords of death with the Eichmann’s of Bureaucracy greasing the skids and oiling the wheels. Keep those hedge funds going, the trains running, the profits heaping.
- “We can only take so much trauma.”
- “The human brain can’t take so much truth.”
- “Trigger Warning; The Following Stories About Wealth for the Rich and Poverty for the rest of Us Might Cause Spasms of Collective Amnesia, Anxiety, Animosity.”
- “There is no meek shall inherit the earth. We are talking about the meek and the poor inheriting the toxins, pollutants, the penury, the profound suffering inflicted upon them generation after generation by the rich and their enablers, the ultimate evil — those turning a blind eye to suffering, raping, razing, murdering.”
I’m getting it from all angles, really, the tired, the over-educated (in terms of college but not in terms of smarts). The tired middle class. Retired and one-trick phony environmentalist ponies. All those huffing and puffing and blowing down the Trump Towers, folk who are self-blinding themselves, as if bearing the truth of Biden et al, as well as bearing the weight of protecting Everything/Anything Empire, while the chorus of War Mongering Democrats a la LGBTQA-+ sing ‘Hallelujah, No More Trump’ puts them right smack where Oedipus was, exposed to the truth and overcome with shame, grief, and remorse. Poking eyes out is the least the people who follow the perverse leaders should do.
Except, their blinding is symbolic, life-long, from womb to cradle to grave, as in turning a blind eye to the roots, the very radical cause of all the suffering, the police no-knocks, the cesium floating in lungs and bellies, and a dozen other micro-particles from this or that nuclear fallout incident. Symbolic and demonstrative of the kill-for-profits Capitalism.
It is too too much for the masses — The Truth — so we all have to gather round the Zoom screen, tune into Amazon Prime, and sing, Give Peace a Chance while the world is fleeced by the billionaires, but also those millionaires (we tend to give millionaires, multi-millionaires a get-out-of-jail pass, when they too are the culprits helping spread that poisonous fallout).
Professor Bernd Grambow (co-author from IMT Atlantique) added “the present work, using cutting-edge analytical tools, gives only a very small insight in the very large diversity of particles released during the [Fukushima] nuclear accident, much more work is necessary to get a realistic picture of the highly heterogeneous environmental and health impact.”
Lockdowns for a flu virus, lockdowns for free thought, lockups for free speech, lock and loaded for the Empire, shackled to bills-mortgages-policies-ballooning debt…. BUT for fuck’s sake, we can’t lock-down the fossil fuel monsters, lock-up the Fukushima shills, shutdown the Olympics, punish and quell the military saber rattlers (read: purveyors of nuclear- chemical-bacterial-viral-digital-intergalactic weaponry).
Business as usual is a trillion easy dollars in Pandemic Profits, and a cool several trillion more with mandatory masking, Zooming, SARS-CoV2,3,4,5,6 annual vaccinations and semi-annual boosters.
Passports to their hell. Yet, when you talk to a Kamala Harris floozy, well, they get teary eyed, sing the All Spangled Banner of Buffoonery, and then tell you to hit the road, no more Haeder in their House.
Literally, people want nothing of politics, or the reveal — showing how their own colonized and kettled thinking under the guise of “liberal” looting under the Democrat Vote has always been part of the problem, not any solution to the world thievery or a pathway to world peace.
So What is The Answer?
It is not a $64,000 question, for sure, since the answer is collectively simple, easily repeated, easily understood, Yet, that is the jig, always looking for the messiah, or having their cake (capitalism) and eating it (profits-profits-profits) too. They are limited and limiting, and they gladly take the Kool-Aide and mix in a shot of Jack Daniels and a jigger of high fructose fizz.
Resisting for them is not an option. If they can’t converse, frame, contextualize, harmonize, recount, go back in history, recall the scene of the crime(s), then how the hell can these same folk who ask, Well, you sure know how to criticize and go on and on about the ills of Capitalism, but show me any other system that works. Humanity is humanity, whether in the center of Wall Street or out on the Rez?
This is their thinking, their great retort, and so, how do we get to that point where we just get to the basics, the Cornel West basics– Watch his rumble in the jungle: At Harvard, the worst kind of man-eating institution, along with a few hundred elite schools on this side and that side of the pond:
Listen to him, watch him, feel his presence of soul, Dr. West. Not a perfect man, thank god!
So, what is the answer? Justice. Social-spiritual-ecological-cultural-gender-age-racial-ethnic-ecnonmic-educational-food-energy JUSTICE? Using the inverse, the answer is the whole human-whole earth, toward holism, embedded in systems thinking, what it means to have the commons, what it is to be a society among other societies that is ecologically-based, agrarian-centered, humanistic-thriving, environmentally-aware, is, well, the opposite formulation of these Gandhian sins:
Wealth Without Work
Pleasure Without Conscience
Knowledge Without Character
Commerce (Business) Without Morality (Ethics)
Science Without Humanity
Religion Without Sacrifice
Politics Without PrincipleIt doesn’t take much K12 education and applied learning to understand that reversing these sins and following the antithesis would illuminate the bearable weight of being a human in the world, triggering change at a global and galactical level. Prometheus steals the fire from the gods and gives it to people. Bound to the mountain. Prometheus grows weary. The future, oh, the future, swallowed up by that lack of hope. Let us all be Prometheus, and help each other take from the thieves, the rich, and give warmth and fire to the world. Unbound us together. Break the chains of the illicit gods and their devils.
Really, though, one person’s hope is another person’s oppression. In capitalism, there is the king of the dung heap, the winner being the one who dies with the most toys. Dog-eat-dog, and survival of the most unfit (using the Seven Sins of Humanity above as illustrative of what makes capitalism really zip along).
In Western culture, it all might seem like a Greek Tragedy of Trailer Park or Mar-a-lago proportions. It might all seem like a hardscrabble blues tribute to American stick-to-it-ness. That hardened soul, as DH Lawrence ascribed —
The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted.
We know that Western soul is a killer from the womb — those royals and despicable ones from the Old World, those Belgium in the Congo, those Romans, those hard, soldiering, religious zealots, hand in hand with silver chalice and golden rosary, those kings and queens, launching the deplorable ones, the rabble into crusades of raping-ravaging-razing. There is no “American soul” without the British slave traders-merchants-purchasers; no American soul without the French and Spanish interlopers. The American soul is part and parcel those former Nazis and the money-changers, the globalists looking for a micro-penny for every human corpuscle exploited in their gaming humanity. This is Turtle Island, not some chunk of land named for an Italian map maker for the king.
Now that’s a dark dark killer that never melts — Capitalism. It is now cleaned up, a la Madison Avenue and slick green-blue-pink-white washing, no longer presented as cold, stoic, but happy, illustrious, coopting, brainwashing, gleeful, the ice cream truck coming to serve all the children with gooey goodies. Shifty, slick, liberal, slippery, hip. It is now a virus inside a thousand viruses —
A democratic society shapes itself – by means of the participation of its citizens in discussing and deciding how things should be organised and to what ends.
But, as even their name reveals, the Global Shapers want to “shape” society from above and in their own interests.
- Shapers of slavery: the awakening January 13, 2021
- Shapers of slavery: the virus January 12, 2021
- Shapers of slavery: the empire January 11, 2021
- Shapers of slavery: the leadership January 10, 2021
- Shapers of slavery: the plan January 9, 2021
This is not the solution to global problems, and, the rockets and payloads of Bezos and Musk and DoD and the rest of the capitalists looking for lucre and gold on Mars and the Moon. Reset is not rebounding. Reset is not reconvening the true holistic way of life. Reset is not returning to a point in time in our civilizations where we come together in mutual aid, live a biodynamic present and future, hold onto sacred tribal principles, understand the soil-air-water. The reset is not a return to sanity, actualization for woman, man, child, ecosystem. This reset is the rich’s bargain basement theft of our agency, our independence, our collective will to strike at them as the felons of our time. Their reset is tracking our every movement, each blink of the eye, each snore and defecation. This reset is about pulling strings, forcing the Faustian Bargain each moment. They will fine-garnish-withhold-penalize-criminalize our unborn, and our dying parents. You get a universal income, but not to be spent on what they do not want you/us to spend it on.
The foregone conclusion is what the teachers teach the children. It is what the media paint around us. Each narrative directed and shot for Netflix or Amazon or Hulu or Vudu, they are set to propagandize for the rich, the resetters, the titans who want mars colonized, who want the moon for their private resort. Orbiting Club Meds in the ionosphere.
