Category Archives: Government Oppression

They ask for the freedom of political prisoners on the Island.

TAMPA, Fla. "Patria y Vida" and "Libertad para Cuba" are the two chants you hear from demonstrations for freedom on the island.

"We're here because there's a group of people in Cuba trying to protest pacifically," Ole Cuelar said. "No violence and the government is not allowing them to express themselves."

Cuelar came to Tampa in 2013 and is in a group of hundreds of Cuban-Americans standing up against the communist regime. His brothers and other family members are a few of thousands trying to speak out against President Miguel Diaz-Canel.

"We want a change. We want to be free." Cuelar said. "Cubans want to be free and Cubans need to be free. It's been way too long, over 62 years where our rights are being smashed."

In Cuba, those who want to speak up are being kept at home. Demonstrators here say their family and friends are scared to go out because of military officials on the streets.

"The streets are filled with them," Israel Mendez said. "They are suppressing the people and not letting them leave their homes. That's not right."

Mendez left the island with his family years ago.

That's why this fight for many in the Tampa Bay area is personal, but for everyone, resistance is worth the risk.

"This is not about the U.S. trying to change the system," Danet Rodriguez said. "This is not the U.S. trying to change the mentality of the Cuban people. This is the Cuban people saying that it's enough."

She made it out eight years ago. Her grandmother Felicia is still on the island. Knowing she's still there is emotional.

"I actually know that I'm not going to be able to see my grandma again because of what I'm doing here," Rodriguez said. "I know I'm not going to be able to be in Cuba again, but she knows that what I'm doing is for my people and for the entire country."

Even though her grandmother supports the regime, she says she understands the movement. Cubans here beg their people not to be quiet anymore.

"Don't be scared. Go outside and take the streets. You're not alone," Rodriguez said.

While Cubans keep asking for freedom n the island, those that are here will keep supporting them.

More:

Cuban Americans raise their voice in the fight against oppression and communism - WTSP.com

Donald Trumps longtime adviser Steve Bannon turned himself in to the FBI on Monday after a grand jury indicted him on charges of contempt of Congress last week for refusing to cooperate with a subpoena from a House committees investigation into the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol. Bannon who helped plan the Jan. 6 rally and revved up his vast podcast listenership the day before by saying all hell is going to break loose tomorrow spent about four hours in custody, after which he was released under conditions for check-ins and travel restrictions approved by a federal judge. Hes expected to return to court Thursday.

He turned his surrender into a massive soapbox, during which he framed himself as a victim.

The spectacle of Bannons being taken in by federal authorities excited some people keen to see one of Trumps most influential allies held accountable for flouting the law and possibly facing jail time. But its important to understand that Bannon himself also views this spectacle as politically favorable, as evidenced by his dramatic public statements Monday. He turned his surrender into a massive soapbox, framing himself as a victim and promising to go on offense for having to endure the charges.

Bannons words shouldnt be dismissed as pure showmanship. I would presume he knows he knows he could go to jail and would prefer not to, but its also clear that he and many others in Trumpworld see rebuffing the Jan. 6 investigation as an opportunity to build serious momentum for their authoritarian political project. Their goal isn't just defying the law, but calling its very legitimacy into question.

Bannons heated rhetoric Monday should be a clue to how Bannon sees his defiance of the Houses investigation and its legal consequences as a political weapon. He had his surrender livestreamed on Gettr, the right-wing social media website whose chief executive is a former Trump spokesman.

Were taking down the Biden regime. ... Remember, signal, not noise, Bannon told supporters.

I want you guys to stay focused on message, he said before he entered the FBI office.

After he emerged from court, Bannon was even more defiant. I'm telling you right now, this is going to be the misdemeanor from hell for Merrick Garland, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, he said after his hearing.

Were going to go on the offense on this, and stand by, he added.

Bannons declarations are marked by a kind of grandiosity thats easy to mock. But its not exactly absurd Bannons podcast, which features loads of right-wing influencers, has a loyal following and tens of millions of downloads. Bannon also has a demonstrable ability to mobilize activists on behalf of his project of sabotaging American democracy. An investigation by ProPublica traced an explosion of thousands of new GOP precinct officers to Bannons calls for conservatives who believe the last election was stolen to penetrate the administrative apparatus of the electoral system.

Bannons lawyer has argued that Bannon should not have to comply with the House committee because his conversations are shielded by executive privilege the executive branchs power to claim that the presidents communications with advisers are confidential and protected from Congress and the courts. But that claim is indefensible for numerous reasons, including the facts that Bannon had left the administration when he helped plan Jan. 6 and that plans to subvert the electoral certification process arent government business.

Yet the thrust of Bannon's public arguments on Monday weren't about executive privilege wonkery. Instead, he spoke in sweeping terms about being a victim of the deep state and a martyr for free speech. Not just Trump people and not just conservatives every progressive, every liberal in this country that likes freedom of speech and liberty, should be fighting for this case. That's why I'm here today: for everybody. I'm never going to back down, he said outside court.

Bannon wants to present himself as a freedom fighter, but what is his cause? He is refusing to cooperate in any way with an inquiry into an event that threatened a peaceful transfer of presidential power. He is encouraging people to view that inquiry as oppression, and his noncooperation as a badge of honor. Regardless of what happens to him in this legal fight, hes using friction with the state to call into question the very idea that democracy and rule of law should be respected.

Zeeshan Aleem is a writer and editor for MSNBC Daily. Previously, he worked at Vox, HuffPost and Politico, and he has also been published in The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Nation and elsewhere.

Read the original post:

Steve Bannon's indictment is a gift to his movement - MSNBC

N.C. Asthanas book State Persecution of Minorities and Underprivileged in India contains a highly decorated police officers perception of the working of Indias constitutional system. Most of it is true, unfortunately. But it need not be.

State apparatus always has an element of oppression, irrespective of the form of government. Constitutional democracies are no exception to the rule but are designed to minimise the possibility of such oppression.

