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.
From Russia to the US, those who seek to uphold the law are coming under increasing pressure
What the law says on paper is irrelevant if it cannot be upheld, or even stated clearly. That is why lawyers are targeted – with harassment, disbarment from the profession or even jail – by repressive regimes.
Russia’s attempts to suppress the voice of the opposition leader Alexei Navalny did not end with his death in an Arctic prison colony. In a bleak coda, three of his lawyers have been jailed for several years. Vadim Kobzev, Alexei Liptser and Igor Sergunin were found guilty of participating in an “extremist organisation” for relaying his messages to the outside world.
More than $500m in grants axed as US risks decades of progress in protecting vulnerable workers worldwide
The Donald Trump administration has terminated 69 international programs aimed at combating child labor, forced labor and human trafficking, potentially undermining decades of progress in protecting vulnerable workers globally.
The Washington Post obtained an email detailing how the US Department of Labor’s bureau of international labor affairs (ILAB) will immediately end grants totaling more than $500m that supported labor standard enforcement across 40 countries, including critical initiatives in Mexico, Central America, south-east Asia and Africa.
Volker Türk alarmed at growing power of ‘unelected tech oligarchs’ and warns gender equality is being rolled back
The UN human rights chief has warned of a “fundamental shift” in the US and sounded the alarm over the growing power of “unelected tech oligarchs”, in a stinging rebuke of Washington weeks into Donald Trump’s presidency.
Volker Türk said there had been bipartisan support for human rights in the US for decades but said he was “now deeply worried by the fundamental shift in direction that is taking place domestically and internationally”.
President says he’ll help states execute people but experts skeptical of bold pledge to expand capital punishment
Donald Trump has signed an executive order committing to pursue federal death sentences and pledging to ensure that states have sufficient supplies of lethal injection drugs for executions.
The order promises that Trump’s attorney general will seek capital punishment for “all crimes of a severity demanding its use”, specifying that the US will seek the death penalty in every case involving murder of law enforcement and a capital crime committed by an undocumented person, “regardless of other factors”. Trump has also pledged to pursue the overruling of longstanding US supreme court precedents that limit the scope of capital punishment.
The Georgian was a campaigner for human rights, democracy and public health – and a devoted husband
It was the spring of 2014 and I was at the Mandarin Oriental hotel in Washington to interview Jimmy Carter. The former president had just published a new book on women’s rights and was keen to make his case. The abuse of women and girls was, he believed, the worst human rights violation of the time and he was determined to issue a global call to action on the subject.
He argued passionately and eloquently, rolling though a litany of abuses women and girls around the world face: rape and violence in war, trafficking, infanticide and, in his own country, an epidemic of sexual assault at universities.
In this episode of the New Politics podcast, we analyse the recent shifts in Australian politics, focusing on aged care reforms and housing affordability, while also touching on global political influences and media coverage.
Starting July 1, 2025, significant changes are slated for aged care, with increased costs impacting approximately 40 per cent of pensioners, asking them to pay a lot more for their care, even though they’re already making a large contribution. It’s straight out of the neoliberalist handbook. We explore the complexities of the private sector’s role in aged care, discussing potential alternative funding mechanisms beyond out-of-pocket expenses for the super wealthy and asset-rich individuals.
We also unpack the contentious debate surrounding the Help to Buy and Build to Rent bills. With the Australian Greens clashing with the government, these policies aim to assist home buyers and influence rental markets, yet face criticism for not being sufficiently ambitious. This episode examines the potential implications of these policies, the political machinations involved, and the broader impact on housing affordability.
Additionally, the concept of a double-dissolution election is discussed, clarifying its implications and the current political landscape that may lead to such a decision. This segment aims to demystify the process and discuss its historical use and potential outcomes.
On the international front, we analyse the portrayal of the US political debates by the Australian media, particularly the ABC’s coverage of the debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. This segment critiques the narrative choices made by the media and their impact on public perception, questioning the balance of reporting in critical electoral contexts.
Join us on the New Politics podcast as we provide comprehensive analysis, expert insights, and a critical examination of these pressing issues.
‘The Message’, Grandmaster Flash & The Furious Five.
‘Confessions Of A Window Cleaner’, Ed Kuepper.
‘Sweet About Me’, Gabriella Cilmi.
‘Stranger In Moscow’, Tame Impala.
‘Praise You’, Fat Boy Slim.
Music interludes:
Support independent journalism
We don’t plead, beseech, beg, guilt-trip, or gaslight you and claim the end of the world of journalism is coming soon. We keep it simple: If you like our work and would like to support it, send a donation, from as little as $5. Or purchase one of our books! It helps to keep our commitment to independent journalism ticking over! Go to our supporter page to see the many ways you can support New Politics.
In recent weeks, the Australian media landscape has been saturated with exhaustive coverage of the U.S. presidential campaign, despite the election still being four months away and Australians not having a vote in its outcome. This intense focus has sparked a debate on the appropriateness and impact of such extensive foreign political coverage, especially when positioned against significant domestic issues that arguably warrant more attention.
The recent events in U.S. politics have indeed been dramatic and newsworthy: a shocking assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump, and an unexpected withdrawal by President Joe Biden from his re-election campaign, presumably paving the way for Vice President Kamala Harris to assume the Democratic nomination. These developments have understandably dominated global headlines due to their implications on international relations and global stability.
However, the extent of the coverage by Australian outlets raises questions. For example, the ABC prominently featured U.S. politics across its platforms, with such stories consistently topping its most viewed articles. Similarly, major publications like The Guardian and the Sydney Morning Herald have followed suit, leading with U.S. political news over local Australian stories.
To keep pushing the issue of U.S. politics in different ways after the more substantial stories began to ebb, The Guardian went to the effort and expense of surveying 1,137 Australians last week, asking who they would vote for in the U.S. election if they could, even though Harris is not yet the endorsed Democratic candidate, even though the election is still four months away, and even though Australians cannot vote in U.S. elections. It’s hard to see how a vanity exercise of this kind serves the public interest for an Australian audience. Is it essential to know that 29 percent of those surveyed would vote for Trump and the Republicans, or that 37 percent would vote for Harris and the Democrats?
This phenomenon isn’t merely a matter of media preference but reflects a deeper global interconnectivity where American political shifts significantly influence economies and policies worldwide. Nevertheless, the saturation of U.S. politics in Australian media has had unintended consequences, primarily the overshadowing of pressing local issues. At a time when Australian politics also faces unprecedented developments, the predominance of U.S. news stories seems disproportionate.
Critics argue that this focus diverts attention from critical Australian issues that need addressing, from environmental policies and economic reforms to social justice initiatives. The rapid cycle of news coming out of the United States, including the rapid consolidation of Democratic support around Harris, mirrors a media fascination with American politics that often eclipses local content, leaving citizens less informed about their own governmental affairs. This has implications for public understanding and engagement with complex issues, both domestic and foreign.
The debate over the volume and tone of U.S. political coverage in Australia raises a central question about the role of media in shaping not just what people think, but what they think about in the first place.
