While poor maternal outcomes among Black women in the U.S. is not new, improving it is imperative. U.S. policymakers can look to sub-Saharan Africa for guidance on reversing this trend. Credit: Ernest Ankomah/IPS

By Ifeanyi Nsofor
ABUJA, Jun 2 2023 (IPS)

New research shows that Black mothers in the United States disproportionately live in counties with higher maternal vulnerability and face greater risk of preterm death for the fetus, greater risk of low birth weight for a baby, and a higher number of maternal deaths.

While poor maternal outcomes among Black women in the U.S. is not new, improving it is imperative. U.S. policymakers can look to sub-Saharan Africa for guidance on reversing this trend.

The problem of poor maternal health for Black women in the U.S. is dire. Too many Black women die during pregnancy and childbirth due to preventable causes. For instance, the 2020 maternal mortality data rates released by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control showed overwhelming maternal deaths among Black women compared to other women over a 3-year period (2018 – 2020).

The 2020 maternal mortality data rates released by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control showed overwhelming maternal deaths among Black women compared to other women over a 3-year period (2018 - 2020). To put it in context, maternal deaths among Black women in the U.S. is worse than African countries like Namibia, Botswana, South Africa, Libya, Tunisia and Egypt.

To put it in context, maternal deaths among Black women in the U.S. is worse than African countries like Namibia, Botswana, South Africa, Libya, Tunisia and Egypt.

Further, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, maternal and infant health disparities are symptoms of broader underlying social and economic inequities that are rooted in racism and discrimination.

In a previous piece, I wrote about the way that institutionalized racism is keeping Black Americans sick. Therefore, healthcare providers and policymakers across the U.S. must ensure respectful maternity care for all women during pregnancy, childbirth and afterwards.

The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights says respectful maternity care“encompasses respect for women’s basic human rights, including recognition of and support for women’s autonomy, dignity, feelings, choices, and preferences, such as choice of companionship wherever possible”.

Unfortunately, there is overwhelming evidence that Black American women face disrespect and profound indignity during pregnancy and childbirth. Tennis player and businesswoman Serena Williams almost died due to blood clots after giving birth because her nurse refused to listen to her cry for help. That clot could have led to a stroke. Her doctor eventually listened to her, and this saved her. If one of the most influential and most powerful women can have such a near-death experience, what is the fate of other Black American women who are not as privileged? Respectful maternity care is a way to ensure equity irrespective of class and race.

These are three lessons American policymakers can learn from successful maternal health projects across countries in sub-Saharan Africa as they try to save Black American lives.

First, is the continuum of care – prevention of postpartum hemorrhage project, implemented by Pathfinder International in Nigeria. It was a novel project that deployed several evidence-based interventions to prevent excessive bleeding after childbirth across the country.

These included the use of misoprostol to ensure adequate uterine contraction after the delivery of the baby; use of a plastic sheet with a pouch for blood loss estimation and active management of the third stage of labor to ensure the placenta is properly separated after the baby is delivered. These interventions led to a reduction in women who bled excessively after childbirth and improved the overall survival of women in participating health facilities.

For example, a new study on the efficacy of the plastic sheet carried out in 80 hospitals across 4 African countries, showed a reduction in the number of women experiencing severe bleeding by 60%.

A second example is the maternal nutrition program, implemented by Garden Health International in Rwanda. Adequate nutrition during pregnancy is imperative for the wellbeing of the unborn child.

The first 1000 days of life are even more crucial. Through the Maternal Nutrition curriculum, pregnant women are encouraged to attend antenatal classes at least four times in health facilities where they are educated on how to address the factors that can contribute to malnutrition. Women are taught how to prepare a balanced meal, the importance of hygiene and food safety in preventing malnutrition, the importance of the timely introduction of breastfeeding and complementary feeding, and postnatal care.

For instance, through the “one pot, one hour” cooking initiative, families are taught to use readily available foods to prepare nutritious meals is a core component of this program. Its success led to its adoption by the Rwandan Ministry of Health and it was implemented by 44,000 community health workers across the country.

A last example is the Kangaroo Mother Care for very low birth weight infants in South Africa. Very low birth weight infants are prone to hypothermia – a significant and potentially dangerous drop in body temperature.

According to the WHO, Kangaroo Mother Care involves infants being carried, usually by the mother, with skin-to-skin contact. If the mother is unable to fulfill the role, the father or other members of the family can take on the responsibility of skin-to-skin contact and provide warmth for the infant. A study of Kangaroo mother care of 981 very low birth weight infants admitted at Charlotte Maxeke Johannesburg Academic Hospital over a six-year period showed increased weight gain, lower rates of complications of prematurity and low overall mortality.

A multi-country study by the World Health Organization showed that in Ethiopia, government leadership; an understanding by health workers that kangaroo mother care is the standard of care; and acceptance of the practice from women and families helped improve the implementation of kangaroo mother care.

Institutionalized racism over many decades has put Black Americans in the most vulnerable counties in the U.S. Health policymakers, healthcare providers, donors, non-profit organisations and all stakeholders involved in maternal healthcare in the U.S. must implement interventions that are shown to save lives. The African continent is a great place to look.

Dr. Ifeanyi M. Nsofor, MBBS, MCommH (Liverpool) is Senior New Voices Fellow at the Aspen Institute, Senior Atlantic Fellow for Health Equity at George Washington University, 2006 Ford Foundation International Fellow

Grow Food, not Tobacco. Credit: PAHO
 
On May 31, the World Health Organization (WHO) and public health institutions celebrated “World No Tobacco Day” (WNTD). This year’s theme was: “We need food, not tobacco”. WNTD was created by WHO Member States in 1987 to raise awareness about the harmful effects of tobacco use and exposure to tobacco smoke

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 1 2023 (IPS)

The US has some of the strictest laws against smoking in public, including a 1997 executive order which bans smoking in all government federal buildings.

But still, the tobacco industry and its allies do not rest, says Dr. Jarbas Barbosa, Director of the Washington-based Pan American Health Organization (PAHO).

Currently, they “spread a lot of misleading information that promotes, especially among young people, the use of e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products”, he said, on the eve of World No Tobacco Day May 31.

According to PAHO, while the percentage of the population using tobacco in the Americas declined from 28% to 16.3% between 2000 and 2020, novel products and misleading information from the tobacco industry, especially targeting young people, threaten to undo those gains.

“Although eight countries in the region have banned the marketing of e-cigarettes and four of heated tobacco products, we are concerned that 14 countries have not yet taken any regulatory action in this regard,” he pointed out.

According to the latest statistics from PAHO, tobacco-use kills one million people per year in the Americas, one every 34 seconds.

In addition, 15% of cardiovascular disease deaths, 24% deaths from cancer and 45% of deaths from chronic respiratory diseases are attributable to tobacco use. In the region, 11% of young people use tobacco.

E-cigarettes are the most common form of electronic nicotine delivery. Their emissions contain nicotine and other toxic substances that are harmful to both users and those exposed to them.

To address the growing health threat posed by these products, the PAHO Director has called on countries to implement policies to prevent their use, especially among young people, as they can become the gateway to regular tobacco consumption.

Mary Assunta, Senior Policy Advisor, Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance, told IPS about 40 countries in the world have banned e-cigarettes while 70 countries which allow them have instituted restrictions on sales. For example, 36 countries regulate the amount (concentration/volume) of nicotine in e-liquids.

She said New Zealand, the Philippines and England, where e-cigarettes are sold more as recreational products, are facing a big problem with teenage vapers.

The Australian government has just announced a slew of strong measures to strictly regulate e-cigarettes after misinformation on the health effects of vaping helped hook children and young people.

E-cigarettes are meant to be sold by prescription only in Australia, said Assunta.

Yolonda Richardson, Executive Vice President of the Washington-based, Global Programs of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said this World No Tobacco Day, the WHO is calling for action against the tobacco industry’s human and environmental toll.

“Harming human and environmental health is pivotal to the business model of multinational tobacco companies like Philip Morris International and British American Tobacco. Millions of people die every year due to Big Tobacco’s profit-over-people model”.

She said low- and middle-income countries increasingly feel this burden, with 80 percent of tobacco-related deaths from diseases such as cancer, lung disease and heart disease projected to be in such countries by 2030. And the tobacco industry traps farmers with unsustainable crops and appropriates arable land to grow tobacco used for deadly products.

On this year’s World No Tobacco Day, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids joins the WHO in calling on governments to stand up to the tobacco industry’s exploitative practices and the devastating impacts of its deadly products.

One in 10 adult deaths around the globe are due to tobacco use. By holding the industry accountable and through the implementation of proven tobacco control measures, we have the power to protect future generations from tobacco-related death and disease, she noted.

“It is critical that governments act with urgency to address tobacco’s burden by passing the proven tobacco control interventions contained in the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control,” said Richardson.

Without urgent action, tobacco use will kill one billion people this century, lock tobacco farmers into a lifetime of poverty, and cause continued harm to the environment, she declared.

The United Nations which banned smoking in its 38-storyed Secretariat building in New York, back in 2016, says smoking is one of the biggest public health threats in the world today, killing millions of people from lung cancer, heart disease and other diseases.

All delegates, staffers and visitors to UN Headquarters are reminded of the strict no smoking policy mandated by the General Assembly in its resolution A/RES/63/8 and stipulated in ST/SGB/2003/9.　

A designated exterior smoking area is available in the South Garden and signs showing the shortest route from the Secretariat lobby and the General Assembly and Conference Building main areas have been posted.　

Since the entry into force of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) in 2005, says PAHO, the region has made great strides in tobacco prevention and control. Currently, 96% of the population in 35 countries in the region is protected by at least one of the six recommended tobacco control measures.

In 2020, South America became the first 100% smoke-free sub-region – where there is a total ban on smoking in enclosed public places and workplaces, and on public transport.

Mexico also adopted the 100% smoke-free environment policy by the end of 2021 and banned all forms of tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. As a result, 63% of the population of the Americas – or more than 600 million people – are now protected from exposure to tobacco smoke.

In addition, in 2022, Paraguay ratified the Protocol to Eliminate the Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products, which will boost regional efforts in this area.

“These achievements allow us to be confident that the region of the Americas will reach the target of a 30% reduction in the prevalence of tobacco use in those over 15 years of age by 2025, established in the WHO’s Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases,” Dr. Barbosa said.

But to expedite progress, the PAHO Director considered it “urgent to accelerate efforts to implement key measures that have fallen behind, including tax increases, a total ban on the advertising, promotion and sponsorship of tobacco-products, and the adoption of mechanisms to manage conflicts of interest.”

LINKS:
• World No Tobacco Day – May 31, 2023
• WHO urges governments to stop subsidizing life-threatening tobacco crops
• Tobacco Control – PAHO
• Tobacco: E-cigarettes
• WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
• Report on Tobacco Control in the Region of the Americas 2022 (In Spanish)

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

In 2021, an estimated 1.13 million people unlawfully migrated to America and during fiscal year 2022 more than 1.6 million migrants were apprehended illegally crossing the border. Credit: Shutterstock.

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, May 3 2023 (IPS)

Approximately 225 million people from around the world would like to migrate permanently to the United States. But given America’s current policies, relatively few of them will be able to do so legally.

In 2021 the number of persons who obtained lawful resident status in the United States was 740 thousand. Also, based on past trends, population projections of the U.S. Census Bureau for the coming four decades estimate an annual addition of approximately 1.1 million legal immigrants to America’s population.

Consequently, millions of men, women and children wanting to emigrate to America but unable to do so legally are resorting to illegal immigration. In 2021, an estimated 1.13 million people unlawfully migrated to America and during fiscal year 2022 more than 1.6 million migrants were apprehended illegally crossing the border.

In addition, many illegal migrants are willing to risk their personal safety and lives to reach America. During the past twelve months, no less than 853 migrants died trying to reach America from Mexico, making fiscal year 2022 the deadliest year for unauthorized migrants recorded by the U.S. government.

Furthermore, over the past fifteen years the number of children encountered by Border Patrol officers at the southern border has grown enormously. Since fiscal year 2008, the number of apprehensions of unaccompanied children has increased seventeen-fold, reaching a total of nearly 622 thousand.

Approximately 97 percent of the unaccompanied children come from four countries: Guatemala (32 percent), Honduras (28 percent), Mexico (21 percent) and El Salvador (16 percent). Also, between 2008 and 2019, the number of both unaccompanied and accompanied children apprehended at the southern border, reaching an overall total of 1.35 million, has risen five-fold (Figure 1).

Source: TRAC Syracuse University.

On May 11, the administration is expected to end the Title 42 COVID-19 pandemic policy. That policy, which was relied on extensively by the previous administration, allowed officials to turn away hundreds of thousands of people without offering them an opportunity to claim asylum.

Also, earlier in March, another administration policy, referred to as Parole plus Alternative to Detention, was stopped by a Florida court. That policy aimed at reducing unauthorized migration pressures through the use of ankle monitors or a phone app.

The root cause for illegal immigration to the U.S. is not complicated. Most unauthorized migrants coming to America are doing so to escape difficult living conditions. The administration’s foreign aid initiative to improve living conditions in countries such as El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras has done relatively little to stem the historic levels of illegal immigration at the southern border

Despite the announcements and assurances by senior officials in the Biden administration, including Secretary State Antony J. Blinken and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas, to limit the flow of unauthorized migrants across the U.S. southern border, the combination of the court’s March decision and the ending of Title 42 is expected to lead to a massive surge of tens of thousands more unauthorized migrants arriving at the southern border. The estimated illegal crossings could reach as high as 18,000 a day.

As has been the case in the recent past, such large numbers of unauthorized migrants are already overwhelming border resources and overcrowd government facilities. By the end of April more than 20,000 migrants were in Border Patrol custody, which is more than twice the rated capacity of the agency’s detention facilities along the U.S. southern border.

Those developments are expected to be followed by the release of many unauthorized migrants into the country without a court date, which is widely viewed as an incentive to additional illegal entries. That decision in turn will continue to incur costs and create pressures on border communities as well as cities in the country’s interior.

Bracing itself for the expected surge of unauthorized migrants at the country’s southern border, the Biden administration is implementing various immigration measures to address the illegal immigration crisis.

Among those measures are to open regional processing centers, increase refugee numbers from the Western hemisphere, have migrants enroll in the parole programs, schedule an appointment at the border via an app, seek asylum protection in a country they traveled through and increase pathways for legal immigration, including for El Salvadorans Hondurans and Guatemalans to reunite with family in the U.S.

Although two Republican sponsored immigration bills are proceeding through the U.S. House of Representatives, Congress has yet to pass immigration legislation and is unlikely to do so with the run up to the 2024 elections. As a result, President Biden has used his executive authority for measures to open the doors for hundreds of thousands of migrants to enter America legally.

In addition to the use of humanitarian parole programs for people fleeing war and political upheaval, the Biden administration’s measures offer migrants opportunities to enter the U.S. and secure work authorization if they have a private sponsor. By mid-April, about 300 thousand Ukrainians had arrived in America and by the close of 2023, approximately 360 thousand migrants from Latin America are expected to be admitted legally via private sponsorship.

Also with some exceptions, the administration plans to bar from asylum all non-Mexican migrants who arrive at the southern U.S. border without having first sought and been denied asylum in at least one of the countries they passed through on their trip. However, rights groups and their supporters oppose that plan as they believe it violates U.S. law and have threatened to sue the administration.

The root cause for illegal immigration to the U.S. is not complicated. Most unauthorized migrants coming to America are doing so to escape difficult living conditions. The administration’s foreign aid initiative to improve living conditions in countries such as El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras has done relatively little to stem the historic levels of illegal immigration at the southern border.

It is certainly understandable that many of those living under harsh conditions, including poverty, unemployment, lack of basic services, violence and political instability, want to emigrate. However, such living conditions are generally not grounds to permit legal entry into America.

Consequently, many of the unauthorized migrants arriving at the U.S. southern border are claiming asylum. To date, nearly 1.6 million asylum applications are pending in U.S. Citizenship and Immigration services and immigration courts, which is the largest number of pending cases on record.

According to Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. Asylum is granted to persons who can demonstrate that they are unable or unwilling to return to their country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular group.

Most of the migrants who have claimed asylum in the U.S. are not detained. In 2022, approximately 80 percent of the unauthorized migrants in the immigration court asylum backlog were never detained.

Those migrants were permitted to remain in the country while their cases are processed, which take on average more than four years. During that period of time, migrants take steps to integrate themselves into local communities, especially places offering sanctuary to illegal migrants.

The number of pending cases in the U.S. immigration court asylum backlog has grown rapidly over the recent past. Between 2012 and 2022 the number of pending cases in the asylum backlog increased seven-fold, i.e., from about 106 thousand to 757 thousand (Figure 2).

Source: TRAC Syracuse University.

Most claims for asylum in the U.S. fail to meet the criteria needed to be granted asylum. Over the past several years, approximately 70 percent of the asylum claims have been denied.

Nevertheless, relatively few of the migrants whose claims have been denied are repatriated. The number of non-citizen removals conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in fiscal year 2022 is 72,117.

With a growing world population of 8 billion, the supply of people who want to migrate to the U.S., estimated at approximately 225 million people, greatly exceeds America’s demand for migrants, which is a small fraction of the worldwide supply.

Consequently, as a result of the substantial demographic and economic imbalances, millions of men, women and children are resorting to illegal migration to secure a better life in America. As of yet, neither Congress nor the White House have come up with an effective blueprint to address America’s illegal immigration predicament.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Population Levels, Trends and Differentials: More Important Population Matters”.

Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele (C) tours the facilities of the Terrorism Confinement Center (Cecot) in January, when through a video he showed for the first time the interior of the new mega-prison, built to hold 40,000 gang members. Some 65,000 people accused of belonging to the gangs or maras have been arrested since the state of emergency was declared in March 2022. CREDIT: Presidency of El Salvador

By Edgardo Ayala
SAN SALVADOR, Mar 13 2023 (IPS)

Despite serious allegations by the US justice system that two officials of the government of Nayib Bukele reached a secret agreement with the MS-13 gang to keep the homicide rate low, the Salvadoran president seems to have escaped unscathed for now, without political costs.

The MS-13 gang members reached the agreement, according to investigations, in exchange for benefits offered by the Bukele administration after the president took office in February 2019.

One of the benefits was apparently not to extradite to the United States leaders of the gangs who are in prison in El Salvador, according to the criminal indictment filed by the Attorney General’s Office of the Eastern District of New York.

The legal action was filed in September 2022, but it was made public on Feb. 23, and it targets 13 leaders of the fearsome MS-13 gang, who are held responsible for murders and other crimes committed in the United States, Mexico and El Salvador.“I do not believe the legal action in New York will damage Bukele’s reelection prospects.” -- Jorge Villacorta

“The accusation (in New York) merely confirms something we already knew,” analyst Jorge Villacorta told IPS.

Villacorta was referring to investigative journalistic reports by the newspaper El Faro, which since 2021 revealed the secret negotiations that the Bukele administration held with the gangs, which the president has consistently denied.

But it is one thing for a newspaper to report this and quite another for it to come from an accusation from the United States Attorney’s Office, in an investigation in which the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) participated.

“Because in this case we are talking about legal action” by the U.S. justice system, which could affect the two officials implicated, Mario Vega, an evangelical pastor who studies the phenomenon of gang violence in El Salvador, told IPS.

Since 2012, the United States has considered MS-13 a transnational criminal organization.

A grand jury has reportedly already heard the evidence presented by the prosecution and has endorsed a trial, at an unspecified date.

Three gang members and others who could be captured later could at some point in the trial testify against the two Bukele officials, “and we are going to find out about all the secrecy that has surrounded the negotiations,” Vega added.

The two officials are the director of the General Directorate of Penitentiaries, Osiris Luna, and the head of the Directorate for the Reconstruction of the Social Fabric, Carlos Marroquín.

Neither of them are mentioned by name in the legal action, but they are clearly identifiable by their government positions.

Nor is it mentioned that they reportedly reached an agreement with gang members under the auspices of the Salvadoran president, but that is obvious because given the president’s authoritarian style, no one moves a finger without his consent.

Bukele, a millennial neo-populist who governs with increasing authoritarianism, has been waging a frontal war against gangs since Mar. 27, 2022, which has led him to imprison more than 65,000 members, with the help of a state of emergency in place since then.

However, the war apparently broke out once the pact with the gangs broke down. In the course of the trial in New York it may be verified that the secret negotiations took place since 2019 and were suspended in March 2022.

So far, the crackdown on the gangs, known here as maras, has drawn the applause of the majority of the population in this Central American country of 6.7 million people, according to the opinion polls.

But the president has also come under fire for abuses by soldiers and police, who have arrested people with no ties to the maras.

Around 2,000 suspected gang members were transferred in late February to the mega-prison that the government built to hold a large part of the gang members arrested under the state of emergency, which has suspended some constitutional guarantees since March 2022 in El Salvador, allowing abuses and arbitrary arrests by soldiers and police. CREDIT: Presidency of El Salvador

Immune ahead of the elections

And what could spell a major blow to their credibility for any president and would perhaps shake the foundations of a government would not make a big dent in Bukele’s popularity, said analysts interviewed by IPS.

With regard to the news about the case in New York, “people see it as suppositions or simply do not believe it; I do not see it as generating significant political costs for Bukele,” added Villacorta, a former leftist member of Congress.

It will apparently not affect the president even as he is getting ready to seek reelection in the Feb. 4, 2024 elections. He has already announced that he will run again, but his candidacy has not yet been made official.