Yet, the Lesson is Dead Wolves, Manatees and Turtles
The very place of Trump and Spring Break, Florida, is emblematic of the fall, the disgusting imbalance of the world, of sanity, of thinking. Manatees dying off in unfathomable numbers. Turtles washing up sick and dead. The expansion of the ocean, wiping out much of Florida by 2100. The bastion of Spring Break and lust and speedboats and dream hoarding.
Something not to be proud of, and to lend pause for humanity, but not more than once, and give it to me once in that 24-hour news cycle, please. At least 432 Florida manatees have already died in 2021, well over double the state’s 5-year average for the same time period.
Hundreds of sea turtles washing up on Southwest Florida beaches this year in a mass mortality event that researchers say will impact the recovery of the protected species is not a good sign of HUMAN health. The Great Reset has nothing to say about the reality of our own commons.
Then you have Wisconsin, gun-toting AR15-loving murderers taking on a record 216 wolves killed in 60 hours. What does this say about this society, this blood sport society of high powered weapons, radar trackers, dually pick-ups, $340,000 campers, TV, booze, and a quick trip in the woods to murder wolves?
Or, the hard cold soul of the European, Italians, putting 20-year sentences on people working with charities to help stranded and sinking and drowning refugees from African countries. Imagine that world of the cold Great Resetters. Save the Children and MSF among dozens facing sentences of up to 20 years over humanitarian work
Humanitarian organizations are rejecting what they say is an attempt to criminalize lifesaving aid to migrants and refugees at sea after Italian prosecutors charged three groups with aiding and abetting illegal immigration through their rescue operations in the Mediterranean.
Over 20 people are facing up to 20 years in prison. — Source.
Each story of injustice is the tip of the proverbial iceberg, demonstrating the insanity of systems — legal systems of punishment-abandonment-unruly laws against the suffering, laws meant to pay the rich, pay off the rotting bureaucrats, the Eichmann’s, big and small, who keep the wheels and the gears of death grinding, whether those wheels are those of the Empire, or the Capitalists, or the Economic Hitmen-Frontmen-Debasers, or all the pigs who make money off the penury and punishment unleashed by Capitalism.
Not me. Not I. Over my dead body.
The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall. We cannot be sure of having something to live for unless we are willing to die for it.
The post Shifty Shifters: Movers and Shapers like a Trillion Locusts first appeared on Dissident Voice.
This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
-
New York City – China, Russia, North Korea, Iran and others are seeking support for a coalition to defend the United Nations Charter by pushing back against the use or threat of force and unilateral sanctions, according to a letter seen by Reuters on Thursday.
The move by 16 countries and the Palestinians to create such a group comes as U.S. President Joe Biden’s new administration boosts its multilateral engagement and with allies, reversing former President Donald Trump’s favored unilateral approach as he focused on an “America First” policy.
Biden has also pledged to take on China at the United Nations, where Beijing has been pushing for greater global influence in a challenge to traditional U.S. leadership.
The post China, Iran, And North Korea Seek Support At The UN Against Unilateral Force appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.
This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.
-
Asia Pacific Report newsdesk
The Green Climate Fund is a beacon of rich-poor cooperation on tackling the climate crisis, reports Climate Change News.
A newly reengaged US is considering a multi-billion-dollar contribution.
However, whistleblowers say a “toxic” workplace and lack of integrity at senior levels jeopardise the fund’s ability to meet its mandate.
Without urgent reform, they say, the US should find other channels for climate finance.
Climate Change News reports that while John Kerry promises to “make good” on a $2 billion pledge to the GCF, the UN’s flagship fund faces critically low confidence in its senior management
The presidential climate envoy is seeking to rebuild bridges with the rest of the world after former President Donald Trump reneged on US climate commitments.
Delivering a $2 billion outstanding pledge to the UN-backed climate fund, for distribution to projects in developing countries, is widely seen as a good place to start.
Campaigners are calling on the Biden administration to commit a further $6 billion to the fund.
Unless there is urgent reform, reports Climate Change News editor Megan Darby in an investigation, whistleblowers tell Climate Home News, the money would be better directed elsewhere.
Three employees of the GCF secretariat who quit in 2019 and 2020 cite concerns about a lack of integrity in vetting projects and abuses of power creating a hostile working environment.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
-
Lightning over the city of Songdo, South Korea, where the Green Climate Fund is headquartered. Image: Climate Change/Soonye Yoon/World Meterological Organisation/Flickr)
Asia Pacific Report newsdesk
The Green Climate Fund is a beacon of rich-poor cooperation on tackling the climate crisis, reports Climate Change News.
A newly reengaged US is considering a multi-billion-dollar contribution.
However, whistleblowers say a “toxic” workplace and lack of integrity at senior levels jeopardise the fund’s ability to meet its mandate.
Without urgent reform, they say, the US should find other channels for climate finance.
Climate Change News reports that while John Kerry promises to “make good” on a $2 billion pledge to the GCF, the UN’s flagship fund faces critically low confidence in its senior management
The presidential climate envoy is seeking to rebuild bridges with the rest of the world after former President Donald Trump reneged on US climate commitments.
Delivering a $2 billion outstanding pledge to the UN-backed climate fund, for distribution to projects in developing countries, is widely seen as a good place to start.
Campaigners are calling on the Biden administration to commit a further $6 billion to the fund.
Unless there is urgent reform, reports Climate Change News editor Megan Darby in an investigation, whistleblowers tell Climate Home News, the money would be better directed elsewhere.
Three employees of the GCF secretariat who quit in 2019 and 2020 cite concerns about a lack of integrity in vetting projects and abuses of power creating a hostile working environment.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
-
Many Palestinian intellectuals and political analysts find themselves in the unenviable position of having to declare a stance on whether they support or reject upcoming Palestinian elections which are scheduled for May 22 and July 30. But there are no easy answers.The long-awaited decree by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas last January to hold legislative and presidential elections in the coming months was widely welcomed, not as a triumph for democracy but as the first tangible positive outcome of dialogue between rival Palestinian factions, mainly Abbas’ Fatah party and Hamas.
As far as inner Palestinian dialogue is concerned, the elections, if held unobstructed, could present a ray of hope that, finally, Palestinians in the Occupied Territories will enjoy a degree of democratic representation, a first step towards a more comprehensive representation that could include millions of Palestinians outside the Occupied Territories.
But even such humble expectations are conditioned on many “ifs”: only if Palestinian factions honor their commitments to the Istanbul Agreement of September 24; only if Israel allows Palestinians, including Jerusalemites, to vote unhindered and refrains from arresting Palestinian candidates; only if the US-led international community accepts the outcome of the democratic elections without punishing victorious parties and candidates; only if the legislative and presidential elections are followed by the more consequential and substantive elections in the Palestinian National Council (PNC) – the Palestinian Parliament in exile – and so on.
If any of these conditions is unsatisfactory, the May elections are likely to serve no practical purpose, aside from giving Abbas and his rivals the veneer of legitimacy, thus allowing them to buy yet more time and acquire yet more funds from their financial benefactors.
All of this compels us to consider the following question: is democracy possible under military occupation?
Almost immediately following the last democratic Palestinian legislative elections in 2006, the outcome of which displeased Israel, 62 Palestinian ministers and members of the new parliament were thrown into prison, with many still imprisoned.
History is repeating itself as Israel has already begun its arrest campaigns of Hamas leaders and members in the West Bank. On February 22, over 20 Palestinian activists, including Hamas officials, were detained as a clear message from the Israeli occupation to Palestinians that Israel does not recognize their dialogue, their unity agreements or their democracy.
Two days later, 67-year-old Hamas leader, Omar Barghouti, was summoned by the Israeli military intelligence in the occupied West Bank and warned against running in the upcoming May elections. “The Israeli officer warned me not to run in the upcoming elections and threatened me with imprisonment if I did,” Barghouti was quoted by Al-Monitor.
The Palestinian Basic Law allows prisoners to run for elections, whether legislative or presidential, simply because the most popular among Palestinian leaders are often behind bars. Marwan Barghouti is one.
Imprisoned since 2002, Barghouti remains Fatah’s most popular leader, though appreciated more by the movement’s young cadre, as opposed to Abbas’ old guard. The latter group has immensely benefited from the corrupt system of political patronage upon which the 85-year-old president has constructed his Authority.