Spectacle vs. substance: The impact of personality-driven coverage on politics
The portrayal of political leaders in the media often reflects not just the society’s interest in their personalities and policies but also the media’s own business-driven need to attract viewers and readers. This dynamic is exemplified in the case of Donald Trump, whose media coverage often resembles more of a spectacle than a serious political discourse. This phenomenon is not unique to Trump; a range of global political figures including Boris Johnson in Britain, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, and locally, Scott Morrison, Tony Abbott, Pauline Hanson, Clive Palmer, et al, have similarly been highlighted and promoted, often for their more outlandish or controversial traits rather than substantive policy discussions.
This pattern of coverage reflects a broader trend where media focus on personalities who can generate immediate and intense public interest. Trump, with his unpredictable statements and flamboyant style, draws comparisons to a stand-up comic or a reality TV star more than a traditional politician. Similarly, figures like Johnson and Bolsonaro engage the public through a mix of humour, shock, and direct communication, often bypassing conventional political discourse and engaging directly with the populace in ways that traditional media find hard to ignore.
However, this focus on the sensational aspects of these leaders has significant implications for political reporting and public perception. The continuous emphasis on “idiot politician syndrome” shifts the focus from policy and governance to personality and scandal. This can detract from a more nuanced understanding of the political landscape and reduces complex political realities to simple narratives that are easier to consume but less informative.
The dominance of such figures in media coverage also skews public perceptions, making it seem as though flamboyance or controversy are more widespread in politics than they actually are. This can also lead to a cycle where the most sensational figures receive the most coverage, which in turn enhances their visibility and influence in a feedback loop that can distort electoral outcomes. For example, the coverage of Harris in the Australian media often highlights a comparative analysis of her negatives rather than her policies or leadership qualities. Such framing can influence public perception by focusing on personal flaws or controversies rather than substantive differences in policy or vision for the country.
The consequences of this style of media coverage are profound. It risks diminishing the public’s ability to engage critically with political information and to make informed decisions at the polls. Instead of a well-informed electorate, the focus on political drama and personality flaws can lead to voter apathy or cynicism, which undermines democratic processes.
The Australian media’s recent heavy focus on American politics, particularly its most sensational aspects, can crowd out coverage of critical domestic issues. This can leave Australian citizens less informed about their own government’s actions and policies, which directly affect their lives more than foreign political developments.
While the media’s obsession with figures like Trump and other controversial leaders can be explained by the immediate engagement they generate, it presents a challenge to the depth and quality of political journalism. As media outlets worldwide continue to navigate the shifting landscapes of digital news consumption and global politics, the balance between coverage that attracts viewers and that which informs and empowers them remains a critical concern.
The media’s obsession with the freak show
The pervasive focus of the Australian media on U.S. politics, particularly the sensational aspects embodied by figures such as Trump, highlights a broader trend within the industry: the prioritisation of ratings and a battle over diminishing advertising revenues, rather than substantive reporting. This phenomenon raises significant concerns about the media’s role in serving the public interest, particularly when it comes to informing citizens about crucial political developments.
It’s apparent that the media’s fascination with the freak show of U.S. politics is not about the public interest but about capitalising on the spectacle to draw viewers. This strategy is evident in the coverage of Kamala Harris, whose emergence as the likely Democratic nominee has shifted the narrative around the U.S. presidential race. Despite her serious demeanour and policy-focused campaign, much of the media coverage remains superficial, focusing more on her as a personality rather than on her policies or vision for America.
This approach reflects a media landscape – locally and internationally – that is increasingly driven by the need to secure eyeballs and generate clicks, and it is this environment that often rewards sensationalism over depth and controversy over clarity. While the media industry has always relied on sensationalism to engage viewers, readers, and listeners, in the past, this strategy was used to attract audiences to more substantial content that informed the public. However, in the modern era, sensationalism is used primarily to attract audiences to even more sensationalism and, as a result, the news, information and current affairs the public truly needs to know about are often relegated to insubstantial narratives, if reported at all.
The implications of such a media strategy are profound, especially in terms of how it shapes public perception and understanding of politics. Instead of fostering a well-informed electorate, this leads to an amused, bemused and misinformed public, where sensational stories overshadow critical issues and complex policy discussions.
The intense focus on U.S. politics by Australian media, despite the lack of direct electoral influence by Australian citizens, suggests a mismatch between the content provided and the actual informational needs of the audience. While the outcomes of U.S. elections certainly have global ramifications, the disproportionate coverage comes at the expense of more relevant domestic issues that directly impact Australians.
Harris’s rise in the U.S. opinion polls and the narrative shift from Trump as an inevitable winner to a potential loser illustrate how quickly media narratives can change, yet these changes often remain on the surface. The deeper, more substantive aspects of her candidacy and what it signifies for U.S. politics – and eventually, Australian and global politics – are frequently glossed over in favour of more digestible, albeit less informative, storylines.
As the media continues to struggle with the challenges of a changing technological and viewer consumption landscape, the need for a more responsible approach becomes clear. Such an approach would prioritise the public interest and strive to provide coverage that not only informs but also enriches public debate. This would entail a significant shift from the current practices, focusing more on in-depth analysis and less on the spectacle, fostering a more engaged and informed electorate. As the global media landscape evolves, the call for such a transformation becomes increasingly urgent, compelling media organisations to reassess their roles and responsibilities in a democratic society.
The thing I hate about Western electoral politics in general and US presidential races in particular is that they take the focus off the depravity of the US-centralised Empire itself, and run cover for its criminality.
In the coming months you’re going to be hearing a lot of talk about the two leading presidential candidates and how very very different they are from each other, and how one is clearly much much worse than the other.
But in reality the very worst things about both of them will not be their differences — the worst things about them will be be the countless ways in which they are both indistinguishably in lockstep with one another.
Donald Trump is not going to end America’s non-existent “democracy” if elected and rule the United States as an iron-fisted dictator, and he’s certainly not going to be some kind of populist hero who leads a revolution against the Deep State.
He will govern as your standard evil Republican president who is evil in all the usual ways US presidents are evil, just like he did during his first term.
His administration will continue to fill the world with more war machinery, implement more starvation sanctions, back covert operations, uprisings and proxy conflicts, and work to subjugate the global population to the will of the empire, all while perpetuating the poisoning of the earth via ecocidal capitalism, just as all his predecessors have done.
And the same will be true of whatever moronic fantasies Republicans wind up concocting about Kamala Harris between now and November. She’s not going to institute communism or give everyone welfare, implement Sharia law, weaken Israel, take everyone’s guns, subjugate Americans to the “Woke Agenda” and make everyone declare their pronouns and eat bugs, or any of that fuzzbrained nonsense.
She will continue to expand US warmongering and tyranny while making the world a sicker, more violent, and more dangerous place for everyone while funneling the wealth of the people and the planet into the bank accounts of the already obscenely rich. Just as Biden has spent his entire term doing, and just as Trump did before him.
Caitlin Johnston’s article on YouTube.
The truth is that while everyone’s going to have their attention locked on the differences between Trump and Harris these next few months, by far the most significant and consequential things about each of these candidates are the ways in which they are similar.