Although his campaign has not been launched, Bukele and his Nuevas Ideas party are already mobilizing their publicity machine, in the face of an opposition that is keeping its head down.

Most lawyers agree that the Salvadoran constitution prohibits immediate reelection.

In May 2021, a new Legislative Assembly, controlled by Nuevas Ideas, dismissed the five judges of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court without the proper procedures and appointed five of their allies, who endorsed the right to reelection.

“I do not believe the legal action in New York will damage Bukele’s reelection prospects,” said Villacorta, a critic of the president.

This is due to the high levels of popularity that the president has among the public and the widespread acceptance of the state of emergency, which suspends some constitutional guarantees and has made it possible to capture 65,000 gang members.

Some 2,000 imprisoned gang members were transferred at the end of February to the Terrorism Confinement Center, a mega-prison that the government built on the outskirts of the municipality of Tecoluca in central El Salvador to hold some 40,000 prisoners.

Villacorta added: “What is perceived in the country and abroad is that Bukele, like some kind of superhero, in a few months has squashed the gangs.”

However, despite abundant evidence of abuses and arbitrary arrests, ordinary Salvadorans are overlooking this because their main problem, gang violence, has been successfully reduced.

“People will tend to forgive his past deeds, due to the fact that now they (gang members) are all imprisoned. This narrative is the one that moves people, and these are the emotions that count when it comes to voting,” commented Pastor Vega, also an opponent of Bukele.

Of the 65,000 incarcerated gang members, 58,000 have had an initial hearing before a judge, Justice and Public Security Minister Gustavo Villatoro said on Mar. 8 in a television interview.

The case brought in New York does not affect Bukele; “on the contrary, it makes Salvadorans mad, because they say ‘do they want us to keep suffering (from the gangs)?’. They are not going to say, ‘Ok they’re right, (the government) has brainwashed us’,” criminologist Misael Rivas told IPS.

Negotiations today and always

But Bukele’s war against the “maras” is now more in doubt than ever, with the investigation and accusation initiated by the US justice system against the 13 leaders of the MS-13.

In the criminal indictment, the US Attorney’s Office states that since 2012 the gangs, including Barrio 18, the other major mara, engaged in secret negotiations with the government and political parties.

In that year, the country was governed by the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN), the guerrilla group that became a political party in 1992, after the end of the 12-year Salvadoran civil war.

The pact or “truce” fell apart in 2015.

Negotiations with the gangs continued in 2019 “in connection with the 2019 elections,” the document continues. That year, in February, Nayib Bukele won the presidency with a large majority of votes.

It adds that several leaders of the MS-13 secretly met “numerous times” with the two officials – Luna and Marroquín, although it does not mention their names, only their posts.

These meetings took place in the Zacatecoluca and Izalco prisons, in the center and west of the country, it adds, which had already been reported by El Faro.

Batman in trouble?

Even when the alleged pact with the Bukele administration fell apart in March 2022, in one of the voice recordings published two months later by the newspaper, Marroquín is heard saying that “Batman” (a pseudonym for the president) was fully aware of the situation.

The MS-13 also agreed to support Nuevas Ideas in the 2021 parliamentary elections, which that party won by a large majority

Of the 13 indicted MS-13 leaders, three were arrested on Feb. 22 in Mexico “by the authorities of that country and extradited to the United States,” the Attorney General’s Office for the Eastern District of New York said a day later, in an official statement.

Those captured are: Vladimir Antonio Arévalo Chávez (nicknamed “Vampiro de Monserrat Criminales”), Walter Yovani Hernández Rivera (“Baxter from Park View”) and Marlon Antonio Menjívar Portillo (“Red from Park View”).

Criminologist Rivas said the outcome of the trial, once it begins, is far from certain.

If prosecutors press for the details of the negotiations with the Bukele government, defense attorneys would have to work hard to undermine the gang members’ credibility when it came to implicating the two Salvadoran officials, he said.

“Thinking as a defense attorney, suppose they gave me the case, I would insist on why they are bringing the case up now, when there is a frontal attack against the gangs and the Salvadoran people are finally happy?” said Rivas, who is also a lawyer and who supports the state of emergency.

Few policymakers ever claim credit for causing stagnation and recessions. Yet, they do so all the time, justifying their actions by some supposedly higher purpose.

Now, that higher purpose is checking inflation as if it is the worst option for people today. Many supposed economists make up tall tales that inflation causes economic contraction which ordinary mortals do not know or understand.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Recent trends since mid-2022 are clear. Inflation is no longer accelerating, but slowing. And for most economists, only accelerating inflation gives cause for concern.

Annualized inflation since has only been slightly above the official, but nonetheless arbitrary 2% inflation target of most Western central banks.

At its peak, the brief inflationary surge, in the second quarter of last year, undoubtedly reached the “highest (price) levels since the early 1980s” because of the way it is measured.

After decades of ‘financialization’, the public and politicians unwittingly support moneyed interests who want to minimize inflation to make the most of their financial assets.

War and price
Russia’s aggression against Ukraine began last February, with retaliatory sanctions following suit. Both have disrupted supplies, especially of fuel and food. The inflation spike in the four months after the Russian invasion was mainly due to ‘supply shocks’.

Price increases were triggered by the war and retaliatory sanctions, especially for fuel, food and fertilizer. Although no longer accelerating, prices remain higher than a year before.

To be sure, price pressures had been building up with other supply disruptions. Also, demand has been changing with the new Cold War against China, the Covid-19 pandemic and ‘recovery’, and credit tightening in the last year.

There is little evidence of any more major accelerating factors. There is no ‘wage-price spiral’ as prices have recently been rising more than wages despite government efforts ensuring full employment since the 2008 global financial crisis.

Despite difficulties due to inflation, tens of millions of Americans are better off than before, e.g., with the ten million jobs created in the last two years. Under Biden, wages for poorly paid workers have risen faster than consumer prices.

Higher borrowing costs have also weakened the lot of working people everywhere. Such adverse consequences would be much less likely if the public better understood recent price increases, available policy options and their consequences.

With the notable exception of the Bank of Japan, most other major central banks have been playing ‘catch-up’ with the US Federal Reserve interest rate hikes. To be sure, inflation has already been falling for many reasons, largely unrelated to them.

Making stagnation
But higher borrowing costs have reduced spending, for both consumption and investment. This has hastened economic slowdown worldwide following more than a decade of largely lackluster growth since the 2008 global financial crisis.

Ill-advised earlier policies now limit what governments can do in response. With the Fed sharply raising interest rates over the last year, developing country central banks have been trying, typically in vain, to stem capital outflows to the US and other ‘safe havens’ raising interest rates.

Having opened their capital accounts following foreign advice, developing country central banks always offer higher raise interest rates, hoping more capital will flow in rather than out.

Interestingly, conservative US economists Milton Friedman and Ben Bernanke have shown the Fed has worsened past US downturns by raising interest rates, instead of supporting enterprises in their time of need.

Four decades ago, increased servicing costs triggered government debt crises in Latin America and Africa, condemning them to ‘lost decades’. Policy conditions were then imposed by the International Monetary Fund and World Bank for access to emergency loans.

Globalization double-edged
Economic globalization policies at the turn of the century are being significantly reversed, with devastating consequences for developing countries after they opened their economies to foreign trade and investment.

Encouraging foreign portfolio investment has increasingly been at the expense of ‘greenfield’ foreign direct investment enhancing new economic capacities and capabilities.

The new Cold War has arguably involved more economic weapons, e.g., sanctions, than the earlier one. Trump’s and Japanese ‘reshoring’ and ‘friend-shoring’ discriminate among investors, remaking ‘value’ or ‘supply chains’.

Arguably, establishing the World Trade Organization in 1995 was the high water mark for multilateral trade liberalization, setting a ‘one size fits all’ approach for all, regardless of means. More recently, Biden has continued Trump’s reversal of earlier trade liberalization, even at the regional level.

1995 also saw strengthening intellectual property rights internationally, limiting technology transfers and progress. Recent ‘trade conflicts’ increasingly involve access to high technology, e.g., in the case of Huawei, TSMC and Samsung.

With declining direct tax rates almost worldwide, governments face more budget constraints. The last year has seen these diminished fiscal means massively diverted for military spending and strategic ends, cutting resources for development, sustainability, equity and humanitarian ends.

In this context, the new international antagonisms conspire to make this a ‘perfect storm’ of economic stagnation and regression. Hence, those striving for international peace and cooperation may well be our best hope against the ‘new barbarism’.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: White House

By Norman Solomon
SAN FRANCISCO, USA, Jan 24 2023 (IPS)

Denial at the top of the Democratic Party about Joe Biden’s shaky footing for a re-election run in 2024 became more untenable over the weekend. As the New York Times reported, investigators “seized more than a half-dozen documents, some of them classified, at President Biden’s residence” in Delaware.

The newspaper noted that “the remarkable search of a sitting president’s home by federal agents — at the invitation of Mr. Biden’s lawyers — dramatically escalated the legal and political situation for the president.”

Donald Trump’s obstructive refusal to cooperate with the federal investigation into the far more numerous classified documents in his possession stands in sharp contrast with Biden’s apparently full cooperation with the Justice Department. Yet Biden now faces a documents scandal that’s sure to fester for quite a while — the average length of special counsel investigations has been upwards of 900 days — and the impacts on his plans to seek re-election are unclear.

Meanwhile, here’s an assumption so routine that it passes as self-evident among power brokers and corporate-media journalists: Democratic voters are presumed to be mere spectators awaiting Biden’s decision on whether to seek a second term.

Hidden in plain sight is a logical question that remains virtually off-limits to raise in standard political discourse: Why not ask them?

What a concept. Biden could actually seek guidance from the Democratic base — the people who regularly turn out to vote for the party’s candidates, give millions of small-dollar donations and do priceless volunteer work in support of campaigns to defeat Republicans.

Biden’s decision on whether to run again should be seen as much more than just a matter of personal prerogative. Rather than treating it as such, Biden could put party and country first by recognizing that the essential Democratic task of defeating the Republican ticket in 2024 will require widespread enthusiasm from grassroots Democrats.

Biden would be boosting the chances of beating the GOP by including those Democrats in the decision-making process as he weighs whether to officially declare his candidacy.

But there’s one overarching reason why the Biden White House has no interest in any such idea. The president doesn’t want to ask the question of loyal Democratic voters because he probably wouldn’t like the answer. His stance is clear: It’s my party and I’ll run if I want to.

A glimmer of that attitude showed through during a news conference shortly after the midterm election. Noting that “two-thirds of Americans in exit polls say that they don’t think you should run for re-election,” a reporter asked: “What is your message to them?” Biden’s reply: “Watch me.”

Later, CNN and CNBC polls found that nearly 60 percent of Democrats didn’t want Biden to run again. Yet from all indications, he still intends to do just that.

Defying the wishes of most of the party’s voters could be spun as leadership, but a more fitting word is hubris. Whatever the characterization, it runs a serious risk of self-defeat.

For instance, only wishful thinking leads to a belief that the Democratic presidential nominee next year can win without a strong turnout from those who represent the party’s bedrock base and its future — the young.

Biden’s “watch me” attitude is especially out of whack in relation to youthful Democratic voters. A New York Times poll last summer found that a stunning 94 percent of them under age 30 said they didn’t want Biden to be the party’s nominee.

Such a disconnect spells trouble if Biden does run. Too many young people might heed the “watch me” attitude by declining to volunteer or vote for Biden before he goes down to defeat.

In normal times, a president’s renomination has been his for the taking. But in this case, when most of the party’s supporters don’t want him to run, exercising raw intra-party leverage to get nominated would indicate a high degree of political narcissism. It’s hardly a good look or an auspicious path.

If he runs in 2024, Joe Biden would be the foremost symbol of the status quo — not a good position to be in when faux populism will predictably be the name of the Republican game.

In a poll last November, only 21 percent of registered voters told Hart Research that the country was “headed in the right direction” while 72 percent said it was “off on the wrong track.”

For the president, gaining the Democratic nomination next year would likely be much easier than winning the White House for a second time. If Biden is content to become the party’s nominee again while ignoring the majority of Democrats who don’t want him to run, he’ll be boosting the chances that a Republican will get to work in the Oval Office two years from now.

To prevent such a catastrophe, grassroots Democrats will need to directly challenge the party elites who seem willing to whistle past the probable graveyard of Biden’s second-term hopes.

Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author of a dozen books including War Made Easy. His next book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine, will be published in June 2023 by The New Press.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

US President Joseph R. Biden addresses the general debate of the General Assembly’s seventy-seventh session in September 2022. Credit: UN Photo/Cia Pak

By Norman Solomon and Jeff Cohen
SAN FRANCISCO, USA, Jan 13 2023 (IPS)

The current notion of a “moderate Republican” is an oxymoron that helps to move the country rightward. Last week, every one of the GOP’s so-called “moderates” voted to install House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who won with the avid support of Donald Trump and got over the finish line by catering to such fascistic colleagues as Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert.

Recent news reports by many outlets — including the Washington Post, USA Today, The Hill, Bloomberg, CNN, NBC, Reuters, HuffPost and countless others — have popularized the idea of “moderate Republicans” in the House. The New York Times reported on “centrist Republicans.” But those “moderates” and “centrists” are actively supporting neofascist leadership.

Notably, Joe Biden made this implausible claim while campaigning in May 2019: “The thing that will fundamentally change things is with Donald Trump out of the White House. Not a joke. You will see an epiphany occur among many of my Republican friends.”

During his celebratory victory speech in November 2020, Biden bemoaned “the refusal of Democrats and Republicans to cooperate with one another,” proclaimed that the American people “want us to cooperate” and pledged “that’s the choice I’ll make.”

Later, as president, Biden came to a point when – in a ballyhooed speech last September — he offered some acknowledgment of ongoing Republican extremism, saying: “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic. Now, I want to be very clear up front: Not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans”.

“Not every Republican embraces their extreme ideology. I know because I’ve been able to work with these mainstream Republicans. But there is no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven, and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans, and that is a threat to this country.”

But as with routine media coverage, Biden does not acknowledge that every Republican now in the House is functionally a “MAGA Republican.” Claiming otherwise — calling some of them “moderate Republicans” — is like saying that someone who drives a getaway car during an armed robbery isn’t a criminal. Those who aid and abet right-wing extremism are part of the march toward fascism.

If a handful of — by some accounts a half-dozen, by others as many as 20 — House Republicans are “moderates,” then such media framing normalizes and legitimizes their tacit teamwork with the likes of Trump and ultra-right Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene that made McCarthy the speaker. In the process, the slickly evasive language makes possible the continual slippage of public reference points ever-further to the right.

So, during last week’s multiple ballots that concluded with McCarthy’s win, Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska was portrayed in the news as a “moderate Republican” who talked of seeking Democratic votes to help elect McCarthy and of possibly working with Democrats to find a “moderate” GOP speaker. Bacon labeled the anti-McCarthy holdouts “cowboys” and “the Taliban.”

But if Bacon is a “moderate Republican,” it’s odd that he would help lead a rally before the 2020 election with MAGA firebrand and Students for Trump leader Charlie Kirk, which ended with a yell from Bacon: “Making America great again!” Or that he voted both times against impeaching President Trump, including after the Jan. 6 Capitol assault.

Or that he cosponsors the extreme Life at Conception Act. Or that he has questioned climate science: “I don’t think we know for certain how much of climate change is being caused by normal cyclical changes in weather versus human causes.”

Looking ahead, you can bet that after years of being touted as “Republican moderates” in Congress, a few will be trotted out in prime time at the 2024 Republican National Convention to assure the nation that the party’s nominee — whether Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis or some other extremist candidate — is a great fit for the presidency.

The impacts of such deception will owe a lot to the frequent media coverage that distinguishes between the most dangerously unhinged Republican politicians who dominate the House and the “moderate” ones who make that domination possible.

Applying adjectives like “moderate” to congressional Republicans is much worse than merely bad word choices. Our language “becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish,” George Orwell wrote, “but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.”

And dangerous ones.

Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author of a dozen books, including ‘War Made Easy’ while his next book, ‘War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine’, will be published in Spring 2023 by The New Press.

Jeff Cohen is co-founder of RootsAction.org, a retired journalism professor at Ithaca College, and author of Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media. In 1986, he founded the media watch group FAIR.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

To achieve a strong partnership with Africa, the U.S. administration will need to demonstrate that it is interested in Africa because the continent itself matters, not merely to address other U.S. international objectives. Djibouti Port. Credit: James Jeffrey/IPS

By Philippe Benoit and Bayo Oyewole
WASHINGTON DC, Jan 10 2023 (IPS)

 President Biden and leaders of 49 invited African countries and the African Union met in Washington last month for the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit — a meeting that all parties hope will launch a strengthened partnership to deliver benefits for the peoples of both the U.S. and Africa.  

A strong Africa working in partnership with the U.S. is an important and all too often overlooked element of a robust U.S. geopolitical strategy. But to achieve this strong partnership, the U.S. administration will need to demonstrate that it is interested in Africa because the continent itself matters, not merely to address other U.S. international objectives.

What might Africa look like 20 years from now? A real possibility is a 2.4 billion-person continent with significantly diminished poverty and a large and growing middle class that can provide a vibrant economic partner for the U.S.

Unfortunately, there is skepticism within Africa, founded in historical precedent, as to U.S. intentions. For many years, as European powers withdrew from Africa following the decolonization of the continent, the U.S. and Soviet Union stepped in seeking to install “friendly” regimes.

Africa was an area of interest more because of its importance to the U.S./Soviet Union Cold War than on its own merits. The result was often misguided policies focused on political alignment rather than promoting improvements on the continent. As the Cold War waned, arguably so did some of the U.S. interest in Africa.

2008 saw the election of an American president of African descent, Barack Obama, generating excitement across the continent. In 2014, President Obama convened the inaugural U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, the largest gathering at that time of U.S. and African leaders.

Unfortunately, there followed a general sense of disappointment as the summit failed to translate into strong action. Interestingly, the U.S. president at times most often praised for his support to Africa is President George W. Bush, who launched PEPFAR, the large-scale effort to fight AIDS focused on Africa that is also considered by some historians to be his greatest achievement.   

Last month’s summit took place on a complex international and geopolitical backdrop for the U.S., marked by the growing competition with an emerging China and, more recently, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. For some American commentators, the summit provided an opportunity to draw Africa closer to the U.S. in countering these challenges following a period of inactivity.

But Africa’s leaders have signaled that they don’t want to be viewed as mere tools for other geopolitical dynamics — including tensions with China and Russia — they want their concerns addressed on their merits. And the Biden administration was careful to not present last month’s summit as China/Russia-oriented. As explained by a CNN commentator: “In previewing this … [U.S./Africa] summit, American officials have been careful to avoid framing Africa as a pawn in a larger geopolitical strategy.”

This represents a wise strategy, especially as Africa has grown substantially both economically and politically over the last several decades and is poised for further growth. The GDP of Sub-Saharan Africa has grown five-fold from $400 billion 20 years ago to nearly $2 trillion today, and Africa’s total GDP now reaches nearly $3 trillion when North Africa is included. Similarly, a Brookings report estimates that the middle class of Sub-Saharan Africa will grow from 114 million in 2015 to 212 million in 2030. It is also the region where the largest growth in population is expected going forward: by 2050, an estimated quarter of the world’s people will be African.

African leaders themselves are not oblivious to the growing strategic importance of their own countries. Rich in agriculture, mineral and energy resources, and with a growing diaspora that funneled over $83 billion in remittances back to Africa in 2020 (far more than the $65 billion the continent received in official development assistance that same year), Africa has become an attractive destination for the astute investor. 

Newly empowered by the growth potential of their countries, many African leaders are demanding a stronger voice and greater respect internationally — and they’re getting it from China whose presence in Africa is ubiquitous. Similarly, Japan is re-asserting its engagement with Africa.

Last month’s U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit is a welcome effort in this context and there is much room for strengthening ties. For example, Africa accounts for only 1 percent of U.S. foreign trade, most of which is in petroleum imports from two countries. But African governments, for their part, will need to demonstrate their openness to advancing inclusive growth and political rights domestically.

Just as Asia has dominated the growth story of the last 50 years, will Africa be the emerging engine of growth for the next 50? This is something that analysts are contemplating. The recent analysis of the continent by the International Energy Agency posits a possible high growth “Africa Case” scenario in which the continent is able to exploit effectively its potential. 

Arguably, the U.S. and other advanced economies were caught off-guard by the rapid economic growth that took place in Asia. They were slow to anticipate it, recognize it and integrate its implications into their strategies. This is not to predict when it comes to Africa that it will inevitably replicate what Asia has done; however, the reality is: “maybe, who knows?” That’s a potential outcome that the U.S. should prepare for, and even nurture. 

What might Africa look like 20 years from now? A real possibility is a 2.4 billion-person continent with significantly diminished poverty and a large and growing middle class that can provide a vibrant economic partner for the U.S. To achieve this, a strong partnership between the U.S. and Africa is key and in the interest of both their peoples.

Philippe Benoit has over 25 years of experience working on international development, including previous positions at the World Bank where he focused on Africa.  He is currently research director for Global Infrastructure Analytics and Sustainability 2050. 

Bayo Oyewole, CEO of BayZx Global Strategic Solutions, currently provides independent advisory services to the African Development Bank. He previously held senior positions at the World Bank and the International Finance Corporation, including in the office of the Executive Director representing several African countries on the World Bank Board.