The Indian constitution is an elaborate document prepared by a set of visionaries to provide the people of India with a liberal democracy. The powers of the state are distributed among various institutions a design to protect the liberties of the people, through a rational system of governance. The document incorporated some of the best features of other democratic countries.

In practice, what happened to this constitution is the subject matter of Asthanas book.

There are many facets of governance. Asthana chose the facet of criminal law administration one of the most basic functions of any government. Understandably, as a police officer, the author had a ring-side view of the working of criminal law administration.

N.C. AsthanaState Persecution of Minorities and Underprivileged in India2021

The criminal investigation process, which is one of the most basic responsibilities of the state, as rightly pointed out by Asthana, more often than not in this country is anything other than compliance with the rule of law. Police brutality and irrational methods of investigation, highlighted in the book, only demonstrate how ineffective the machinery of the state is even while dealing with crimes unconnected with terrorism and security.

Suppression of dissenting voices by various methods is the notorious practice of all governments, all through human history. The Indian republic is no exception. It took various forms: from preventive detention to registering criminal cases under the charges of sedition, banning political organisations (which are inconvenient for the government of the day) to prosecuting the members of some political organisations under charges of terrorism etc., purportedly to protect the sovereignty and integrity of India.

Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act introduced by the UPA government is an example. Asthana says:

The introduction of the section is a classic example of how irresponsible the business of governances is taken in India and the government of all political leanings have been equally guilty

Perhaps rightly. It is repeatedly being invoked by the successor government.

Whether the existence of such powers in the hands of the state are justified in a constitutional democracy is a debatable question. But such powers do exist in all democracies, including some of the more mature democracies like the UK and US. Guantanamo Bay prison is a glaring example, in recent times.

Also read: From Ayodhya to Hathras, a New Criminal Justice System for Atmanirbhar Bharat

The question is not about the theoretical justification for the existence of such powers. What really endangers the liberty of the people is the frequency with which such powers are pressed into service and against whom such powers are used. The matter then becomes about whether such exercise of powers is eventually found to be justified by the judiciary an organ designed to be an independent institution to hold the legislature and the executive in check.

The role of an independent judiciary, in the memorable words of Justice Jackson in American Communication Vs. Charlies (339 US 385), is:

The task of this Court to maintain a balance between liberty and authority is never done, because new conditions today upset the equilibriums of yesterday. The seesaw between freedom and power makes up most of hte history of governments, which, as Bryce points out, on a long view consists of repeating a painful cycle from anarchy to tyranny and back again. The courts day-to-day task is to reject as false, claims in the name of civil liberty which if granted, would paralyse or impair authority to defend existence of our society, and to reject as false claims in the name of security which would undermine our freedoms and open the way to oppression

Hard cases set up profound examples, both good and bad. If we examine the work of the highest constitutional court in this country, we find Kesavananda Bharati, Maneka Gandhi, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and the like are some of the good examples. A.K. Gopalan, ADM Jabalpur, Kamini Jaiswal are at the other end, just to mention a few of the judgments of the Supreme Court of India. A painful cycle from anarchy to tyranny and back again.

Asthana has collected a huge number of decisions of various constitutional courts which do not qualify to be called good examples of the working of the Indian constitutional system.They indicate the abuse of law and other inadequacies of the system, giving scope for doubting the judiciarys degree of independence. This is particularly true of the judgments dealing with Indians rights and political freedoms.

Another interesting feature of the Indian republic is that the state (either in the legislative or executive branch) always pays lip service to the judicial branch by asserting that they have the highest respect for the judiciary; but they only implement those judgments which are politically not inconvenient to them. Asthanas analysis of the judgment of the Supreme Court on mob violence and strict responsibility is a good example, and the failure of the state to take effective steps to give shape to the principles stated in those judgments makes the story complete.

Not all the judgments of the constitutional courts of this country (or for that matter any democratic republic) are always synonymous with constitutional truth. However, it is said that such passing finality of those judgments is essentially a compromise between order and chaos.

Ultimately, it is for the people to protect their liberties. Institutions, whether constitutional or otherwise, are administered by human beings. The quality of protection offered by the institutions depends upon the quality of respect for the liberty of people, which those who are entrusted with the responsibility of administering those institutions have. After all, they are also human beings and members of the same society.

A critical analysis and periodic audit of the work of institutions functioning under the constitution goes a long way to alert the people and prepare them for the job of protecting their liberty. I congratulate Asthana for the trouble he has taken to critically examine the system and publish his views.

Justice J. Chelameswar is a retired judge of the Supreme Court of India.

Excerpt from:

Book Review: Why It's Important to Audit India's Institutional Failures - The Wire

The Arab people are living in their worst and darkest of times, experiencing an unprecedented level of humiliation and disgrace. The people have never approached their enemies asking for forgiveness and presenting themselves as loyal to the oppressors; nor have they sought to normalise relations with killers who shed their blood. So what happened to the heirs of the best Ummah created for mankind?

What has happened is that rulers who were not from among them were appointed by foreign colonial-occupiers to act as their agents, who then became loyal to the occupiers rather than their own people and the Ummah. They have tortured their people, humiliated them, oppressed them and imposed fascism upon them. The people have been brutalised to please the foreigners, and thus weakened and subjugated into fear and obedience. They could not demand their freedom and independence, so the oppression of these agents labelled as presidents or kings includes giving people material wealth to stop them from overthrowing their rulers, even as they suppress them.

The colonialists were reassured about their property, which they left of their own free will and handed it over to safe pairs of hands; hands that betray their religion, Arabism and the people. Now, those left in charge who long for power in their country know that the gateway through which they must pass is Israel, the openly colonial-occupation state in Palestine.

This particular occupier's agents in the region are the Arab leaders, who have rushed to normalise relations in order to gain the protection of the settler-colonial state against their own people. It is ironic that Israel, which craves normalisation from Arab countries is now spoiled for choice, and able to set conditions for normalisation including a metaphorical certificate of good conduct by the would-be normalisers.