To sustain this corrupt system, Abbas and his clique labored to marginalize Barghouti, leading to the suggestion that Israel’s imprisonment of Fatah’s vibrant leader serves the interests of the current Palestinian President.
This claim has much substance, not only because Abbas has done little to pressure Israel to release Barghouti but also because all credible public opinion polls suggest that Barghouti is far more popular among Fatah’s supporters – in fact all Palestinians – than Abbas.
On February 11, Abbas dispatched Hussein al-Sheikh, the Minister of Civilian Affairs and a member of Fatah’s Central Committee, to dissuade Barghouti from running in the upcoming presidential elections. An ideal scenario for the Palestinian President would be to take advantage of Barghouti’s popularity by having him lead the Fatah list in the contest for the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC). Hence, Abbas could ensure a strong turnout by Fatah supporters, while securing the chair of presidency for himself.
Barghouti vehemently rejected Abbas’ request, thus raising an unexpected challenge to Abbas, who now risks dividing the Fatah vote, losing the PLC elections, again, to Hamas and losing the presidential elections to Barghouti.
Between the nightly raids and crackdowns by the Israeli military and the political intrigues within the divided Fatah movement, one wonders if the elections, if they take place, will finally allow Palestinians to mount a united front in the struggle against Israeli occupation and for Palestinian freedom.
Then, there is the issue of the possible position of the ‘international community’ regarding the outcome of the elections. News reports speak of efforts made by Hamas to seek guarantees from Qatar and Egypt “to ensure Israel will not pursue its representatives and candidates in the upcoming elections,” Al-Monitor also reported.
But what kind of guarantees can Arab countries obtain from Tel Aviv, and what kind of leverage can Doha and Cairo have when Israel continues to disregard the United Nations, international law, the International Criminal Court, and so on?
Nevertheless, can Palestinian democracy afford to subsist in its state of inertia? Abbas’ mandate as president expired in 2009, the PLC’s mandate expired in 2010 and, in fact, the Palestinian Authority was set up as an interim political body, whose function should have ceased in 1999. Since then, the ‘Palestinian leadership’ has not enjoyed legitimacy among Palestinians, deriving its relevance, instead, from the support of its benefactors, who are rarely interested in supporting democracy in Palestine.
The only silver lining in the story is that Fatah and Hamas have also agreed on the restructuring of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which is now largely monopolized by Abbas’ Fatah movement. Whether the democratic revamping of the PLO takes place or not, largely depends on the outcome of the May and July elections.
Palestine, like other Middle Eastern countries, including Israel, does have a crisis of political legitimacy. Since Palestine is an occupied land with little or no freedom, one is justified to argue that true democracy under these horrific conditions cannot possibly be achieved.
The post Elections under Fire: Palestine’s Impossible Democracy Dilemma first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
-
Many Palestinian intellectuals and political analysts find themselves in the unenviable position of having to declare a stance on whether they support or reject upcoming Palestinian elections which are scheduled for May 22 and July 30. But there are no easy answers.
The long-awaited decree by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas last January to hold legislative and presidential elections in the coming months was widely welcomed, not as a triumph for democracy but as the first tangible positive outcome of dialogue between rival Palestinian factions, mainly Abbas’ Fatah party and Hamas.
As far as inner Palestinian dialogue is concerned, the elections, if held unobstructed, could present a ray of hope that, finally, Palestinians in the Occupied Territories will enjoy a degree of democratic representation, a first step towards a more comprehensive representation that could include millions of Palestinians outside the Occupied Territories.
But even such humble expectations are conditioned on many “ifs”: only if Palestinian factions honor their commitments to the Istanbul Agreement of September 24; only if Israel allows Palestinians, including Jerusalemites, to vote unhindered and refrains from arresting Palestinian candidates; only if the US-led international community accepts the outcome of the democratic elections without punishing victorious parties and candidates; only if the legislative and presidential elections are followed by the more consequential and substantive elections in the Palestinian National Council (PNC) – the Palestinian Parliament in exile – and so on.
If any of these conditions is unsatisfactory, the May elections are likely to serve no practical purpose, aside from giving Abbas and his rivals the veneer of legitimacy, thus allowing them to buy yet more time and acquire yet more funds from their financial benefactors.
All of this compels us to consider the following question: is democracy possible under military occupation?
Almost immediately following the last democratic Palestinian legislative elections in 2006, the outcome of which displeased Israel, 62 Palestinian ministers and members of the new parliament were thrown into prison, with many still imprisoned.
History is repeating itself as Israel has already begun its arrest campaigns of Hamas leaders and members in the West Bank. On February 22, over 20 Palestinian activists, including Hamas officials, were detained as a clear message from the Israeli occupation to Palestinians that Israel does not recognize their dialogue, their unity agreements or their democracy.
Two days later, 67-year-old Hamas leader, Omar Barghouti, was summoned by the Israeli military intelligence in the occupied West Bank and warned against running in the upcoming May elections. “The Israeli officer warned me not to run in the upcoming elections and threatened me with imprisonment if I did,” Barghouti was quoted by Al-Monitor.
The Palestinian Basic Law allows prisoners to run for elections, whether legislative or presidential, simply because the most popular among Palestinian leaders are often behind bars. Marwan Barghouti is one.
Imprisoned since 2002, Barghouti remains Fatah’s most popular leader, though appreciated more by the movement’s young cadre, as opposed to Abbas’ old guard. The latter group has immensely benefited from the corrupt system of political patronage upon which the 85-year-old president has constructed his Authority.
To sustain this corrupt system, Abbas and his clique labored to marginalize Barghouti, leading to the suggestion that Israel’s imprisonment of Fatah’s vibrant leader serves the interests of the current Palestinian President.
This claim has much substance, not only because Abbas has done little to pressure Israel to release Barghouti but also because all credible public opinion polls suggest that Barghouti is far more popular among Fatah’s supporters – in fact all Palestinians – than Abbas.
On February 11, Abbas dispatched Hussein al-Sheikh, the Minister of Civilian Affairs and a member of Fatah’s Central Committee, to dissuade Barghouti from running in the upcoming presidential elections. An ideal scenario for the Palestinian President would be to take advantage of Barghouti’s popularity by having him lead the Fatah list in the contest for the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC). Hence, Abbas could ensure a strong turnout by Fatah supporters, while securing the chair of presidency for himself.
Barghouti vehemently rejected Abbas’ request, thus raising an unexpected challenge to Abbas, who now risks dividing the Fatah vote, losing the PLC elections, again, to Hamas and losing the presidential elections to Barghouti.
Between the nightly raids and crackdowns by the Israeli military and the political intrigues within the divided Fatah movement, one wonders if the elections, if they take place, will finally allow Palestinians to mount a united front in the struggle against Israeli occupation and for Palestinian freedom.
Then, there is the issue of the possible position of the ‘international community’ regarding the outcome of the elections. News reports speak of efforts made by Hamas to seek guarantees from Qatar and Egypt “to ensure Israel will not pursue its representatives and candidates in the upcoming elections,” Al-Monitor also reported.
But what kind of guarantees can Arab countries obtain from Tel Aviv, and what kind of leverage can Doha and Cairo have when Israel continues to disregard the United Nations, international law, the International Criminal Court, and so on?
Nevertheless, can Palestinian democracy afford to subsist in its state of inertia? Abbas’ mandate as president expired in 2009, the PLC’s mandate expired in 2010 and, in fact, the Palestinian Authority was set up as an interim political body, whose function should have ceased in 1999. Since then, the ‘Palestinian leadership’ has not enjoyed legitimacy among Palestinians, deriving its relevance, instead, from the support of its benefactors, who are rarely interested in supporting democracy in Palestine.
The only silver lining in the story is that Fatah and Hamas have also agreed on the restructuring of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which is now largely monopolized by Abbas’ Fatah movement. Whether the democratic revamping of the PLO takes place or not, largely depends on the outcome of the May and July elections.
Palestine, like other Middle Eastern countries, including Israel, does have a crisis of political legitimacy. Since Palestine is an occupied land with little or no freedom, one is justified to argue that true democracy under these horrific conditions cannot possibly be achieved.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
-
Planning documents for the 2021 United Nations Food Systems Summit shed new light on the agenda behind the controversial food summit that hundreds of farmers’ and human rights groups are boycotting. The groups say agribusiness interests and elite foundations are dominating the process to push through an agenda that would enable the exploitation of global food systems, and especially Africa.