US President Joseph R. Biden Jr.addresses the general debate of the UN General Assembly’s 76th session. September 2021. Credit: UN Photo/Cia Pak

By Norman Solomon
SAN FRANCISCO, USA, Jan 9 2023 (IPS)

With 2023 underway, Democrats in office are still dodging the key fact that most of their party’s voters don’t want President Biden to run for re-election. Among prominent Democratic politicians, deference is routine while genuine enthusiasm is sparse.

Many of the endorsements sound rote. Late last month, retiring senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont came up with this gem: “I want him to do whatever he wants. If he does, I’ll support him.”

Joe Biden keeps saying he intends to be the Democratic nominee in 2024. Whether he will be is an open question — and progressives should strive to answer it with a firm No.

The next presidential election will be exceedingly grim if all the Democratic Party can offer as an alternative to the neofascist Republican Party is an incumbent who has so often served corporate power and consistently serves the military-industrial complex.

The Biden administration has taken some significant antitrust steps to limit rampant monopolization. But overall realities are continuing to widen vast economic inequalities that are grist for the spinning mill of pseudo-populist GOP demagogues.

Meanwhile, President Biden rarely conveys a sense of urgency or fervent discontent with present-day social conditions. Instead, he routinely comes off as “status-quo Joe.”

For the future well-being of so many millions of people, and for the electoral prospects of the Democratic Party in 2024, representing the status quo invites cascading disasters. A few months ago, Bernie Sanders summed up this way:

“The most important economic and political issues facing this country are the extraordinary levels of income and wealth inequality, the rapidly growing concentration of ownership, the long-term decline of the American middle class and the evolution of this country into oligarchy.”

Interviewed days ago, Sanders said: “It pains me very, very much that we’re seeing more and more working-class people voting Republican. Politically, that is a disaster, and Democrats have to recognize that serious problem and address it.”

But President Biden doesn’t seem to recognize the serious problem, and he fails to address it.

During the last two years, domestic policy possibilities have been curbed by Biden’s frequent and notable refusals to use the power of the presidency for progress. He did not issue many of the potential executive orders that could have moved the country forward despite Senate logjams.

At the same time, “bully pulpit” advocacy for workers’ rights, voter rights, economic justice, climate action and much more has been muted or nonexistent.

Biden seems unable or unwilling to articulate a social-justice approach to such issues. As for the continuing upward spike in Pentagon largesse while giving human needs short shrift, Biden was full of praise for the record-breaking, beyond-bloated $858 billion military spending bill that he signed in late December.

While corporate media’s reporters and pundits are much more inclined to critique his age than his policies, what makes Biden most problematic for so many voters is his antiquated political approach.

Running for a second term would inevitably cast Biden as a defender of current conditions — in an era when personifying current conditions is a heavy albatross that weighs against electoral success.

A Hart Research poll of registered voters in November found that only 21 percent said the country was “headed in the right direction” while 72 percent said it was “off on the wrong track.”

As the preeminent symbol of the way things are, Biden is all set to be a vulnerable standard-bearer in a country where nearly three-quarters of the electorate say they don’t like the nation’s current path.

But for now’ anyway, no progressive Democrat in Congress is willing to get into major trouble with the Biden White House by saying he shouldn’t run, let alone by indicating a willingness to challenge him in the early 2024 primaries.

Meanwhile, one recent poll after another showed that nearly 60 percent of Democrats don’t want Biden to run again. A New York Times poll last summer found that a stunning 94 percent of Democrats under 30 years old would prefer a different nominee.

Although leaning favorably toward Biden overall, mass-media coverage has occasionally supplied the kind of candor that Democratic officeholders have refused to provide on the record. “The party’s relief over holding the Senate and minimizing House losses in the midterms has gradually given way to collective angst about what it means if Biden runs again,” NBC News reported days before Christmas.

Conformist support from elected Democrats for another Biden campaign reflects a shortage of authentic representation on Capitol Hill. The gap is gaping, for instance, between leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the constituency — the progressive base — they claim to represent. In late November, CPC chair Pramila Jayapal highlighted the gap when she went out of her way to proclaim that “I believe he should run for another term and finish this agenda we laid out.”

Is such leadership representing progressives to the establishment or the other way around?

Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author of a dozen books including War Made Easy. His next book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine, will be published in Spring 2023 by The New Press.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

In the armed services, African Americans make up 23 percent of enlisted soldiers, which is approaching nearly double their proportion of the U.S. population. Among officers, however, the percentage of African Americans is considerably lower at 11 percent. Credit: Shutterstock.

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Nov 23 2022 (IPS)

Countries worldwide, and as different as India, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, Ireland, Israel and Italy, are struggling with the issue of how best to balance diversity and meritocracy across disparate ethnic, racial, caste, linguistic and religious subgroups in their populations.

In a growing number of areas, including politics, employment, careers, education, armed forces, immigration, the judicial system, entertainment and sports, countries are making far-reaching decisions regarding when to strive for diversity and when to stress meritocracy.

Some may consider the goals of diversity and meritocracy to be noncontradictory. In practice, however, the two goals are often difficult to reconcile, especially with imprecise definitions, differing concepts and lack of reliable measures.

Promoting diversity certainly poses a variety of challenges for societies. However, the pursuit of meritocracy also faces unrecognized risks and biases as well as discrimination behind efforts to reward merit.

The rewards ascribed to meritocracy are often simply the result of privilege, legacy and entitlement. In addition, some have argued that the pursuit of meritocracy actually produces inequality, stifles social mobility and increases unhappiness.

Admittedly, diversity and meritocracy across country populations are varied and differ considerably globally. Nevertheless, useful insight may be gained from considering the experience of a country that exemplifies a nation attempting to find the appropriate balance between diversity and meritocracy: the United States.

U.S laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race. At the same, however, policies and practices, such as affirmative action, aim at countering discrimination against certain racial groups by increasing their chances for employment, promotion, higher education and other opportunities.

Since the first U.S. census in 1790, the U.S. Census Bureau has been tasked to gather information on the racial composition of America’s population. In the 1790 census an estimated 81 percent of the U.S. population was identified as white with the remaining 19 percent enumerated as black, with 92 percent of them being slaves.

The white proportion of the U.S. population rose to 90 percent in 1920, where it remained until 1950 when it began declining and reached 80 percent in 1990. At the start of the 21st century the proportion white declined further to approximately 75 percent where it has remained. The proportion white is projected to continue declining, reaching 68 percent of the U.S. population by 2060 (Figure 1).

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

The methods employed by the Census Bureau to collect race data over the past 230 years have evolved, reflecting changes in American society. Based on the 1997 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) standards on race, the Census Bureau gathers self-identified responses to the race question, with respondents permitted to select more than one race.

OMB requires five minimum categories: White, Black or African American, Asian, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. Those categories reflect a social definition of race and do not define race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically.

The race categories and their proportions of America’s 2021 population of 332 million are: White at 75.8 percent, Black or African American at 13.6 percent, Asian at 6.1 percent, American Indian or Alaska Native at 1.3 percent, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander at 0.3 percent, and two or more races at 2.9 percent (Figure 2).

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

Reviewing a number of examples from different areas of life in the United States is useful in illustrating the various aspects of the country’s efforts to balance racial diversity and meritocracy.

In professional basketball African Americans represented 20 percent of league players in 1960. Today African Americans account for approximately 75 percent of basketball players in the National Basketball Association.

Among the country’s orchestras, in contrast, African Americans account for less than 2 percent of the players. Nearly a half century ago, the selection of musicians for orchestras was changed to blind auditions in which candidates performed behind a curtain. As blind auditions have not led to making orchestras more diverse, some have called for ending blind auditions and taking race into account so orchestras reflect the communities they serve.

In professional football African Americans represent 58 percent of the players. However, they account for 9 percent of the head coaches, or five head coaches in the 32-team league of the National Football League (NFL).

Nearly 20 years ago after accusations of discriminatory head coach hiring practices, the NFL team owners agreed to policy changes to address those accusations. Among those changes was the so-called Rooney Rule, which said, “Any club seeking to hire a head coach will interview one or more minority applicants for that position.”

In the armed services, African Americans make up 23 percent of enlisted soldiers, which is approaching nearly double their proportion of the U.S. population. Among officers, however, the percentage of African Americans is considerably lower at 11 percent.

The U.S. military has taken a number of initiatives to promote racial diversity at the higher ranks. The Army, for example, has removed photos of officers from personnel files so promotion boards are less aware of race and they have more minority officers choosing combat assignments, which is a critical stepping stone to high-star officer ranks.

With respect to higher education, the racially conscious admissions practices of Harvard University and the University of North Carolina are being challenged in cases currently before the Supreme Court. The court is being asked to consider the constitutionality of racial preference in college admissions of those two universities.

Asian Americans admissions to Harvard University and the University of North Carolina are 25 and 22 percent, respectively. Those percentages are approximately four times the proportion of Asian Americans in the U.S. population.

Nevertheless, the racially conscious admissions practices of those two universities are being considered by the court. After its initial hearing of the cases on 31 October, the Supreme Court appeared ready based on its questioning and comments to rule that the admissions programs of Harvard and the University of North Carolina were unlawful.

Those admission practices, which allegedly discriminate against Asian Americans and effectively cap Asian matriculation numbers, have drawn comparison to the past efforts by Harvard and other elite universities to limit the enrollment of Jewish Americans. If only academics were considered, internal research by Harvard University suggests that Asian Americans would make up 43 percent of an admitted class.

In four Gallup polls from 2003 to 2016, at least two-thirds of Americans said college admissions should be solely on the basis of merit. A more recent national Washington Post survey in October found a majority of Americans, 63 percent, supported a ban on the consideration of race in college admissions. At the same time, however, a majority in that survey, 64 percent, endorsed programs to boost racial diversity on campuses.

Imbalances in achieving racial diversity are also reflected in the composition of America’s professions. For example, while Asian Americans represent 17 percent of active physicians, the proportion for African Americans is 5 percent.

Similarly in science and engineering occupations, the proportions for Asian Americans and African Americans are 21 and 5 percent, respectively. Among U.S. lawyers, the proportions are relatively low for both Asian Americans and African Americans at 2 and 5 percent, respectively.

The personal views of Americans concerning workplace diversity also reflect the difficulties in balancing racial diversity and meritocracy. One national PEW survey in 2019 found that a majority, 75 percent, value workplace diversity. However, a majority in that survey, 74 percent, also felt that only the qualifications and not an applicant’s race should be taken into account in hiring and promotions even if it results in less diversity.

The issue of how best to balance diversity and meritocracy remains a major challenge for America as well as for many other countries. That challenge has become more difficult in the United States. with the puzzling and prejudicial use of racial, ethnic, linguistic, ancestry and origin categories that increasingly make little sense.

In sum, with a growing world population of eight billion, the shifting demographic landscapes of national populations and the fundamental need to ensure human rights for all, the challenge of how to balance diversity and meritocracy can be expected to become even more critical and consequential for countries in the years ahead.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

Republicans in general favor less immigration than Democrats. For example, a national Gallup poll in July 2022 found that the proportion saying immigration to America should be decreased was 69 percent among Republicans versus 17 percent among Democrats. Credit: Guillermo Arias / IPS

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Oct 24 2022 (IPS)

Given the upcoming midterm elections in the United States and the consequences of the outcome for domestic legislation and programs as well as the country’s foreign policy, it’s useful and fitting to review fundamental differences between America’s two major political parties on vital demographic issues.

On virtually every major demographic issue, including reproduction, mortality, immigration, ethnic composition, gender, marriage and population ageing, significant divides exist between the Democrats and Republicans (Figure 1). Those divides have significant consequences and implications for current and future government policies and programs.

Source: Various U.S. public opinion surveys.

Those divides on vital demographic matters, which have become increasingly politicized by the two major parties, are reinforcing political polarization and partisan antipathy across the country and hindering the economic, social and cultural development of the United States.

With respect to reproduction, while most Democrats are in favor of a woman’s legal access to abortion, most Republicans are not. For example, a March 2022 PEW national survey found that proportion of Democrats saying abortion should be legal in all or most cases was more than twice that of Republicans, i.e., 80 versus 38 percent.

Also, Gallup polls indicate a widening gap since the late 1980s between Democrats and Republicans on the circumstances permitting abortion. By 2022, for example, the proportions of Democrats and Republicans saying abortions should be legal under any circumstances were 57 and 10 percent, respectively (Figure 2).

Source: Gallup.

A similar difference on abortion is evident among members of Congress and justices of the Supreme Court. While Congressional Democrats are largely in favor codifying access to abortion and safeguards to the right to travel across state lines to undergo the procedure, Congressional Republicans are opposed to such access and safeguards. And the recent Supreme Court abortion decision ending the right to abortion reflects the divides in the views of justices appointed by Republican and Democrat administrations.

Concerning access to birth control methods, the vote on the recently passed bill by the House of Representatives was mostly along party lines. All but eight Republicans opposed the bill that aims to ensure access to contraception. In the Senate, the birth control measure is expected to fail as most Republicans are likely to be against it.

While most Democrats are in favor of a woman’s legal access to abortion, most Republicans are not. For example, a March 2022 PEW national survey found that proportion of Democrats saying abortion should be legal in all or most cases was more than twice that of Republicans, i.e., 80 versus 38 percent
On mortality and morbidity issues, Congressional Democratic and Republican leaders are also divided. A notable example of that divide has been the sustained Republican opposition to the Affordable Care Act enacted by Democrats more than a decade ago.

Recent research has also found that more premature deaths occur in Republican-leaning counties than in Democratic-leaning counties. The policies adopted by Democratic-leaning states compared to those in Republican states are believed to have contributed to the greater divide in mortality outcomes. Those policies include Medicaid expansion, health care access, minimum wage legislation, tobacco control, gun legislation, and drug addiction treatment.

The early responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, which was transformed from a public health concern into a major political issue, also reflect the divide in mortality outcomes between Democrats and Republicans. While mask wearing, social distancing, and related preventive measures were often stressed by most Democratic officials, many Republican leaders resisted such measures and downplayed the risks of the coronavirus.

Those partisan differences concerning the COVID-19 pandemic were reflected in the behavior and attitudes of Republicans and Democrats across the country. As a result of those attitudinal and behavioral differences, Republican-leaning counties have had higher COVID-19 death rates than Democrat-leaning counties.

With respect to immigration, Republicans in general favor less immigration than Democrats. For example, a national Gallup poll in July 2022 found that the proportion saying immigration to America should be decreased was 69 percent among Republicans versus 17 percent among Democrats. The rise for decreased immigration during the past several years is primarily due to Republicans, whose desire for reducing immigration increased by 21 points since June 2020 compared to an increase of 4 points among Democrats (Figure 3).

Source: Gallup.

To address immigration levels, the former Republican administration advocated building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and limiting the granting of asylum claims. In contrast, most Democratic leaders have not been in favor of erecting a border wall. Also, the current Democratic administration has been removing obstacles to granting asylum claims, including ending the former administration’s “Remain in Mexico” policy.

Concerning the more than 11 million illegal immigrants residing in the country, the former Republican administration wanted to ban counting them in the 2020 census. The desired exclusion of undocumented migrants in the census enumeration was aimed at not including them when determining Congressional representation. The current Democratic administration, in contrast, includes undocumented migrants in the census count and determining Congressional representation.

On whether to offer an amnesty to immigrants living unlawfully in the country, a wide divide exists between the two major political parties. While Democrats are largely in favor of offering illegal immigrants a path to U.S. citizenship, many Republicans oppose granting an amnesty to those who are unlawfully resident in the country. A PEW survey in August 2022, for example, found the proportion in favor of a path to U.S. citizenship among Democrats was more than double the level among the Republicans, 80 versus 37 percent, respectively.

Regarding the changing ethnic composition of the U.S. population, Democrats tend to view the changes more favorably than Republicans. For example, one national PEW survey found Democrats three times more likely than Republicans to say a majority nonwhite population will strengthen America’s customs and values, i.e., 42 and 13 percent, respectively.

Similar divides between Democrats and Republicans were found with respect to interracial marriage and same-sex marriage. The growth of interracial marriage is considered to be a good thing for the country by a majority of Democrats and a minority of Republicans, 61 and 33 percent, respectively. Also, Democrats have been consistently more likely than Republicans to say that same-sex marriages should recognized by the law as valid, with the proportions in 2022 at 83 and 55 percent, respectively (Figure 4).

Source: Gallup.

Democrats and Republicans also differ in their views about gender identity. While a national PEW survey found 80 percent of Republicans saying that whether someone is a man or a woman is determined by the sex assigned at birth, 64 percent of Democrats took the opposite view, believing that a person’s gender can be different from the sex assigned at birth.

Moreover, the majority of Republicans, 57 percent, say that society has gone too far in accepting people who are transgender, compared to 12 percent of Democrats.

On the issue of population ageing, noteworthy policy differences with program implications exist between Democrats and Republicans. In general, Republican leaders have resisted government entitlement programs established by Democrats, such as Social Security and Medicare, preferring reliance on the private sector, freedom of choice and individual responsibility.

Republican leaders have proposed replacing those major programs for older Americans with private investment accounts and a voucher system for health insurance. In addition, some Republicans recommend eliminating Social Security and Medicare as federal entitlement programs and have them become programs approved by Congress annually as discretionary spending.

A similar political divide exists among Americans concerning the provision of long-term care that the elderly may need. One national PEW survey in 2019 reported that while two-thirds of Democrats say the government should be mostly responsible for paying for that care for the elderly, 40 percent of Republicans have that view.

In sum, significant divides currently exist between Democrats and Republicans on nearly every major demographic issue facing the United States. Those divides are being politicized by the two parties, reinforcing political polarization and partisan antipathy across the country, which in turn are affecting domestic legislation and foreign policy as well as hampering America’s progress in the 21st century.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

Vernae Gallaread speaks with a fellow The Arc San Francisco member. Credit: The Arc San Francisco

By SeiMi Chu
San Francisco, Sep 16 2022 (IPS)

Vernae Gallaread aspires to teach sign language to people with disabilities and to families who cannot afford sign language lessons for their children.

Gallaread has an intellectual and developmental disability, but that doesn’t stop her from pursuing her dreams. She initially self-taught herself sign language through a book that her mother bought.

At The Arc San Francisco, where she works as a receptionist and a board member, Gallaread develops her sign language skills through a class the organization offers.

As a board member, Gallaread can voice her opinions and discuss the organization’s policies, improvements, and participants’ ideas.

“The Arc San Francisco has impacted my life because I got to show my independence. They taught me to have confidence in myself, be a self-advocate, and speak up for myself,” says Gallaread.

The Arc San Francisco’s mission is to partner with adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities and transform communities through lifelong learning and self-determination.

The organization offers person-centered services that include workforce development, education, wellness programs, and even art and recreational programs. Workforce is one of its pillars but not the main one.

The Arc San Francisco’s workforce development program is focused on competitive integrated employment – meaning that participants get competitive jobs compensated as they would for a more traditional candidate.

Clifford Phillips received the 2019 James Latin Self-Advocacy Memorial Award from the 23rd Golden Gate Self Advocacy Conference. Credit: The Arc San Francisco

Participants go through a paid internship before deciding what field they are interested in pursuing. By collaborating with a team of specialized job developers, The Arc San Francisco encourages participants to look at their needs—whether they need full-time or part-time employment, their skill sets, and their passions. After making their decision, participants will receive help from a job developer navigating their job search.

“What we have found in the last eight to 10 years is that we have corporations coming to us, looking for talent. We’ve been pounding the pavement looking for jobs for folks. This has been an interesting development. That we’re seen as a talent pipeline, which is wonderful,” Kristen Pederson, Executive Director at The Arc San Francisco, reflecting on its workforce development program.

In addition to its workforce development program, The Arc San Francisco has an adult education program. Depending on the participant’s needs, the organization will provide individualized services for its participants and ensure that they are reaching the goals that they have set for themselves.

Clifford Phillips, a participant at The Arc San Francisco with an intellectual and developmental disability, is a member of the adult education program. He volunteers for the homeless, sings as part of the gospel choir, and shops at Safeway for his fellow participants.

Through the organization, Phillips teaches a black history class, in which Gallaread is also enrolled. He dreams of becoming a teacher who will stand up for everyone and make a change.

“People out there don’t care about us. When people tease us, I will stand up for myself. I want to help people and be a strong African American man who will stand up for everybody,” Phillips says, articulating his passion.

California is the only state that has mandated services for people with developmental disabilities. The Lanterman Developmental and Disabilities Services Act was enacted in 1969. This law states that services and supports are “available to persons with developmental disabilities, including innovative services and supports, the standard agreement contract between the department and regional centers and purchase-of-service policies, and information and training on protecting the rights of consumers at administrative hearings.”

People who have disabilities can go to regional centers in California and qualify for different services that the centers offer, such as counseling, educational training, family support, and many others.

Ramakrishna joined HopeTHRIFT in 2019. Despite his disability in being unable to walk independently, he gained confidence through interacting with strangers while working at the thrift store. Credit: Hope Services

Another organization that aids people with intellectual and developmental disabilities is Hope Services. The organization was founded in 1952 by a group of parents who had children with disabilities. They wanted to have their children at home while also giving them access to education. The organization currently serves over 3,600 individuals every year and is in eight counties in California.

Hope Services has a variety of programs that range from education to housing, but its popular program is the community employment program. The organization initially helps its participants individually by finding out what their interests and skill sets are. Afterward, it finds jobs that fit best with the participants. If extra help is needed, Hope Services has staff that can support participants on the job until they fully understand and learn the tasks and responsibilities.

