Category: US Foreign Policy

  • Asia Pacific Report

    The Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa has called on New Zealanders to condemn the US bombing of Iran.

    PSNA co-chair Maher Nazzal said in a statement that he hoped the New Zealand government would be critical of the US for its war escalation.

    “Israel has once again hoodwinked the United States into fighting Israel’s wars,” he said.

    “Israel’s Prime Minister has [been declaring] Iran to be on the point of producing nuclear weapons since the 1990s.

    “It’s all part of his big plan for expulsion of Palestinians from Palestine to create a Greater Israel, and regime change for the entire region.”

    Israel knew that Arab and European countries would “fall in behind these plans” and in many cases actually help implement them.

    “It is a dreadful day for the Palestinians. Netanyahu’s forces will be turned back onto them in Gaza and the West Bank.”

    ‘Dreadful day’ for Middle East
    “It is just as dreadful day for the whole Middle East.

    “Trump has tried to add Iran to the disasters of US foreign policy in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. The US simply doesn’t care how many people will die.”

    New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Winston Peters “acknowledged the development in the past 24 hours”, including President Trump’s announcement of the US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

    He described it as “extremely worrying” military action in the Middle East, and it was critical further escalation was avoided.

    “New Zealand strongly supports efforts towards diplomacy. We urge all parties to return to talks,” he said.

    “Diplomacy will deliver a more enduring resolution than further military action.”

    The Australian government said in a statement that Canberra had been clear that Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programme had been a “threat to international peace and security”.

    It also noted that the US President had declared that “now is the time for peace”.

    “The security situation in the region is highly volatile,” said the statement. “We continue to call for de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy.”

    Iran calls attack ‘outrageous’
    However, the Iranian Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, said the “outrageous” US attacks on Iran’s “peaceful nuclear installations” would have “everlasting consequences”.

    His comments come as an Iranian missile attack on central and northern Israel wounded at least 23 people.

    In an interview with Al Jazeera, Dr Mehran Kamrava, a professor of government at Georgetown University in Qatar, said the people of Iran feared that Israel’s goals stretched far beyond its stated goal of destroying the country’s nuclear and missile programmes.

    “Many in Iran believe that Israel’s end game, really, is to turn Iran into Libya, into Iraq, what it was after the US invasion in 2003, and/or Afghanistan.

    “And so the dismemberment of Iran is what Netanyahu has in mind, at least as far as Tehran is concerned,” he said.

    US attack ‘more or less guarantees’ Iran will be nuclear-armed within decade

    ‘No evidence’ of Iran ‘threat’
    Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said there had been “absolutely no evidence” that Iran posed a threat.

    “Neither was it existential, nor imminent,” he told Al Jazeera.

    “We have to keep in mind the reality of the situation, which is that two nuclear-equipped countries attacked a non-nuclear weapons state without having gotten attacked first.

    “Israel was not attacked by Iran — it started that war; the United States was not attacked by Iran — it started this confrontation at this point.”

    Dr Parsi added that the attacks on Iran would “send shockwaves” throughout the world.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The detention of a leading human rights lawyer is part of a wave of repression sweeping the country under Nayib Bukele

    The Trump administration’s agreement with President Nayib Bukele to detain US migrants deported to El Salvador without due process seems to have emboldened Bukele’s autocratic regime. Last week, in a troubling sign of escalating repression, Salvadorian police detained Ruth López Alfaro, a prominent Salvadorian human rights lawyer at Cristosal, an organization fighting for human rights in Central America.

    Last year, the BBC recognized Ms López Alfaro as one of the 100 most inspiring and influential women in the world, describing her as “an outspoken critic of the country’s government and institutions” who “conducted a broad social media campaign to promote political transparency and public accountability overseen by the citizens themselves”. This year, on 18 May, Salvadorian security forces detained her at her residence on embezzlement charges and held her incommunicado from her family and legal representatives for more than 40 hours. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has expressed “deep concern” over reports of her enforced disappearance, and numerous human rights organizations have called for her release and protection of her safety and due process rights.

    Noah Bullock is the executive director of Cristosal, a human rights organization based in El Salvador. Amrit Singh is a professor of the practice of law at Stanford Law School

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • The US has zagged from isolation to imperialism, but Trump has ‘emptied the ethical and moral frame’ of diplomacy

    JD Vance is an Iraq war veteran and the US vice-president. On Friday, he declared the doctrine that underpinned Washington’s approach to international relations for a generation is now dead.