The documents, including a background paper prepared for summit dialogues and a draft policy brief for the summit, bring into focus “plans for the massive industrialization of Africa’s food systems,” said Mariam Mayet, executive director of the African Centre for Biodiversity (ACB), who provided the documents to U.S. Right to Know.
The dialogues “are deaf and blind to the converging systemic crises we face today, and the drastic urgent re-think it demands,” ACB said in a statement.
The post The Next Neocolonial Gold Rush? appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.
This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.
-
Dr Agnes Kalibata responds to a report on the 2021 summit that she is leading as a special envoy for the UN secretary general
As you note in your article (Farmers and rights groups boycott food summit over big business links, 4 March), farmers have for too long been on the fringes of global discussions about hunger, poverty and climate change, despite being the frontline of our food systems and the custodians of our natural resources.
The UN food systems summit marks a momentous opportunity for farmers, producers and many others who support them to be at the heart of the year-long consultative process that has been launched to improve our shared food system.
Continue reading…This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.
-
The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) adopted an Opinion on 26 November 2020, concerning Ali Mahdi Abdulhusain Mohamad Alaiwi, Hasan Asad Jasim Jasim Nesaif, Habib Hasan Habib Yusuf, Ali Ahmed Ali Ahmed Fakhrawi, Mohamed Ahmed Ali Ahmed Fakhrawi, and Nooh Abdulla Hasan Ahmed Hasan Al Amroom.
In the opinion, the WGAD determined that the six cases demonstrate a pattern of warrantless arrest and the use of torture by officials to extract confessions, in violation of international law. The Working Group requests that the Government of Bahrain take the steps necessary to remedy the situation without delay and bring it into conformity with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This includes the immediate and unconditional release of the prisoners who remain in detention. The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Messrs. Alaiwi, Nesaif, Yusuf, Ali Fakhrawi, Mohamed Fakhrawi and Amroom immediately and accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law. In the current context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the threat that it poses in places of detention, the Working Group calls upon the Government to take urgent action to ensure their immediate release.
As a matter of practice, Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain (ADHRB) regularly receives information from Bahraini individuals and employs their accounts as key evidence in submitted complaints by the United Nations (UN). ADHRB welcomes this opinion by the UN, and urges the Bahraini authorities to follow the recommendations without delay.
The WGAD is one of the Special Procedures offices of the UN Human Rights Council. As part of its regular procedures, the Working Group sends allegation letters to governments concerning credible cases of arbitrary detention. The Working Group may also render opinions on whether an individual or group’s detention is arbitrary and in violation of international law. The WGAD reviews cases under five categories of arbitrary detention: when it is clearly impossible to invoke legal basis justifying the deprivation of liberty (Category I); when the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights to equal protection of the law, freedom of thought, freedom of opinion and expression, and freedom of assembly, among others (Category II); when violations of the right to a fair trial are so severe that the detention is rendered arbitrary (Category III); prolonged administrative custody for refugees and asylum seekers (Category IV); and when the detention is discriminatory on the basis of birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language, religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or any other status (Category V).
In the present Opinion, the WGAD finds that the six individuals: Ali Mahdi Abdulhusain Mohamad Alaiwi, Hasan Asad Jasim Jasim Nesaif, Habib Hasan Habib Yusuf, Ali Ahmed Ali Ahmed Fakhrawi, Mohamed Ahmed Ali Ahmed Fakhrawi, and Nooh Abdulla Hasan Ahmed Hasan Al Amroom, currently incarcerated at Jau Prison, have been unlawfully convicted and have suffered a slew of illegal human rights violations.
The dates of their arrest range from May 2011 to September 2015. The alleged violations involve arrests without a warrant, enforced disappearances, and torture. The most common methods of torture reported include beatings all over the body, deprivation of sleep, detention in cold rooms, and threats against family members. Two of the defendants were minors at the time of their arrest (Ali Mahdi Abdulhusain Mohamad Alaiwi and Hasan Asad Jasim Jasim Nesaif). Due to the torture that they were inflicted with, at least four of the defendants signed confessions to the charges attributed to them.
The defendants were all denied access to their lawyers, or allowed only limited access at certain periods. The WGAD has found a consistent pattern of behavior by Bahraini authorities in not providing arrest warrants or reasons for arrests. A prompt notification of the charges is often not provided, suggesting that the failure to comply with arrest procedures is a systemic problem. Indeed, the WGAD reported that all six individuals were arrested without a warrant; the government did not respond to this allegation.
Moreover, none of the individuals were brought promptly before a judicial authority to challenge the legality of their detention. Following Mr. Mohamed Fakhrawi’s arrest, he was subjected to enforced disappearance for three months. The government stated that the allegations that enforced disappearance had been employed by the authorities were unsubstantiated. However, the government failed to detail the specific location of the individual following their arrest, or any information to suggest that their families and lawyers knew their fate or whereabouts. These cases of enforced disappearances violate Articles 9 and 14 of the ICCPR and constitute a particularly aggravated form of arbitrary detention. Mr. Mohamed Fakhrawi and Mr. Amroom were also placed outside the protection of the law, in violation of Article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 16 of the Covenant. Additionally, while Mr. Yusuf was able to call and inform his relative on the day of his arrest that he was being held at the CID, authorities subsequently held him incommunicado and interrogated him for 25 days without a lawyer present.
All six individuals were subjected to torture and ill-treatment, which produced coerced confessions in at least four of the cases. The Working Group expresses its grave concern at the allegations of torture and/or ill-treatment during Messrs. Alaiwi, Nesaif, Yusuf, Ali Fakhrawi, Mohamed Fakhrawi, and Amroom’s arrest and/or detention. The Working Group notes that, in some instances, the Government stated that it investigated these allegations, but that the cases were filed or archived.
Four cases are submitted as a Category I deprivation of liberty, with no legal justification for the detention, and all six cases are submitted as Category III deprivations of liberty, showing a regular practice of arrests and searches without the required authorization to do so, or other violations to fair trial rights, including lack of access to legal counsel, hearings conducted in absentia, and confessions obtained through torture used in judicial proceedings. In the case of the two minors, Ali Mahdi Abdulhusain Mohamad Alaiwi and Hasan Asad Jasim Jasim Nesaif, many of their rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child were violated by the government of Bahrain. These rights include: the right to prompt access to legal assistance, assistance in the preparation of their defense, and a fair hearing in the presence of a lawyer.
All of the individuals had restricted access to legal representation. The source alleges that Messrs. Alaiwi, Nesaif, Yusuf, Ali Fakhrawi, Mohamed Fakhrawi, and Amroom had limited or no access to legal counsel of their choice after their arrests and/or during the proceedings. The Government stated that legal assistance was provided to all the individuals, according to the Criminal Code. However, the Working Group notes that the Government has not further substantiated its claim. In the Working Group’s view, the Government failed to respect Messrs. Alaiwi, Nesaif, Yusuf, Ali Fakhrawi, Mohamed Fakhrawi, and Amroom’s right to legal assistance, which is inherent in the right to liberty and security of person as well as the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law, in accordance with articles 3, 9, 10 and 11 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Working Group notes that the source stated that the six individuals were not brought promptly before a judge. The Government explained, in its response, that all the individuals were questioned by the Office of the Public Prosecution, who then ordered their custody. The Working Group recalls that, while international standards set out in the Working Group’s jurisprudence prescribe that the arrested person is to be brought before a judge within 48 hours, a stricter standard of 24 hours is applicable for Messrs. Alaiwi and Amroom under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In addition, the individuals were brought before the Office of Public Prosecution, which cannot be considered a judicial authority for the purposes of Article 9 (3) of the Covenant.
The Government response, stating that all six had lawyers present at their trial, does not address the issue that lawyers were not allowed to be present during interrogations, or address the limited time afforded to consultation before and during trial. Evidently, the principle that all persons deprived of liberty have the right to legal counsel at any time during detention, including immediately after apprehension, was not respected. The individuals were also not afforded their right to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of defense and communication with counsel of their choosing, as well as their right to present an effective defense, under article 14(3)(b) and 14(3)(d) of the Covenant. Ali Alaiwi, Mohamed Fakhrawi, Hasan Nesaif, Habib Yusuf, Ali Fakhrawi, and Nooh Al Amroom had no communication with the lawyer and were not even permitted to meet with their lawyers prior to the start of their trial. As a minor, Mr. Hasan Nesaif’s rights to legal assistance in the preparation of his defense and a fair hearing in the presence of legal assistance under Article 40(2)(b)(ii) and (iii) of the Convention were also violated, along with his right to prompt access to legal assistance under Article 37(d) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
According to the WGAD, the deprivation of liberty of Ali Mahdi Abdulhusain Mohamad Alaiwi, Hasan Asad Jasim Jasim Nesaif, and Nooh Abdulla Hasan Ahmed Hasan Al Amroom, being in contravention of Articles 3, 8, 9, 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 2 (3), 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Articles 37, and 40 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, is arbitrary and falls within categories I and III. Under certain circumstances, widespread or systematic imprisonment may constitute crimes against humanity.