The policies and agendas either of them will roll out which will kill the most people, negatively impact the most lives and do the most damage to the ecosystem are the areas in which they are in complete agreement, not those relatively small and relatively inconsequential areas in which they differ.
You can learn a lot more about the US and its globe-spanning empire by looking at the similarities between presidential administrations than you can by looking at their differences, because that’s where the overwhelming majority of the abusiveness can be found.
But nobody’s going to be watching any of that normalised criminality while the drama of this fake election plays out. More and more emotional hysteria is going to get invested in the outcome of this fraudulent two-handed sock puppet popularity contest between two loyal empire lackeys who are both sworn to advance the interests of the Empire no matter which one wins, and the mundane day-to-day murderousness of the Empire will continue to tick on unnoticed in the background.
US military commander’s casual declaration of independence from democratic control.
“Regardless of who’s in our political parties &whatever is happening in that space, it’s allies &partners that are always our priority”
The other day the US Navy’s highest-ranking officer just casually mentioned that the AUKUS military alliance which is geared toward roping Australia into a future US-driven military confrontation with China will remain in place no matter who wins the presidential election.
“Regardless of who is in our political parties and whatever is happening in that space, it’s allies and partners that are always our priority,” said Admiral Lisa Franchetti in response to the (completely baseless) concern that Trump will withdraw from military alliances and make the US “isolationist” if elected.
How could Franchetti make such a confident assertion if the behaviour of the US war machine meaningfully changed from administration to administration? The answer is that she couldn’t, and it doesn’t. The official elected government of the United States may change every few years, but its real government does not.
To be clear, I am not telling you not to vote here. These elections are designed to function as an emotional pacifier for the American people to let them feel like they have some control over their government, so if you feel like you want to vote then vote in whatever way pacifies your emotions.
I’ve got nothing invested in convincing you either way.
Whenever I talk about this stuff I get people accusing me of being defeatist and interpreting this message as a position that there’s nothing anyone can do, but that’s not true at all. I’m just saying the fake election ritual you’ve been given by the powerful and told that’s how you solve your problems is not the tool for the job.
You’re as likely to solve your problems by voting as you are by wishing or by praying — but that doesn’t mean problems can’t be solved. If you thought you could cure an infection by huffing paint thinner I’d tell you that won’t work either, and tell you to go see a doctor instead.
Just because the only viable candidates in any US presidential race will always be murderous empire lackeys doesn’t mean things are hopeless; that’s just what it looks like when you live in the heart of an empire that’s held together by lies, violence and tyranny, whose behavior has too much riding on it for the powerful to allow it to be left to the will of the electorate.
Cultivate A Habit Of Small Acts Of Sedition
Fighting the machine can be disheartening and disappointing as power comes up victorious time and time again. But that doesn’t mean you are powerless, and it doesn’t mean there’s nothing you can do.https://t.co/O0vZRHX2ue
Your vote won’t make any difference to the behavior of the empire, but what can make a difference is taking actions every day to help pave the way toward a genuine people’s uprising against the empire later on down the road.
You do this by opening people’s eyes to the reality that what they’ve been taught about their government, their nation and their world is a lie, and that the mainstream sources they’ve been trained to look to for information are cleverly disguised imperial propaganda services.
What we can all do as individuals right here and now is begin cultivating a habit of committing small acts of sedition. Making little paper cuts in the flesh of the beast which add up over time. You can’t stop the machine by yourself, but you can sure as hell throw sand in its gears.
Giving a receptive listener some information about what’s going on in the world. Creating dissident media online. Graffiti with a powerful message.
Amplifying an inconvenient voice. Sharing a disruptive idea. Supporting an unauthorised cause. Organizing toward forbidden ends. Distributing eye-opening literature.
Creating eye-opening literature. Creating eye-opening art. Having authentic conversations about real things with anyone who can hear you.
Every day there’s something you can do. After you start pointing your creativity at cultivating this habit, you’ll surprise yourself with the innovative ideas you come up with.
Even a well-placed meme or tweet can open a bunch of eyes to a reality they’d previously been closed to. Remember: they wouldn’t be working so frantically to restrict online speech if it didn’t pose a genuine threat to the Empire.
Such regular small acts of sabotage do infinitely more damage to the imperial machine than voting, talking about voting or thinking about voting, which is why voting, talking about voting and thinking about voting is all you’re ever encouraged to do.
The more people wake up to the fact that they’re running to nowhere on a hamster wheel built by the powerful for the benefit of the powerful, the more people there will be to step off the wheel and start pushing for real change in real ways that matter — and the more people there will be to help wake up everyone else.
Once enough eyes are open, the people will be able to use the power of their numbers to force real change and shrug off the chains of their abusers like a heavy coat on a warm day.
There is nothing that could stop us once enough of us understand what’s happening. That’s why so much effort goes into obfuscating people’s understanding, and keeping everyone endlessly diverted with empty nonsense like presidential elections.
Welcome to the lastest episode of New Politics, one of the best Australian politics podcast, providing in-depth analysis and updates on the ever-evolving landscape of Australian and international politics. In this episode, we explore some of the most pressing political issues and trends shaping our world today.
Truth in political advertising and AI
The spotlight is on truth in political advertising and the use of artificial intelligence in politics – the Premier of Queensland Steven Miles raised concerns about an AI-generated video of him dancing and he announced that Labor would refrain from using AI in the state election campaign. However, it was soon revealed that federal Labor had previously produced a similar AI-generated video featuring Peter Dutton. While these videos are clearly marked as AI-generated and obviously not real, they highlight a fine line between parody and deep-fakes. Traditional political advertising has always involved editing real footage, often misrepresenting political leaders’ statements. However, deep-fakes introduce a new challenge by creating entirely fictitious scenarios and statements, raising serious ethical concerns.
Cabinet reshuffle
We discuss the imminent cabinet reshuffle, a common occurrence when underperforming ministers and unresolved portfolio issues surface. With the next election just months away, the immigration and home affairs portfolio, led by Andrew Giles, and the media reform efforts under Michelle Rowland, are under scrutiny, and the recent retirements of Brendan O’Connor and Linda Burney have accelerated the reshuffle process. Prime ministers strategically implement Cabinet changes to boost election chances, making now a crucial time for these adjustments.
ICJ ruling on Israel’s occupation of Palestine
The International Court of Justice has ruled that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory is illegal, identifying multiple breaches of international law and demanding an end to the occupation with full reparations. Despite the tendency of major powers to ignore unfavourable international rulings, this decision marks the strongest legal condemnation of Israel to date. In response, there have been increased calls for the Australian government to impose sanctions and sever trade relations with Israel. While Foreign Minister Penny Wong has issued a statement urging Israel to cease settlement expansions and violence, the government’s response has been criticised as weak and designed to avoid offending conservative Israeli lobby groups. This issue remains critical despite being overshadowed by extensive coverage of American political events.