    “We had a long experiment in our foreign policy that traded national defence and the maintenance of our alliances for nation building and meddling in foreign countries’ affairs, even when those foreign countries had very little to do with core American interests,” Vance told Naval Academy graduates in Annapolis, Maryland.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Massive explosions shook the Gaza Strip in the first hours of Saturday morning as Israeli warplanes launched intensive airstrikes on north, south, and central Gaza, in what the Israeli army called “preparations to expand operations” in the Strip. Israeli airstrikes hit Khan Younis, Deir al-Balah, several parts of Gaza City, and Jabalia. A resident of the Shati’ refugee camp in Gaza City told…

    Source

  • World now in era of repressive regimes’ impunity, climate inaction and unchecked corporate power, says report

    The first 100 days of Donald Trump’s presidency have “supercharged” a global rollback of human rights, pushing the world towards an authoritarian era defined by impunity and unchecked corporate power, Amnesty International warns today.

    In its annual report on the state of human rights in 150 countries, the organisation said the immediate ramifications of Trump’s second term had been the undermining of decades of progress and the emboldening of authoritarian leaders.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Today, in the US Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on global threats with the five heads of intelligence agencies of the US government, Senator Tom Cotton, accused on national TV a group I have worked with for over 20 years, CODEPINK: Women for Peace, of being funded by the Communist Party of China.

    During the hearing CODEPINK activist Tighe Barry stood up following the presentation of the Director of National Security Tulsi Gabbard’s lengthy statement about global threats to US national security and yelled ‘Stop Funding Israel,’ since neither Intelligence Committee Chair Tom Cotton and Vice Chair Mark Warner had mentioned Israel in their opening statement nor  had Gabbard mentioned the Israeli genocide of Palestinians in Gaza in her statement either.

    The post Senate Hearing On Global Threats Turns Into A McCarthy Hearing appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The White House has eased constraints on US military commanders to authorize airstrikes and special operation raids outside conventional battlefields, allowing for a broader range of people who can be targeted, CBS News reported on 28 February.

    According to US officials with knowledge of the policy shift, the quiet change drastically alters Biden-era rules governing strikes against so-called terror targets. It marks a return to the more aggressive counterterrorism policies US President Trump instituted in his first term.

    The post Trump ‘Eases Restrictions’ On US Military Attacks Abroad appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Project 2025 is designed to centralize executive power, dismantle the civil service, and reorient federal agencies toward ideological loyalty, with a particular focus on foreign policy, national security, and economic deregulation. At first glance, the One Voice Order aligns with this agenda by subordinating the State Department to direct presidential control, stripping diplomacy of its autonomy. However, OVO is not just another element of Project 2025—it is an accelerant, taking imperial presidency logic to its extreme by transforming foreign policy into an enforcement mechanism for executive authority.

    The post Ostension In The White House appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • COMMENTARY: By Tess Newton Cain

    It didn’t come as a surprise to see President Donald Trump sign executive orders to again pull out of the Paris Agreement, or from the World Health Organisation, but the immediate suspension of US international aid has compounded the impact beyond what was imagined possible.

    The slew of executive orders signed within hours of Trump re-entering the White House and others since have caused consternation for Pacific leaders and communities and alarm for those operating in the region.

    Since Trump was last in power, US engagement in the Pacific has increased dramatically. We have seen new embassies opened, the return of Peace Corps volunteers, high-level summits in Washington and more.

    All the officials who have been in the region and met with Pacific leaders and thinkers will know that climate change impacts are the name of the game when it comes to security.

    It is encapsulated in the Boe Declaration signed by leaders of the Pacific Islands Forum in 2018 as their number one existential threat and has been restated many times since.

    Now it is hard to see how US diplomats and administration representatives can expect to have meaningful conversations with their Pacific counterparts, if they have nothing to offer when it comes to the region’s primary security threat.

    The “on again, off again” approach to cutting carbon emissions and providing climate finance does not lend itself to convincing sceptical Pacific leaders that the US is a trusted friend here for the long haul.

    Pacific response muted
    Trump’s climate scepticism is well-known and the withdrawal from Paris had been flagged during the campaign. The response from leaders within the Pacific islands region has been somewhat muted, with a couple of exceptions.

    Vanuatu Attorney-General Kiel Loughman called it out as “bad behaviour”. Meanwhile, Papua New Guinea’s Prime Minister James Marape has sharply criticised Trump, “urging” him to reconsider his decision to withdraw from the Paris agreement, and plans to rally Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) leaders to stand with him.