READ: Normalisation is the latest project to eradicate the Palestinian cause

Normalisation is no longer a disgrace to be kept secret by rulers to ensure their survival on their thrones. It is now open, and they are proud of it in front of the world, and thus rewarded by the enemy. It has also become a means of punishment by Israel to reform and discipline the Arab normalisers, rewarding those with which it is happy and threatening others until they turn to the path that Tel Aviv has cleared for them. The normalisation process is all about a carrot and stick, as has been seen in the normalisation between Israel and Sudan. "This is something that will have to evaluate as we and Israel watch very closely," the US State Department is reported to have said about recent events in Khartoum.

Last week, two aircraft landed at two airports in the region. One landed in Tel Aviv and carried the son of the criminal coup leader Khalifa Haftar, who shed the blood of the Libyans and caused havoc and destruction in their country. The other carried the UAE Foreign Minister, Abdullah Bin Zayed, and landed at Damascus Airport. The two men had similar missions.

Haftar's son went to ask the Israelis to help him nominate his father for the presidency of Libya and then win it, with the promise of a blank check for Libya's normalisation with the apartheid state. Bin Zayed went to the butcher Bashar Al-Assad, who has killed hundreds of thousands of Syrians, displaced half of the population, and completely destroyed the country before handing it over to Russia and Iran. It was all to do with normalisation as well, but in an indirect way. Assad's criminal regime is in constant contact with Israel, but in secret ever since the rule of his father, the late Hafez Al-Assad, who Israel brought to power. Assad Senior rewarded the occupation state by selling it the Golan Heights; Israel returned the favour by preserving his regime and his son's after him.

The UAE is taking a lead in promoting normalisation in the region and is considered the exclusive agent of the occupier given its very close relations with Israel and its cooperation on the political, military, economic, cultural and even religious levels. Now it is promoting the "Abrahamic" religion as desired by the Zionist enemy and the US. The foreign minister went to the killer Assad with the message of normalisation in return for him continuing to rule Syria. This was made clear by the then Israeli Minister of Justice, Ayelet Shaked, at the International Institute on Counterterrorism Conference in Tel Aviv in 2017. "Assad," she said, "must keep Iran out [of Syria] if he wants to survive."

At the time that her statement was published by the Israeli newspapers, Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman was visiting Israel secretly. Neither Saudi Arabia nor Israel denied this, but it was leaked by Israel as usual in order to expose Bin Salman and put him on the spot.

It is painful to see Israel become the compass for Arab politicians, and for politicians hoping to govern having to go through Tel Aviv in order to get the occupiers' seal of approval. Obedience and loyalty to the occupation state is the price that they have to pay. It's a tragedy.

READ: Israel's Arab allies have no delusions that it will change its colonial policies

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Read this article:

Israel has become the gateway to government in the Arab world - Middle East Monitor

One hundred and forty nine people, most of them part of the #MeToo movement, recently signed an open letter written by Quebec Justice Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette defending his proposed law (Bill 92) creating a specialized court to supervise and adjudicate sexual and domestic violence cases. The signatories came primarily from the academic community, but also included journalists, Members of Parliament and even a Senator.

These establishment figures have no problem in aligning themselves with the minister most openly associated with the extreme Quebec chauvinism championed by the provinces Coalition Avenir Qubec (CAQ) government. Jolin-Barrette was the author of Bill 21, which bars Muslim women who wear Islamic headscarves from holding certain public sector jobs and women wearing full-face veils from receiving health care and other public services. He is currently piloting through the Quebec legislature Bill 96, legislation that would strip immigrants of the right to communicate with the Quebec government and its agencies in English.

With its support for Bill 92, the #MeToo movement is once again attacking long-established judicial protections for the accused. This campaign, which in many respects echoes the law-and-order rhetoric traditionally associated with the right and far-right, has nothing to do with defending victims of sexual violence or vulnerable women. Rather, it is part of a movement, rooted in the upper-middle class, and supported by much of the nominal liberal-left wing of the political establishment, to promote identity politics and, in the name of ending womens oppression and equity, secure women greater access to top jobs in corporate management, academia and the state.

The publication of the open letter on October 9 followed statements by Quebec Court Chief Justice Lucie Rondeau, including in an interview with the Le Devoir, in which she said that the proposed special court would compromise judicial impartiality and the presumption of innocence.

The judge asserted that the courts must be absolutely independent of other actors in the fight against crime and that by placing the way police officers question complainants under the control of the special court, Bill 92 undermines this principle of judicial independence. Justice Rondeau also mentioned that the very name specialized court in sexual and domestic violence is not compatible with the presumption of innocence since it presumes that the allegation of violence is founded.

This intervention immediately led to an aggressive and, in some respects, hysterical reaction from the #MeToo movement and members of the ruling elite.

The Quebec National Assembly unanimously passed a resolution stating that the creation of a specialized court in sexual and domestic violence was necessary to bring about a cultural change in the justice system.

Laval University law professor Louise Langevin, a specialist in civil law and feminist theories of law with no apparent expertise in criminal law, said that Judge Rondeau's arguments did not hold water and even claimed her intervention constituted an attack on democracy, as the judiciary has no right to interfere with the legislative process.

A signatory of the open letter, documentary filmmaker and comedian Ingrid Falaise, claimed that the Chief Justice's intervention was the equivalent of being told we're not listening to you and, ridiculously, that it was like being raped again.

Also among the signatories of the open letter are Monique Nron and milie Perreault, two journalists who made the documentary La Parfaite Victime (The Perfect Victim), which was highly praised when it was released last summer. It was later revealed that the makers of The Perfect Victim had used erroneous, if not fabricated, statistics to prove their documentarys thesis that it is virtually impossible to convict someone of sexual assault. For example, at one point they claimed statistics showed only 18 percent of complaints of sexual crimes investigated by the police had resulted in criminal charges, when in fact the correct figure in the case cited was about 70 percent. The film also sought to trivialize core legal concepts, as when circus music was played while a lawyer was explaining what reasonable doubt means under criminal law.