“Some individuals might need long-term support. For instance, we have a group of four people that work at Home Depot right now. There is a staff that is there all the time with them and goes from one person to another to give them the support that they need throughout the day,” Cathy Bouchard, Specialty Director at Hope Services, explained.

Hope Services founded jobs for over 300 people. One of its successes includes its thrift stores, HopeTHRIFT. People can donate used goods, and HopeTHRIFT will sell those goods to generate revenue for Hope Services. HopeTHRIFT furthers Hope’s mission by providing career opportunities and job experience for its clients.

When asked about her time working at Hope Services, Bouchard described it as the best thing that happened to her. “It really solidified the fact that every individual, regardless of the level of disability, has a contribution to make and a family that loves and cares for them,” Bouchard reflected.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Katy Rodríguez (R) and her son (in his father’s arms) when they were reunited after leaving the Migrant Assistance Centre in San Salvador following their deportation. Like thousands of other families, mother and son were separated for four months after entering the United States without the proper documents. Credit: Edgardo Ayala/IPS

By Peter Costantini
SEATTLE, USA, Sep 9 2022 (IPS)

For a while in 2018, the Donald Trump administration’s “family separation” policy looked like it might become the Stalingrad of his war on immigrants. It was clearly a bridge too far politically, given the global outcry it provoked. Even parts of the Republican party couldn’t stomach it. So Trump retreated strategically on family separation, and intentionally left the program so disorganized that reuniting parents and children became a still-incomplete ordeal.

At the same time, though, he launched other forms of bureaucratic blitzkrieg to punish and separate families seeking asylum and other legal statuses and move towards an immigrantenrein United States. His final offensive, Title 42, slammed the door on nearly all forms of immigration at the southwest border under the widely rejected pretense that it would prevent the spread of COVID-19.

Over four years later, the casualties of family separation are still being found and healed. According to the July 31 report of the White House’s Interagency Task Force on the Reunification of Families, there are still 941 children, about 17 percent of the total separated, who are not yet reunited or in the reunification process. But media attention has faded over time.

Over four years later, the casualties of family separation are still being found and healed. According to the July 31 report of the White House’s Interagency Task Force on the Reunification of Families, there are still 941 children, about 17 percent of the total separated, who are not yet reunited or in the reunification process. But media attention has faded over time

Now Caitlin Dickerson and The Atlantic magazine have done the wounded and the world a service by digging deep and doggedly to flesh out this ugly history, shining light into the back alleys of the Trumpist immigration project and onto the faces of its victims.

“’We need to take away children’ – The secret history of the U.S. government’s family-separation policy” is an exhaustive and meticulous investigation of the systematic jailing of immigrant parents and their separation from their children at the U.S.-Mexico border. It comes at an auspicious moment to remind us how much the guts of Trump’s immigration initiatives were infected with lawlessness and gratuitous sadism.

She provides powerful evidence that traumatizing kids and preventing their parents from finding them were precision-targeted, intentional thuggishness, rather than careless bureaucracy. And her research demonstrates that if Trump’s wholly owned subsidiary, the Republican Party, takes power again, it will double-down on its attacks on immigrants’ lives, which it sees as a winning political strategy.

Trump’s nose-thumbing at the Espionage Act and the various laws trashed at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, along with his reflexive obstruction of justice in many investigations, finally appear to be the target of serious attention from the Department of Justice and others.

However, his assaults on many thousands of immigrant families, while they struck a dissonant chord for even some of his supporters, were soon drowned out politically by other abuses and scandals. Now Dickerson’s full orchestration amplifies the original themes, counterpointing many of the current motifs of 45’s fugue of criminality. And critically, she gives eloquent voice to many of the families torn apart by the policies, along with the psychologists, lawyers, community groups, and a few bureaucrats with a conscience working to reunite and heal them.

This story of family separation broke in the spring of 2018 after Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced his “Zero Tolerance” policy, which included jailing asylum-seeking parents and taking away over 5,500 of their children, according to Physicians for Human Rights. But as Dickerson documents, pilot efforts to separate families began early in the Trump administration in 2017, although officials claimed that no such policy existed. (Note: I got a glimpse into a tiny corner of that landscape of pain volunteering to accompany a few parents and kids who had been separated.)

Even some Congressional Republicans and groups such as conservative evangelicals panned the policy as excessively cruel. Many organizations for human and immigrant rights insisted that what Sessions was trying to criminalize was in fact protected by U.S. and international law: migrants have the right to ask for asylum at or in between official ports of entry, or anywhere else in the U.S.

In fact, they have to be on U.S. territory to make their request. Zero Tolerance, which supposedly necessitated separating children because it threw their parents in jail for asking for asylum between ports of entry, was an attempt to sweep away the basic premises of asylum by executive fiat.

The last surviving prosecutor of the Nazis at Nuremberg decried family separation as a “crime against humanity”. Physicians for Human Rights issued a report condemning the policy as a form of torture and forced disappearance. And the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights called it “government-sanctioned child abuse”.

A report by the Department of Homeland Security’s own Office of the Inspector General criticized the agencies involved for inadequate recordkeeping and data management that made it difficult to reconnect parents and children.

Dickerson makes clear that the shoddy family tracking system was an intentional effort to render reunification more difficult. John Bash, a U.S. attorney in El Paso, Texas, testified in court that he was horrified by the policy’s effects on children. All that was needed, he reportedly said, was a simple spreadsheet to record the information linking parents and children. But none was created.

From recently disclosed internal emails, Dickerson discovered that plans to reunite parents and children were “faulty to the point of negligence” because “inside DHS, officials were working to prevent reunifications from happening.” Bash testified that he and other government attorneys made efforts to close cases against migrant parents within a few days in order to allow their children to be reunited with them rapidly, before they could disappear into the separate branch of the Department of Health and Human Services that took care of unaccompanied children. He said he was later outraged to learn that these efforts were quashed by Trump operatives within Immigration and Customs and Enforcement and the Border Patrol, who were determined to punish families by keeping them separately detained and incommunicado, long-term or permanently, against all legal and ethical standards.

A 2018 lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, Ms. L v. ICE, elicited a ruling that the family separation policy was unconstitutional. The court ordered the government to reunite all separated families, and the Trump administration went through the motions of complying. But as ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt later wrote: “The reason so many families have not been located is because the Trump administration withheld their names and then failed to disclose information that could have helped us find them.” Even after the judgement, Trump’s operatives continued to expand the jailing of immigrants and tearing apart of their families through other means.

Through his four years, Trump relentlessly cranked up the volume on the false narrative that an enormous “invasion” of dark-skinned “illegal aliens” had to be deterred by increasingly brutal, sometimes borderline psychotic, measures. The President reportedly proposed that the border wall should be electrified and that a water-filled trench should be dug the length of it and stocked with alligators or poisonous snakes. He also asked his advisors about the feasibility of shooting migrants in the legs to slow them down when they tried to cross the border. His immigration Rasputin, Stephen Miller, later allegedly floated the idea of reinstating family separation with a vicious twist.

Under “Binary Choice”, immigrant parents with children would be forced to choose: allow their children to be taken away from them, or waive humanitarian protections for juveniles so that the whole family could be imprisoned together indefinitely. A revelatory book by New York Times reporters Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Michael D. Shear, Border Wars, details many similarly unhinged policy debates in the Trump White House.

When the Biden administration took power with promises to humanize the immigration system, it appointed an interagency task force to finally reunite all of the families. But progress has been slow on the difficult cases remaining, largely because of the Trump administration’s poor record-keeping and obstructionism.

The task force reported that as of July 14, almost a year and a half after its establishment, there are still 1,217 children not known to be reunited with their families {although some of these may have found each other but not informed the government). Of these, 276 are “in process for reunification”. But of the rest, 764 have “contact information available but not reunified” and 177 have “no confirmed contact information available and reunification status unknown”. So a total of 941 are not yet in the reunification process. However, the total still not reunited has been reduced by 510 since September 2021.

Biden appointed Michelle Brané, director of the Migrant Rights and Justice program at the Women’s Refugee Commission, to run the task force. “The idea of punishing parents who are trying to save their children’s lives, and punishing children for being brought to safety by their parents by separating them, is fundamentally cruel and un-American,” she told Dickerson in 2018, prior to being appointed. “It really to me is just a horrific ‘Sophie’s Choice’ for a mom.”

Legal efforts to grant permanent legal status to affected families and to make illegal the separation of parents and children for purposes of deterrence are both on hold, ACLU attorney Gelernt told Dickerson. The Biden administration pulled out of negotiations with separated families on payment of restitution for their suffering, according to reporting by Jonathan Blitzer of The New Yorker. Allegedly, the administration withdrew partly out of fear of political damage from mendacious attacks by Republicans claiming that Biden was making immigrants millionaires by negotiating damages. In fact, the government had not yet made an offer, but was trying to settle because it believed that the court would hold it liable.

One positive Biden policy change, allowing unaccompanied children to request asylum when their families still could not, may have led to unintended consequences. As a result, more children were reportedly being sent to the border alone to get them out of perilous Mexican border areas controlled by organized crime. And in reality, many long-running immigration policies, from unjust deportations to long detentions, have also had the effect of tearing apart families.

Overall, Biden’s immigration initiatives have slowly eliminated some of Trump’s worst abuses, but have delayed removing others and in some cases extended them. A few of the most capable immigration advisors, such as Andrea Flores, former director of border management for the National Security Council, have left the Biden administration out of frustration with backsliding and delays on reform, according to a piece by Blitzer. Other high-level administration officials confirmed that “resistance to easing Trump-era restrictions” on immigration came from high up in the White House: “Ron Klain, the chief of staff; Susan Rice, the head of the Domestic Policy Council; and Jake Sullivan, the national-security adviser”. All three are “political people”, but none is an “immigration expert”, Blitzer’s sources told him.

Despite the threats to democracy exposed by the January 6 hearings and other investigations, some in the Administration seem to be underestimating the magnitude of the menace posed by Trump and the MAGA movement to a just immigration system.

The heart of Trumpism is a strain of white sado-nationalism. It is an explicitly racist and xenophobic ideology that proposes ethnic cleansing to ultimately end most immigration, legal or not, and kick out most immigrants, more than four out of five of whom are from Latin America, Asia and Africa.

It is motivated in part by the great replacement theory: in a nutshell, Make America White Again. And it is punctuated by brutality against vulnerable immigrant families and efforts to trample the civil and human rights of all people of color. As historian Mae Ngai of Columbia University told me in an interview, “I think there’s too many brown people in this country for their tastes — that’s what it all comes down to.” And Adam Serwer of The Atlantic nailed its essence: “The cruelty is the point.”

Trump has created “something akin to a fascist social and political movement,” as philosopher Jason Stanley of Yale University put it. And it has become the North American vanguard of a nascent fascist international, led by Trump and Vladimir Putin, and featuring luminaries such as Viktor Orbán of Hungary, Marine Le Pen of France, Matteo Salvini of Italy, and other mainly European leaders.

Fascism needs scapegoats to blame for the mythical fall from greatness, and immigrants are a favorite whipping boy for many of them. Other conservative but not fascist movements have also borrowed or innovated anti-immigrant ideas: for example, Boris Johnson and the British Conservatives’ failed plan to ship rejected asylum seekers to Rwanda, in Central Africa, is a crackpot variant on Trump’s now-defunct Remain in Mexico policy.

If Trump or another MAGA standard-bearer is elected in 2024, they will likely try to resurrect some form of family separation, along with other aggressive policies floated at the end of his term, such as further limits on asylum, an end to birthright citizenship, and more use of active-duty troops at the border. His closest immigration advisors, including Stephen Miller, Stephen K. Bannon and Kris Kobach, continue to publicly advocate for these sorts of scorched-earth measures, and will undoubtedly lobby hard for them in Congress if the GOP wins either house in November.

Regardless of the occupants of the White House or Congress, Trump successfully filled the ranks of Homeland Security and related departments with leadership and rank-and-file staff who shared his ideology. Dickerson fleshes out the rogues gallery with some lesser-known cadre and renders a detailed account of how they took control of the far-flung immigration bureaucracy.

The Washington Post recently editorialized on family separation: “There has been no accounting for the officials who conceived, pushed and carried it out. Nor has the U.S. government offered the traumatized families permanent legal residence in the United States, even as a means of reuniting deported parents with their children. … Congress must ensure future presidents never try this again.”

The Biden administration needs to stop looking over its right shoulder on immigration: negotiation with the MAGAfied GOP on this is futile, but it has managed to alienate many among the immigrant communities and allies essential to the Democratic coalition. It’s way past time to return to the kinds of immigration policies that Biden initially promised, based on global realities on the ground, human rights, and family values.

In the United States, race is the number one indicator of whether or not you live near potential toxic exposures. Credit: Courtesy of the author.

By Chandler Blythe Duncan
BIRMINGHAM, USA, Aug 25 2022 (IPS)

Built in 1942 and still operating today, Camp Lejeune is a military base covering over 153,000 acres in Jacksonville, North Carolina. Shortly after it was founded, it became heavily contaminated with toxic chemicals like perchloroethylene, benzene, trichloroethylene, vinyl chloride, and later on PFAS. However, the military only realized the severity of the issue in 1982, when the Marine Corps discovered volatile organic compounds on base.

Perchloroethylene is a colorless liquid used for the dry cleaning of fabrics. The source of the perchloroethylene contamination was a dry-cleaning firm ABC One-Hour Cleaners, situated off-base. The benzene and trichloroethylene contamination, both industrial solvents, came from years of improper use and disposal of chemicals on Camp Lejeune employed for cleaning weapons and equipment.

Black Americans breathe in 56% more polluted air than they produce, while Latinos inhale 63% more. In comparison, white people breathe in 17% less toxic air than they release

PFAS, a group of dangerous chemicals that may take over a thousand years to break down in the environment, is found in firefighting foam (AFFF). As a result of firefighters using and training with AFFF on base, PFAS ended up polluting at least 14 sites of the military base. AFFF, a fire suppressant, contains between 50% and 98% PFAS and was used regularly at Camp Lejeune.

The level of perchloroethylene detected at the military base was 43 times higher than the safe limit, while the level of trichloroethylene exceeded the safe limit by 280 times. PFAS were found at Camp Lejeune in a concentration over 2,450 times higher than the safe limit. Exposure to such a hazardous mix of chemicals may result in debilitating health problems such as lung cancer, Parkinson’s disease, kidney cancer, leukemia, multiple myeloma, and ovarian cancer.

How black service members are impacted by toxic exposure to a greater extent than their white counterparts

More than one million people lived at Camp Lejeune between 1953 and 1987 when toxic exposure on the military base was most extreme. During this time over 20,000 men trained on a racially segregated Marine base known as Montford Point, which is now part of Camp Lejeune, in preparation for World War II. 

The living conditions at Montford Point were inferior compared to Camp Lejeune. The Marines stationed at Montford endured racism and were not permitted to enter Camp Lejeune without being accompanied by a white servicemember.

The military used Montford Point until approximately seven years before the federal government prohibited racial segregation. Although this military base was not part of Camp Lejeune at the time, it was also heavily contaminated with some of the same toxic agents.

Regarding active duty military members, it is important to note that black individuals currently represent only 19% of all enlisted personnel. Only 9% of those are officers. Several decades ago, there were even fewer black service members, and a very small number had a high rank.

According to data from the Pentagon and the Veterans Affairs Department, black service members are less likely to become officers. As a result, they are more prone to being injured while serving their country than their white counterparts. 

Some black military members became injured by being exposed to toxic chemicals daily on military bases such as Camp Lejeune. Since most have a lower rank, they must spend time on contaminated military installations, unlike most officers, lieutenants, and generals. Therefore, the risk of toxic exposure among black servicemembers as a whole, is considerably higher. 

Toxic exposure, significantly more prevalent among communities living near polluted military bases

In the United States, race is the number one indicator of whether or not you live near potential toxic exposures. There is a consistent pattern in this country of placing hazardous waste and hazardous industry in disenfranchised areas, often predominantly neighborhoods of color.

The availability of affordable land, poverty, historical discrimination, and lack of political power to fight corporations all contribute to environmental racism. Consequently, minority neighborhoods are clustered around industrial sites, military bases, truck routes, ports, and other air pollution hotspots.

Right now, the population of Jacksonville, North Carolina, is 74,313. An additional 170,000 people live at Camp Lejeune. Half of the city’s population inhabits the military base, which places the civilian community at high risk of toxic exposure. Consequently, 37,156 individuals may come to struggle with awful, life-threatening diseases in the near future. This is not uncommon, as there are civilian communities living on or near the 679 contaminated military bases in the United States.

Alarmingly, the military ordered the clandestine burning of over 20 million pounds of AFFF and AFFF waste between 2016 and 2020, despite no evidence that incineration can destroy PFAS. The largest amounts of AFFF remains were burnt in New York, near Plattsburgh Air Force Base, Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station, and Griffiss Air Force Base. By burning this fire suppressant and the waste it left behind on military bases such as Camp Lejeune, the communities that live nearby, will inevitably be affected by the toxins emitted into the air by this reckless process.

How can we combat environmental racism?

To combat environmental racism, we must attempt to curb environmental crime and seek justice for its harm. Approximately 1/3 of the total burden of disease worldwide can be attributed to environmental hazards. Black Americans breathe in 56% more polluted air than they produce, while Latinos inhale 63% more. In comparison, white people breathe in 17% less toxic air than they release. 

When industry creates an environmental hazard that harms communities, legislative efforts and criminal conviction can sometimes be an effective deterrent. However, efforts to restrict environmental crime in this way have often been met with opposition from professional organizations who see policy as a hindrance to economic interest.

If the state turns a blind eye private law can aid disenfranchised, harmed communities through toxic tort and class action lawsuits. Grassroots efforts and coalitions with legal groups and private firms can be a successful option for redress. 

Chandler Blythe Duncan is a lawyer and MPH at Environmental Litigation Group P.C., whose main practice area is toxic tort law. Chandler’s expertise is providing quality legal assistance in cases involving water contamination and toxic exposure. She is also a member of the American Bar Association, the Birmingham Bar Association, and the Birmingham Volunteer Lawyers Program. 

By Marty Logan
KATHMANDU, Aug 4 2022 (IPS)

The largest ever settlement in Canadian legal history, 40 billion Canadian dollars, occurred in 2022, but it didn’t come from a court – it followed a decision by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. In 2016 the Tribunal affirmed a complaint that the Government of Canada’s child welfare system discriminated against First Nations children. (First Nations are one of three groups of Indigenous people in Canada).

When I heard about that amount and subsequently how the government was negotiating the details of that settlement, I was astounded. Although I’ve had an interest in and reported regularly about human rights in the past three decades, my most intense experience has been here in Nepal, where for a couple of years I worked at the United Nations human rights office.

Nepal’s Human Rights Commission has a long history of having its recommendations virtually ignored by the government of the day. In fact, since 2000, only 12% of the NHRC’s 810 recommendations have been fully implemented. So when I compared the situation in Nepal to the tribunal’s decision and aftermath in Canada, my first question was ‘how’? How could the human rights situation in the two countries be so different that one government was compelled to pay out $40 billion for discrimination while another could virtually ignore recommendations?

First, I have to confess that my understanding of the human rights framework in Canada and Nepal was lacking. As today’s guest, Professor Anne Levesque from the University of Ottawa, explains, Canada, like Nepal, has a federal human rights commission (as well as commissions in its provinces). But Canada also has the tribunal, a quasi-judicial body that hears complaints and can issue orders. Nepal however, lacks a human rights body that has legal teeth.

But is that the whole story, or are there other reasons why the Government of Canada must – and does – pay up when it loses a human rights case while the Government of Nepal basically files away the NHRC’s recommendations for some later date? Nepal, by the way, is not a human rights pariah. It is serving its second consecutive term on the UN Human Rights Council and the NHRC has been given an ‘A’ rating by an independent organization for conforming to international standards.

Resources

As a lawyer who’s helped fight for the rights of First Nations children, here’s what you need to know about the $40 billion child welfare agreements – article by Anne Levesque

Ruling of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

Public advocacy for the First Nations Child Welfare complaint

One in two First Nations children lives in conditions of poverty (First Nations people account for about half of Canada’s Indigenous population of 1.7 million). Credit: Creative Commons/Qyd

By Marty Logan
KATHMANDU, Jul 28 2022 (IPS)

Canada and its major cities consistently appear in Top 10 lists of best places in the world to live. But delve into figures about children’s lives in the northern nation known for ice hockey heroics and you see a different picture.

For example, one in five children in the North American country of 38 million people lives in conditions of poverty. That rises to one in two for First Nations children (First Nations people account for about half of Canada’s Indigenous population of 1.7 million).

Also, Canada ranks 30th among 38 of the world’s richest countries in the well-being of children and youth under age 18, according to UNICEF. “Canada’s public policies are not bold enough to turn our higher wealth into higher child well-being,” suggests UNICEF to explain the gap.

“Canada is not using its greater wealth for greater childhoods: Canada ranks 23rd in the conditions for good childhood but 30th in children’s outcomes,” adds the United Nations agency, in its 2019 report Worlds Apart, the Canadian companion to a global survey of the world’s richest countries.

One in five children in the North American country of 38 million people lives in conditions of poverty. That rises to one in two for First Nations children

UNICEF suggests that rising inequality might be reflected in the low scores for children’s well-being. “More equal societies tend to report higher overall child well-being and fewer health and social problems, such as mental illness, bullying and teenage pregnancy,” says Worlds Apart.

Activist Leila Sarangi goes a step further to explain the inequality. “Canada is still a colonized nation and that is a strategy for maintaining structure and systems that perpetuate things like poverty,” says Sarangi, National Director of Campaign2000, a non-partisan coalition of 120 organizations.