    It is hard to see how this will have much effect.

    The withdrawal from the World Health Organisation – to which the US provides US$500 million or about 15 percent of its annual budget – creates a deep funding gap.

    In 2022, the Lowy Pacific aid map recorded that the WHO disbursed US$9.1 million in the Pacific islands across 320 projects. It contributes to important programmes that support health systems in the region.

    In addition, the 90-day pause on disbursement of aid funding while investments are reviewed to ensure that they align with the president’s foreign policy is causing confusion and distress in the region.

    Perhaps now the time has come to adopt a more transactional approach. While this may not come easily to Pacific diplomats, the reality is that this is how everyone else is acting and it appears to be the geopolitical language of the moment.

    Meaningful commitment opportunities
    So where the US seeks a security agreement or guarantee, there may be an opportunity to tie it to climate change or other meaningful commitments.

    When it comes to the PIF, the intergovernmental body representing 18 states and territories, Trump’s stance may pose a particular problem.

    The PIF secretariat is currently undertaking a Review of Regional Architecture. As part of that, dialogue partners including the US are making cases for whether they should be ranked as “Strategic Partners” [Tier 1] or “Sector Development Partners [Tier 2].

    It is hard to see how the US can qualify for “strategic partner” status given Trump’s rhetoric and actions in the last week. But if the US does not join that club, it is likely to cede space to China which is also no doubt lobbying to be at the “best friends” table.

    With the change in president comes the new Secretary of State Marco Rubio. He was previously known for having called for the US to cut all its aid to Solomon Islands when then Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare announced this country’s switch in diplomatic ties from Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China.

    It is to be hoped that since then Rubio has learned that this type of megaphone diplomacy is not welcome in this part of the world.

    Since taking office, he has made little mention of the Pacific islands region. In a call with New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters they “discussed efforts to enhance security cooperation, address regional challenges, and support for the Pacific Islands.”

    It is still early days, a week is a long time in politics and there remain many “unknown unknowns”. What we do know is that what happens in Washington during the next four years will have global impacts, including in the Pacific. The need now for strong Pacific leadership and assertive diplomacy has never been greater.

    Dr Tess Newton Cain is a principal consultant at Sustineo P/L and adjunct associate professor at the Griffith Asia Institute. She is a former lecturer at the University of the South Pacific and has more than 25 years of experience working in the Pacific islands region. This article was first published by BenarNews and is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Trump’s proposals to radically transform much of US economic and social policy are being rapidly rolled out during the first week of his administration. How much he succeeds or fails in that transformation will depend on a number of factors. High on the list of such factors is the residue of conditions and policies leftover by the Biden administration—i.e. the legacies of the Biden years. Those legacies will play an important role influencing, and perhaps even determining, how Trump may fare in implementing his plans.  So what are the legacy policies and conditions?

    The post Biden’s Pernicious Presidential Legacies appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • ANALYSIS: By Nicholas Khoo, University of Otago

    Donald Trump is an unusual United States President in that he may be the first to strike greater anxiety in allies than in adversaries.

    Take the responses to his pre-inauguration comments about buying Greenland, for instance, which placed US ally Denmark at the centre of the global foreign policy radar screen and caused the Danish government — which retains control of the territory’s foreign and security policies — to declare Greenland isn’t for sale.

    Canada is also in Trump’s sights with trade tariff threats and claims it should be the 51st US state. Its government has vociferously opposed Trump’s comments, begun back-channel lobbying in Washington, and prepared for trade retaliation.

    Both cases highlight the coming challenges for management of the global US alliance network in an era of increased great power rivalry — not least for NATO, of which Denmark and Canada are member states.

    Members of that network saw off the Soviet Union’s formidable Cold War challenge and are now crucial to addressing China’s complex challenge to contemporary international order. They might be excused for asking themselves the question: with allies like this, who needs adversaries?

    Oversimplifying complex relationships
    Trump’s longstanding critique is that allies have taken advantage of the US by under-spending on defence and “free-riding” on the security provided by Washington’s global network.

    In an intuitive sense, it is hard to deny this. To varying degrees, all states in the international system — including US allies, partners and even adversaries — are free-riding on the benefits of the global international order the US constructed after the Cold War.

    But is Trump therefore justified in seeking a greater return on past US investment?