A fact completely ignored by the documentarians is that in 2020, while Quebecs #MeToo movement focused all its attention on the acquittals of celebrities Gilbert Rozon and ric Salvail, 89 of the 102 sex crime cases heard in Montreal courts resulted in a conviction, disproving the myth that the justice system is systemically biased in favor of those accused of sexual violence.

#MeToo has championed the claim that those who assert they have been sexually assaulted, having little to no chance at justice in the current legal system, must be taken at their word. This then becomes the springboard for a frontal attack on due process and the presumption of innocence. Those who dont endorse high-profile individuals facing allegations of sexual assault immediately being removed from their positions or who uphold the democratic principle that the veracity of sexual assault allegations need to be legally tested are denounced for not believing or silencing the victims.

Following, last Decembers acquittals of Rozon and Salvail there were numerous calls from #MeToo proponents for reconsideration of the onus of proof in sexual assault cases. A direct attack on the presumption of innocence, this would mean those accused of sexual crimes would have the legal obligation to positively disprove the charges against them to escape conviction. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau himself refused to rule out the possibility of reversing the burden of proof, saying he was ready to listen to the opinions of people who know what they are talking about. (See: Quebecs #MeToo movement denounces the presumption of innocence )

In effect, the #MeToo movement is demanding that long-established judicial protections for the accuseddue process and the right to a fair trial, in which the onus is on the Crown to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubtbe effectively replaced by justice administered via anonymous denunciation on social media, and a legal system with eviscerated protections for those accused of sexual crimes.

The production of the misleading documentary The Perfect Victim is only one of many disgraceful episodes in the evolution of the #MeToo movement. The Dis son nom (Say His Name) page is another striking example. Created in July and August 2020, Say His Name is a list posted online, on Facebook and on Instagram, of people accused of sexual assault. The denunciations are anonymous. Legal proceedings for defamation brought by a man listed on Say His Name revealed that the pages administrators had made no serious attempt to verify the veracity of the allegations. The two administrators of the page had decided, by their own admission, to believe the victims and not to question their heartfelt stories. During the legal proceedings, the administrators of Say his Name deleted two thirds of the 1565 denunciations, presumably because they constituted confirmation of their reckless publishing of unverified accusations.

The anti-democratic demands of the #MeToo movement, which originated in the United States, are finding a sympathetic ear from the ruling class and its political representatives in Canada. The political establishment has been systematically attacking democratic rights for decades with the criminalization of strikes, the suppression of civil liberties in the name of the war on terror and the relentless promotion of militarism.

For the ruling class, the #MeToo movement is also a useful tool to divert attention away from the growing social inequality, hardship and misery produced by class society, toward identity politics based on gender, race, and ethnicity.

Jolin-Barrette and the entire right-wing CAQ government must be pleased with their alliance with the #MeToo movement over the specialized court, since it allows them to give a progressive veneer to a reactionary bill that, if passed, will lay the groundwork for further attacks on democratic rights.

Like all measures that encroach upon judicial guarantees under the pretext of tackling crime or terrorism, the attack on the presumption of innocence will be used against the working class as it comes into opposition with the austerity measures of the ruling elite and its disastrous handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Sign up for the WSWS email newsletter

Read more from the original source:

Quebec's #MeToo movement joins government in attacking the presumption of innocence - WSWS

Jair Bolsonaros Brazil has become known as the worlds biggest renegade when it comes to environmental policy, especially now that Donald Trump has vacated the White House. Under Bolsonaro, Brazils deforestation rates grew to historical peaks. The Amazon is not the only biome under threat of disappearance in one of the worlds most biodiverse countries.

With COP26 happening in Glasgow and so many people expecting tighter commitments to fight climate change, Bolsonaros government is promoting a big marketing strategy to position Brazil at the future of the green economy. In view of its previous record, recent pledges to reduce and even stop deforestation may sound like previous lies and half-truths Bolsonaro has told at United Nations meetings.

Yet there is reason to believe that the new Brazilian environment minister, Joaquim Leite, really intends to implement initiatives for preserving native forests. However, this is not because of authentic environmental concerns. Rather, Leite and the corporate interests he is promoting see an opportunity to make new profits and deflect attention from the measures that are really necessary to fight climate change.

Agribusiness and industry associations have sponsored the Brazilian delegation at COP26. This is not unique to Brazils far-right government. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) thanks its corporate sponsors directly. Corporate officials are present both in official country pavilions and in the negotiations. The business representatives have many shared priorities, but two stand out: lobbying for a carbon-market approach to tackling climate change and indulging in all of the greenwashing that they can get away with.

Brazilian agribusiness, long denounced by social movements for its destruction of nature and oppression of campesino and indigenous communities, wants a share in this strategy. These corporate players want to save their image and profit from the carbon credit system along the way.

COP26 is a crucial moment for climate politics. The conference has discussed critical issues around the revised climate goals, called Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), that countries have submitted, and about sources of climate finance and commitments toward adaptation and mitigation. At COP15, high-income countries promised $100 billion a year in additional climate finance for low-income countries by 2020. However, they have not delivered on this goal, using development aid budgets and loans instead.

This conference is supposed to deliver the rulebook of the Paris Agreement of 2015. It includes Article 6 on the mechanisms of mitigation, finance, and cooperation. The carbon market mechanism promoted by developed countries and the private sector will enable those actors to comply with emissions limits without reducing production and energy consumption. Instead, they can buy excess credits from developing countries to offset emissions or invest in sustainable development projects, such as conservation and reforestation.