Australia’s media obsession with American politics
Recent weeks have seen significant developments in American politics, including an assassination attempt on Donald Trump and Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the presidential race, with Kamala Harris emerging as the likely Democratic candidate. While these events undeniably impact global politics, the Australian media’s overwhelming coverage has been excessive. For instance, the ABC website featured 10 out of 12 top stories about US politics, most of which were negative towards Kamala Harris. This blanket coverage, while reflecting the influence of American politics, has led to an overload, causing important local stories to be overlooked.
Join us as we analyse these critical issues, offering comprehensive insights and analysis to keep you informed about the dynamic world of politics in Australia and beyond.
Song listing:
‘Gangnam Style’, PSY.
‘Dātura’, Tori Amos.
‘Trouble’, SATV Music.
‘Won’t Get Fooled Again’, The Who.
Music interludes:
Support independent journalism
We don’t plead, beseech, beg, guilt-trip, or gaslight you and claim the end of the world of journalism is coming soon. We keep it simple: If you like our work and would like to support it, send a donation, from as little as $5. Or purchase one of our books! It helps to keep our commitment to independent journalism ticking over! Go to our supporter page to see the many ways you can support New Politics.
In this week’s episode of New Politics – one of the best podcasts on Australian politics – we analyse the attempted assassination of US presidential candidate Donald Trump. This surreal event, with a lone shooter on a rooftop at a Trump rally, has sparked a whirlwind of conspiracy theories and highlighted significant lapses in Secret Service protocols. We discuss the political fallout, including Trump’s dramatic appearance at the Republican Convention with a conspicuous bandage, and draw comparisons to historical events like the Reichstag fire of 1933.
We also explore reactions from global leaders, including Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, and the broader implications for American democracy. We examine how Trump’s frequent public lies since 2015 have eroded trust, leading many to question the authenticity of this assassination attempt. Is it also time to reassess the US–Australia alliance and how the alliance affects Australian politics?
We then focus on the declining respect for political processes in Australia, as highlighted by a recent Essential poll. With dissatisfaction levels reaching nearly 50 per cent, we discuss the persistent problems within the political system, the lack of incentive for change, and potential solutions such mixed-member and proportional representation.
There are allegations corruption within the CMFEU, and we explore the media’s portrayal of these issues, and the political ramifications for the Labor Party. We also analyse the latest Resolve Poll, which presents a challenging outlook for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Labor government. With a significant drop in primary votes and Peter Dutton emerging as the preferred prime minister, we discuss the electorate’s shifting priorities and the impact of recent political events.
Finally, we look at the upcoming royal visit by King Charles and Queen Camilla and speculate on the potential discussions about Australia moving towards becoming a republic and the broader significance of their visit.
Song listing:
“Connected”, Stereo MC’s.
“Dead Already”, Thomas Newman.
“Catcher and The Rye”, Cabins.
“Wild”, Spoon.
“Praise You”, Fat Boy Slim.
Music interludes:
Support independent journalism
We don’t plead, beseech, beg, guilt-trip, or gaslight you and claim the end of the world of journalism is coming soon. We keep it simple: If you like our work and would like to support it, send a donation, from as little as $5. Or purchase one of our books! It helps to keep our commitment to independent journalism ticking over! Go to our supporter page to see the many ways you can support New Politics.
The outpouring of opinions on the attempted assassination of Donald Trump mostly offers little insight or honesty – apart from the all-too-obvious concern that the shooting of the former president is likely to make the United States even more of a tinderbox than it is already.
There’s a reason for this. The responses – whether from Trump supporters or Trump opponents – are all embedded in the same ideology of political tribalism that provoked the gunman. Neither side is capable of self-reflection because the US system is designed to avoid such self-reflection.
Despite what the political class wants you to believe, “political violence” is as American as apple pie. The US global empire was built on political violence, or the threat of it, most especially after the Second World War. Just ask the people of Vietnam, Serbia, Latin America, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and Gaza.
The difference now is that Washington’s imperial grip is all too clearly weakening.
President Joe Biden is not alone in refusing to recognise this fact. He recently told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos: “I’m running the world.”
But US elites are rapidly finding that the world is no longer prepared to submit.
Washington’s international military arm, Nato, is being run into the ground by Russia in a proxy war in Ukraine.
Washington’s key military client state in the oil-rich Middle East, Israel, is being flooded with US weaponry to destroy Gaza. But in the midst of a genocide, Israel is exposing how weak it is. Hamas has not been defeated. In fact, it has been strengthened. And greater cooperation is being encouraged among those opposed to Israel’s regional hegemony.
Current domestic US politics can only be properly understood through the prism of the gradual decline of US influence abroad. The building of alternative international power formations, such as BRICS, is weakening Washington’s military and economic reach.
Adding to its woes, Washington’s ideological hegemony is crumbling too. Transnational capitalism – headquartered in the US – has no answers to the environmental fall-out from the endless resource extraction required to feed the appetite for wasteful, mass consumption it has to cultivate to generate greater profits for a corporate elite.
As the plundering of the planet’s finite resources gets harder, especially as corporations continue to stoke our hunger for material excess, other states are less willing to sit back and let the US take its pound of flesh.
The result is a growing political and economic instability that is hard to miss.
Muddled posturing
In the US, there have been two political impulses in response.
The first – illustrated by the Biden camp, backed by most of the US establishment media and three-letter agencies such as the CIA and NSA – is to double down on a failed strategy and continue seeking “global full-spectrum dominance”.
That means raising the stakes by showing uppity rivals, most especially Russia and China, that any defiance will be punished. It means endlessly expanding wars, with the inherent risk of increasing the chances of triggering a nuclear confrontation.
The other, more muddled response is illustrated by the Trump camp. If the US can no longer effectively impose its will abroad, rather than risk repeated humiliation, it should withdraw into a more isolationist posture, even while stepping up the imperial rhetoric.
Part of the reason for Trump’s muddled posturing, of course, is down to his narcissistic personality. He bigs himself up, even as he prefers to be master of the small domain he knows best. Caesar Trump has an instinctive aversion to global structures like Nato and the United Nations where he must share the limelight.
And part of the reason is that Trump can’t truly control the domestic terrain either. He depends on deeper power structures – such as the three-letter agencies – that would become pale shadows of themselves were they to agree to shrink US influence on the world stage. They need to push him out of his comfort zone.
Outrage machine
The US political system – whether Democrat or Republican – all too obviously has no answers to the deepening crises faced at home or abroad. Which is why the choice for US voters is between Biden and Trump, two rotten figureheads of a rotting imperial system of power.
And because the US system has no solutions, it has to redirect ordinary people’s attention to internal wars. Voters – or those who still trust the system enough to vote – must be persuaded to invest their energies in tribal feuding. The rhetoric of division grows, one in which the other candidate poses an existential threat and has to be stopped at all costs.
The truth is that each candidate – and the camps that stand behind them – is feeding this outrage machine. Biden is responsible for the assassination attempt on Trump, says one camp. Trump is guilty of inflaming the January 6 riots at the Congress, says the other.
At least it would be consistent to conclude either that both are responsible, or that neither is, rather than apply one standard to your tribe’s preferred presidential candidate and a different standard to the opposition tribe’s candidate. That is hypocrisy.