    Since alliance commitments involve a complex mix of interests, perception, domestic politics and bargaining, Trump wouldn’t be the deal-maker he says he is if he didn’t seek a redistribution of the alliance burden.

    The general problem with his recent foreign policy rhetoric, however, is that a grain of truth is not a stable basis for a sweeping change in US foreign policy.

    Specifically, Trump’s “free-riding” claims are an oversimplification of a complex reality. And there are potentially substantial political and strategic costs associated with the US using coercive diplomacy against what Trump calls “delinquent” alliance partners.

    US tanks in a parade with US flag flying
    US military on parade in Warsaw in 2022 . . . force projection is about more than money. Image: Getty Images/The Conversation

    Free riding or burden sharing?
    The inconvenient truth for Trump is that “free-riding” by allies is hard to differentiate from standard alliance “burden sharing” where the US is in a quid pro quo relationship: it subsidises its allies’ security in exchange for benefits they provide the US.

    And whatever concept we use to characterise US alliance policy, it was developed in a deliberate and methodical manner over decades.

    US subsidisation of its allies’ security is a longstanding choice underpinned by a strategic logic: it gives Washington power projection against adversaries, and leverage in relations with its allies.

    To the degree there may have been free-riding aspects in the foreign policies of US allies, this pales next to their overall contribution to US foreign policy.

    Allies were an essential part in the US victory in its Cold War competition with the Soviet-led communist bloc, and are integral in the current era of strategic competition with China.

    Overblown claims of free-riding overlook the fact that when US interests differ from its allies, it has either vetoed their actions or acted decisively itself, with the expectation reluctant allies will eventually follow.

    During the Cold War, the US maintained a de facto veto over which allies could acquire nuclear weapons (the UK and France) and which ones could not (Germany, Taiwan, South Korea).

    In 1972, the US established a close relationship with China to contain the Soviet Union – despite protestations from Taiwan, and the security concerns of Japan and South Korea.

    In the 1980s, Washington proceeded with the deployment of US missiles on the soil of some very reluctant NATO states and their even more reluctant populations. The same pattern has occurred in the post-Cold War era, with key allies backing the US in its interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    The problems with coercion
    Trump’s recent comments on Greenland and Canada suggest he will take an even more assertive approach toward allies than during his first term. But the line between a reasonable US policy response and a coercive one is hard to draw.

    It is not just that US policymakers have the challenging task of determining that line. In pursuing such a policy, the US also risks eroding the hard-earned credit it earned from decades of investment in its alliance network.

    There is also the obvious point that is takes two to tango in an alliance relationship. US allies are not mere pawns in Trump’s strategic chessboard. Allies have agency.

    They will have been strategising how to deal with Trump since before the presidential campaign in 2024. Their options range from withholding cooperation to various forms of defection from an alliance relationship.

    Are the benefits associated with a disruption of established alliances worth the cost? It is hard to see how they might be. In which case, it is an experiment the Trump administration might be well advised to avoid.The Conversation

    Dr Nicholas Khoo is associate professor of international politics and principal research fellow, Institute for Indo-Pacific Affairs (Christchurch), University of Otago. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Yesterday, amid the momentous news of a ceasefire agreement finally being reached in Gaza, right-wing Senator Marco Rubio was confirmed as Trump’s Secretary of State by the United States Senate. To some, Rubio’s confirmation, given his reputation as a warhawk known for promoting an aggressive approach against countries that do not tip-toe around the US line on foreign policy, contradicts Trump’s campaign promise of “preventing World War III.” Rubio’s role as Secretary of State signals that Trump may immediately relist Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. This week, in his final days as President, Biden removed Cuba from the SSoT list, a designation which has resulted in multiple humanitarian crises on the island.

    The post Warhawk Senator Marco Rubio Confirmed As Secretary Of State appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Yesterday, amid the momentous news of a ceasefire agreement finally being reached in Gaza, right-wing Senator Marco Rubio was confirmed as Trump’s Secretary of State by the United States Senate. To some, Rubio’s confirmation, given his reputation as a warhawk known for promoting an aggressive approach against countries that do not tip-toe around the US line on foreign policy, contradicts Trump’s campaign promise of “preventing World War III.” Rubio’s role as Secretary of State signals that Trump may immediately relist Cuba as a State Sponsor of Terrorism. This week, in his final days as President, Biden removed Cuba from the SSoT list, a designation which has resulted in multiple humanitarian crises on the island.