This part of the agreement, including the technical issues around reporting, baselines, accreditation, and accountability around net-zero, is the most controversial. It weakens the principles of common but differentiated responsibilities among developed and developing countries based on the historical responsibility of industrialized nations. It also transfers the burden of mitigation to people in developing countries that integrate their forests as global carbon sinks. At the time of writing, it is uncertain if parties will agree on Article 6 this year.

In advance of Glasgow, social movements already expected the consolidation of greenwashing mechanisms and false solutions, private-sector dominance, and controversy around pending issues of the Paris Agreement, especially regarding Article 6 and the proposed carbon market. While the pandemic is partly to blame for unequal access to the conference, it is also due to the cost of travel, accommodation, and living expenses in the UK; the securitization around the event; and the privileged status of the UNFCCC corporate partners and sponsors. This has made COP26 a low point for democratic participation in the history of climate negotiations.

Activists have compared this year to the disastrous failure of COP15 in Copenhagen. They have come together to denounce the exclusion, inaction, and corporate control in the alternative Peoples Summit of the COP26 coalition in Glasgow. On the November 6 Global Day of Action, more than a hundred thousand people marched on the streets of Glasgow, and there were countless demonstrations in other cities and countries.

Corporate science and technology-driven proposals have dominated the space in Glasgow, both physical and discursive, with the main ones being carbon capture, nuclear energy, and nature-based solutions (i.e., forest conservation and tree planting). Nature-based solutions have largely replaced the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) framework. REDD+ emphasized the role of forests as carbon sinks but did not reduce deforestation and often had a negative impact on communities by curtailing their access to land.

Nature-based solutions now include more land and water management activities and seem more appealing to the general public than a complicated acronym. They also strongly appeal to private investors, especially powerful multinational agribusiness firms, allowing them to reach net-zero targets through technology, reforestation, and other compensatory mechanisms rather than through reducing emissions along their supply chains.

Fair practices in the pavilion section of the COPs Blue Zone would mean that country pavilions and private-sector stands were physically, formally, separated. This year, however, corporate dominance strikes the eye as one walks by the Facebook and Bloomberg event spaces next to the areas of the Nordic countries and the UK. Papua New Guineas pavilion is plastered with Ernst & Young advertisements. Industry and agribusiness associations sponsor Brazils.

On top of this, many banners proudly list the official corporate partners of the COP, from IKEA to Land Rover, praising the green leadership of multinationals. Their media campaigns are trying to obscure the fact that they have opposed and avoided rigid emissions limits and socio-environmental standards along their global supply chains.

In line with the net-zero discourse, under British leadership, COP26 started with a spectacular promotion of forest protection. On the second day of the two-week-long negotiations, more than a hundred national leaders, including those of Brazil, Canada, Russia, Indonesia, the United States, and the UK, signed a forest agreement pledging to halt and reverse deforestation and forest degradation 2030.

With the Amazon, which is considered the worlds biggest carbon sink, Brazil has significant leverage in negotiations on forests. Until the coup in 2016 that removed Workers Party (PT) president Dilma Rousseff, the Brazilian negotiation team has rejected the inclusion of forests in carbon markets and the issuance of carbon credits for donors. Instead, the Amazon Fund proposed a national model. But the Michel Temer government that replaced the PT began scrapping environmental regulation and Bolsonaro has carried on down the same path.

Bolsonaros government has restructured and slashed funding for the bodies that carry out environmental inspections and issue fines or licenses. It has appointed new leaderships at the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA), the National Institute for Space Research (INPE), and the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio). The government also effectively stopped the demarcation of indigenous lands and the implementation of agrarian reform. The recently signed forest agreement conflicts with Bolsonaros plan to allow mining in indigenous areas, yet it fits in with other objectives of his administration.

Corporations have been successfully pushing the Bolsonaro government to present their desired stance on Article 6 at COP26. A large group of business leaders sent a letter urging the government to open up to carbon markets. Since Bolsonaro started his work of environmental deregulation, private companies have scaled up investment in the green and digital revolutions. They have been allocating capital for building waterways and other infrastructure, developing a patent market, and promoting agricultural technologies.

On the surface, the Bolsonaro government may have lost credibility after its disputes with long-time partners such as Norway and Germany, the donors of the Amazon Fund. In addition, there are at least three cases against the Brazilian government at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, accusing it of eco-genocide and encouraging mining and invasion of indigenous territories.

However, Brazils recent domestic conservation initiatives are in tune with the international corporate push for carbon markets. Since 2019, the government has implemented several policies to privatize conservation in Brazil.

The Adopt a Park program launched in 2021 has enlisted multinationals like Coca-Cola, Carrefour, and Heineken to adopt conservation areas and even quilombola territory (communities originally founded by escaped slaves, whose status is recognized under the Brazilian constitution). In a similar fashion, the Nature Parks Concession Structuring Program of Brazils development bank (BNDES) is directed at private-sector green interests. Finally, the most recent Floresta+ program consolidates Brazils environmental services market.

These projects connect the previous minister of the environment, Ricardo Salles, to his successor, Joaquim Leite. The former was perceived as a climate denialist, whereas the mainstream media has praised the latter as being more moderate, and for his promises of ambientalismo de resultado an environmentalism that delivers. The approaches followed by Salles and Leite are, however, two arms of the same anti-ecological strategy from a government that continues to attack territorial rights and indigenous, traditional, and landless workers movements.

Lawmakers from Brazils major parties have been discussing a domestic carbon market regulation proposed by congressman Marcelo Ramos from Amazonas state. So far, the left Socialism and Liberty Party (PSOL) party seems to be the only one that is wholly opposed to this bill and similar ones that will be decided upon in the days and weeks to come.

Brazils state governors, especially in the Amazon, also promote forest offsets and have created the consortium Green Brazil to push their agenda within Brazil and at COP. Policymakers and the business community are presenting this as the best way to halt deforestation and compensate for emissions in the energy and agribusiness sector without curbing their expansion.