In light of these findings, the Working Group requests that the Government of Bahrain take the steps necessary to remedy the situation of Messrs. Alaiwi, Nesaif, Yusuf, Ali Fakhrawi, Mohamed Fakhrawi, and Amroom without delay and bring it into conformity with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
To this end, the WGAD recommends that Bahrain release the six individuals who remain in detention and accord all of them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law. In the current context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the threat that it poses in places of detention, the Working Group calls upon the Government to take urgent action to ensure their immediate release.
The Working Group urges the Government of Bahrain to ensure a full and independent investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of the six individuals with the view to hold the perpetrators to account. The Working Group would also welcome the opportunity to engage constructively with the Government of Bahrain through a country visit.
ADHRB fully supports the WGAD’s recommendations and echoes its calls for the immediate release of the six individuals still currently detained. We further welcome the commentary by the WGAD on the right to challenge the legality of detention before a court, the right to a fair trial, and the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
The post UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention: Six Bahrainis are arbitrarily detained and victims of various human rights violations appeared first on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.
This post was originally published on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.
-
The Australia West Papua Association (AWPA) has called on the Australian government to stop trying to keep Papua off the agenda at the Pacific Islands Forum and “strenuously support” Pacific leaders in urging Jakarta to allow a PIF fact-finding mission to the territory.
Congratulating the PIF Secretary-General Meg Taylor on her statement to the 46th session of the UN Human Rights Council, also called on Canberra to back the call for the visit to West Papua by the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
An AWPA statement from Sydney said Taylor raised the issues of covid-19, climate change and West Papua and pointed out that the pandemic must not hinder efforts to address critical issues.
About West Papua, she said the violent conflict and subsequent human rights violations in West Papua had been of concern for PIF leaders for more than 20 years.
Joe Collins of AWPA said, “The Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) and the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG), the two main regional organisations in the Pacific, are very important for the issue of West Papua,” said Joe Collins of AWPA.
Pacific leaders regularly raised the issue of West Papua at the UN and other international fora, given credibility to the issue on the world stage. This was the reason Pacific leaders were regularly condemned by Jakarta.
“The human rights situation in West Papua is an issue of great concern for Pacific governments and their people and has the potential to impact on relations between Australia and countries in the region,” Collins said.
This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.
-
Independent Rex Patrick moves after similar parliamentary motions passed in Canada and the Netherlands
An Australian senator will seek support from fellow upper house members to recognise China’s treatment of the Uighur Muslim minority as genocide, after similar parliamentary motions passed in Canada and the Netherlands.
The proposed motion – placed on the Senate’s notice paper for 15 March – looms as a test for the major parties at a time when Australia should join the international community in taking a stand, according to the South Australian independent senator Rex Patrick.
Related: ‘Being young’ leads to detention in China’s Xinjiang region
Related: ‘Our souls are dead’: how I survived a Chinese ‘re-education’ camp for Uighurs – podcast
Continue reading…This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.
-
What is taking place in Burma right now is a military coup. There can be no other description for such an unwarranted action as the dismissal of the government by military decree and the imposition of Min Aung Hlaing, the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, as an unelected ruler.However, despite the endless talk about democratization, Burma was, in the years leading up to the coup, far from being a true democracy.
Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the country’s erstwhile ruling party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), has done very little to bring about meaningful change since she was designated State Counselor.
Since her return to Rangoon in 1989 and placement under house arrest for many years, Suu Kyi was transformed from an activist making the case for democracy in her country, into a ‘democracy icon’ and, eventually, into an untouchable cult personality. The title, ‘State Counselor’, invented by NDL following the 2016 elections, was meant to place her authority above all others in government.
The justification for this special status is that the military, which continued to have substantial sway over the government, would not allow Suu Kyi to serve as the Prime Minister, because her husband and children are British. But there is more to the story. On her relationship with her party, Richard C. Paddock recently wrote in the New York Times that Suu Kyi has controlled her party in a style that is similar to the previous military control of the country.
“Critics began calling the party a cult of personality,” Paddock wrote, adding, “Often criticized for her stubbornness and imperious style, she has kept the party firmly under her command and is known to demand loyalty and obedience from her followers.”
Those who have celebrated the ‘Lady’s’ legacy of yesteryear, were disappointed when the supposed human rights champion agreed to participate in the 2016 elections, despite the fact that millions of Burmese who belong to marginalized ethnic groups – like the country’s persecuted Rohingya – were excluded from the ballot box.
Faint and bashful criticism was overpowered by the global celebration of Burma’s fledgling democracy. No sooner had Suu Kyi been made the de facto leader, although with direct alliance with the country’s former junta, than international conglomerates – mostly Western – rushed to Rangoon to capitalize on Burma’s largesse of natural resources, left unexploited because of economic sanctions imposed on the country.
Many legitimate questions were brushed aside, so as not to blemish what was dubbed as a victory for democracy in Burma, miraculously won from a cruel military by a single woman who symbolized the determination and the decades-long struggle of her people. However, behind this carefully choreographed and romanticized veneer was a genocidal reality.
The genocide of the Rohingya, a pogrom of murder, rape and ethnic cleansing, goes back many decades in Burma. When the Burmese junta carried out their ‘cleansing’ operations of Rohingya Muslims in the past, their violent campaigns were either entirely overlooked or conveniently classified under the encompassing discourse of human rights violations in that country.
When the genocide intensified in 2016-17, and continued unabated, many legitimate questions arose about the culpability of Burma’s ruling NLD party and of Suu Kyi, personally.
In the early months of the most recent episodes of the Rohingya genocide at the hands of government forces and local militias, Suu Kyi and her party behaved as if the country was gripped by mere communal violence and that, ultimately, blame was to be shared by all of those involved. That discourse proved unsustainable.
Internationally, the Rohingya became a recurring theme in the media as hundreds of thousands of refugees were forced to flee, mostly into Bangladesh. The magnitude of their misery became daily and horrific headlines. Stories of rape and murder were documented by the United Nations and other international rights groups. As a result, thanks to efforts championed by a group of 57 Muslim countries, a landmark lawsuit, accusing Burma of genocide, was filed at the UN International Court of Justice in the Hague in 2019.
For Suu Kyi and her party, ethnic allegiances and realpolitik superseded any platitudes about democracy and human rights, as she defiantly objected to international criticism and openly defended her government and military. In her testimony at the UN Court in December, Suu Kyi described the genocidal violence of the Rohingya as “cycles of inter-communal violence going back to the 1940s”. Moreover, she harangued the ‘impatience’ of international investigators and human rights groups, blaming them for rushing to judgment.
By dismissing what “many human rights experts have called some of the worst pogroms of this century,” Suu Kyi turned from “champion of human rights and democracy to apparent apologist for brutality,” NYT reported.
Though we must insist that the return to rule by the military in Burma is unacceptable, we must equally demand that Burma embraces true democracy for all of its citizens, regardless of race, ethnicity or religion. A good start would be to disassociate Aung San Suu Kyi from any inclusive democratic movement in this country. The Lady of Burma had her opportunity but, sadly, failed.
The post Coup Leaders, Aung San Suu Kyi Betrayed Democracy in Burma first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
-
What is taking place in Burma right now is a military coup. There can be no other description for such an unwarranted action as the dismissal of the government by military decree and the imposition of Min Aung Hlaing, the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, as an unelected ruler.
However, despite the endless talk about democratization, Burma was, in the years leading up to the coup, far from being a true democracy.
Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the country’s erstwhile ruling party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), has done very little to bring about meaningful change since she was designated State Counselor.
Since her return to Rangoon in 1989 and placement under house arrest for many years, Suu Kyi was transformed from an activist making the case for democracy in her country, into a ‘democracy icon’ and, eventually, into an untouchable cult personality. The title, ‘State Counselor’, invented by NDL following the 2016 elections, was meant to place her authority above all others in government.