    The post Warhawk Senator Marco Rubio Confirmed As Secretary Of State appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

  • A network of former intelligence operatives has woven itself into the fabric of right-wing alternative media, amplifying anti-Muslim scare narratives that appear aimed at countering a noted decline in conservative support for Israel since October 7, 2023. Central to this effort is Sarah Adams, a figure promoting conspiracies about a supposed Palestinian-linked Al-Qaeda plot against the West.

    On December 12, 2024, Adams appeared on the Shawn Ryan Show for a two-hour interview that quickly amassed over 2.5 million views on YouTube. Shorter excerpts have gained further traction across social media platforms.

    The post Sarah Adams And The Return Of The Iraq War Playbook appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Incoming U.S. President Donald Trump adopted an aggressive Iran policy in his first term. He withdrew from the Obama administration’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), adopted harsh sanctions on the country, and assassinated Iranian military commander Qassem Suleimani.

    Should we expect more of the same this time around? Does he actually want a deal with the country? Who might end up pushing him on the issue behind the scenes? Is there any reason to take his non-interventionist seriously or does neocon ideology still prevail within the Republican party? Is the Iranian government actually vulnerable right now? What role does Israel play in all of this?

    The post What Will Trump’s Iran Policy Look Like? appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • We continue to reflect on Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy with history professor Brad Simpson. Despite presiding over an administration that stood out for its successful championing of human rights elsewhere in the world, “in Southeast Asia, Carter really continued the policies of the Nixon and Ford administration,” particularly in Indonesia, which was at the time occupying and carrying out a…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Jimmy Carter, out of office, had the courage to call out the “abominable oppression and persecution” and “strict segregation” of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza in his 2006 book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.” He dedicated himself to monitoring elections, including his controversial defense of the 2006 election of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, and championed human rights around the globe. He lambasted the American political process as an “oligarchy” in which “unlimited political bribery” created “a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors.”

    The post Don’t Deify Jimmy Carter appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Letting no holiday opportunity go without stirring up chaos, turbulence and retaliation, by mid-morning on Christmas Day, President-elect Trump posted a series of insensitive, brazen and mean spirited “Merry Christmas” messages on his Truth Social platform.

    These posts for both national and international issues were followed, predictably, by over two dozen re-posts of articles or other social media posts forecasting his political agenda on topics including troubled Defense Secretary nominee Pete Hegseth and his designation of Greenland and the Panama Canal as U.S. national security necessities, tariffs on Mexico and Canada, and reinstatement of the federal death penalty that Biden had suspended.

    The post Trump’s Christmas Message Is One Of Chaos, Turbulence And Retaliation appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • After mounting his comeback win against Kamala Harris, Donald Trump has already announced a slew of administration appointments. Compared to other presidents-elect, and to his own first term, Trump is ahead of the typical timeline in announcing these appointments, giving observers an earlier-than-usual view into how the second Trump administration could function, both in the domestic and foreign…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Israel’s genocide in Gaza may go down as the first genocide in history where the perpetrators have documented, posted, shared and celebrated their crimes on social media. Over the past 10 months, Israeli soldiers in Gaza have taken photos and videos of themselves while they blew up homes and schools, and tortured captives. To boast of their atrocities against civilians…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The same countries that said ‘never again’ after Rwanda have given Israel a free pass during six months of death and destruction

    As the war in Gaza grinds through its deadly sixth month and allegations of war crimes by Israel pile up, this week also marks 30 years since the world turned its back on Rwanda’s Tutsi minority.

    The 100 days of killing that became known as the Rwandan genocide began on 7 April 1994. Hutu extremists murdered about 800,000 Tutsis while major powers, led by the US, found reasons not to save them.

    Chris McGreal writes for Guardian US and is a former Guardian correspondent in Washington, Johannesburg and Jerusalem

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Draft resolution put before UN represents important tonal – but not substantive – shift for White House

    After months of vetoing other UN security council resolutions in an effort to defend Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, the US has in recent weeks gone on to the diplomatic front foot in New York, drafting and tabling its own resolution that was put to a vote on Friday before being vetoed by Russia and China.

    The US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, said the resolution would send “a strong signal”. But what was that signal precisely?

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Israel has shown it will use these arms indiscriminately against Palestinians. Why does the west continue to supply them?