But the most useful conclusion we can draw is to understand that Biden and Trump are symptoms, not causes, of a diseased body politic. Neither Biden nor Trump pose an existential threat by themselves. But a declining US economic power, backed up by the largest military machine the world has ever known, determined to stop its decline at all costs, does pose just such a threat.
Biden and Trump are symbols. One, a lifelong creature of the billionaire donor class, is now deep in the grip of Parkinson’s. The other, a rapacious businessman committed only to his own aggrandisement, can’t distinguish between reality and reality TV.
No one should take seriously the claim that either is capable of running the world.
What they are is symbols – of a US in crisis. Which, given the US addiction to its imperial pretensions, is a crisis for all of humanity. Trump got a bloodied ear. The rest of us have far more at stake
Welcome to New Politics, as we unravel the intricate nature of global and national politics, reflecting on how the past shapes our present and future and deliver insightful analyses and expert commentary that keeps you informed and engaged.
In this episode, we explore the unfolding drama within Labor Party, highlighting the controversial suspension and subsequent resignation of Senator Fatima Payman. Her departure raises critical questions about party policies, internal democracy, and the broader implications for representation of diverse communities in politics. We look at her stance on Gaza, and the repercussions of crossing the floor to support a motion by the Australian Greens. Why should a Labor politician remain a member of Caucus if they refuse to follow the actions they supported when they were in opposition?
We look the educational funding strategies under the current Labor government, critiquing the increasing financial support for private schools at the expense of public ones. This discussion opens up a broader conversation about the values and priorities of modern Labor policies and their impact on Australia’s educational landscape.
Crossing continents, we analyse the recent UK election, where the Labour Party’s massive victory under Keir Starmer signals a new direction for Britain post-Brexit: he doesn’t have a choice. We discuss the historical parallels and the strategic silence that might have contributed to their win, alongside a forecast of potential policies and international stances.
We also look at the broader spectrum of international politics, including the rise of far-right movements in Europe, particularly in France, and significant judicial decisions in the United States that could redefine the scope of presidential powers and the 2024 US election.
Join us on New Politics as we navigate the complexities of these issues, offering a platform for critical thought, diverse perspectives, and a pulse on the shifts that shape our world.
Song listing:
‘My Friend’, Groove Armada.
‘Blue Monday’, New Order.
‘The Last Goodbye’, Odesza.
‘Praise You’, Fat Boy Slim.
Music interludes:
Support independent journalism
We don’t plead, beseech, beg, guilt-trip, or gaslight you and claim the end of the world of journalism is coming soon. We keep it simple: If you like our work and would like to support it, send a donation, from as little as $5. Or purchase one of our books! It helps to keep our commitment to independent journalism ticking over! Go to our supporter page to see the many ways you can support New Politics.
Joe Biden’s latest executive order gives scope to target the finances of Israeli politicians and businesses linked to extremists
Escalating US sanctions on violent settlers, initially taken as a mostly political rebuke to extremists, are now seen by some inside Israel as a potential threat to the financial viability of all Israeli settlements and companies in the occupied West Bank.
The Biden administration’s new controls on a handful of men andorganisations linked to attacks on Palestinian civilians, first announced in February then expanded twice in March and April, have generally been treated in Israel and beyond more as a humiliating public censure of a close ally than as a major political shift.
Even before the court ruled in favor of this vulgar fiction, state authorities relied on the concept to intimidate and jail women
Something that’s important to remember about last week’s ruling by the Alabama supreme court, which held that frozen embryos were persons under state law, is that the very absurdity of the claim is itself a demonstration of power. That a frozen embryo – a microscopic bit of biological information that can’t even be called tissue, a flick laden with the hopes of aspiring parents but fulfilling none of them – is equivalent in any way to a child is the sort of thing you can only say if no one has the power to laugh at you. The Alabama supreme court is the final court of review in that state. It cannot be appealed. For the foreseeable future, frozen cells in Alabama have the same legal status there as you or I do. Is this an absurd elevation of the status of an embryo, or an obscene degradation of human beings? The answer, of course, is both.
The decision immediately halted almost all IVF procedures in Alabama. Aspiring patents there – including women who had undergone rounds of injected hormone treatments and the invasive, gruelingly painful egg retrieval process in order to create the embryos – will now be unable to have the material implanted in an attempt to create a pregnancy. Hundreds of other frozen embryos – those that are not viable, or not needed by families that are already complete – can now not be destroyed as is typical IVF practice. They need to be continually stored in freezers, or what the Alabama supreme court refers to, in Orwellian style, as “cryogenic nurseries”, a term you almost have to admire for the sheer audacity of its creepiness.
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.
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.
There’s been a major breakthrough in the diplomatic relationship between Australia and China, with the Australian Prime Minister and Chinese president holding a meeting at the G20 summit in Indonesia. And this is a process initiated by both Anthony Albanese and Xi Jinping – it follows years of hostility from the previous Coalition government directed towards China, and a great deal of commentary verging on racism from the mainstream media.
The low point in the relationship was when the former Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton accused China of deliberately causing the coronavirus outbreak in 2020, China retaliated by imposing trade sanctions on Australian goods and services to the tune of $20 billion. All it took was some sensible people on both sides to start the dialogue, sit down in a room, discuss the issues, look at common ground, and create a pathway towards shared interests. Anthony Albanese has shown what constructive international diplomacy looks like, and it’s a stark contrast from the actions of the previous government, who just wanted to rattle the sabre and shout at everyone from the rooftops.
And the mid-term elections in the United States are over – there was talk of the red wave coming through from the Republicans, but that never eventuated, and most of the candidates supported by former US President Donald Trump didn’t get up, and the Democrats will still hold the Senate, and the Republicans will control the US congress by a very small margin. So, this is in America, but it’s an important election result, not just for America, but for Australia and the rest of the world.
Many jurisdictions all over the world over the past few years have swung towards more liberal-minded or governments of a centre-left persuasion, and there was a feeling that after the election of a far-right Prime Minister in Italy, the world was going to start swinging the other way, and the US was going to continue the trend that started off in Italy. There was a feeling that the red-wave coming in the US was going to signal a return of Donald Trump to the Presidency – and he has announce his intention to run in 2024 – but if he does get to the final election race, he might be in for a surprise.
But we’ve got a more insidious problem in Australia and that’s sports betting – and it was revealed during the week that an AFL umpire was arrested for betting on the Brownlow Medal – but it’s not really a surprise, we almost get more betting time than game time, gambling on sports in Australia is around $8 billion per year, SportsBet spends $130 million on advertising each year as well, and also pays the AFL $2 million each year for advertising. And it’s everywhere – it’s at the game, it’s on during a broadcast – a sports panel will discuss a game, and then launch into a segment about the betting odds, and which bet will offer the best return – and there’s a lot of money involved here, but this has become a big problem in sport.
Music interludes:
Support independent journalism!