The justification for this special status is that the military, which continued to have substantial sway over the government, would not allow Suu Kyi to serve as the Prime Minister, because her husband and children are British. But there is more to the story. On her relationship with her party, Richard C. Paddock recently wrote in the New York Times that Suu Kyi has controlled her party in a style that is similar to the previous military control of the country.
“Critics began calling the party a cult of personality,” Paddock wrote, adding, “Often criticized for her stubbornness and imperious style, she has kept the party firmly under her command and is known to demand loyalty and obedience from her followers.”
Those who have celebrated the ‘Lady’s’ legacy of yesteryear, were disappointed when the supposed human rights champion agreed to participate in the 2016 elections, despite the fact that millions of Burmese who belong to marginalized ethnic groups – like the country’s persecuted Rohingya – were excluded from the ballot box.
Faint and bashful criticism was overpowered by the global celebration of Burma’s fledgling democracy. No sooner had Suu Kyi been made the de facto leader, although with direct alliance with the country’s former junta, than international conglomerates – mostly Western – rushed to Rangoon to capitalize on Burma’s largesse of natural resources, left unexploited because of economic sanctions imposed on the country.
Many legitimate questions were brushed aside, so as not to blemish what was dubbed as a victory for democracy in Burma, miraculously won from a cruel military by a single woman who symbolized the determination and the decades-long struggle of her people. However, behind this carefully choreographed and romanticized veneer was a genocidal reality.
The genocide of the Rohingya, a pogrom of murder, rape and ethnic cleansing, goes back many decades in Burma. When the Burmese junta carried out their ‘cleansing’ operations of Rohingya Muslims in the past, their violent campaigns were either entirely overlooked or conveniently classified under the encompassing discourse of human rights violations in that country.
When the genocide intensified in 2016-17, and continued unabated, many legitimate questions arose about the culpability of Burma’s ruling NLD party and of Suu Kyi, personally.
In the early months of the most recent episodes of the Rohingya genocide at the hands of government forces and local militias, Suu Kyi and her party behaved as if the country was gripped by mere communal violence and that, ultimately, blame was to be shared by all of those involved. That discourse proved unsustainable.
Internationally, the Rohingya became a recurring theme in the media as hundreds of thousands of refugees were forced to flee, mostly into Bangladesh. The magnitude of their misery became daily and horrific headlines. Stories of rape and murder were documented by the United Nations and other international rights groups. As a result, thanks to efforts championed by a group of 57 Muslim countries, a landmark lawsuit, accusing Burma of genocide, was filed at the UN International Court of Justice in the Hague in 2019.
For Suu Kyi and her party, ethnic allegiances and realpolitik superseded any platitudes about democracy and human rights, as she defiantly objected to international criticism and openly defended her government and military. In her testimony at the UN Court in December, Suu Kyi described the genocidal violence of the Rohingya as “cycles of inter-communal violence going back to the 1940s”. Moreover, she harangued the ‘impatience’ of international investigators and human rights groups, blaming them for rushing to judgment.
By dismissing what “many human rights experts have called some of the worst pogroms of this century,” Suu Kyi turned from “champion of human rights and democracy to apparent apologist for brutality,” NYT reported.
Though we must insist that the return to rule by the military in Burma is unacceptable, we must equally demand that Burma embraces true democracy for all of its citizens, regardless of race, ethnicity or religion. A good start would be to disassociate Aung San Suu Kyi from any inclusive democratic movement in this country. The Lady of Burma had her opportunity but, sadly, failed.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
-
We’re also stepping up our diplomacy to end the war in Yemen — a war which has created a humanitarian and strategic catastrophe. I’ve asked my Middle East team to ensure our support for the United Nations-led initiative to impose a ceasefire, open humanitarian channels, and restore long-dormant peace talks….
And to underscore our commitment, we are ending all American support for offensive operations in the war in Yemen, including relevant arms sales.
This announcement does not augur peace in Yemen any time soon. Rather it looks a bit like political mystification that some have chosen to celebrate now, regardless of what it actually means, apparently in hope of making it a meaningful, self-fulfilling prophecy some time in the future. This does not seem likely, given what Biden actually said, but we shall see.
For the foreseeable future, Yemen, the poorest country in the Middle East, will remain the victim of a Saudi war of aggression and Saudi war crimes. Since March 2015, with the full support of the Obama administration, Saudi Arabia and its allies have turned Yemen into the world’s worst humanitarian disaster, as assessed by the United Nations. Relentless bombing of military and civilian targets alike has led to the deaths of more than 100,000 Yemenis from famine and disease. Millions more need international aid to survive.
One hopeful sign now is the Biden administration’s announcement on February 5 that the US designation of the Houthis as a terrorist organization has been rescinded. This was a necessary corrective, not a bold move. The Houthis are ethnic natives in northwest Yemen. Their current territory holds about 70% of Yemen’s 30 million people. They are the victims of Saudi terror bombing.
The Houthis are also the victims of US Iranophobia, the paranoid policy framing that sees Iranian devils behind every difficulty in the Middle East, regardless of any lack of evidence. Former secretary of state Mike Pompeo is an Iranophobe, as well as a Christo-fascist. In a midnight news dump on January 10, Pompeo announced the terrorist designation to go into effect on January 19. The announcement provided little basis in policy or fact and received bipartisan criticism because its most likely impact would have been to exacerbate human suffering in Yemen.
While the Biden administration’s decision to rescind the terrorist designation eliminates a factor that would have made the Yemen situation worse, there is little in Biden’s speech that promises to make the situation better any time soon.
Supporting United Nations efforts is probably helpful as far as it goes, but it’s a far cry from US engagement on the peace side to match US engagement on the war side. And to suggest that the UN might “impose a ceasefire” implies a military deployment that is pretty much imaginary. The conflict within Yemen is multi-sided, with few if any clearly-defined frontlines.
The Houthis control most of the northwest, but not all, and that may be the most coherent governmental region in the country. In the south, the official Yemen government, unelected but imposed by international fiat and controlled by Saudi Arabia, shares territory with its own rebel faction controlled by the UAE (United Arab Emirates). The eastern two-thirds of the country, mostly desert, contains islands of control under Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, and other, smaller factions.
The US was misguided, at best, to sanction the Saudi aggression. The US was criminal to support the Saudi aggression for the past six years. Now Biden has said the US is ending “all American support for offensive operations in the war in Yemen.” There are NO defensive operations in that war, the war is effectively all in Yemen. And when Biden says the US is ending all American support, does that mean no more military guidance from the US mission in Riyadh? No more logistical support? No more intelligence sharing? No more training Saudi pilots? No more target selection? No more mid-air refueling? No more maintenance for Saudi bombers? No more spare parts? Does it mean an end to the US naval blockade, itself an act of war?
The US has been doing all these things, and probably more, with Obama’s and Trump’s blessings since 2015. Will the US stop doing all of them now, or in the near future? Biden didn’t say (the State Department later hedged). Biden promised to end “relevant arms sales,” whatever “relevant” is supposed to mean, since it means nothing on its face. And in the next line of his speech, Biden revealed the calamitous duplicity of the US position all along:
At the same time, Saudi Arabia faces missile attacks, UAV strikes, and other threats from Iranian-supplied forces in multiple countries. We’re going to continue to support and help Saudi Arabia defend its sovereignty and its territorial integrity and its people.
This is cover-your-butt spinning to excuse future failures planned to appease the Saudi aggressors. Saudi Arabia faces missile attacks and UAV strikes from the Houthis because the Houthis, in the face of relentless attack, have been fighting back.
Biden’s undefined “other threats from Iranian-supplied forces in multiple countries” is murky, non-specific, unverifiable. This makes Biden sound like he’s channeling Pompeo in pure Iranophobe-speak. This fearmongering portends nothing good for Yemen.
Saudi Arabia’s sovereignty is under no discernible threat, except perhaps from within the monarchical police state. So the US is committed to defending an anti-democratic dictatorship that murders its critics in the most brutal fashion? How is that a good thing?
Saudi Arabia’s territorial integrity is under no credible threat. Quite literally, Saudi Arabia has NO territorial integrity, since most of its border with eastern Yemen has never been drawn. The Saudis and the Houthis have a territorial dispute in the northwest dating to the 1930s. The Saudis have built more than one wall over the years in an effort to block Yemeni migrants seeking work in Saudi Arabia, which has some ten million migrant workers mostly treated abominably.