    Earlier this month, a doctor who had recently returned from Gaza provided shocking testimony about the scale of human suffering that Palestinians are enduring under an Israeli military onslaught that has entered its sixth month. There exist no moral arguments that can justify the continued sale of weapons to Israel by states that respect the principle of the universality of human rights.

    During my work as the United Nations’ special rapporteur on human rights defenders, Palestinian human rights defenders have emphasized to me the importance of a ban being placed on such sales, given that Israel has demonstrated time and again that it will use such weapons indiscriminately against Palestinians.

    Mary Lawlor is the UN special rapporteur on human rights defenders

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • On March 15, the next stage of an intriguing legal process seeking to hold the Biden administration accountable for its failure to prevent, as well as being complicit in, alleged acts of genocide taking place in Gaza, was taken.  It all stems from a lawsuit filed last November in the US District Court for the Northern District of California by the Center for Constitutional Rights, representing a number of Palestinian human rights organisations including Palestinians in Gaza and the United States.

    The lawsuit sought an order from the court “requiring that the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense adhere to their duty to prevent, and not further, the unfolding genocide of Palestinian people in Gaza.”  The relevant duty arose by virtue of the UN Genocide Convention of 1948, which made obligations under it “judicially enforceable as a peremptory norm of customary international law.”

    The complaint further alleged that the genocidal conditions in Gaza had “so far been made possible because of unconditional support given [to Israel] by the named official-capacity defendants in this case,” namely, President Joseph Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin.

    Such legal challenges can face challenges.  Can the foreign policy of a state, which is the purview of the executive, fall within the scope of judicial review?  In some countries, this has been shown to be the case – consider the Dutch appeals court decision compelling the government of the Netherlands to halt the transfer of F-35 parts to Israel for fear it would fall foul of the Genocide Convention.  “The Netherlands,” the court found, “is obligated to prohibit the export of military goods if there is a clear risk of serious violations of international humanitarian law.”

    In the US, the separation of powers walls off judicial interference in matters of foreign policy.  Jeffrey S. White, in dismissing the case at first instance, admitted it was the “most difficult” of his career, conceding that the factual grounds asserted by the plaintiffs seemed largely “uncontroverted”.  He also acknowledged the legal noise and interest caused by South Africa’s action in the International Court of Justice against Israel, one contending that Israel’s conduct against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip satisfied the elements of genocide.

    While the ICJ is unlikely to reach a conclusion on the matter any time soon, it issued an interim order of provisional measures explicitly putting Israel on notice to comply with the Genocide Convention, punish those responsible for directly and publicly inciting genocide, permit basic humanitarian assistance and essential services to the Gaza Strip, preserve relevant evidence pertaining to potential genocidal acts and report to the ICJ on its compliance within a month.

    In White’s words, “the undisputed evidence before this Court comports with the finding of the ICJ and indicates that the current treatment of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip by the Israeli military may plausibly constitute a genocide in violation of international law.”  But to compel the US government to cease aid to Israel of a financial and military matter were matters “intimately related to foreign policy and national security”. The judiciary was, reasoned White, “not equipped with the intelligence or the acumen necessary to make foreign policy decisions on behalf of the government.”

    On March 8, an appeal was filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights and co-counsel Van Der Hout LLP in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit arguing that aiding and abetting genocide can never be seen as a legitimate, unquestioned policy decision. The federal judiciary was duty bound to uphold the Genocide Convention, one that had taken on “an urgent, even existential dimension when the legal violation at issue is facilitating and even accelerating the destruction of an entirpeople.”

    Within a matter of days, eight amicus briefs were submitted supporting the Palestinian plaintiffs.   In one brief, eleven constitutional, federal courts and international law scholars submit in severe fashion that “affirming the district court’s decision would create serious mischief and uncertainty by contradicting this Court’s and the US Supreme Court’s political question jurisprudence and degrading the essential judicial role in interpreting and applying the law, including norms of international law, treaties, and their implementing statutes.”

    While Justice White had noted the obvious proposition that foreign policy remained a matter for the political branches of government, with disputes on the subject being nonjusticiable, “that principle was not actually at issue in this case.”  The Supreme Court had recognised that “legal disputes that touch on foreign affairs are not automatically policy disputes or political questions.” In this instance, the district court had “eschewed its responsibility to closely analyze the actual issues presented in favor of abstraction, generality, and already rejected misconceptions about what is and is not a political question.”