She refers to a 2016 decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal that found the Canadian Government had discriminated against First Nations children in providing child welfare benefits. It ordered the government to pay each affected child $40,000. Earlier this month the government agreed to total compensation of $20 billion for children and caregivers affected by that discrimination.

On 23 June 2002 the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child wrote that it was “deeply concerned” about “discrimination against children in marginalized and disadvantaged situations in the State party (Canada) such as the structural discrimination against children belonging to indigenous groups and children of African descent, especially with regard to their access to education, health and adequate standards of living.”

In its concluding observations of reports submitted in May, the committee recommended that Canada “put an end to structural discrimination against children belonging to indigenous groups and children of African descent and address disparities in access to services by all children.”

Sarangi says Campaign2000 hoped that the federal government budget in April would act on the government’s post-Covid-19 ‘build back rhetoric’ and provide relief to the poorest Canadians. “We really believe that big spending and big change is possible and we saw that in the pandemic, the way that the government moved really quickly to provide different kinds of support and services,” she added in a Zoom interview.

“Unfortunately the budget missed out. It talks a lot about the deficit and trying to reduce the deficit. One of the things that was really absent from that budget — there was really nothing on income security.”

Instead, poor families have fallen into even deeper poverty says Campaign2000’s 2021 report card on child and family poverty, the first time that has happened since 2012. “When the (monthly, tax-free) Canada Child Benefit was implemented in 2016 and 2017 you can see the rate of child poverty drop pretty significantly — you see a real drop in that rate of child poverty,” says Sarangi. “But in the last two years it’s stalling, and that’s because there’s not been new investment into that benefit… it is frustrating because we know that those kinds of transfers work.”

Non-profit organization Canada Without Poverty (CWP) noted that the budget mentioned poverty 4 times, compared to 90 times for its 2021 counterpart. “It is a policy choice not to invest in social programmes that will serve marginalized communities and alleviate and reduce poverty,” says National Coordinator Emilly Renaud in an email interview. “It is not about less money, it is about a lack of political will to deal with issues of poverty.

“The federal government has committed to a 50 percent poverty reduction by 2030, but there is no clear answer as to what that 50 percent will look like, and if it will look equitable,” she added.

CWP’s Just the Facts webpage lists startling statistics such as:

• Between 1980 and 2005, the average earnings among the least wealthy Canadians fell by 20%.
• People living with disabilities (both mental and physical) are twice as likely to live below the poverty line.
• Precarious employment increased by nearly 50 percent over the past two decades.

The situation won’t improve without structural change, says Campaign2000’s 2021 report card: “Dismantling systemic racism, particularly anti-Indigenous and anti-Black racism, is needed to eradicate poverty and inequality. Policies meant to address higher poverty rates in marginalized communities need to be developed with the communities they target and incorporate trauma-informed principles to policymaking.”

While abortion in Canada has been legal for decades, procuring one is difficult for many. Credit: Gayatri Malhotra/Unsplash

By Juliet Morrison
Ottawa, Jul 19 2022 (IPS)

Toronto resident Miranda Knight describes her abortion experience as relatively simple. After finding out she was pregnant on a Wednesday in 2017, she booked an appointment at an available clinic and got one for the following Monday. She had the procedure that day and left the clinic by noon.

But Knight’s experience is not the reality for all. As Canada’s most populous city, Toronto has several access points to abortion. Despite abortion being legal nationwide since 1988 and officially treated like any other medical procedure, many other parts of the country do not have access points.

The United Nations has highlighted this disparity. A 2016 report from the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women encouraged the Canadian government to improve the accessibility of abortion services nationwide.

According to the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC), fewer than one in five hospitals offer the procedure.

ARCC Executive Director Joyce Arthur said access could be a real struggle for those living outside cities or far from the US border. Most access points are found within less than 150 kilometers of a town, where most Canadians live.

“As soon as you’re away from the city, or up north, you often might have to travel for services, sometimes hundreds of kilometers, and even sometimes for medication. Access is pretty good in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec […], but the rest of the provinces only have one or two or three or four access points. It’s just not enough,” she said.

Abortion access differs by province partly because healthcare in Canada is a provincial responsibility. According to 2019 figures, Quebec has the highest number of access points with 49 province-wide, while Newfoundland and Labrador have four and Saskatchewan has three.

Abortion in Canada by province. The data was published August 2019 with information from the 2014 Abortion Provider Survey. Credit: Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights

Healthcare disparities among rural and urban communities are a significant issue in Canada—especially considering the country’s geography. But Arthur told IPS that unequal abortion access went beyond that.

“Canada is a really big country geographically, so other health care procedures might be hard to access, and people have to travel sometimes. But abortion is a very simple procedure. Early-first trimester abortion can be done on an outpatient basis and doesn’t really require a lot of special equipment. Why aren’t more hospitals doing it?”

Arthur believes the culprit is stigma from the anti-choice movement.

“Much of this is due to remaining abortion stigma from before it was de-criminalized. The anti-choice movement has continued to play a big role in reinforcing that stigma and instilling fear in providers. There’s still this feeling of silencing and shame, which comes from abortion stigma,” she said.

Arthur explained it was not that long ago that doctors would get shot for performing abortions in Canada. From the late 1970s until the mid-1990s, there were several instances of violence against physicians in their own homes.

“That permeates on various levels, not just at the level of the doctor or the patient, but also in government and in medical organizations who would rather just not have to deal with abortion and not have to think about it,” she said.

Disparities in access have led community organizers to step up and help those in need get care.

Shannon Hardy, a birth doula, founded Abortion Support Services Atlantic (ASSA) in 2012 after encountering issues related to abortion access across the Atlantic provinces.

“Some things came across my desk about lack of access in Prince Edward Island. And I didn’t actually know that PEI didn’t offer abortion services, like the entire island for 32 years just didn’t offer it. […] It kind of blew my mind,” she said.

People wanting to terminate their pregnancy can contact ASSA for information, peer support, transport to abortion clinics, or even financial help for travel. In these cases, Hardy told IPS that ASSA would often fundraise to pay for gas, hotels, or flights.

Support services are beneficial for those encountering stigma, Hardy said.

“When a person is facing an ill-timed or unwanted pregnancy, they can immediately feel a stigma around seeking abortion care. Who is safe to reach out to? Will people judge me? Will my doctor/medical center offer me care? My goal for creating ASSA was to have a place […] where anyone seeking abortion care could reach out and help would just be there.”

Hardy’s work has spearheaded a movement. Many other doula organizations have popped up across the country with a similar model. They also often collaborate with national abortion advocacy organizations to help people access the procedure in circumstances that require on-the-ground coordination and support.

Yet, Hardy believes that the need for organizations like ASSA point to critical access issues across the country and inaction at government levels.

“It’s been frustrating that there’s not more access. We, as a grassroots organization, are the ones responsible for getting people from one small town to access abortion instead of the healthcare system stepping in and saying, ‘you know what, we actually have the resources to offer that medical service. So, we’re just going to do that to make life easier’,” she said.

The proportion of hospitals providing abortions to the female population. Credit: Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights

Working in Alberta, one of Canada’s most socially conservative provinces, Autumn Reinhardt-Simpson is familiar with how attitudes on abortion can impact care. She founded Alberta Abortion Access Network to help those across the province in 2015.

Reinhardt-Simpson told IPS that those in rural areas face increased access issues because their care is more dependent on the “private moral concerns” of the health care professionals in their area.

This can make trying to get an abortion more complicated, she explained. Many physicians and pharmacists are either unwilling to offer reproductive health services or unaware of their legality.

In one case, Reinhardt-Simpson had to visit ten different pharmacies to find one that stocked Mifegymiso—the abortion pill that became legal in 2017.

“They were saying things like, ‘Oh well, we can’t dispense this, or this isn’t legal yet. Or well, we can’t get the medication.’ And it’s like no, no, that’s not how this works,” she said.

Alberta has only four access points for surgical abortions, all in its cities. Along with another helper, Reinhardt-Simpson services the whole of Alberta’s 661,848 km² (411, 253 mi²) and helps people access abortion services.

In her view, the stigma around abortion care is detrimental. It can even be physically harmful—particularly for those in later trimesters desperate for solutions.

“The stigma is preventing thousands of Albertans from receiving critical and routine health care. Because there are so many hoops to jump through, some people will get tired of those hoops, and they will try to do something themselves. It doesn’t usually end well. […] the stigma is physically dangerous, it’s emotionally harmful, and culturally it does us no good,” she said.

Being familiar with reproductive justice issues as a community organizer, Knight feels compelled to share her abortion story to combat stigma and normalize the procedure.

She’s currently developing a storytelling project that will feature diverse abortion experiences. Knight told IPS the project’s proceeds would go to improving access across Canada. She hopes to help to improve access for others, considering how essential the procedure was for her.

“My prevailing feeling about the whole thing was just relief. I don’t want to live in an alternate universe where I didn’t have access to abortion. My life would be very different now,” she said.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A half-century of reproduction rights upended by the Supreme Court. Credit: Greenpeace.

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Jul 18 2022 (IPS)

The 24 June decision of United States Supreme Court to overturn the country’s nearly 50-year constitutional right of a woman to an abortion is being felt worldwide.

In addition to the objections and protests to the court’s landmark decision within the United States, governments, world leaders, and others have expressed their concerns and dissatisfaction about the overturning a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.

The court’s decision to overturn the constitutional right to an abortion established in 1973 is at odds with the views of a broad majority of the public. No less than two-thirds of U.S. adults did not want the court to overturn the 1973 decision

The European Union’s parliament overwhelmingly condemned the decision ending the constitutional protections of women for abortion in the United States. Fearing the expansion of anti-abortion movements in Europe, the parliament also called for safeguards to abortion rights be enshrined in the EU’s fundamental rights charter and protections be adopted across the EU.

The Director General of the World Health Organization was very disappointed with the decision and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights called the court’s decision a major setback. Access to safe, legal, and effective abortion, the Commissioner stressed, is firmly rooted in international human rights law.

Objections to the decision came from many government leaders worldwide. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, for example, saw the decision as a big step backwards. Accusing the court of diminishing the rights of U.S. women, the President of France said that abortion is a fundamental right of all women.

The German Chancellor viewed the decision as a threat to the rights of women, as did New Zealand’s Prime Minister who saw it as a loss for women everywhere. The Belgian Prime Minister expressed concerns about the signal the decision sends to the rest of the world about a woman’s right to an abortion.

Fifty years ago, various U.S. states criminalized a woman having an abortion. In 1973 in the case Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s majority of seven justices established a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion in all 50 states (Table 1).

The justices concluded that state statutes criminalizing abortion in most instances violated a woman’s constitutional right of privacy, which it found to be implicit in the liberty guarantee of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.

Thirty years ago, the Supreme Court revisited Roe v. Wade in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey. A majority of five justices reaffirmed a woman’s right to an abortion but imposed a new standard to determine the validity of laws restricting abortions.

The new standard asks whether a state abortion regulation has the purpose or effect of imposing an “undue burden”, which is defined as a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.

In June 2022, in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization a majority of six justices concluded that the 1973 and 1992 abortion decisions of a dozen former justices were egregiously wrong in their legal reasoning that led to erroneous decisions concerning the right to an abortion.

After nearly a half century of women having a constitutional right to an abortion enshrined in the 1973 decision and reaffirmed in the 1992 decision, six justices of the current Supreme Court concluded that there is no such constitutional right. In the dissenting opinion, the court’s remaining three justices wrote that the U.S. will become an international outlier after the decision.

The court’s decision to overturn the constitutional right to an abortion established in 1973 is at odds with the views of a broad majority of the public. No less than two-thirds of U.S. adults did not want the court to overturn the 1973 decision.

In addition, a majority of Americans, approximately 60 percent, and President Biden with the backing of many Democratic leaders support Congress passing a law establishing a nationwide right to abortion. Such a law would protect a woman’s right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

In contrast, a comparatively small minority of Americans, 13 percent in 2022, are opposed to abortion, with some, including Republican leaders, considering a federal abortion ban for all fifty states. Since 1975, the annual proportion of Americans who say abortion should be illegal in all circumstances has varied from a low of 12 percent in 1990 to a high of 22 percent in 2002 (Figure 1).

Source: Gallup Polls.

Following its decision to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision, confidence in the Supreme Court has reached historic lows. A majority of the U.S. public, 58 percent, have an unfavorable view of the Supreme Court. That level of disapproval is now on par with the public’s unfavorable view of Congress.

In addition, the United States has become a patchwork of abortion laws and given rise to a myriad of enforcement regulations, numerous court cases, and challenging legal questions. Abortion is now banned in at least nine states and more bans are expected in the near future. In some states, such as Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, and South Dakota, abortion is banned with no exceptions for rape or incest.

Also, many state legislatures are considering ways of stopping or criminalizing out of state abortions. They are also proposing banning or tightly restricting the use of abortion medication, which was approved in 2000 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and accounted for an estimated 54 percent of the country’s abortions in 2020. In response, other states are advancing legislation and executive orders protecting patients and providers from legal risks outside their borders.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision finding no constitutional right to an abortion has raised concerns that other rights not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution are at risk of being overturned. Among those rights are same-sex marriage, same-sex relationships, and contraceptives.

In a concurring opinion to the recent abortion decision, for example, one of the court’s justices indicated that other precedents should be reconsidered. He also mentioned that future legal cases could curtail other rights not clearly addressed in the U.S. Constitution.

The court’s abortion decision may also embolden abortion opponents, influence policymakers, and affect reproductive health programs in other countries as well. The decision puts U.S. alongside several other countries, including Poland, El Salvador, and Nicaragua, that have backtracked on or restricted abortion policy in recent decades.

However, the court’s abortion decision runs counter to recent global liberalization trends on reproductive rights. During the past three decades about 60 countries have expanded laws and policies relating to reproductive rights, including legal access to abortion.

In sum, the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court has not only revoked the nearly 50-year constitutional right of a woman to an abortion, but it is also now out of sync with the increasing worldwide recognition of fundamental reproductive rights, including a woman’s right to an abortion.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

Safe Passages arranges food distribution for 120 immigrant families. Families also receive immigration information, legal information, and referrals, such as rental assistance programs, COVID-19 vaccination details, and parenting resources. Credit: Safe Passages

By SeiMi Chu
Stanford, Jul 18 2022 (IPS)

Veronica Vega’s husband was the first in the family to immigrate to Oakland, California. When 27 years ago Vega decided to join him, she was five months pregnant and walked across the Mexican border to come to the United States.

“It was a horrible experience. It was so sad to leave your country, your town, and your family behind. Everything was different – the country, the language, the community. That’s why I looked around to find somewhere I could belong,” Vega reflected.

She discovered Safe Passages, an organization that supports youth and families by providing enhanced services and community development through various programs. Vega no longer felt alone.

Now, Vega is the Community Development Manager at Safe Passages, and she assists other immigrants in getting the help they need to integrate into US society successfully.

Vega tells of a success story. She helped a family from Tijuana, Mexico, receive their acceptance to the renowned Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. DACA is an immigration policy that provides immigrants who came to the US as a child a work permit and a two-year period to reside in the country without facing deportation. After two years, immigrants need to submit a renewal application for DACA. US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) allows renewal subject to requirements.

The mother of two fled from Mexico to California because she faced domestic violence from her husband. She and her children contacted Safe Passages, where they met Vega.

Safe Passages serves about 5,000 families annually. One of their programs focuses on helping children who may face deportation due to their refugee status. Vega connected this family to one of their partners, East Bay Community Law Center (EBCLC).

A private lawyer through EBCLC helped them receive their permanent residencies, and the service they received was free.

“When I heard they were considered permanent residents of the United States, I was so happy. They never realized they would receive anything, and I was so happy,” Vega said.

Vega helps families who fear deportation. She aids about 1,500 families per year with immigration resources.

She wants to partner with more non-profit organizations to help immigrant families.

“I was accepted into this country, and I love to work in the community. I love to help people regardless of race, age, and status,” Vega explained.

Alicia Perez, Chief Operating Officer of Safe Passages, described how the different programs at Safe Passages interconnect.

Safe Passages aims to support families with children with a big focus on school-based programs. They have after-school and tutoring programs, family resources, and health centers. Safe Passages makes the information accessible by ensuring materials are in the migrants’ home languages – informing them about their civil rights.

The organization provides immigrant families with Red Cards created by the immigrant Legal Resource Center. The Red Card informs families about their rights under the US Constitution, whether they are immigrants or not. Safe Passages asks families to carry their Red Cards in case they are stopped by law enforcement or the police.

“We believe all children should have access to education, health care, and support. By doing so, they are most likely to live fulfilling lives and be successful, regardless of race, economic status, ethnicity, or gender,” Perez said.

Refugee Processing Center’s Refugee Admission Report releases data on the number of refugee arrivals. California had the highest refugee arrivals from October 1, 2021, through May 31, 2022, with 1,128 people arriving in the state.

Florencia Reyes Donohue, a senior paralegal in Kids in Need of Defense’s (KIND) San Francisco office, helps prepare and file forms for unaccompanied child clients seeking protection in the US.

KIND’s mission is to ensure that no child goes into immigration court without high-quality legal representation and that unaccompanied children have access to the protection they need and deserve. The organization partners with pro bono attorneys from more than 700 law firms and corporations to represent clients at no cost.

KIND worked with 29,000 children from 2009 to 2021. In addition to legal services, they provide holistic care through its social services program. KIND ensured that children would have an easier time adjusting to a country they were unfamiliar with by addressing their traumas. KIND offers counseling referrals, social-emotional support, health insurance assistance, school enrollment, and job placements, among other services.

Reyes Donohue said she admired the bravery the children she worked with had. “They do this journey alone; they are incredibly resilient.”

Fathers attend their kids’ soccer team practices and Safe Passages’ parenting workshops. Safe Passages provides immigration information, parenting workshops, and referrals during these practices. Credit: Safe Passages

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

More than 1.3 million people in Ontario, Canada, the most populous province in one of the world’s wealthiest countries, are food insecure. Credit: Ottawa Food Bank

By Juliet Morrison
Ottawa , Jul 12 2022 (IPS)

Lisa Argiropulos, a single mother of two teenage sons and a resident of Ottawa, Ontario, has been facing food insecurity since 2016, after an accident that left her with chronic pain and disabilities.

Unable to continue working, Argiropulos has been living off disability support and child benefits payments. Yet, her income is insufficient to provide for herself and her family, especially with today’s prices.

“With the prices going up, it’s astronomical. I was struggling before. Now it’s ten times worse. By the time I pay all my bills, my utilities, and any expenses, what’s left over for food is not nearly enough. It’s been really, really hard. You’re always having to look elsewhere for help, weekly, monthly,” Argiropulos said.

In Canada, the cost of food has risen 9.7 percent from April 2021 to April 2022. The high price of other necessities, like gas and housing, has also contributed to food insecurity; people have to spend more of their income on those expenses, which leaves less for food.

Food insecurity occurs when people do not have reliable access to enough nutritious food. Pre-pandemic, it affected approximately 1.3 million people in Ontario—the most populous province of one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

“That really shows how challenging it is for so many in Ontario. It is not everyone’s reality to be able to afford all your basic necessities in a month,” Amanda King, Director of Network and Government Relations at Feed Ontario, said.

Today, the total number living with food insecurity is likely to be bigger because inflation has put more people in precarious positions.

“Food insecurity is something that’s somewhat invisible. That is why it is really important to emphasize the data and statistics that we have. If you look at a classroom, you cannot immediately identify which child did not have breakfast that morning. Statistically, you know there are children in that classroom that have not had breakfast,” King said.

To get by, Argiropulos seeks additional support from her local food bank to stretch her food budget. For her, that is the Barrhaven Food Cupboard, where she’s allowed one visit a month. While she receives a package of food intended to last for seven days, it goes quickly in her family of three, with her growing sons.

Food banks are also feeling the current strain of inflation.

Usage of food banks has increased significantly in the past couple of months as more people are in need. According to CEO George Macdonald, the Barrhaven Food Cupboard has seen a usage increase of 130 percent since last year. Ottawa Food Bank CEO Rachael Wilson noted that they served 52,000 meals across their network in March. Last year, they served an average of 44,000 a month.”

Higher food and gas prices mean that it has become more expensive for food banks to operate. Before the pandemic, the Ottawa Food Bank spent 1.7 million Canadian dollars (about USD 1.31 million) annually on food. This year, Wilson told IPS they were preparing to spend over 4.5m CAD (USD 3.49m).

Though both Wilson and Macdonald were coping with the demand, they noted that further increases in food bank usage could affect their ability to serve their community.

“It’s very stressful. Knowing how we are going to get food on our shelves every day is just a day-to-day stress right now. So far, there hasn’t been an instance where we couldn’t provide the food that is needed. But I honestly don’t know how sustainable it is for us to continue to meet the needs at this level without major change,” Wilson said.

The Ottawa Food Bank, which supports 112 smaller food programs, relies primarily on charitable donations. It receives no regular funding from the provincial or federal government.

The current extent of food insecurity has prompted calls for change in how policymakers address the issue.

Government interventions on food insecurity have mostly been in helping support the operations of food banks.  Provincial relief for food insecurity during the pandemic came indirectly: over 1 billion CAD was allocated in Social Services Relief Funding (SSRF) (about USD 775m) to help municipalities and social service providers, including food banks.  ­­­­

While helpful for short-term relief, Tim Li, research coordinator at PROOF—a program from the University of Toronto working to identify policy solutions for hunger—explained that these interventions do little to address the causes of food insecurity.