We don’t plead, beseech, beg, guilt-trip, or gaslight you and claim the end of the world of journalism is coming soon. We keep it simple: If you like our work and would like to support it, send a donation, from as little as $5. Or purchase one of our books! It helps to keep our commitment to independent journalism ticking over! Go to our supporter page to see the many ways you can support New Politics.
The Democrats outperformed expectations during the United States (US) midterms, which took place on Wednesday 9 November. Control of both chambers of the US Congress is still unconfirmed as counting continues. The Republican party may still retake the House of Representatives, but the Senate outcome remains unclear. This is a surprising and disappointing outcome for former US president Donald Trump and the Republican establishment. They expected to easily retake the House, and possibly take the Senate. 18-29 year olds (the generation known as ‘Gen Z’) voted for Democrats more than any other age group during the midterms. This suggests that young voters are largely responsible for the array of progressive successes during the midterms.
Red wave? What red wave?
Political analysts forecast an overwhelming wave of Republican wins in the 2022 US midterm elections. However, the Democrats have done surprisingly well. Importantly, a number of Trump favourites lost out to the Democrats. For example, Republican Mehmet Oz conceded to the Democrat’s John Fetterman in Pennsylvania.
Celebrating the success of progressive youth electoral organising in halting the predicted Republican ‘red wave’, Nelini Stamp tweeted:
This is not a red wave a red tsunami. Honestly it’s one of the best midterms for an incumbent President ever. Does that mean we have to continue, obvi AND it’s because of the hard work of ORGANIZERS and progressive orgs that did this. Period dot.
Reflecting on the profound impact of young voters, American author Frederick Joseph shared:
Gen Z voted like a generation that has done active shooter drills since elementary school told that they aren’t allowed to read books by anyone who isn’t straight and white. In doing so, they saved the election.
— Frederick Joseph is on Mastodon (@FredTJoseph) November 9, 2022
Missouri legalized weed, Nebraska passed $15 minimum wage, Montana and Kentucky rejected abortion bans, and Kansas re-elected their Democratic governor. Maybe it's time to move past writing off entire states and see that people will support progress if we organize and fight.
— Read Jackson Rising by @CooperationJXN (@JoshuaPHilll) November 9, 2022
Recognising the major influence of the youth vote in the Democrat’s midterm election wins, US president Joe Biden tweeted:
I want to thank the young people of this nation who voted in historic numbers, just as they did two years ago.
They voted to continue addressing the climate crisis, gun violence, their personal rights and freedoms, and student debt relief.
Likely due to the high turnout of young, progressive voters, the US midterms saw a number of successful progressive candidates who belong to marginalised and oppressed groups.
For example, the state of Florida voted in 25-year-old activist and politician Maxwell Alejandro Frost, making him the first Gen Z and the first Afro-Cuban candidate elected to Congress. Frost is the former national organising director for March for Our Lives, a nationwide movement for gun control. Celebrating his election win, Frost tweeted:
I am Congressman-Elect Maxwell Alejandro Frost and I will be the first member of Generation-Z in the United States Congress.
Meanwhile, Mauree Turner, who became the first non-binary person elected to a state legislature in the US in 2020, will return for another term. Celebrating this win, activist and queer legislative researcher Erin Reed shared:
Non-binary legislator wins their house district in Oklahoma!
This election has been a near sweep for trans and non-binary candidates! https://t.co/1Xe57Gt4wY
Celebrating Sonya Emerick’s election to the Minneapolis school board, Reed added:
Sonya Emerick, a trans, queer, disabled candidate, wins a Minneapolis at-large school board seat. All over the country, LGBTQ+ candidates are being elected and voters are resoundingly rejecting anti-trans policies. pic.twitter.com/FmNTUhhRXM
The midterms also saw a record number of Muslim candidates elected into Congress. Executive director of Muslim civil rights organisation CAIR Washington Imraan Siddiqi tweeted:
As is always the case with US politics, the 2022 midterm election wasn’t all roses. For example, Black Democrat and impactful voter rights campaigner Stacy Abrams conceded to Republican governor Brian Kemp in Georgia. Other Black Democrats such as hopeful US Senate candidates Cheri Beasley and Val Demmings also lost out.
Meanwhile, the state of Louisiana voted to maintain the legal loophole in the 13th amendment of the US constitution, which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude “except as a punishment for crime” in 1865. Devastated by this outcome, academic Jenn Jackson shared:
The fact that slavery was on the ballot in five states and actually won in one (Louisiana) and was too early to call in another (Oregon) should dismantle every claim about the inherent goodness of our democracy in the US.
It's slavery. On the ballot.
— dr. jenn m. Jackson (they/them) (@JennMJacksonPhD) November 9, 2022
However, the results of the 2022 midterms could mark the beginning of widespread progressive change in US politics.
US President Joe Biden gave a major speech in Philadelphia last night. His mission: to speak to the soul of the nation. In his address, he blasted Trump supporters as un-American, attacked Capitol insurrectionists and lauded his own record on topics like extremism and gun control. He described Trump backers as “semi” fascist, which saw some aligned with the ex-president demand an apology.
Biden’s supporters were clearly exhilarated, tweeting their admiration for the president. Some hailed his example:
One commenter said that the speech drew a line between democracy and fascism:
Anyone who thinks the #bidenspeech was political doesn’t know the difference btwn fascism & democracy
Anyone who thinks the speech was divisive has betrayed America for a psychopath who terrorized our Capitol & purloined our secrets@POTUS thank you. That was one helluva speech
But American politics have never been so clear cut. The framing of Biden as an antifascist, or even a man of the left, is both highly partisan and factually wrong. And pointing this out is by no stretch of the imagination Trump apologia.
Trump is a vile figure, a buffoon who rode to power on, among other things, a wave of hate. No argument there. But reality defies simple interpretations of his replacement.
Biden may be more palatable to an audience of wealthy white liberals than Trump, but he too is a product of the hyper-capitalist, imperialist American body politic. That is to say the politics of a white settler state steeped in, and built on, class and racial violence. And this is reflected in Biden’s policies.
Biden the imperialist
Biden’s foreign policy has continued in a similar vein to his predecessors. His administration has poured billions of dollars in arms into the Ukraine conflict. Despite assurances, he has overseen a continuation of the humanitarian disaster in Yemen. He inherited the Afghan war and oversaw the disastrous retreat from the country in 2022, for which he has been fiercely criticised.
His approach to China also reflects a continuation of US foreign policy. Some foreign policy experts have warned that Biden’s approach will echo the War on Terror with Sinophobia sitting alongside the demonisation of Muslims which became standard in post 9/11 discourse.
Support for Israel remains an unquestionable. In July 2022, Biden restated his commitment to the country and announced himself a Zionist:
The connection between the Israeli people and the American people is bone deep, and generation after generation that connection grows. We invest in each other. We dream together.
Biden the cop
Despite saying he was supportive of Black America, Biden ultimately rejected one of the movement’s key demands: defunding the police. In 2021, Biden pushed for more police numbers. He even suggested billions in emergency funding meant for the pandemic response be used to employ more officers.