    Another brief from seventeen former diplomats, service members and intelligence officers argues that “courts may decide whether an act violates a law, and that a finding that they cannot would harm US foreign policy.”  The authors accepted “for present purposes that the district court’s factual finding, that the Israeli military’s conduct may plausibly constitute genocide, accurately reflects the record and controls at this juncture.” Again, White was taken to task for not appreciating the distinction between the “wisdom” of foreign policy – a nonjusticiable issue – and “cases that question the legality of foreign policy, because applying the law to determine the legality of government action is the judiciary’s responsibility.”

    Most impressive for the plaintiffs was the filing by 139 human rights organisations, bar associations and social justice movement lawyers reiterating the point that “allegations of the United States’ violations of the duties to prevent genocide and avoid complicity in its commission are clearly justiciable.”  International law, by virtue of its “decentralized” nature, placed reliance upon States “to enforce the obligations to which they have consented, imposing a primary duty to the domestic courts of each State to ensure the compliance of their executive and legislative bodies with international law.”

    Oral arguments will be heard in San Francisco in June 2024.  By that time, the killing, starving and displacement of the Palestinian populace in Gaza will have further crystallised in its horror, leaving the legal fraternity dragging their feet.  But over the cadaverous nature of this conflict, litigants in the US may be clearer about whether courts can hold the government to account for aiding and abetting the commission of alleged acts of genocide.

    The post Complicity in Gaza: Holding US Foreign Policy Legally Accountable first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • ANALYSIS: By Trita Parsi

    The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled against Israel and determined that South Africa successfully argued that Israel’s conduct plausibly could constitute genocide. The court has imposed several injunctions against Israel and reminds Israel that its rulings are binding, according to international law.

    In its order, the court fell short of South Africa’s request for a ceasefire, but this ruling, however, is overwhelmingly in favour of South Africa’s case and will likely increase international pressure for a ceasefire as a result.

    On the question of whether Israel’s war in Gaza is genocide, that will still take more time, but today’s news will have significant political repercussions. Here are a few thoughts.

    This is a devastating blow to Israel’s global standing. To put it in context, Israel has worked ferociously for the last two decades to defeat the BDS movement — Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions — not because it will have a significant economic impact on Israel, but because of how it could delegitimiSe Israel internationally.

    However, the ruling of the ICJ that Israel is plausibly engaged in genocide is far more devastating to Israel’s legitimacy than anything BDS could have achieved.

    Just as much as Israel’s political system has been increasingly — and publicly — associated with apartheid in the past few years, Israel will now be similarly associated with the charge of genocide.

    As a result, those countries that have supported Israel and its military campaign in Gaza, such as the US under President Biden, will be associated with that charge, too.

    Significant implications for US
    The implications for the United States are significant. First because the court does not have the ability to implement its ruling.

    Instead, the matter will go to the UN Security Council, where the Biden administration will once again face the choice of protecting Israel politically by casting a veto, and by that, further isolate the United States, or allowing the Security Council to act and pay a domestic political cost for “not standing by Israel.”

    So far, the Biden administration has refused to say if it will respect ICJ’s decision. Of course, in previous cases in front of the ICJ, such as Myanmar, Ukraine and Syria, the US and Western states stressed that ICJ provisional measures are binding and must be fully implemented.

    The double standards of US foreign policy will hit a new low if, in this case, Biden not only argues against the ICJ, but actively acts to prevent and block the implementation of its ruling.

    It is perhaps not surprising that senior Biden administration officials have largely ceased using the term “rules-based order” since October 7.

    It also raises questions about how Biden’s policy of bear-hugging Israel may have contributed to Israel’s conduct.

    Biden could have offered more measured support and pushed back hard against Israeli excesses — and by that, prevented Israel from engaging in actions that could potentially fall under the category of genocide. But he didn’t.

    Unconditional support, zero criticism
    Instead, Biden offered unconditional support combined with zero public criticism of Israel’s conduct and only limited push-back behind the scenes. A different American approach could have shaped Israel’s war efforts in a manner that arguably would not have been preliminarily ruled by the ICJ as plausibly meeting the standards of genocide.

    This shows that America undermines its own interest as well as that of its partners when it offers them blank checks and complete and unquestionable protection. The absence of checks and balances that such protection offers fuels reckless behavior all around.

    As such, Biden’s unconditional support may have undermined Israel, in the final analysis.

    This ruling may also boost those arguing that all states that are party to the Genocide Convention have a positive obligation to prevent genocide. The Houthis, for instance, have justified their attacks against ships heading to Israeli ports in the Red Sea, citing this positive obligation.