“Hunger is not just about not having food. It’s about people’s financial circumstances. It’s about poverty, lack of income, and income security. We’re not seeing action that takes that approach as far as addressing income inadequacy to reduce food insecurity. It goes to show that the safety net is not as robust as we thought.”

Rather than increasing aid to food banks, PROOF advocates for income-based solutions, such as expanding social assistance and increasing the minimum wage. Such moves would require mostly provincial-level action, given the provinces are responsible for both areas.

“Our research really points to policymakers tackling minimum wage, social assistance, and all the other different policies that exist within their toolbox, whether that’s income tax, child benefits. There’s a lot that public policymakers can do. It’s just a matter of them doing it,” Li said.

More than 60 percent of people dependent on social assistance in Canada are food insecure, according to a 2018 study.

The total is presumed to be bigger today, given most social assistance programs are not indexed to inflation. This results in support payments being worth less and less each year as prices rise, potentially leading more people to slip into food insecurity.

Argiropulos is also asking for income-based solutions. Fully supporting herself and her family is simply out of reach in her current state, she told IPS.

Around a year ago, her doctor recommended she apply for a food allowance for those with dietary needs because of medical conditions. The allowance was part of Ontario’s Disability Support Program (ODSP), and Argiropulos qualified because she had type two diabetes.

She was shocked, however, upon realizing how much she was eligible to receive.

“He sent in [the paperwork], and it was only an additional 35 dollars per month for type two diabetes. I had gestational diabetes throughout both pregnancies with my children. So, I know. I’ve seen dieticians. I know how you’re supposed to eat. I know about carbohydrates. I know about all that stuff. Thirty-five dollars, it’s not even doable,” she said.

Argiropulos noted that the reality of living on social assistance and facing food insecurity needs to be emphasized.

“I worked my entire life, and I fell on bad times. And food, nobody should be denied food. We live in a country where we should not be denied food. When you are forced to rely on the system, struggling for food should not happen. It just shouldn’t.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A half-century of reproduction rights upended by the Supreme Court. Credit: Greenpeace.

By External Source
BOSTON, USA, Jun 27 2022 (IPS)

After half a century, Americans’ constitutional right to get an abortion has been overturned by the Supreme Court. The ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization – handed down on June 24, 2022 – has far-reaching consequences. The Conversation asked Nicole Huberfeld and Linda C. McClain, health law and constitutional law experts at Boston University, to explain what just happened, and what happens next.
What did the Supreme Court rule?

The Supreme Court decided by a 6-3 majority to uphold Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. In doing so, the majority opinion overturned two key decisions protecting access to abortion: 1973’s Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, decided in 1992.

The Supreme Court’s rolling back a right that has been recognized for 50 years puts the U.S. in the minority of nations, most of which are moving toward liberalization. Nevertheless, even though abortion is seen by many as essential health care, the cultural fight will surely continue

The opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, said that the Constitution does not mention abortion. Nor does the Constitution guarantee abortion rights via another right, the right to liberty.

The opinion rejected Roe’s and Casey’s argument that the constitutional right to liberty included an individual’s right to privacy in choosing to have an abortion, in the same way that it protects other decisions concerning intimate sexual conduct, such as contraception and marriage. According to the opinion, abortion is “fundamentally different” because it destroys fetal life.

The court’s narrow approach to the concept of constitutional liberty is at odds with the broader position it took in the earlier Casey ruling, as well as in a landmark marriage equality case, 2015’s Obergefell v. Hodges. But the majority said that nothing in their opinion should affect the right of same-sex couples to marry.

Alito’s opinion also rejected the legal principle of “stare decisis,” or adhering to precedent. Supporters of the right to abortion argue that the Casey and Roe rulings should have been left in place as, in the words of the Casey ruling, reproductive rights allow women to “participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation.”

Chief Justice John Roberts concurred in the judgment that Mississippi’s law was constitutional, but did not agree with the majority opinion that Roe and Casey should be overruled entirely.

The ruling does not mean that abortion is banned throughout the U.S. Rather, arguments about the legality of abortion will now play out in state legislatures, where, Alito noted, women “are not without electoral or political power.”

States will be allowed to regulate or prohibit abortion subject only to what is known as “rational basis” review – this is a weaker standard than Casey’s “undue burden” test. Under Casey’s undue burden test, states were prevented from enacting restrictions that placed substantial obstacles in the path of those seeking abortion. Now, abortion bans will be presumed to be legal as long as there is a “rational basis” for the legislature to believe the law serves legitimate state interests.

In a strenuous dissent, Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor faulted the court’s narrow approach to liberty and challenged its disregard both for stare decisis and for the impact of overruling Roe and Casey on the lives of women in the United States. The dissenters said the impact of the decision would be “the curtailment of women’s rights, and of their status as free and equal citizens.” They also expressed deep concern over the ruling’s effect on poor women’s ability to access abortion services in the U.S.

Where does this decision fit into the history of reproductive rights in the U.S.?

This is a huge moment. The court’s ruling has done what reproductive rights advocates feared for decades: It has taken away the constitutional right to privacy that protected access to abortion.

This decision was decades in the making. Thirty years ago when Casey was being argued, many legal experts thought the court was poised to overrule Roe. Then, the court had eight justices appointed by Republican presidents, several of whom indicated readiness to overrule in dissenting opinions.

Instead, Republican appointees Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O’Connor and David Souter upheld Roe. They revised its framework to allow more state regulation throughout pregnancy and weakened the test for evaluating those laws. Under Roe’s “strict scrutiny” test, any restriction on the right to privacy to access an abortion had to be “narrowly tailored” to further a “compelling” state interest. But Casey’s “undue burden” test gave states wider latitude to regulate abortion.

Even before the Casey decision, abortion opponents in Congress had restricted access for poor women and members of the military greatly by limiting the use of federal funds to pay for abortion services.

In recent years, states have adopted numerous restrictions on abortion that would not have survived Roe’s tougher “strict scrutiny” test. Even so, many state restrictions have been struck down in federal courts under the undue burden test, including bans on abortions prior to fetal viability and so-called “TRAP” – targeted regulation of abortion provider – laws that made it harder to keep clinics open.

President Donald Trump’s pledge to appoint “pro-life” justices to federal courts – and his appointment of three conservative Supreme Court justices – finally made possible the goal of opponents of legal abortion: overruling Roe and Casey.

What happens next?

Even before Dobbs, the ability to access abortion was limited by a patchwork of laws across the United States. Republican states have more restrictive laws than Democratic ones, with people living in the Midwest and South subject to the strongest limits.

Thirteen states have so-called “trigger laws,” which greatly restrict access to abortion. These will soon go into effect now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe and Casey, requiring only state attorney general certification or other action by a state official.

Nine states have pre-Roe laws never taken off the books that significantly restrict or ban access to abortion. Altogether, nearly half of states will restrict access to abortion through a variety of measures like banning abortion from six weeks of pregnancy – before many women know they are pregnant – and limiting the reasons abortions may be obtained, such as forbidding abortion in the case of fetal anomalies.

Meanwhile, 16 states and the District of Columbia protect access to abortion in a variety of ways, such as state statutes, constitutional amendments or state Supreme Court decisions.

None of the states that limit abortion access currently criminalize the pregnant person’s action. Rather, they threaten health care providers with civil or criminal actions, including loss of their license to practice medicine.

Some states are creating “safe havens” where people can travel to access an abortion legally. People have already been traveling to states like Massachusetts from highly restrictive states.

The court’s decision may drive federal action, too.

The House of Representatives passed the Women’s Health Protection Act, which protects health care providers and pregnant people seeking abortion, but Senate Republicans have blocked the bill from coming up for a vote. Congress could also reconsider providing limited Medicaid payment for abortion, but such federal legislation also seems unlikely to succeed.

President Joe Biden could use executive power to instruct federal agencies to review existing regulations to ensure that access to abortion continues to occur in as many places as possible. Congressional Republicans could test the water on nationwide abortion bans. While such efforts are likely to fail, these efforts could cause confusion for people who are already vulnerable.

What does this mean for people in America seeking an abortion?

Unintended pregnancies and abortions are more common among poor women and women of color, both in the U.S. and around the world.

Research shows that people have abortions whether lawful or not, but in nations where access to abortion is limited or outlawed, women are more likely to suffer negative health outcomes, such as infection, excessive bleeding and uterine perforation. Those who must carry a pregnancy to full term are more likely to suffer pregnancy-related deaths.

The state-by-state access to abortion resulting from this decision means many people will have to travel farther to obtain an abortion. And distance will mean fewer people will get abortions, especially lower-income women – a fact the Supreme Court itself recognized in 2016.

But since 2020, medication abortion – a two-pill regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol – has been the most common method of ending pregnancy in the U.S. The coronavirus pandemic accelerated this shift, as it drove the Food and Drug Administration to make medication abortions more available by allowing doctors to prescribe the pills through telemedicine and permitting medication to be mailed without in-person consultation.

Many states that restrict access to abortion also are trying to prevent medication abortion. But stopping telehealth providers from mailing pills will be a challenge. Further, because the FDA approved this regimen, states will be contradicting federal law, setting up conflict that may lead to more litigation.

The Supreme Court’s rolling back a right that has been recognized for 50 years puts the U.S. in the minority of nations, most of which are moving toward liberalization. Nevertheless, even though abortion is seen by many as essential health care, the cultural fight will surely continue.

Linda C. McClain, Professor of Law, Boston University and Nicole Huberfeld, Edward R. Utley Professor of Health Law and Professor of Law, Boston University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Karuta Yamamoto, Dalton Tokyo Junior High School, Tokyo, Japan: “I try to not to use a (disposable) plastic bowl when I order food such as ramen noodles. I also share information about the harmful effects of plastic with my classmates. Credit: Karuta Yamamoto/IPS

By Andrew Lee, Karuta Yamamoto, SooJung (Chrystal) Cho, and Warren Oh
Seoul, Tokyo, Jakarta, Los Angeles, Jun 20 2022 (IPS)

Have you ever watched the movie “Free Willy”? A young boy, Jesse, had an Orca whale friend named Willy. Jesse freed Willy into the wild ocean believing that it was the best decision to make for his friend. Well, that was a long time ago.

If Free Willy was made in 2022, would we have the same ending?

With over 165 million tonnes of plastic waste found in the ocean these days, it makes us wonder if Willy would truly feel safe in our plastic-filled waters.

Considering that more than 100 million marine animals die every year due to plastic pollution, wouldn’t the aquarium be a safer habitat for Willy today?

Let’s explore what causes plastic waste in the ocean, how ocean ecosystems are impacted, and what actions we must take to reduce them to protect marine life and ultimately sustain our world’s biodiversity.

One day while I was watching TV, I became so disturbed by a campaign that showed images of fish suffering and sea turtles tangled up in plastic bags and fishnets.

About 8 million tonnes of plastic annually end up in the ocean, with about 5 trillion plastic pieces floating in the sea. It’s no wonder so many sea animals get entangled in them. It restricts their movements which leads to their premature death.

That is why I question if Willy would truly be free in our ocean today.

Furthermore, how do plastics end up there in the first place? Well, ALL of us human beings are the direct cause of it! The plastic trash we nonchalantly throw away flows into the rivers which carry it to the ocean – including discarded nets, lines, ropes, and abandoned boats by fishers.

Which countries are most responsible for it? According to the University of Georgia, countries like China and Indonesia top the list of countries causing plastic pollution, blocking the global sea.

However, we all know Willy is not the only marine animal affected by the plastic waste in the ocean – all marine life and ecosystems are affected by it, which directly affects our biodiversity negatively.

Why should we care? Because it affects ALL of humanity! We, too, are affected.

According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, 12-14,000 tons of microplastics are ingested by North Pacific fish yearly because a lot of them mistake plastics for food.

These are the same fish that we humans consume! According to Luís Gabriel A Barboza and others, in the journal Science Direct, 49% of the fish they analyzed had microplastics inside the gastrointestinal tract, gills, and dorsal muscle.

Considering we are at the top of the food web for seafood, we eat an estimated 842 microplastic items per year from fish consumption. That’s horrific!

According to a study by Joana Correia Prata and others, microplastics may disrupt immune function and cause neurotoxicity in humans.

So, in short, we end up eating the plastic trash we throw in the ocean, from which we will inevitably get sick.

Just think about it: we eat over 40 pounds of plastic (18 kilograms) in our lifetime. That’s the size of a large bag of dog food! Even worse, that plastic might even contain harmful toxins!

Now, how does that make you feel?

Similarly, marine animals also get hurt by plastic litter. According to EcoWatch, one in three marine animal species get entangled in the trash.

Isn’t it sad that 86% of innocent sea turtles get suffocated, drowned, or entangled in plastic?

What about microplastics? When marine animals ingest plastic, they can die of starvation because their stomachs are filled with plastic debris and often cut by plastic and suffer internal injuries.

If we don’t stop the accumulation of plastic waste in the ocean, what will become of our marine animals and us?

According to Condor Ferries, by 2050, fish will be outnumbered by our dumped plastic. If you were to go snorkeling by then expecting to see beautiful sea life, you’d be shocked to discover dirty plastic swimming around you in its place.

Under these circumstances, how does plastic waste impact ocean water? According to Okunola A Alabi and others, plastics in the oceans do not degrade completely. During the plastic degradation process, toxic chemicals like polystyrene and BPA can be released into the water, causing water pollution.

In addition to water pollution, plastic waste also threatens marine animal habitats. The harsh conditions and constant motion in the ocean break down plastic into particles of less than 5mm in diameter, called microplastics which are dispersed even farther and deeper into the sea, where it contaminates more habitats.

If Jesse were to free Willy into the ocean now, how would Willy feel when he ingests microplastics with every breath he takes? Something needs to be done for other animals like Willy. What action can we take to solve this problem?

Soo Jung (Chrystal) Cho: Students at Seoul Foreign School, Korea, participate in and promote a zero-waste lifestyle by using reusable water bottles instead of single-use plastic bottles. Credit: Soo Jung (Chrystal) Cho/IPS

Well, we don’t need to be great to do something grand.

Even a tiny seed of an idea can lead to a thoughtful solution.

Let us share what we do to reduce plastic waste in our daily lives.

As middle school students, we bring our reusable bottles to school and drink from the water fountain.

We use shampoo bars instead of shampoo from a plastic bottle.

Andrew Lee, Seoul Korea: Demonstrating how harmful liquid shampoos and soaps can be. This is in addition to the plastics used for their containers. Using natural soaps is environmentally friendly. Credit: Andrew Lee/IPS

In addition, instead of using plastic bags for our groceries, we carry our reusable shopping bags.

And when we go to a take-out place, we bring in our pots so that the restaurant does not need to use plastic containers. For example, when we go to a ramen noodle take-out place, we carry our pots and give them to the restaurant owner. Then he uses ours instead of disposable plastics (see main picture).

We also carry our slogans to public places such as schools and grocery stores as our campaign to educate people about reducing plastic waste and protecting ocean animals and the environment (See pictures 1~4).

These may be small actions, but they actively help reduce plastic waste. If you join us in our zero-waste lifestyle, we can make our community practice zero waste.

If our community goes zero waste, perhaps we can help our country practice zero waste. If our nation goes zero waste, our neighboring countries can join us, and eventually, we can make this whole world practice zero waste!

This type of chain reaction is not a far-fetched idea. We can make this happen!!

Warren Oh, Seoul Foreign School: “I created these slogans to use when participating in the Adidas Run for the Oceans: Help End Plastic Waste Challenge 2022. Locally, I support zero waste in my community, encourage recycling and continue to shop with Eco-Bags in Seoul.” Credit: Warren Oh/IPS

One small step is all it takes to start changing INACTION into ACTION! Many parts of the world already practice zero waste, such as Japan, Costa Rica, Dominica, and Guatemala, where over 80 percent of their waste is reused and recycled.

It is our duty as global citizens to keep marine animals and their habitats safe from our plastic wastes. Aquatic animals do so much for us.

Not only do they provide us with food to eat, but they are a part of vital ecosystems on which our world’s biodiversity depends.

So, exercise your power by doing your part to keep the ocean clean and safe for them.

Those who are able and willing to practice the zero-waste movement – COME, I ask you to join us in our action!

Use your creative minds to envision a plastic-free ocean. Marine animals like Willy will never be free unless we, as citizens of the world, take action to clean up our trash in the sea.

For the love of marine life, as Mother Teresa said, let’s do small things with great love. How would YOU like to start contributing? Our oceans need to thrive for ALL of us to survive!

Andrew Lee, Karuta Yamamoto, SooJung (Chrystal) Cho, and Warren Oh are middle school learners living in the USA and Asia. They participated in a joint APDA and IPS training on developing opinion content. Hanna Yoon led the course and edited the opinion content. 

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Hunger and food insecurity impact more than 38 million Americans. Black and Hispanic families and other minority groups including LGBTQ folks, consistently and disproportionally experience food insecurity.

By Esther Ngumbi
URBANA, Illinois, USA, Jun 15 2022 (IPS)

This September, the White House will convene a conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health. Leading up to the conference, the White House is organizing several virtual listening sessions across America to hear firsthand from people impacted by food insecurity and to collect ideas about how to end hunger and hunger-related diseases and disparities.

Hunger and food insecurity impact more than 38 million Americans. Black and Hispanic families and other minority groups including LGBTQ folks, consistently and disproportionally experience food insecurity compared with their white and straight counterparts particularly. Thus, this attention to the issue is long overdue.

African Americans still trail Whites in the overall use of the internet; 34% of Black adults do not have access to home broadband and 30.6% of Black households lack high-speed home internet. In addition, racial minorities and those with lower education levels and income are less likely to have broadband service at home

However, the strategy the White House is taking – hosting virtual listening sessions – is problematic in many ways. As much as they have good intentions, it may not yield the much-needed input necessary to accelerate progress and make significant policy changes to end hunger.

Instead, sadly, the White House hearings will likely only provide a small picture of the problem as it will be an effort the privileged are most able to join. Participating in these hearings necessitates that you have access to the Internet and you are aware of the listening sessions.

This likely means you are part of networks or have access to channels where the announcement was disseminated. Most importantly, joining the listening sessions is something that one must have the privilege of extra time to attend.

Unfortunately, Americans who are impacted hardest by food insecurity – the people President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris need to hear from – may not have one or all of these privileges. For instance, if we look at Internet access, according to Pew Research Center Report,

African Americans still trail Whites in the overall use of the internet; 34% of Black adults do not have access to home broadband and 30.6% of Black households lack high-speed home internet. In addition, racial minorities and those with lower education levels and income are less likely to have broadband service at home.

Moreover, according to Pew Research, 10 percent of Americans that do not use the internet live in rural areas– areas where food insecurity is prevalent. The major reason many Black families living in urban and rural communities do not have access to the privilege of having internet access is the cost.

Unsurprisingly, because of persistent racial inequities, African Americans and other minority groups that are most impacted by hunger may not have the privilege of time, since many have to work two or three jobs just to make ends meet.

Worse still, for many African Americans, despite working more every year, they hold much less wealth and experience higher rates of unemployment and have no tangible economic advancements.

Thus, rather than hold virtual listening sessions only to create a national plan on how to address hunger and food insecurity, the White House should consider adding other creative platforms to be more inclusive.

The most obvious one to implement is bringing the listening tours offline to the people in the communities and spaces where food security impacted people live in.

The easiest way to do this is to hold meetings and convening gatherings where people already go. As an example, the White House could convene in-person roundtable listening sessions at food banks across America, where according to Feeding America, close to 60 million Americans who are food insecure visit regularly.

Doing so would require the White House to partner with food banks and other organizations where people impacted by food security get food from.  Another prime location for listening sessions would be churches. Churches have an existing relationship with their participating members and can be used as a platform to solicit for stories and ideas.

The Center for Disease Control and other groups  that worked to increase the number of people that got vaccinated successfully undertook this same tactic and saw an increase in the number of people agreeing to be vaccinated. As an example, partnering with Black and African American churches in areas with low vaccination rates resulted in an increase in the number of people getting vaccinated.

Additionally, rather than hold a few virtual listening sessions that have set dates and times, the White House could partner and coordinate with hunger and food insecurity community-based organizations that have existing relationships with the people so that they hold multiple listening sessions.

These groups can create ways for additional feedback and ideas to be shared with the White House, and at the same time, the White House can use these community-trusted organizations to share additional updates on future White House efforts to end hunger. It’s a win -win.

Without a doubt, solving complex problems like hunger and food insecurity needs to be a united effort where everyone’s input, voice, and ideas are listened to and considered.

Achieving that necessitates that the White House considers other creative ways to solicit ideas and stories from those who have been impacted by hunger and food insecurity and to center the ideas they provide in the national plan outlining how America will end hunger. It is the right thing to do.

Dr. Esther Ngumbi is an Assistant Professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, and a Senior Food Security Fellow with the Aspen Institute, New Voices.

The Helping Young People Elevate (HYPE) Center is a center that is designed for youth who experienced homelessness, human trafficking, and systematic oppression.

By SeiMi Chu
Stanford, Jun 15 2022 (IPS)

Arien Pauls-Garcia’s journey to working with at-risk youth in California was long and dangerous and started at 19 when she found herself sold and exploited by traffickers.

Now, she is the Program Manager and Victims Advocate for at-risk minors at the Central Valley Justice Coalition in Fresno, California. She works with youth identified as at-risk of being sexually exploited.

It took time, grit, and strength for Pauls-Garcia to come this far.