In his comments on the topic, he folded cops in with vastly different kinds of public sector and community workers:
It means more police officers, more nurses, more counsellors, more social workers or community violence interrupters to help resolve issues before they escalate into crimes
He also said:
This is not a time to turn our backs on law enforcement or our communities.
On migration – another flashpoint topic under Trump – one US factchecking service claimed in January 2022 that apprehensions at the Mexican border went up 317% under Biden’s first month in office compared to the same period for Trump. The Biden government has also detained ten of thousands of asylum seekers, according to an April 2022 report in The Intercept.
Biden the capitalist
Since coming to power Biden has made some lukewarm criticism of Wall Street. In June 2022, he told an audience of trade unionists that he would not alter any of his economic reforms and vowed to pursue billionaires and firms over taxes:
Our work isn’t done. America still has a choice to make – a choice between a government by the few for the few or a government for all of us, democracy for all of us, an economy where all of us have a fair shot and a chance to earn our place in the economy.
Yet the fact remains Biden, like any US leader, is a Wall Street president to the hilt. He enjoyed $74mn in support from Wall Street leaders during his election run. More, it is estimated, than Trump himself.
His rhetoric over cancelling student loans, which haunt so many educated Americans, have turned out to be hot air. Some of those affected said the amounts being considered in debt forgiveness would barely register:
It cost me $400,000 of debt for the chance to complete my degree. And the interest keeps accruing. $10,000 is a patronisingly small amount for the staggering cost of education in this country.
Same but different
Objectively speaking Biden is preferable to Trump clearly. But that’s doesn’t mean he is good. Not when the bar is so terrifyingly low, as the UK experience will also attest.
Biden sounds better than Trump, true again. And he may not be riding a wave of out-and-out fascism. But the liberal capacity for war, violent policing, and unfettered capitalism is hardly something to get excited about.
The truth is that for those being bombed, starved, incarcerated, or murdered by police, it makes very little difference whether it is a bumbling far-right populist pulling the proverbial trigger, or a slickly packaged but equally bumbling centrist.
The only people who get a kick out it are US Twitter liberals, who can pretend for a moment that politics is a sort of live action roleplaying game in which they, naturally, are the good guys.
ANALYSIS:By Tim Watkin, RNZ Series and podcasts executive producer
It was sometime in the late 1990s that I first interviewed Alan Webster about New Zealand’s part in a global Values Study.
It’s a fascinating snapshot of values in countries all over the world and I still remember seeing America grouped with many developing countries on a spectrum that had most English-speaking, democratic and developed countries grouped at the other end.
It charted belief in angels and other supernatural beings.
It was a lightbulb moment that has always helped me remember how deep religious beliefs run in the US and how socially different it is from most Western, Enlightenment-inspired countries.
Abortion rights will now be decided state by state, with 26 states ready to enact laws that ban abortion, often with no exceptions. That means no abortion even in cases of rape or incest.
It is undoubtedly a landmark moment in US politics and law, the latest step (not the end) in a decades-long campaign by conservative Americans to overturn America’s most controversial and divisive law.
‘Enflamed debate, deepened division’
Writing the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that “far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division”.
He’s right, but the implication that this ruling somehow calms the waters is either deeply naive or deeply cynical. It does nothing more than flip the issue, like the handover of the ball in a football game, with what has been the team on defence now going on attack and vice versa.
And because change in and of itself is fuel for any fire, this only ensures abortion remains THE divisive issue in American politics for, well, who knows how many years to come?
Abortion has divided the country for decades; more so than foreign wars, economic policy and even gun control. It is the answer to so many questions non-Americans have about US politics.
Many around the world have been perplexed by the growing divisions in US politics, the loss of civility, the rise of Trump. There are answers there about the influence of money, taxes, changing demographics and more.
But at the heart of US political polarisation, often unspoken, masked or downplayed, has always been abortion.
One of the most confounding of political mysteries in the past decade was why 84 percent of white evangelicals in 2016 voted for a thrice-married alleged sexual abuser as president and why “character” suddenly fell down their list of voting priorities.
Today’s court decision is the answer.
Evangelicals motivated by abortion
Evangelicals are motivated by abortion more than any other issue and Trump’s commitment to swaying the court against it convinced them to vote for him even when it was against their economic interests and compromised other values.
Many in conservative religious circles in the US compared Trump to King David, arguing that God has long used flawed and corrupt individuals to bring about his will.
That faith has been vindicated today and Trump’s status as a moral hero is enshrined, despite his many other sins.
Such is the strength of belief for or against abortion. Its power to divide is so strong because, seen through different lenses, it is so obviously right or wrong to those on either side of the debate.
It is, to those on either side, obvious that they are right and they are horrified — not just perplexed, but horrified — that anyone might disagree with them.
Those celebrating today’s overturn are celebrating the end of mass murder, because to them the decision to abort a foetus is the decision to take a life. (Others, to be fair, see it as a legal issue, one that is not in the Constitution and so should always have been viewed as a political debate not a constitutional right).
Those weeping over today’s ruling do not see a foetus as a human life and rather see the courts telling a woman what she can do with her body, right to the point of that woman’s life and death.
Matter of life over death
When both sides see their view as a matter of life over death, you can understand the depth of feeling and pain on both sides and that, whatever Alito may be hoping, today’s decision will do nothing to heal America.
What’s more, the impact of today’s ruling on US politics will be deep. Three things stand out:
Reproductive rights will dominate the 2022 mid-term elections and the US presidential elections in 2024. The court has said abortion is not a constitutional right, therefore it is up for grabs politically. Debate over national bans v national rights has already begun. That will mean less political oxygen for pressing political issues such as climate change, China and the Ukraine invasion.
This could be the start of a conservative pendulum swing in US politics, led by the US Supreme Court. Judge Clarence Thomas in his support of the majority opinion suggests the now reliably conservative court could dive further into America’s moral dilemmas, ruling on same-sex marriage and contraception rights.
Perhaps most troubling, it undermines citizens’ faith in their major public institutions. A majority of Americans favour at least some rights to abortion and some gun control. This week the Supreme Court has issued rulings at odds with public opinion on both. At a time when core institutions such as Congress and the media are losing the trust of citizens, adding the courts to that list is a major worry. If the foundations of liberal democracy are not serving the people, then those people start to look for alternatives, the baby can be lost with the bathwater and whole systems of law, order and government can start to look fragile.
These are perilous days for the American project and that has implications for all of us. The’s court ruling is yet another polarising decision in these most polarising times and it’s hard to see where the healing can begin.
Tim Watkin is a founder of political news website Pundit, has a long career in journalism and broadcasting, and now runs the podcast team at RNZ. This article was originally published on Pundit and is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Improved human rights | A chant for Putin | Dame Caroline Haslett | Boycotting P&O
During his trip to Saudi Arabia, Boris Johnson praised the country’s improved human rights record (Boris Johnson upbeat on Saudi oil supply as kingdom executes three more, 16 March). As only three men were executed during his visit there, compared with 81 at the weekend, is that what Johnson means by an improving human rights record? Jim King Birmingham
• During the Vietnam war, when Lyndon B Johnson was US president, demonstrators chanted daily outside the White House: “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” The same question would no doubt be asked of Putin by Russians (Survivors leaving basement of Mariupol theatre after airstrike, say officials, 17 March), if they did not live yet again under a repressive dictatorship. David Winnick London
A Human Rights Watch report found Cameroonian asylum-seekers forcibly flown back home suffered imprisonment, torture and rape
Cameroonian asylum-seekers deported by the Trump administration suffered imprisonment, torture and rape on their return, and many were forced in to hiding or fleeing the country once more, according to a new report.