The governments privatization agenda directly caters to big business, and it has been accompanied by a dangerous process of militarizing environmental control through presidential decrees, such as the Law and Order Guarantee (GLO), that have increased the power of Brazils armed forces. At the same time, the government has tried to shut down resistance from civil society by eliminating bodies such as the Amazon Fund Orientation Committee and by criminalizing social and environmental NGOs and activists.

Fossil capital has promoted and funded climate denialism for many years, in a bid to keep the dirty fuel industry running for as long as possible. But such denialism is not the only strategy available in capitalist economies. As public consciousness about the climate crisis grows, business needs to adapt. Many sectors also understand that climate change presents an investment risk. Asset managers and green fund specialists at COP26 are keen to show that it may no longer suffice merely to look green to please ones customers.

Whereas climate denialism functions to dismantle environmental policies and to ease the path of particularly destructive operations, the economic strategy of far-right governments such as Bolsonaros is dictated first and foremost by market pressures to deregulate while creating new frameworks for profit. In the case of Brazil, this means that higher rates of deforestation go hand in hand with approaches to conservation that reduce forests to carbon stocks and offer agribusiness a chance to profit by selling off credits in the carbon market.

In a situation where people are worried about the future of their forests, to go from no forest at all to commodified forests does not seem like too bad of a deal. At least, this is how the Brazilian mainstream media has promoted it, leading people to believe that the transition from Ricardo Salles to Joaquim Leite was a qualitative one, replacing a hardcore denialist with a pragmatic minister.

It shows the effectiveness of combining climate denialism with green capitalist proposals. Since denialism is so easily shocking, green capitalism can come and save the day with carbon markets and sustainable development funds, and by overstating the power of carbon-capture technologies and blockchain applications. In the end, both amount to two variations on the same underlying strategy, which aims to distract people from the need to radically cut greenhouse gas emissions and restructure society in the process.

This is why our response to denialism cannot end with calls to believe the science. While a handful of people may actually believe that climate change is a hoax, those most active in promoting such conspiracy theories have known all about the science for a long time sometimes longer than most of us. Corporations that formally accept the scientific data are promoting a different kind of denialism: one that rejects the necessary solutions, which would involve dismantling their entire operations.

False solutions work as a convenient remedy for those worried about denialism. They give the impression that negotiations are moving forward and that even governments like Bolsonaros can change. The carbon market projects and commodified forests promoted by this far-right government are definitely not what is needed to fight climate change. Such proposals merely allow agribusiness to profit and cultivate a greener image after centuries of destruction, dispossession, and murder.

See original here:

Brazil's Far-Right Government Is Using COP26 to Greenwash Its Image - Jacobin magazine

For many Australians, their first-hand experience with the military is the welcome sight of the Australian Defence Force assisting our community in times of drought, flood and fire. It is unimaginable for most Australians that in 2021, a nations military would embark on an overt campaign of widespread oppression, arbitrary arrest and use lethal force in an effort to control their own citizens.

Largely absent from our daily news, this is what is happening to the people of Myanmar, whose crime was to vote overwhelmingly in favour of democracy, at a general election on 15 November 2020.

Myanmars military the Tatmadaw used trumped-up charges of electoral fraud to justify a coup detat and reimpose an autocratic dictatorship on the nation. It is widely reported the Tatmadaw feared a democratic government would undermine military control of the lucrative business conglomerates that have long corrupted their conduct. The United Nations reported in 2019 that the revenue and influence from this network of conglomerate-owned businesses and affiliates, enrich the Tatmadaw leadership and insulate them from accountability and oversight.

In response to the coup, a sustained civil disobedience movement has grown. In the days, weeks and months since the military seized control, a broad swathe of the population, from all walks of life, have put their lives, their livelihoods, and their freedom at risk to defend their democracy. The Tatmadaw have carried out thousands of arbitrary arrests against people exercising their rights to freedom of assembly and expression. They have tortured innocent civilians and have used live ammunition to disperse protestors, killing hundreds and prompting some to join armed resistance movements.

If, however, the air-attacks continue or indeed increase under Operation Anawrahta, Australia should work with urgency to advocate with ASEAN and others for a no-fly zone or at least an enforceable embargo on the provision of jet fuel to be authorised by the UN Security Council.

The coup has also resulted in a humanitarian crisis and reversed the significant development gains Myanmar had made in previous years. The economic downturn and massive displacement of people has compounded the impact of Covid-19, and the threat of drought and famine. The UN estimates around three million people are in need of direct humanitarian assistance. This is a three-fold increase since the coup. Additionally, nearly half of the countrys population is living below the poverty line a poverty rate not seen in 20 years.

As the monsoon season ends, the Tatmadaw are reported to be preparing for war against their own people. Infantry battalions, mechanised units, armoured vehicles and aircraft are being pre-positioned at forward operating bases around the country in preparation for Operation Anawrahta. Observers expect the Tatmadaw to target fellow citizens in clearance operations.

There is a clear national interest for Australia in the cessation of violence and the restoration of democracy, which would contribute to a more stable region governed by the rule of law. Australia has supported multilateral efforts to restore peace, including Association of Southeast Asian Nations-led initiatives such as the Five-Point Consensus and its decision to block the Tatmadaw leader from attending ASEAN meetings. However, to date, there has been little meaningful progress for people on the ground.

Further unilateral measures will soon be a viable option for Australia. In response to a report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, the government will introduce legislation to adopt a Magnitsky-style autonomous sanctions regime. Once approved by the parliament, these targeted sanctions powers should be exercised by the Foreign Minister, as a priority, to impose travel restrictions, freeze assets and restrict trade with the Tatmadaw leadership and their commercial interests. Coordinated with like-minded partners, these sanctions will have some impact, but are unlikely to prevent further atrocities from being committed.