    What legal implications will the court’s ruling have as a result on the US and UK’s military action against the Houthis?

    The implications for Europe will also be considerable. The US is rather accustomed to and comfortable with setting aside international law and ignoring international institutions. Europe is not.

    International law and institutions play a much more central role in European security thinking. The decision will continue to split Europe. But the fact that some key EU states will reject the ICJ’s ruling will profoundly contradict and undermine Europe’s broader security paradigm.

    Moderated war conduct
    One final point: The mere existence of South Africa’s application to the ICJ appears to have moderated Israel’s war conduct.

    Any plans to ethnically cleanse Gaza and send its residents to third countries appear to have been somewhat paused, presumably because of how such actions would boost South Africa’s application.

    If so, it shows that the court, in an era where the force of international law is increasingly questioned, has had a greater impact in terms of deterring unlawful Israeli actions than anything the Biden administration has done.

    Trita Parsi is the co-founder and executive vice-president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. First published at Responsible Statecraft.


    This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Human Rights Watch’s annual report highlights politicians’ double standards and ‘transactional diplomacy’ amid escalating crises

    Human rights across the world are in a parlous state as leaders shun their obligations to uphold international law, according to the annual report of Human Rights Watch (HRW).

    In its 2024 world report, HRW warns grimly of escalating human rights crises around the globe, with wartime atrocities increasing, suppression of human rights defenders on the rise, and universal human rights principles and laws being attacked and undermined by governments.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • During his captivity, my client Sharqawi Al Hajj has lost both parents and gone through his 30s and most of his 40s. He wonders what future he has left

    Sharqawi Al Hajj is a man detained at the US military prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. I have been his lawyer for many years. This week marks 22 years since the prison was opened, and Sharqawi’s 20th year inside. He is one of 30 men still detained there, down from nearly 800 ever held. This trajectory is because Guantánamo, though not singular among prisons in its harsh treatment and arbitrary detention, was at least for a time very overt in its extremeness, and what could be seen more plainly than usual caused a reaction.

    There are public records and images of an earlier period that people who are old enough remember. A news article from 2002, reporting on the first planeload of detainees arriving, sticks with me. Men chained to their seats for 8,000 miles were led off the plane because they wore goggles covered with black tape; some fell to the ground. A government report from 2008 described interrogations during those years, things like a man being found immobile on the floor of an interview room next to a pile of his own hair.

    Pardiss Kebriaei is Mr Sharqawi Al Hajj’s lawyer and has represented men at Guantánamo since 2007. She is a senior attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Congressional progressives say proposed $14.3bn breaches 1997 Leahy act as assault on Gaza has overwhelmingly harmed civilians

    Leftwing Democrats in Congress have invoked a landmark law barring assistance to security forces of governments deemed guilty of human rights abuses to challenge the Biden administration’s emergency military aid program for Israel.

    Members of the Democratic party’s progressive wing say the $14.3bn package pledged by the White House after the 7 October attack by Hamas that killed more than 1,400 Israelis breaches the Leahy Act because Israel’s retaliatory assault on Gaza has overwhelmingly harmed civilians. An estimated 9,000 people have been killed in Gaza so far, among them 3,700 children, according to the Gaza health ministry, run by Hamas.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Craig Mokhiber, director of human rights body, accuses the US, UK and much of Europe as ‘wholly complicit in the horrific assault’

    The director of the New York office of the UN high commissioner for human rights has left his post, protesting that the UN is “failing” in its duty to prevent what he categorizes as genocide of Palestinian civilians in Gaza under Israeli bombardment and citing the US, UK and much of Europe as “wholly complicit in the horrific assault”.

    Craig Mokhiber wrote on 28 October to the UN high commissioner in Geneva, Volker Turk, saying: “This will be my last communication to you” in his role in New York.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Statement comes amid concern about allegations Saudi forces have killed hundreds of migrants

    Germany ended a training programme for Saudi border forces, who have been implicated in the mass killing of migrants at the country’s border with Yemen, after it was alerted to reports of “possible massive human rights violations”, the German interior ministry has said.

    In a statement to the Guardian, the ministry said training undertaken by the federal police service for the Saudi border force had been “discontinued after reports of possible massive human rights violations became known and, as a precaution, are no longer included in the current training programme [for Saudi security forces]”.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.