In the last months of the Trump administration, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) agency stepped up its deportations of African migrants, especially Cameroonians. Over 80 of them were flown to Cameroon in October and November 2020 alone, amid allegations of abuse, in which Ice detainees said they had been forced to sign or fingerprint documents believed to be waivers agreeing to their deportation.
On Russia and Putin, the president said the quiet part loud. Re-engagement has been welcomed but the exit from Afghanistan was a disaster. Analysts see much to do to rebuild US credibility
Joe Biden marked his first anniversary in office with a gaffe over Ukraine that undid weeks of disciplined messaging and diplomatic preparation.
The president’s suggestion that a “minor incursion” by Russia might split Nato over how to respond sent the White House into frantic damage limitation mode.
Critics dismissed the virtual meeting of world leaders as all talk, with no clear benchmarks of what change is needed
Elise Labott is an adjunct professor at American University’s School of International Service
Last week as Joe Biden invited about 110 leaders to a virtual Summit for Democracy, he sounded the alarm over the rising tide of authoritarianism, as well as leading discussion on how to counter democratic backslide. The president admitted the summit was less of a magic bullet than the start of a global conversation on how to stop further democratic rot – an attempt to “seed fertile ground for democracies to bloom around the world”.
Critics dismissed the summit as an ideological (and cynical) ploy to enlist countries in Washington’s strategic competition with China, as well as to appease overseas powers eager to see US leadership on the world stage. Both charges have merit.
Elise Labott is an adjunct professor at American University’s School of International Service and the founder and CEO of Zivvy Media
But concern about motive does not detract from the need to support and strengthen the international protection of human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and the framework of international humanitarian law which followed it were endorsed by almost every nation. The absence of an international police force – a weakness in the structure – increases the need for individual states to share responsibility for enforcement, particularly of international criminal law. The development of a “responsibility to protect”, dismissed by Jenkins, gives legitimacy to necessary humanitarian intervention. Military action should be a last resort, but it cannot be ruled out of every situation where lives are at stake.
But concern about motive does not detract from the need to support and strengthen the international protection of human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and the framework of international humanitarian law which followed it were endorsed by almost every nation. The absence of an international police force – a weakness in the structure – increases the need for individual states to share responsibility for enforcement, particularly of international criminal law. The development of a “responsibility to protect”, dismissed by Jenkins, gives legitimacy to necessary humanitarian intervention. Military action should be a last resort, but it cannot be ruled out of every situation where lives are at stake.
US president Joe Biden recently made the first transfer of a Guantanamo Bay detention center detainee since he entered the White House in January. To be clear, this should be welcomed. Guantanamo Bay has become perhaps the most enduring symbol of the excesses and kneejerk trampling over civil liberties that followed the September 11 attacks.
But we also need to state: this is too little, too late. Biden should not just be releasing all Guantanamo detainees but shutting the place down altogether. Moreover, the failure of former president Barack Obama to shut it down exposes how both major US parties cannot be trusted on civil liberties issues.
First Guantanamo inmate transfer of Biden’s presidency
On the morning of 19 July, the Biden administration transferred the first of the remaining Guantanamo detainees that were left when Biden assumed the presidency. It repatriated Moroccan national Abdul Latif Nasir to his home country. The US Pentagon’s Periodic Review Board had determined that he didn’t pose a significant threat as far back as 2016. However, in an evasive statement the review board claimed that it was unable to repatriate before former US president Barack Obama left office in January 2017.
In 2018, then-president Donald Trump reversed one of Obama’s executive orders that had pledged to shut down Guantanamo. When Biden entered the White House, 40 detainees remained in the detention center. The Biden administration is now indicating that it wants to shut Guantanamo Bay down altogether. Speaking to reporters on 19 July, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said, “we are considering all available avenues to responsibly transfer detainees and, of course, close Guantanamo Bay”.
We need to remain sceptical of the Democrats’ promises
To be sure, this is something to be celebrated. Guantanamo has been at the center of some of the worst human rights violations and trampling over civil liberties that were unleashed in the wake of the so-called ‘War on Terror’. Guantanamo, for example, has held suspects indefinitely without charge in violation of habeas corpus, one of the most central principles of modern law. Habeas corpus gives someone the right to be either be charged with a crime or else be released after a predetermined amount of time. Of the 780 men who have been incarcerated there throughout the years, nine have died while in custody. Some detainees, meanwhile, were subjected to torture, which flagrantly violates under international law.
But the thing is, we’ve heard promises to shut down Guantanamo before from Democratic Party figures. During his campaign for the presidency in 2008, for example, Obama repeatedly promised that he would close the facility and release all remaining detainees. However, in spite of having had two four-year terms to shut it down, Guantanamo remained open when Obama left the White House in January 2017.
Two right-wing parties, with almost equally terrible records
We shouldn’t be surprised, though. Because, as The Canary has argued before, when it comes to civil liberties issues, the US essentially has one center-right party (the Democrats) and one far-right party (the Republicans). And though the former is marginally better (especially when compared to Trump), Democratic administrations have nonetheless presided over some of the worst trampling over civil liberties and human rights in recent memory.
For example, in 2013 the Washington Postreported that the National Security Agency had:
broken privacy rules or overstepped its legal authority thousands of times each year since Congress granted the agency broad new powers in 2008.
Obama’s presidency also saw hundreds of thousands of deportations take place, with figures actually exceeding those of Trump’s first year in office. Obama also increased George W. Bush’s drone assassination program by a factor of ten.
Human rights activists must keep up the pressure
So clearly, as a Democrat who served as vice president under the Obama administration, Biden can hardly be trusted to follow through on his promise to shut down Guantanamo. Because Democrats have reneged on that promise before. And, moreover, their record on civil liberties and human rights more broadly is hardly exemplary, and, indeed, only marginally better than that of their Republican rivals.
Again, the release of any Guantanamo detainee should be welcomed. But activists must keep the pressure on Biden to follow through on his promise to shut the place down, or else that promise might end up turning out to be an empty one just like last time.
Secretary of state takes veiled swipe at Trump administration and says change of approach is ‘in America’s interests’
The United States will speak out about human rights everywhere including in allies and at home, secretary of state Antony Blinken has vowed, turning a page from Donald Trump as he bemoaned deteriorations around the world.
Presenting the state department’s first human rights report under President Joe Biden, the new top US diplomat took some of his most pointed, yet still veiled, swipes at the approach of the Trump administration.
(@NelStamp) 
(@0liviajulianna) 
(@TaraSetmayer) .jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}