Pauls-Garcia grew up in poverty in Humboldt County, California. As she went through tough family situations, such as having several stepdads and her mother experiencing numerous mental health problems, she used MySpace, a social networking platform, to talk to someone who would understand her.

She met a man who turned out to be a ‘Romeo pimp,’ a commonly used term to define traffickers seducing young girls or boys into believing they were loved. Romeo then sold her to another man with whom she spent four years.

Pauls-Garcia went through traumatic experiences—she was beaten, raped, branded, and forced to have an abortion by her traffickers.

“I experienced very horrific things that a person should never experience. I didn’t run or leave because of the shame, guilt, and embarrassment. I believed it was my choice to be in that situation and that I would not be accepted back into society,” Pauls-Garcia reflected.

When Pauls-Garcia escaped her trafficker, she tried to figure out how to become a person and not an object for sale.

“I really wanted to contribute to society and figure out my goals. I attempted to find a job for a year and a half,” Pauls-Garcia elaborated. She could not find employment because she had a record of misdemeanor charges of solicitation and trespassing.

However, through determination, she slowly built her life. This year marks her 10th freedom anniversary. She became one of the faces of the AB-262 bill. This new legislation allows human trafficking survivors to apply for vacatur relief by establishing clear and convincing evidence that arrests and convictions directly resulted from human trafficking.

Pauls-Garcia is also working on getting her record cleared up. She will graduate with her Bachelor of Science in Justice Studies at Grand Canyon University and plans to apply for law school.

As she continues to build her life, Pauls-Garcia wants human trafficking victims to know that the journey will be hard.

“It won’t always be sunshine and daisies. But the work that you put into yourself will be worth it in the end. If you mess up, that’s okay. You don’t have to ever go back to that life; there will always be a solution to our problem. Just keep fighting for it, and it will happen,” Pauls-Garcia said with powerful conviction.

California received the highest number of substantive signals related to human trafficking out of all 50 states in 2020.

Signals made to the National Human Trafficking Hotline in California increased in 2020. Compared to the hotline’s data report in 2019, more than 113 phone calls, 187 texts, and 20 webchats in 2020 were made.

National Human Trafficking Hotline connects victims and survivors to services and support groups.

In National Human Trafficking Hotline’s 2019 California data report, 3,184 phone calls, 935 texts, 208 emails, and 88 webchats were made to the line. However, the signals increased in 2020—more than 113 phone calls, 187 texts, and 20 webchats were made in 2020 than in 2019. The number of human trafficking cases continues to rise in California.

Marty Parker, Special Agent at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), noticed increased human trafficking cases since the pandemic.

“I can imagine that there were potentially people who had lost their jobs because of COVID-19. And were, therefore, desperate, which either got them into prostitution on their own or were more vulnerable to be trafficked into prostitution,” Parker said as reflected on the impact of the pandemic on human trafficking.

Parker handles child exploitation and human trafficking cases. Her squad is located in Oakland, California, and they work joint proactive operations with local police departments. Her job includes many tasks, such as recovering victims of trafficking, arresting suspected pimps and traffickers, and making contacts with law enforcement agencies.

“What we see on a day-to-day basis is people who are being trafficked are US citizens, normal people, your friends, kids, neighbors. This is everybody’s problem. This is a domestic problem. It impacts every city and every town,” Parker said.

In 2013, Parker’s squad successfully prosecuted a popular escort website called MyRedBook. The website included advertisements for girls and pornography.

“If we’ve got a girl who needs justice, we’re going to go after the bad guy. If there’s a missing kid, we’re going to find them,” Parker stated.

Parker works on human trafficking cases to give a voice and justice to survivors. Many of them were taken away from their families, and their childhood was stripped away. Parker said housing was a huge issue when survivors tried to regain their lives. Since there are a limited number of temporary and domestic violence shelters, sometimes there are no empty beds.

SF SOL (Safety, Opportunity, Lifelong relationships) Collaborative aims to create a continuum of care for youth experiencing or are at risk of experiencing commercial sexual exploitation. They have served over 300 youth so far. The California Department of Social Services funds them. Their collaborating partners include the City and County of San Francisco, Department on the Status of Women, Freedom Forward, WestCoast Children’s Clinic, Family Builders by Adoption, and Huckleberry Youth Programs.

Nazneen Rydhan-Foster, Program Manager of SF SOL, oversees the budget, project management, and anti-trafficking initiatives. One of their successful projects includes collaborating with the Helping Young People Elevate (HYPE) Center.

The HYPE Center is designed for youth who experience homelessness, human trafficking, and systematic oppression.

“What’s great about this center is that it’s made by youth and for youth. We really hope to see this center live on, be there, and serve the youths in San Francisco.”

The center went through some rough moments because they had to shut down their center when COVID-19 hit. However, they slowly opened up.

Breaking the Chains, a non-profit organization in Central San Joaquin Valley, California, started with a safe house for adult female survivors. They house six survivors who spend nine months to two years in the facility. On a day-to-day basis, they now serve an average of 90 to 100 clients. Since 2015, Breaking the Chains has offered services to over 800 clients. Its mission is to provide hope, healing, and restoration to all lives impacted by trafficking.

Tiffany Apodaca, Co-Founder of Breaking the Chains, a survivor of childhood sexual abuse and abandonment, also noticed increased human trafficking cases since the pandemic.

“It increased significantly. The simple fact is what we did—we put everybody at home on electronic devices, and there were not a lot of eyes on people. If there was trafficking happening within the household, then there weren’t teachers or anybody who could put eyes on kids to see if there was any abuse,” Apodaca explained how and why human trafficking got worse during COVID-19.

Breaking the Chains is launching its expanded Juvenile Justice Program on July 1, 2022. They will start with an addition of 150 minors who are either commercially sexually exploited children (CSEC) or at-risk youth.

This article is part of a series of features from across the globe on human trafficking. IPS coverage is supported by the Airways Aviation Group.
The Global Sustainability Network ( GSN ) is pursuing the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal number 8 with a special emphasis on Goal 8.7, which ‘takes immediate and effective measures to eradicate forced labor, end modern slavery and human trafficking, and secure the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labor, including recruitment and use of child soldiers, and by 2025 end child labor in all its forms’.
The origins of the GSN come from the endeavors of the Joint Declaration of Religious Leaders signed on 2 December 2014. Religious leaders of various faiths gathered to work together “to defend the dignity and freedom of the human being against the extreme forms of the globalization of indifference, such as exploitation, forced labor, prostitution, human trafficking”.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Souta Oshiro, Seoul, Korea. “This is a meme that I created. It is about donating foods that you overbought to food banks. I tried to make it funny and effective.” Credit: Souta Oshiro

By Sungjoon Ham, Souta Oshiro and Alex Yoon
Seoul, Tokyo, Boston, Jun 13 2022 (IPS)

Johnny, living in the United States (US), goes to his school and gets free breakfast and lunch there. There may not be enough food for dinner at home. But he knows that he can get fed at school. Sadly, however, after the pandemic, schools were closed, which meant no breakfast and no lunch for him.

Living in the United Kingdom (UK), Peter faces the same problem. He is lucky because he has a caring teacher who painstakingly walks five kilometers every day to deliver his meals. But not everyone is as lucky as Peter.

Farmers produce about 4 billion tons of food globally, but 1.3 billion tons (about one-third) are wasted and lost. Can you imagine how much that is? 100 kg of food loss and waste for every person on the planet!

Are you surprised?

Did you think that the issue of hunger concerns children in developing nations only during COVID-19?

Hunger now extends to countries like the UK, South Korea, Japan, and the US.

In other words, especially during the pandemic, hunger is not their problem but OUR problem.

Therefore, the urgency in solving this issue has become more apparent to those living in developed countries. We hope to inspire a movement of change through our efforts and inspire others to fight hunger by stopping food loss and waste.

We have to ask a fundamental question: Why does Johnny have nothing to eat while Sam in the neighborhood has too much food to eat?

Extending this question to an international level, why are children in Somalia starving while children in the US have obesity problems for overeating? What causes such inequality? And what can we do about it? We know that it sounds like a daunting challenge. How can kids like us, young and inexperienced, make a difference in world hunger?

A contingent of adults thinks we have neither the experience nor the expertise to bring changes to the “real world”.

No one said stopping hunger would be easy, especially during this pandemic. But it’s necessary, and it’s worth it.

From our research, the solution to world hunger, especially during COVID-19, can be two-fold. Firstly, the redirection of excess foods towards those in need, and secondly, the ‘untact’ method.

Let us start with the redirection of excess foods. There is a saying: “Someone’s trash is someone else’s treasure.” In other words, the food that Sam wastes can feed Johnny’s entire family.

Let’s take it to a global level. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the food currently lost or wasted in America could feed 300 million people, and in Europe, 200 million people.

If food could be redistributed to people or nations in hunger before it is wasted or lost, we would end the hunger pandemic.

Indeed, many countries are running soup kitchens and making donations of food. But after the COVID-19, many countries closed their borders, banned social gatherings, and even eating-in facilities.

Furthermore, a survey from the Borgen Project revealed that half of the people surveyed had concerns about exposing themselves to the virus in these eating spaces.

So not only less economically developed countries (LEDC) but also more economically developed countries (MEDC) are facing a hunger pandemic due to COVID-19.

According to Feeding America, an estimated 42 million people, or one in eight Americans, faced food insecurity in 2021.

How can we solve this hunger crisis during the COVID pandemic? We are suggesting our second solution: using the ‘untact’ method.

Since the COVID-19 outbreak, a new term, ‘untact’ (a combination of the prefix’ un’ and the word ‘contact’), has been floating around our society to indicate contactless movement in our daily affairs.

Can we somehow use the ‘untact’ method to redirect and redistribute foods before they are wasted or lost?

We find the answer in technology – in apps. For example, COPIA is an app created in the US to redistribute surplus food to feed the hungry.

This is how it works: Any restaurants, hotels, hospitals, cafeterias, and other businesses with food can use COPIA’s app to schedule pickups of their surplus food. Then a COPIA donation delivery driver picks up their excess food and delivers it safely to a local nonprofit recipient.

But COPIA’s job doesn’t stop there.

They track surplus trends for those donors so that they can reduce their food waste and loss.

Businesses can also get significant tax savings by using COPIA: For every $1 a company invests in food waste reduction, they can expect a $14 return on investment.

So, it is a win-win situation for all.

And this kind of ‘untact’ technology via an app is observed in other parts of the world: Wakeai app in Japan, Damogo in South Korea, Makan Rescue App in Singapore, Karma app in the EU and the UK, JustNow app in Africa, Flashfood app in Canada, Bring Me Home app in Australia and the list goes on.

We see this ‘untact’ technology as a possible solution that can reduce food loss and waste worldwide. We hope people try these apps and join our efforts to fight the hunger pandemic.

Besides the apps, there are practical solutions that we exercise in our daily lives as middle school students. We will share them here, hoping our actions can inspire others to do the same.

Alex Yoon inside the Stop and Shop, Massachusetts, USA. “I found these unwanted ugly fruits in this cart and decided to buy them to show that I am trying to reduce food waste instead of throwing them away. I blended them and made juice out of them.”

“When I go to a grocery store, I go for the unwanted ugly fruits because most people want to buy perfect-looking fruits only, and those ugly fruits end up in a trash can later because nobody wants them. I bring those ugly fruits home and make juice out of them. I find that they taste the same! So, I am holding up a sign in front of a fruit corner saying, ‘Aesthetics should not matter in produce selection!’, hoping to inspire people to buy all fruits regardless of their appearance,” says Alex Yoon.

Alex’s public campaign in the grocery store encourages many to follow suit by making mindful choices when choosing what to buy.

Souta Oshiro, Seoul (Raemian APT, Due Cose Hannam Branch, Shinsegae Department Store). “I am teaching food waste and loss to my friend. Some tips include buying food that has a shorter shelf time, eating everything on my plate, and planning for dinner to reduce food waste.”

Looking at Souta Oshiro’s efforts, we can see how beneficial food loss education can be on a personalized level.

“I run a private campaign with my friends. I go to their homes and educate them about food loss and waste issues in the world. In addition, when I go to a grocery store, I opt for foods that will expire soon and be wasted rather than freshly new products. When I come home with these foods, I feel so good because I saved them from going to a trash can,” Souta says.

“This feeling of satisfaction in preventing food from being wasted does not end here. As a household, when we purchase too much food during our weekly shopping, we choose to donate the extras to a food bank. This encourages us to not only be mindful during our shopping but also beyond the exit doors of the grocery store. The waste is not in landfills but in someone’s mouth. This simple redirection of excess foods means my family is relieved that our surplus will not end up in the trash.”

Sungjoon Ham, Seocho Middle School, Seoul, Korea: “I am holding up a large sign to passionately champion the increase of awareness on the severity of the hunger issue.”

Sungjoon Ham has chosen to participate in a public campaign in front of his school grounds so that his peers and teachers can be swayed to make mindful choices in their own lives. He aims to make students, who are hungry at lunchtime, think twice before piling up excess foods. These foods are not likely to be eaten because the students are too full. Furthermore, he hopes this can allow all those more fortunate to take a step back and reflect on being a part of the solution rather than the problem.

“During my campaign efforts, I hoped to increase awareness through my actions and artistic choices, which was why I decided to make my poster large with bold lettering. However, I did not want my efforts to end there. I hope that my actions can spread throughout social media with the help of my friends. Through inspiration from the Ice Bucket Challenge, I plan to upload this picture with the tag #NoFoodLoss. This process will allow many more people to join my campaign that will hopefully not end in Korea but spread worldwide,” says Sungjoon.

After looking at our efforts to end food loss and waste, we hope to encourage others to take part and spread awareness.

We agree that everyone should stop wasting food. However, this cannot be solved simply through a proclamation.

Therefore, we focused on compiling extensive research and explored the depths of this issue, which we found to be enjoyable.

Sadly, many people are not aware of hunger and food waste.

In conclusion, we hope that through reading this article, the depths of food waste and loss are understood and will encourage our audience to develop forward-thinking solutions for the betterment of our future.

Sungjoon Ham, Souta Oshiro, and Alex Yoon are middle school learners living in the USA and Asia. They participated in a joint APDA, and IPS training on developing opinion content. Hanna Yoon led the course and edited the opinion content. 

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, addresses the General Assembly’s 75th session in September 2020. Credit: UN Photo/Rick Bajornas

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Jun 13 2022 (IPS)

I am at a loss for words to express my horror as I watched the first segment of the public hearing of the Congressional committee investigating the January 6 insurrection. As long as the Republican Party denies what happened that infamous day and Trump remains free, this country faces unprecedented peril.

Righting the Wrong

The Congressional committee investigating the January 6 insurrection began the first of its public hearings last week. Each of these is of the highest importance to the country, even if many Americans are unlikely to be swayed by them.

Last Thursday’s hearing revealed never-before-seen footage of the violence that erupted in the nation’s capital, and testimony from officials and advisors close to Trump (including Attorney General Barr and Ivanka Trump) made it clear that they did not believe Trump’s fabrication of a stolen election and told him so.

These hearings are crucial to our Republic, to maintaining the integrity of our democratic norms and institutions, and to preventing not simply another violent mob outbreak, but another attack on our democracy orchestrated, as this was, by the highest office in the land.

Indeed, what happened on January 6, 2021, was unprecedented in our history. It was the culmination of a concerted months-long effort by the President of the United States to halt the transfer of power and stage a coup that would have meant the end of this country as we know it, had he been successful.

The rule of law hung in the balance that day. Trump knowingly lied and continues to lie about the results of the 2020 election, and he summoned a mob to the capital promising that January 6 would be “Wild” – a last ditch effort to prevent the certification of Biden’s election victory.

Every president in our nation’s history has honored the constitutional duty to relinquish power and allow the peaceful transfer of executive authority – every president that is, until Donald Trump.

This is what many Americans still fail to grasp or acknowledge: Trump struck at the very heart of our democracy, he broke a solemn oath and in doing so he has made it easier for this to happen again.

If presidents are unwilling to honor the results of free and fair elections, then the future of this Republic in the gravest of danger. As it is, Trump has forever stained the office of the president: in breaking his oath to the constitution he has irrevocably broken the sacred trust between the American people and their chief executive.

Nothing will ever change the fact that a sitting president attempted an illegal, unconstitutional, and profoundly immoral coup to remain in power; that is a cause not only for the gravest concern but for the deepest sadness.

These hearings then are among the most important ever conducted in the 246 years since this nation was born, for they bear on nothing less than the very survival of this country as a constitutional democracy.

The existential danger that burst into deadly mob violence on January 6 has not been laid to rest, it is ongoing. It is still poisoning our country and casting a shadow over the next presidential election.

Trump continues to lie to the public; Republican lawmakers continue to parrot those lies and downplay what happened on January 6 or excuse and even justify it as “legitimate political discourse.”

If a mob attack on the Capitol is “legitimate political discourse” then our fate is already sealed – it is, then only a matter of time until the next violent insurrection; and the next one may well make January 6 look like a mere rehearsal.

If Trump had his way, then Vice-President Pence would have also broken his oath to the constitution and derailed the certification of electoral votes. Our continued existence as a Republic might very well have hung on Pence’s actions that day.

The mob’s response was to call for Pence to be hanged, and a noose and scaffold was erected apparently for that very purpose. What was Trump’s reaction when he was told that the mob was calling for Pence’s summary execution? His words were: “Maybe our supporters have the right idea.” Mike Pence “deserves” it.

Trump did not want the attack to stop, responded angrily to advisors that begged him to call off the mob, and supported their aim to see Mike Pence, one of his most loyal followers, hanged. The country as a whole must reckon with and acknowledge what a sitting president perpetrated and the existential harm he brought on this country with his reckless, abhorrent, and illegal actions.

To be sure, Trump was personally and directly responsible for the worst attack on the Capitol since 1814, and as long as he is at the helm of the Republican Party, he remains a very serious threat to the United States.

The Republican Party has been irredeemably hijacked by Trump’s autocratic ambitions. In following him they are bringing this country ever closer to another existential precipice. Congresswoman Liz Cheney of Wyoming – effectively excommunicated from the Republican Party simply for performing her sworn duty as a member of Congress – said what every Republican lawmaker “defending the indefensible” must hear and take to heart:

“There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain.”

Indeed, if these hearings assure us of anything it is that history will not be able to forget or deny the peril in which the nation was placed by a violent mob deployed by the President of the United States to overturn the result of a legitimate elections.

It is now clear, even before we hear more testimony, that Trump and his co-conspirators engineered a coup to prevent the peaceful transfer of power even though he handedly lost the election.

Trump knowingly violated the constitution that he swore to uphold and protect. Thus, there should be no doubt in anybody’s mind that he has committed treason against the United States, for which he must be charged and face his day in court.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

President Joe Biden authorized use of the Defense Production Act to ramp up production of several climate-friendly technologies. Credit: MICHAEL WILSON/Unsplash

By External Source
Jun 10 2022 (IPS)

Solar panels, heat pumps and hydrogen are all building blocks of a clean energy economy. But are they truly “essential to the national defense”?

President Joe Biden proclaimed that they are in early June when he authorized using the Defense Production Act to ramp up their production in the U.S., along with insulation and power grid components.

As an environmental engineering professor, I agree that these technologies are essential to mitigating our risks from climate change and overreliance on fossil fuels. However, efforts to expand production capabilities must be accompanied by policies to stimulate demand if Biden hopes to accelerate the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy.

Energy and the Defense Production Act

The United States enacted the Defense Production Act of 1950 at the start of the Korean War to secure materials deemed essential to national defense. Presidents soon recognized that essential materials extend far beyond weapons and ammunition. They have invoked the act to secure domestic supplies of everything from communications equipment to medical resources and baby formula.

For energy, past presidents used the act to expand fossil fuel supplies, not transition away from them. Lyndon Johnson used it to refurbish oil tankers during the 1967 Arab oil embargo, and Richard Nixon to secure materials for the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline in 1974. Even when Jimmy Carter used the act in 1980 to seek substitutes for oil, synthetic fuels made from coal and natural gas were a leading focus.

Today, the focus is on transitioning away from all fossil fuels, a move considered essential for confronting two key threats – climate change and volatile energy markets.

The Department of Defense has identified numerous national security risks arising from climate change. Those include threats to the water supply, food production and infrastructure, which may trigger migration and competition for scarce resources. Fossil fuels are the dominant source of greenhouse gas emissions that are driving global warming.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine highlights additional risks of relying on fossil fuels. Russia and other adversaries are among the leading producers of these fuels. Overreliance on fossil fuels leaves the United States and its allies vulnerable to threats and to price shocks in volatile markets.

Even as the world’s top producer of oil and natural gas, the United States has been rocked by price spikes as our allies shun Russian fuels.

Targeting 4 pillars of clean energy

Transitioning from fossil fuels to cleaner energy can mitigate these risks.

As I explain in my book, “Confronting Climate Gridlock,” building a clean energy economy requires four mutually reinforcing pillars – efficiency, clean electricity, electrification and clean fuels.

Efficiency shrinks energy demand and costs along with the burdens on the other pillars. Clean electricity eliminates greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and enables the electrification of vehicles, heating and industry. Meanwhile, clean fuels will be needed for airplanes, ships and industrial processes that can’t easily be electrified.

The technologies targeted by Biden’s actions are well aligned with these pillars.

Insulation is crucial to energy efficiency. Solar panels provide one of the cheapest and cleanest options for electricity. Power grid components are needed to integrate more wind and solar into the energy mix.