For the people of Myanmar, diplomacy appears to have been ineffective to date. Recourse to the UN Responsibility to Protect may be the only viable course, albeit, the difficulties in obtaining Security Council authorisation cannot be underestimated. Russia and China have already blocked attempts to condemn the coup and they remain two of Myanmars biggest arms suppliers. That difficulty, however, should not stop Australia working to mobilise the international community.

On 18 June this year the international community voted at the UN General Assembly for a non-binding resolution, indicating its in-principle support for an arms embargo on Myanmar. While the Tatmadaw controlled conglomerates manufacture most of their small arms and ammunition, the raw materials are imported, as are many other weapons systems, including armoured vehicles, aircraft and helicopters.

Australia should continue working with ASEAN, other groups and nations towards UN authorised, enforceable sanctions on the sale of arms and dual-use technologies to the Tatmadaw. Where evidence is available, Australia could also use its new targeted sanctions powers against third parties who continue to supply the Tatmadaw with arms and dual-use technologies.

Finally, as a former military pilot I am aware of the overwhelming advantage that uncontested air power provides a combatant. The Tatmadaw which operates the joint China/Pakistan JF-17, the Russian MiG-29 and Mi-35 helicopter gunship among others, has employed modern airpower against civilian targets.

In April, Myanmars UN representative (appointed by the previous democratically elected government of State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi), called for a no-fly zone to prevent the Tatmadaw from killing the people of Myanmar. Hopefully international pressure and an arms embargo will lead to effective negotiations and a cessation of the violence and oppression. If, however, the air-attacks continue or indeed increase under Operation Anawrahta, Australia should work with urgency to advocate with ASEAN and others for a no-fly zone or at least an enforceable embargo on the provision of jet fuel to be authorised by the UN Security Council.

The possibility remains that Russia or China, even with the eyes of the world on them, may choose to exercise a veto at the UNSC. The operational challenges of agreeing and implementing measures such as an embargo or a no-fly zone are immense. Neither of these challenges, however, is a reason to refrain from actively seeking collaboration from people of goodwill from around the globe to protect the citizens of Myanmar. As Edmund Burke said in 1770, When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.

Senator the Hon David Fawcett is chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and a Liberal Senator for South Australia.

See the rest here:

Myanmar: Totalitarian terror shouldn't fly on our watch - The Interpreter

By Heather Iliff

The writer is president and CEO of Maryland Nonprofits.

Maryland has a $2.5 billion surplus, and projections for future revenues are up another $1.5 billion all because many sectors of our economy did better than expected. State revenues did well because most of the pain felt and most of the jobs lost during COVID were among those with lower incomes.

The businesses and individuals who did well benefitted from the more than 290,000 nonprofit workers who kept our most vulnerable residents safe, fed, housed and treated if they fell sick, and comforted when their loved ones died.

Now they and the helpers need help. Front line workers in all sectors got lauded as heroes but they didnt get lifted out of poverty despite working 40 or more hours, often in multiple jobs with no benefits. Now we can no longer say our economy cant afford to pay people a living wage. We cant claim we must save the money for a rainy day.

For Marylanders who are suffering, its raining now. Its a downpour.

Maryland Nonprofits is calling on Marylands government leaders to devote at least $1 billion of the surplus for services and assistance to Marylanders still in need.

In the caring professions direct care professionals, nursing assistants, people who support seniors and people with disabilities, those who care for abused and neglected children are themselves hard hit by COVID-19.

This predominantly female, Black and Latino workforce is getting pummeled during COVID. We see them skip meals and triage late fees on bills that are piling up while they triage cases of people they are serving. This is fundamentally not fair, and Maryland can and should make good on its responsibility to pay people a living wage and fair benefits.

Nonprofit staff are exhausted with extended long hours because of increased demands for services and staff vacancies. Why cant we just raise wages?

Because our government contracts dont cover even the basic costs of services. Other sources of funds are not even close to making up the difference. Individual contributions are shrinking, and corporate funding makes up only 2% of nonprofit revenue, despite record corporate profits.

Not only are nonprofits underfunded, theyre drowning in unnecessary regulation. Government contracts and grants come with so much red tape that nonprofits must pay more for professional grant writers, finance staff and compliance officers, stealing time and money from the people we are serving.

The Paycheck Protection Program application, designed for business relief, was just two pages long. So, a simpler system is possible. Applications that nonprofits must complete can run hundreds of pages to meet government requirements. Even after we jump through all these hoops, it can take months for governments to deliver payments: in some cases, more than a year late. Excessive paperwork neither prevents fraud nor helps the people the voters intended to help.

Now is the time to give back to a charitable sector under serious strain. Seventy-nine percent of nonprofits lost fee-for-service revenue and 40% never got the PPP or any COVID-19 relief. We cant keep doing more for less in a state that experienced literal booms in swimming pools, yachts and luxury real estate during COVID.

A strong economy should be a fair economy. Where some see a labor shortage, we see a shortage of fair wages. Where some see immigrants as a burden, we see the largest growth in new workers and new businesses adding vibrancy to our economy.

Where some see blighted neighborhoods, we see people doing their best to survive in a system stacked against them. For decades, the federal government would not insure mortgages in predominantly Black neighborhoods (a red line was drawn on the map) while it was subsidizing white people buying homes in the suburbs.

Todays redlining in the height of the pandemic comes in the form of low home value in majority Black neighborhoods, predatory lending, a biased credit scoring system, evictions and steep, often insurmountable paperwork requirements for rental relief.

Nonprofits are a non-governmental way to break down these systems of oppression, through programs that help people upgrade their job skills, repair and refurbish homes, build and run recreational centers for youth, and so much more.

A $1 billion minimum investment in services to communities, families and individuals, and wages for direct care workers will provide immediate relief and will be a down payment on our commitment to just and equitable incomes for those that are carrying the heaviest burdens.

See the rest here:

Opinion: Front Line Workers Who Got Us Through the Pandemic Deserve Relief Maryland Matters - Josh Kurtz

Qatar's foreign policy has been described by many as "maverick". Unlike most countries in the region which have at best been regarded as client states, Qatar has demonstrated a confident and pragmatic foreign policy in its dealings with powerful Western governments, including the US.