Saudi Arabia’s people face a chronic, lethal threat from their own government. There are occasional, minor threats from dissidents. Threats from abroad are likewise all but non-existent. Those missiles and UAV worrying Biden have apparently killed no one; there are no Saudi civilian casualties from the Yemen war, just the 100,000-plus Yemenis.
Biden’s reassurances to Saudi Arabia weren’t just specious, they represent an unchanging rigidity in American thinking that continues as a threat to peace. On Democracy Now, Michigan State University assistant professor Shireen Al-Adeimi, a Yemeni scholar and activist, put Biden’s comments in perspective:
So, in his speech, Biden said that he is ending offensive operations in Yemen, but committed — he went on to commit to defending Saudi borders. Now, this is really concerning to me, because I still remember the statement that the White House put out when Obama initially entered the war in March of 2015, and that was the exact same framing, that they were defending Saudi territory from the Houthis. This is what led us here — six years of war, over 100,000 Yemenis killed, 250,000 people starved to death, if not more, the entire country destroyed. And the framing was always to protect Saudi borders.
In reality, in 2015, the Houthis were nowhere near the Saudi border, they were deep in southern Yemen, on the verge of overrunning Aden and driving out the Yemeni puppet government controlled by Saudi Arabia. That was when the Saudis launched their undeclared war; that was when the US supported the unrestricted aerial bombardment of a country with no air defense.
And beneath all the other arguments was the widespread fear of Iran, Iranophobia, based on little to no evidence. Iran is a despised Shia Muslim state in a Sunni Muslim world, and the mutual distrust is deep-seated and irrational, except that the Iranians remember that the western allies of Saudi Arabia imposed one of the world’s bloodier dictatorships on Iran. The Iranians weren’t ever very grateful, so how could the US trust them after that: obviously, if Iran had an interest in supporting the Houthis in resisting a puppet government controlled by the Saudi dictatorship, the US had a reason to intervene against the defenders of freedom. Or as Reuters reported in 2015:
The United States is speeding up arms supplies and bolstering intelligence sharing with a Saudi-led alliance bombing a militia aligned with Iran in neighboring Yemen, a senior U.S. diplomat said on Tuesday….
“Saudi Arabia is sending a strong message to the Houthis and their allies that they cannot overrun Yemen by force,” he told reporters in the Saudi capital Riyadh.
“As part of that effort, we have expedited weapons deliveries, we have increased our intelligence sharing, and we have established a joint coordination planning cell in the Saudi operation center….”
That US diplomat in 2015 was US Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken, now President Biden’s new Secretary of State. He was an architect of a criminal war rooted in a largely irrational fear of Iran, along with cynical fealty to Saudi Arabia. Since 1979, US relations with Iran have been poisoned by Iranians taking American diplomats hostage, then manipulating those hostages to push Americans to elect President Reagan. There’s plenty to regret on both sides. But on February 5, Secretary Blinken started a new round of talks with American allies aimed at shaping a new relationship with Iran. The trick will be to treat Iran as a rational adversary, and even more so to persuade Iran that the US can be rational, too. The Yemen initiatives are steps in a positive direction, but only baby steps.
The post How Rational Can the US Be in Dealing with Yemen and Iran? first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
-
Above photo: By Professor Danny Shaw who is currently in HaitiUnited States – Today, February 24, 72 organizations and 700 individuals published an open letter calling for the Biden administration to end its illegal and destructive intervention in Haiti. While Joe Biden and the Democrats condemned the Trump forces for not respecting the results of the U.S. election, they are supporting Jovenel Moïse’s refusal to leave office after his term as president ended on February 7, 2021. Moïse has unleashed violent gangs, the police and the military against protesters who are demanding that he respect the Constitution and step down.
“President Biden claims to care about racial equity but his actions in Haiti show the emptiness of that rhetoric,” said Ajamu Baraka of the Black Alliance for Peace. “For centuries now, the United States has employed force to dominate Haiti, the first Black Republic that was established in 1804 after the defeat of French and Spanish colonizers. President Biden has an opportunity to demonstrate his commitment to democracy and Black self-determination by ending support for the Moïse regime and denouncing the current violence.”
The past two presidents of Haiti, Michel Martelly and Jovenel Moïse, were hand-picked and forced into office by the United States during the Obama administration against the will of the Haitian people. Moïse is currently ruling by decree after dismissing most of the legislators and refusing to hold elections. With the backing of the Core Group, composed of the United States, Canada, Brazil, France, Germany, Spain, the European Union and the United Nations, Moïse is trying to push a new constitution through using a referendum in April. The new constitution being written by members of the Core Group and without any real participation of the Haitian people would grant greater power to the executive office.
Since February 7, the rogue Moïse government has launched a brutal crackdown on all dissent resulting in home invasions, arrests, the firing of Supreme Court judges and a police inspector general, attacks on the media and the use of chemical agents and live ammunition to disperse protests, as documented by the U. S. Human Rights Clinics.
“The current situation in Haiti is critical,” stated Marleine Bastien, the Executive Director of the FANM In Action and a leading voice in South Florida’s Haitian community. “The Superior Council of Haiti’s Judiciary, The Haitian Bar Federation, and credible civil society organizations inside Haiti and their diaspora allies agree that President Moise’s term has in fact ended. It is time for President Biden to keep his promise and respect the democratic rights and self-determination of the Haitian people.”
Here is the open letter:
On February 7, 2021, Jovenel Moïse’s term as president of Haiti ended – but with the support of the Biden administration he is refusing to leave office. This has created an urgent crisis in the country. A mass movement, reminiscent of the 1986 popular movement that overthrew the brutal U.S.-sponsored dictatorship of Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier, is demanding Moïse step down. We are alarmed by the abundance of evidence of severe human rights violations by the Moïse regime to quell the protests.
One of the main calls from the mobilizations of hundreds of thousands in the streets of Port-au-Prince and across Haiti has been for the United States, United Nations and the Organization of American States to stop their interference. These bodies, as part of the “Core Group” of imperialist nations and institutions targeting Haiti, are currently pushing their rewrite of the Haitian Constitution through a referendum on April 25.
These organizations have a long history of neocolonial intervention in Haiti and the region. Ever since the democratically elected president Jean Bertrand Aristide was overthrown for a second time by a U.S.-sponsored coup in 2004, Haiti has been occupied by a United Nations force that, at its height, deployed 14,000 troops and personnel. This occupation has changed form over the years (from MINUSTAH to BINUH), but it is ongoing.
The U.S. government has consistently stood as a barrier to popular democracy in the Americas. The 2009 coup in Honduras; the 2019 coup in Bolivia; and the ongoing blockades of Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela are but several examples of the U.S.’s poor record on human rights and lack of respect for sovereignty in the region. By its own admission, the State Department “works closely with the OAS, UN, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), and individual countries to advance its policy goals in Haiti.” Under the guise of fighting drug trafficking, the U.S. continues to train and fund the Haitian National Police.
The U.S. establishment spin doctors seemingly live in an alternate universe, claiming, “The remarkable lack of popular response to calls for mass protests in recent weeks indicates that Haitian people are tired of endless lockdowns and squabbling over power.” The reality is quite the opposite: the Haitian people are united in their call for a peaceful transition to democracy.
We express our solidarity with the Haitian people and our support for their rights to democracy and self-determination. We join our voices to the demands of the Haitian people who are calling for the following:
We demand that Jovenel Moïse
- Immediately step down.
We demand that the Biden Administration:
- Withdraw financial support for the illegal constitutional referendum and Moïse dictatorship;
- Respect the will of the vast majority of the people demanding democracy and Haitian self-determination
- Reaffirm support for the right to peaceful protest;
- Immediately cease all U.S. financial and military support to Haiti’s security forces
- Condemn the recent violence against protesters and journalists; and,
- Demand the immediate dismantlement of all paramilitary forces in Haiti and the disarmament of gangs carrying out wanton violence against the popular movement.
The whole world is watching!
See here for signatories.
*****
Contacts:
Ajamu Baraka – Black Alliance for Peace, 202-643-1136.
Margaret Flowers – Popular Resistance, gro.ecnatsiseRralupoPnull@ofni, 410-591-0892.
The post Over 800 Organizations and Individuals in the United States Demand the Biden Administration End Its Support for the Brutal Moïse Regime in Haiti first appeared on Dissident Voice.This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.