When Qatar decided to support the Arab Spring anti-government protests across the region, it did so knowing that it was likely to invite a political backlash. It has been accused by most regional countries of using its financial resources and Doha-based Al Jazeera Media Network to promote instability in the region.

During the Arab Spring, Qatar moved away from its traditional foreign policy role as a diplomatic mediator to embrace change in the Middle East and North Africa in support of transitioning states. Regional actors viewed Qatar's approach as overreaching, and scepticism about its motives increased. The first indication of such a backlash came in 2013.

OPINION: The US strategic shift in the Middle East

In a rare public spat that highlighted deep political divisions in the Gulf, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the UAE withdrew their ambassadors from Qatar in protest at Doha's alleged interference in their internal affairs. Political relations between Qatar and its neighbours were suspended in 2017. The Saudis, Emiratis, Bahrainis, and Egyptians cut all ties with Doha, and imposed a sea, land and air blockade, claiming that it supported "terrorism" and was too close to Iran.

The blockade did not stop Qatar's engagement through its foreign policy. It went on to rebuff normalisation with Israel amidst the occupation state's continued oppression of the Palestinians, for whom it has intensified its support instead. Indeed, Qatar is unlikely to normalise relations unless the conflict with the Palestinians has been resolved, according to Foreign Minister Mohammad Bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani. The country has forged ahead with its projects in occupied Palestine, providing millions of dollars in aid. It has resumed its distribution of aid in the besieged Gaza Strip for the first time since the Israeli offensive in May. According to the Hamas-run government's official news agency, the money is being disbursed through supermarkets, money exchange dealers, and other retailers in a process that will continue during the coming days. The office of Qatar's Gaza envoy, Mohammed El-Amadi, confirmed on Wednesday that the payments had restarted. The UN said that the funding amounts to $40 million.

Importantly, what continues to demonstrate Qatar's pragmatic foreign policy has been its ability to maintain the balance of power in the region. It is host to the largest US military base in the region at Al Udeid Air Base. At the same time, a contingent of Taliban leaders has been in Qatar since the establishment of the movement's embassy in Doha.

According to a local political activist, "This is perhaps the most complicated and puzzling nature of Qatar's foreign policy. How do you explain that two warring parties could be hosted and continue to reside in a third country in relative harmony?" Qatar opened the embassy of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in Doha in 2013 despite an adverse global attitude towards the Taliban. It funded the movement and began the process of its political integration into mainstream politics. This was happening at the height of hostilities between Taliban fighters and US troops in Afghanistan. It was a pragmatic long-term vision which changed Qatar's status from a tiny state into a significant global power broker.

OPINION: The Middle East is in desperate need of geopolitical recalibration, maybe it's underway

The recent announcement by US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken that Qatar is going to be a "protecting power" of the US in Afghanistan is undoubtedly a vote of confidence for the Gulf State's foreign policy. According to Reuters, the agreement was signed at a US State Department ceremony.

Qatar will also provide all consular services on behalf of the US in Afghanistan. It is perhaps the closest relations that any country has ever established with America. This is indeed good news for the government in Doha as it adds the US to its close allies alongside more pragmatism Turkey, and Iran. When the blockade was imposed in 2017, it was Ankara and Tehran that came to the rescue, sending tons of food to Qatar overnight. Now its strategic position will enable Qatar to play an important political and diplomatic role as it looks beyond the region. Its new role in Afghanistan could just be the beginning.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

See the rest here:

Qatar gets the ultimate vote of confidence from the US for its pragmatic foreign policy - Middle East Monitor

He began with a minute of silence for the souls of the martyrs, then the co-chair of the Civil Council in Tabqa, Sefin Hammou, welcomed the attendees.

The co-chair of the Executive Council in Tabqa, Hind Al-Ali, touched on the latest developments in the region, especially the special methods of war pursued by some agendas, especially the Damascus government to shake confidence between the Autonomous Administration and the people, especially with regard to handing over areas to the Damascus government.

Hind Al-Ali confirmed that the reason for prolonging the life of the Syrian crisis is the intransigence of the Damascus government, its rejection of dialogue and its attempt to impose its conditions, and this is what the Autonomous Administration does not accept.

Hind stressed, "We are with the unity of the Syrian territories, but we reject the central mentality, and one of our priorities is also to expel the Turkish occupier from all Syrian lands."

She added, "When the Syrian regime abandoned these areas to ISIS, the Syrian Democratic Forces, which were formed from the people of the region, came to rid the people of the oppression and terrorism of ISIS, and we tell them we will not retreat or surrender, because these lands were liberated with the blood of our martyrs who gave their most precious possessions, which is their lives, and we will not deviate from the path they set."

In turn, the co-chair of the Defense Office in the Tabqa area, Hakki Muhammad, said, "Our military forces are present and will not take a step back, and we have liberated these areas from the largest terrorist organization in the world, and we will not surrender."

"The rumors that have emerged in the recent period are aimed at destabilizing security and stability in the region, but they will not work with the presence of our conscious and educated people, and the presence of our military forces that believe in the blood that their comrades provided to liberate these areas," said Hakki Hammou.

In turn, the head of the Tabqa sub-district in the Future Syria Party, Yasser Al-Kurdi, stressed, "We, as a political party, always call on the Damascus government to sit at the dialogue table, the Syrian-Syrian dialogue that will save all Syrian regions from this crisis and solve all problems and crises, but it always rejects this dialogue."

In conclusion, the discussion was opened to the audience for discussion.

It is worth mentioning that the Civil Administration organized similar meetings today in the western countryside of Tabqa in the village of Al-Bu Asi and in the northern countryside of the town of Al-Jarniyah.

A

ANHA

See more here:

Tabqa Civil Administration refutes rumors of handing over areas to Damascus government - ANHA