-
Above photo: By Professor Danny Shaw who is currently in Haiti
United States – Today, February 24, 72 organizations and 700 individuals published an open letter calling for the Biden administration to end its illegal and destructive intervention in Haiti. While Joe Biden and the Democrats condemned the Trump forces for not respecting the results of the U.S. election, they are supporting Jovenel Moïse’s refusal to leave office after his term as president ended on February 7, 2021. Moïse has unleashed violent gangs, the police and the military against protesters who are demanding that he respect the Constitution and step down.
“President Biden claims to care about racial equity but his actions in Haiti show the emptiness of that rhetoric,” said Ajamu Baraka of the Black Alliance for Peace. “For centuries now, the United States has employed force to dominate Haiti, the first Black Republic that was established in 1804 after the defeat of French and Spanish colonizers. President Biden has an opportunity to demonstrate his commitment to democracy and Black self-determination by ending support for the Moïse regime and denouncing the current violence.”
The past two presidents of Haiti, Michel Martelly and Jovenel Moïse, were hand-picked and forced into office by the United States during the Obama administration against the will of the Haitian people. Moïse is currently ruling by decree after dismissing most of the legislators and refusing to hold elections. With the backing of the Core Group, composed of the United States, Canada, Brazil, France, Germany, Spain, the European Union and the United Nations, Moïse is trying to push a new constitution through using a referendum in April. The new constitution being written by members of the Core Group and without any real participation of the Haitian people would grant greater power to the executive office.
Since February 7, the rogue Moïse government has launched a brutal crackdown on all dissent resulting in home invasions, arrests, the firing of Supreme Court judges and a police inspector general, attacks on the media and the use of chemical agents and live ammunition to disperse protests, as documented by the U. S. Human Rights Clinics.
“The current situation in Haiti is critical,” stated Marleine Bastien, the Executive Director of the FANM In Action and a leading voice in South Florida’s Haitian community. “The Superior Council of Haiti’s Judiciary, The Haitian Bar Federation, and credible civil society organizations inside Haiti and their diaspora allies agree that President Moise’s term has in fact ended. It is time for President Biden to keep his promise and respect the democratic rights and self-determination of the Haitian people.”
Here is the open letter:
On February 7, 2021, Jovenel Moïse’s term as president of Haiti ended – but with the support of the Biden administration he is refusing to leave office. This has created an urgent crisis in the country. A mass movement, reminiscent of the 1986 popular movement that overthrew the brutal U.S.-sponsored dictatorship of Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier, is demanding Moïse step down. We are alarmed by the abundance of evidence of severe human rights violations by the Moïse regime to quell the protests.
One of the main calls from the mobilizations of hundreds of thousands in the streets of Port-au-Prince and across Haiti has been for the United States, United Nations and the Organization of American States to stop their interference. These bodies, as part of the “Core Group” of imperialist nations and institutions targeting Haiti, are currently pushing their rewrite of the Haitian Constitution through a referendum on April 25.
These organizations have a long history of neocolonial intervention in Haiti and the region. Ever since the democratically elected president Jean Bertrand Aristide was overthrown for a second time by a U.S.-sponsored coup in 2004, Haiti has been occupied by a United Nations force that, at its height, deployed 14,000 troops and personnel. This occupation has changed form over the years (from MINUSTAH to BINUH), but it is ongoing.
The U.S. government has consistently stood as a barrier to popular democracy in the Americas. The 2009 coup in Honduras; the 2019 coup in Bolivia; and the ongoing blockades of Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela are but several examples of the U.S.’s poor record on human rights and lack of respect for sovereignty in the region. By its own admission, the State Department “works closely with the OAS, UN, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), and individual countries to advance its policy goals in Haiti.” Under the guise of fighting drug trafficking, the U.S. continues to train and fund the Haitian National Police.
The U.S. establishment spin doctors seemingly live in an alternate universe, claiming, “The remarkable lack of popular response to calls for mass protests in recent weeks indicates that Haitian people are tired of endless lockdowns and squabbling over power.” The reality is quite the opposite: the Haitian people are united in their call for a peaceful transition to democracy.
We express our solidarity with the Haitian people and our support for their rights to democracy and self-determination. We join our voices to the demands of the Haitian people who are calling for the following:
We demand that Jovenel Moïse
- Immediately step down.
We demand that the Biden Administration:
- Withdraw financial support for the illegal constitutional referendum and Moïse dictatorship;
- Respect the will of the vast majority of the people demanding democracy and Haitian self-determination
- Reaffirm support for the right to peaceful protest;
- Immediately cease all U.S. financial and military support to Haiti’s security forces
- Condemn the recent violence against protesters and journalists; and,
- Demand the immediate dismantlement of all paramilitary forces in Haiti and the disarmament of gangs carrying out wanton violence against the popular movement.
The whole world is watching!
See here for signatories.
*****
Contacts:
Ajamu Baraka – Black Alliance for Peace, 202-643-1136.
Margaret Flowers – Popular Resistance, gro.ecnatsiseRralupoPnull@ofni, 410-591-0892.
This post was originally published on Radio Free.
-
Ghana has become the first country in the world to receive vaccines acquired through the United Nations-backed Covax initiative with a delivery of 600,000 doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine made by the Serum Institute of India.
The vaccines, delivered by Unicef, arrived at Accra’s Kotoka International Airport on Wednesday and are part of the first wave of Covid-19 vaccines that Covax is sending to several low and middle-income countries.
Ghana is among 92 countries that have signed up to the Covax programme, according to a statement by Ghana’s acting minister of information Kojo Oppong Nkrumah.
Cases in Ghana
The West African nation of 30 million has recorded 81,245 cases and 584 deaths since the beginning of the pandemic, according to figures from Ghana health officials.
Fantastic news this morning!
Ghana is the first country in the world to receive COVID-19 vaccines through COVAX, a global initiative to ensure equitable access. @UNICEFGhana https://t.co/AYFUMJrBuk
— Unicef UK (@UNICEF_uk) February 24, 2021
Vaccination campaign
Ghana’s vaccination campaign will begin on 2 March and will be conducted in phases among prioritised groups, beginning with, among others, health workers, adults over 60 and people with underlying health conditions.
Mr Nkrumah said:
The government of Ghana remains resolute at ensuring the welfare of all Ghanaians and is making frantic efforts to acquire adequate vaccines to cover the entire population through bilateral and multi-lateral agencies,
In a joint statement, the country representatives of Unicef and the World Health Organisation (WHO) described the arrival of the Covax vaccines as a “momentous occasion” critical to bringing the pandemic to an end.
The statement read:
After a year of disruptions due to the Covid-19 pandemic… the path to recovery for the people of Ghana can finally begin,
Covax shipment
The Covax shipment to Ghana is the start of what will be the world’s largest vaccine procurement and supply operation in history, according to the statement. Covax plans to deliver close to two billion doses of Covid-19 vaccines around the world this year.
Henrietta Fore, Unicef’s executive director said:
Today marks the historic moment for which we have been planning and working so hard. With the first shipment of doses, we can make good on the promise of the Covax Facility to ensure people from less wealthy countries are not left behind in the race for life-saving vaccines,
The next phase in the fight against this disease can begin – the ramping up of the largest immunisation campaign in history,
Each step on this journey brings us further along the path to recovery for the billions of children and families affected around the world.
By The Canary
This post was originally published on The Canary.
-
Civil rights groups say situation ‘getting worse on a daily basis’ as UN human rights chief expresses alarm over deepening impunity
Sri Lanka could descend swiftly back into violence and human rights abuses unless decisive international action is taken, the UN high commissioner for human rights and civil rights groups warned.
In a speech to the human rights council on Wednesday, Michelle Bachelet is expected to issue a stark warning that the Sri Lankan government has “closed the door” on ending impunity for past abuses and is facing a return to state repression of civil society and a militarisation of public institutions.
A year on from the start of the world’s biggest health crisis, we now face a human rights pandemic. Covid-19 has exposed the inequalities and fragilities of health and political systems and allowed authoritarian regimes to impose drastic curbs on rights and freedoms, using the virus as a pretext for restricting free speech and stifling dissent.
Related: ‘In my dreams I see my son’: Sri Lanka mourns its missing – in pictures
Related: ‘A pandemic of abuses’: human rights under attack during Covid, says UN head
Continue reading…This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.