Heat pumps, which can both heat and cool a home, are far more efficient than traditional furnaces and replace natural gas or heating oil with electricity. Electrolyzers produce hydrogen for use as a fuel or a feedstock for chemicals.

Generating demand is essential

Production is only one step. For this effort to succeed, the U.S. must also ramp up demand.

Stimulating demand spurs learning by doing, which drives down costs, spurring greater demand. A virtuous cycle of rising adoption of technologies and falling costs can arise, as it has for wind and solar power, batteries and other technologies.

The technologies targeted by Biden differ in their readiness for this virtuous cycle to work.

Insulation is already cheap and abundantly produced domestically. What’s needed in this case are policies like building codes and incentives that can stimulate demand by encouraging more use of insulation to help make homes and buildings more energy efficient, not more capacity for production.

Solar panels are currently cheap, but the vast majority are manufactured in Asia. Even if Biden succeeds in tripling domestic manufacturing capacity, U.S. production alone will remain insufficient to satisfy the growing demand for new solar projects. Biden also put a two-year pause on the threat of new tariffs for solar imports to keep supplies flowing while U.S. production tries to ramp up, and announced support for grid-strengthening projects to boost growth of U.S. installations.

Electrolyzers face a tougher road. They’re expensive, and using them to make hydrogen from electricity and water for now costs far more than making hydrogen from natural gas – a process that produces greenhouse gas emissions. The Department of Energy aims to slash electrolyzer costs by 80% within a decade. Until it succeeds, there will be little demand for the electrolyzers that Biden hopes to see produced.

Helping heat pumps succeed

That leaves heat pumps as the technology most likely to benefit from Biden’s declaration.

Heat pumps can slash energy use, but they also cost more upfront and are unfamiliar to many contractors and consumers while technologies remain in flux.

Pairing use of the Defense Production Act with customer incentives, increased government purchasing and funding for research and development can create a virtuous cycle of rising demand, improving technologies and falling costs.

Clean energy is indeed essential to mitigating the risks posed by climate change and volatile markets. Invoking the Defense Production Act can bolster supply, but the government will also have to stimulate demand and fund targeted research to spur the virtuous cycles needed to accelerate the energy transition.

Daniel Cohan, Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Rice University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Asian Americans affected by anti-Asian sentiment and hate crimes have provided support to each other. Left to right from top: Dr Boyung Lee, Dr Russell Jeung, Cynthia Choi, and Dr Bryant Lin. Credit: Myleen Hollero

By SeiMi Chu
California, Apr 28 2022 (IPS)

Dr Boyung Lee, a widow and the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Dean of the Faculty at Iliff School of Theology, would use a short break in her working day to walk around her neighborhood. The fresh air helped her deal with her grief and work-related stress.

In May 2020, however, this small but significant daily ritual ended abruptly.

Lee was walking when she noticed a dirty white truck but did not think much of it. She carried on walking, then heard something. The noise continued, and when she looked back, she noticed the driver inside the truck was shouting at her.

Listening carefully, Lee realized that he was jeering at her – including using one of the common taunts directed at the Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) community: “Go back to your country.”

Slightly shaken by this hostile confrontation, Lee continued walking. However, the driver followed her. Thankfully, Lee acted swiftly and ran into the opening of her neighbor’s apartment building, so the driver could not follow her.

The incident made her feel unsafe. She was even nervous about grocery shopping. The verbal attack turned a Korean American independent feminist into a dependent person.

Dr Boyung Lee was targeted by a truck driver on this street on S Elati Street near W Bates Avenue in Englewood, Colorado.

Lee now covered herself with masks and hats to prevent others from noticing that she was an Asian.

She started to feel safe when her peers offered to go with her on her walks. However, outside of that, Lee was afraid. It took Lee over a year to feel comfortable going out to work by herself.

Angered because her experience had turned her into a dependent person, Lee thought about how she could educate the public about the beauty of Asian culture.

By teaming up with a few Asian colleagues, she brought in Asian American artists. She hosted lectures and workshops to educate the community about the intersection of Asian culture and art. Through this experience, Lee felt empowered and returned to being the independent feminist she once was.

Lee is not alone in her experiences of Asian hate abuse. Many in the AAPI community faced harassment, discrimination, and abuse.

When a Pacific Islander spoke Chamorro at a mall in Dallas, Texas, a passerby coughed on her and jeered: “You and your people are the reason why we have corona. Go sail a boat back to your island.”

A mother tried to enroll her daughter in a gymnastics class in Tustin, California. However, the owner refused because the mother’s name was ‘Asian’. These were two of the numerous incidents reported by Stop AAPI Hate, a support group that works to end racism.

Dr Boyung Lee ran into the opening of this apartment building when the truck driver followed her. Targeted because she is an Asian American, the incident resulted in a loss of independence until she became involved in hosting lectures and workshops about Asian culture and art. Credit: Supplied

From March 19, 2020, when the pandemic emerged, until December 31, 2021, there were over 10,000 incidents reported to Stop AAPI Hate, of which 4,632 happened in 2020 and 6,273 in 2021. Based on the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism’s data, there was a 339% increase in anti-Asian hate crimes in 2021 compared with the previous year.

The increase in hate crimes against Asian Americans stems from the virus’s origin. COVID-19 was first identified in Wuhan province, China. Due to its origin, hostile rhetoric was used to connote the coronavirus, such as “Kung Flu”, “Chinese virus”, and the “Wuhan virus.” Racializing the virus led to an uptick in anti-Asian racism, prejudice, discrimination, and hate crimes. Common verbal harassment included: “Go back to China” and “Take your virus, you Chinks!”

The most recent report released by Stop AAPI Hate found that 63% of the hate incidents involved verbal harassment, 16.2% involved physical assault, 11.5% involved civil rights violations, and 8.6% involved online harassment. Most occurred in public spaces, such as public streets and public transits.

Asian Americans were blamed for “bringing the virus” to America.

Dr Russell Jeung, professor of Asian American Studies at San Francisco State University, worked with Cynthia Choi, Co-Executive Director of Chinese Affirmative Action, with other leaders, spearheaded the mission to fight anti-Asian racism. Jeung wanted to provide Asian American communities with resources, so this harassment would not happen again.

Along with Choi and Manjusha Kulkarni, Director of the AAPI Equity Alliance, Jeung founded Stop AAPI Hate to find solutions to the underlying causes of discrimination and hate. He formed a research team of San Francisco State University students to collect data to create the reports published on the Stop AAPI website. Jeung and his students discovered that hate crimes against Asian Americans occurred most frequently in California.

Jeung also noticed Asian Americans were taking a stance against racism.

Asian Americans used their social media platforms and utilized hashtags, such as #Racismisavirus, to ensure their posts would go viral. Another trend Jeung witnessed was that Asian Americans elected officials who would speak up against xenophobia.

As a result, Asian Americans turned out in their numbers to vote in 2020. As Jeung explained, Asian Americans voted for candidates who would support their beliefs and promised to fight against xenophobia.

Chinese Affirmative Action, a support community-based civil rights organization to protect the rights of Chinese and Asian Americans, and Stop AAPI Hate, collected first-hand accounts of people who self-reported what was happening and what was said to them.

The two organizations have been working on advancing racial equity by dealing with racial tensions between the Asian communities and other communities. These reports helped them understand the nature of the violent attacks. So far, over 3,700 cases have been reported to these organizations. They also work with the media to share the information.

“Certainly, in my lifetime, we have not witnessed this level of hate directed at our communities,” Choi lamented.

Dr Bryant Lin, a Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine at Stanford University School of Medicine and Co-Director and Co-Founder of the Center for Asian Health Research and Education, led a project that researched people’s perception of the relationship between COVID-19 and discrimination. They surveyed nearly 2,000 people across the country.

Lin explained the results of his study. “Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, and other Asian Pacific Islanders showed up to 3.9 times increased odds of self-reported racial discrimination due to COVID-19 and experienced nearly up to 5.4 times increased odds of concern for physical assault due to COVID-19.”

Although Asians are very diverse and heterogeneous – there are six major subgroups in the United States – they are treated as a monolithic group. Lin revealed that East Asians tended to experience more discrimination than South and Southeast Asians. The highest rates of self-reported discrimination were from Chinese Americans.

“Our study also found that people were very concerned about physical attacks, and people were also considering buying firearms,” Lin said. He added they were likely to do a further study on how perceptions changed.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Screen grab/nbcnews.com

By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON DC, Apr 12 2022 (IPS)

The evening news programs of the three dominant U.S. television networks devoted more coverage to the war in Ukraine last month than in any other month during all wars, including those in which the U.S. military was directly engaged, since the 1991 Gulf War against Iraq, according to the authoritative Tyndall Report. The only exception was the last war in which U.S. forces participated in Europe, the 1999 Kosovo campaign.

Combined, the three networks — ABC, CBS, and NBC — devoted 562 minutes to the first full month of the war in Ukraine. That was more time than in the first month of the U.S. invasion of Panama in December 1989 (240 mins), its intervention in Somalia in 1992 (423 mins), and even the first month of its invasion of Afghanistan in November 2001 (306 minutes), according to a commentary published Thursday by Andrew Tyndall, who has monitored and coded the three networks’ nightly news each weekday since 1988.

Normally in a war in which the United States is not involved, it would be the default position of the American news media to search for a fair-and-balanced way to present both sides of the conflict. It is to Zelensky’s credit that, this time, the networks had no problem seeing the conflict from his point of view

“Astonishingly, the two peak months of coverage of the [2003] Iraq war each saw less saturated coverage than last month in Ukraine (414 minutes in March of 2003 and 455 minutes in April),” he wrote. “…The only three months of war coverage in the last 35 years that have been more intensive than last month were Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 (1,208 minutes) and his subsequent removal in January and February 1991 (1,177 and 1,033 minutes respectively).”

That was at a time, however, when the network evening news devoted about a third more time to foreign news than it has in recent years when international news coverage has fallen to all-time lows.

Last month’s coverage of Ukraine even eclipsed by a wide margin the three networks’ coverage of the chaotic end of Washington’s 20-year war in Afghanistan last summer. Last August, the month with the most intense coverage, the three networks devoted a total of 345 minutes (or only about 60 percent of last month’s total Ukraine coverage) to the war’s abrupt denouement. Once U.S. forces had fully withdrawn by August 31, network coverage of Afghanistan fell precipitously to a total of just 103 minutes between September 1 and the end of year, despite the desperation of the country’s humanitarian situation that followed (and persists).

While the major cable news networks often receive more public attention, the evening news shows of ABC, CBS, and NBC collectively remain the single most important source of international news in the United States.

On weekday evenings, an average of some 20 million U.S. viewers tune in to national news programs on one or more of the three networks. That’s roughly four times the number of people who rely on the major cable stations — Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN — for their news during prime time. About two million more people watch the network news via the internet, according to Tyndall. The actual news content on each network runs about 22 minutes; in March, the total number of minutes of content for all three weekday evening news shows would have reached around 1500 minutes.

Historically, the amount of news coverage devoted to foreign wars has been positively correlated with the direct involvement of the U.S. military. “Normal expectations are that wars are always more newsworthy in America when American lives are at risk,” according to Tyndall, who noted that the only war in the last several decades to which the networks devoted as much time in one month as last month’s total coverage of Ukraine was in Kosovo in April 1999 (565 minutes) when U.S. aircraft led NATO’s bombing campaign against Serbia.

But the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which began in late February, “has overturned all normal patterns of journalistic response,” according to Tyndall. He gave most of the credit to the leadership and media savvy of President Volodymyr Zelensky who has largely controlled the narrative conveyed to Americans via the networks.

“It is a demonstration of Zelensky’s perceived newsworthiness that both ABC World News tonight and NBC Nightly News decided to assign their anchors to an extended interview with him, despite the fact that he would not be speaking English, meaning that the audio would consist of the stilted tones of a simultaneous translator,” Tyndall observed.

It also helped that “the overall structure of the coverage has been Kyiv-based,” in part due to Russia’s enactment of strict censorship coverage that, among other things, made it much more difficult to cover Moscow’s views. “Yet, more unusual for the American news media, there has been precious little coverage from Washington,” Tyndall observed. “Normally in a war in which the United States is not involved, it would be the default position of the American news media to search for a fair-and-balanced way to present both sides of the conflict. It is to Zelensky’s credit that, this time, the networks had no problem seeing the conflict from his point of view.”

This has extended even to the networks’ treatment of the refugee crisis provoked by the Russian invasion. “Normally, refugees are a seen-from-both-sides problem: desperate Syrians, or Haitians, or Central Americans clamoring at a border for humanitarian relief — and immigration officials at checkpoints guarding against an untrammeled influx that might overwhelm the host country,” according to Tyndall. “In this case, …there was no doubt that these refugees, mostly women and children and the elderly, were on a righteous ‘unarmed road of flight,’ as the bard puts it.”

The fact that all three networks sent their anchors to Lviv or Poland to cover the displaced and the refugees underlined both the importance of the story and the side that they were effectively taking, according to Tyndall.

In stressing the importance of Zelinsky’s own role, Tyndall noted that last month’s intensity of coverage is not explained by the uniqueness or importance to U.S. national security of Ukraine itself. In all of 2014, when both the pro-Moscow government in Kyiv was ousted and Moscow invaded and annexed Crimea and aided secessionist forces in the Donbas, the three networks devoted a total of 392 minutes, or an average of just over 32 minutes a month. Of course, that invasion resulted in U.S. and Western sanctions against Russia that set relations on a downward trajectory from which they have never recovered.

The networks’ fixation with Ukraine essentially filled to overflowing the “news hole” for international news. Only short snippets, including North Korean missile tests, the China East airliner crash, U.S.-China talks (which also centered around Ukraine), and Venezuela’s release  of two U.S. oil executives were mentioned by one or more of the networks during the month. The economic situation in Russia itself, as well as the sanctions levied against Moscow and the country’s oligarchs — both of which were directly related to Ukraine in any event — were also the subject of discrete stories.

The Ukraine coverage in March also crowded out the latest developments in the devastating humanitarian crises caused by Afghanistan’s collapsed economy and the ongoing wars in Yemen and Ethiopia.

This story was originally published by  Responsible Statecraft

Migrant encampment in the border town of Reynosa, Tamaulipas, Mexico. Credit: Adam Isacson.

By Adam Isacson
WASHINGTON DC, Apr 5 2022 (IPS)

“The migrants try to organize themselves to stay safe,” a humanitarian worker told me as we stood near a town square in Reynosa, Mexico, steps away from the U.S. border. More than 2,000 people from many countries, blocked from asking for asylum in the United States, were packed into this square block, living under tents and tarps, amid port-a-potties and cooking fires. Children were everywhere.

“They move the women and children to tents closer to the center of the square, to protect them from kidnappers.” Many nights, men raid the square, guns drawn, taking people away and holding them for ransom under brutal conditions.

It was my fourth day of a mid-March visit to the Texas-Mexico border region, and my second day visiting Mexico’s easternmost border state, Tamaulipas. Part of me was beginning to wonder whether the United States’ border and migration policies were somehow being designed with input from the Mexican organized crime groups that prey on migrants. It would be hard to devise a system that benefits these “cartels” more than the current one does.

Part of me was beginning to wonder whether the United States’ border and migration policies were somehow being designed with input from the Mexican organized crime groups that prey on migrants. It would be hard to devise a system that benefits these “cartels” more than the current one does

Tamaulipas is a large state, bordering more than 200 miles of Texas from Laredo to the Gulf of Mexico. Of Mexico’s six border states, it is the only one to have a level-four “Do Not Travel” warning from the U.S. State Department, “due to crime and kidnapping.”

Two cartels, and smaller factions, fight frequent running gun battles with each other and with security forces—while also corrupting and penetrating government institutions so thoroughly that the population has long ceased to view them as protection.

Given all this, one might expect migrants to try and avoid Tamaulipas and its dangers. Though many do, for the past nine years this has been the busiest part of the U.S.-Mexico border. The U.S. Border Patrol apprehends more migrants in south Texas’s Rio Grande Valley (McAllen, Brownsville, and surrounding towns), across from most of Tamaulipas, than it does in any other of the nine sectors into which it divides the border.

As Texas dips down far to the south here, this is the closest point on the border to Central America, so the agency encounters tens of thousands of Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Hondurans, and Nicaraguans here each year, along with Mexicans displaced by violence elsewhere in the country.

Many are parents with children. I also met some of a growing number of migrants now coming from Colombia, Haiti, and Venezuela. The vast majority hope to turn themselves in to U.S. authorities and ask for a chance to petition for asylum in the United States, claiming threats to their lives if returned.

This is also a busy route for migration because Mexican organized crime has locked down the routes across the border. Those who can pay several-thousand-dollar fees, selling everything they own and borrowing the rest, cross with cartel-sanctioned smugglers. It’s a huge moneymaker for organized crime, and for the corrupt Mexican security and migration officials who get paid to look the other way.

I was struck by the level of control that organized crime has over the lives of residents, and especially of migrants, in the Tamaulipas border cities of Nuevo Laredo, Reynosa, and Matamoros. Cold War-era East German officials would be impressed.

Nobody is allowed near the Rio Grande: riverfront parks sit empty. Those who try to cross without having paid a fee are beaten, or worse. Those who lack a “password” or other proof that they have paid cartels’ exorbitant fees are kidnapped.

Migrants, including parents and children, get held in fetid stash houses, while their captors text terrifying videos to relatives in the United States, instructing them to transfer ransom payments in the thousands of dollars. If nobody pays, they are disappeared, enslaved—forced to perform labor for the cartels—or even killed. Mexican security forces almost never come to the rescue.

In Nuevo Laredo, groups of kidnappers circulate in vehicles near the bridges from the United States, looking for recently removed migrants lacking the right “passwords,” whom they then kidnap. (Five days after my visit to Nuevo Laredo, Mexican soldiers arrested the cartel leader who had maximum control over the city’s criminal activity, unleashing days of mayhem with burning vehicles, shootouts, and grenades lobbed at the U.S. Consulate.)

In Matamoros, I asked whether “maybe 20 percent” of migrants waiting there had been kidnapped before. “Oh, it’s higher than that,” a humanitarian worker replied.

And every day, though the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is aware of the dangers and the consequences, the U.S. government delivers more victims to the criminals. The “Title 42” pandemic policy, which the Trump administration launched in March 2020 and the Biden administration is prolonging until May 23, has expelled non-Mexican migrants into Tamaulipas roughly 250,000 times since Joe Biden’s inauguration, without giving them a chance to ask for asylum in the United States.

Mexican citizens were expelled into Tamaulipas 160,000 times during that period. To them, we must add 25,000 Mexican deportees, mostly migrants whom Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested in the U.S. interior.

After Customs and Border Protection (CBP) leaves them at the bridges, kidnappers are often waiting. Meanwhile, with the pretext of reducing COVID exposure, Title 42 closed the official border crossings to asylum seekers, making it impossible to exercise the right to ask for protection as laid out in U.S. and international law.

Those expelled, and the adults and children bottled up waiting for a chance to approach the ports of entry, are among the most vulnerable populations in the Western Hemisphere, and they’re just steps from the U.S. border. In February, researchers from the University of Texas estimated that roughly 9,500 people were waiting in Tamaulipas border cities for an opportunity to ask for protection in the United States.

Border-wide, Human Rights First has collected evidence of at least 9,886 cases of kidnappings, torture, rape, and other violent attacks on asylum seekers whom Title 42 has stranded since 2021. In Tamaulipas the count of abuses is greater than the statistics indicate, because the security situation makes data collection so difficult.

This is why it feels as though the current U.S. policy was designed to benefit the cartels. If migrants who fear return to their countries could safely cross Mexico, then report to a port of entry and have their cases processed, considered, and adjudicated as quickly as due process allows, the cartels’ business model would implode.

But instead, closing the ports of entry and delivering migrants to danger have created ideal incentives for that business model.

This vulnerable population can’t wait for the rule of law to arrive in Tamaulipas. The U.S. government must act to take the business away from the criminals preying on migrants. What it needs to do is already laid out in U.S. law. No new legislation is required.

Since 1980, U.S. immigration law has made clear that the official ports of entry are a proper place for asylum seekers to approach and express to CBP officers their fear of return to their countries. For more than two years, though, Title 42 made it impossible to approach a port of entry.

Once Title 42 ends in late May, asylum seekers must be able to come to a port of entry, not pay criminals’ “tolls” to cross the Rio Grande. Then they should be processed—checking backgrounds and health records, beginning asylum paperwork, evaluating the credibility of fear claims—in facilities with the space and manpower to do it quickly.

Robust alternatives-to-detention programs can keep people in the system. Years-long adjudication backlogs can be shrunk by adding asylum officers, and by rebuilding and rethinking the creaky immigration court system.

While working toward these reforms, the administration must immediately curtail unsafe removals of migrants, which enable violent abuse and provide money-making opportunities to organized crime. Deportations, expulsions, and other removals to border cities must minimize the likelihood of kidnapping.

That means avoiding removals at night, avoiding removals when no Mexican authorities are present, helping Mexican migrant shelters meet their needs including security, and avoiding “lateral” removals that send migrants into territory controlled by different criminal organizations.

Failing to take these steps will enrich cartels and feed terror, with Tamaulipas being the most extreme and riskiest example. Ending Title 42 and building up the sort of asylum process that our own laws envision isn’t just humane.

By draining away the profits along with the cruelty, it’s one of the smartest counter-organized crime strategies the U.S. government can pursue at its southern border.

Excerpt:

Students eating lunch at Shivbhawani Primary School, Deulekh, Bajhang, Nepal. Credit: Marty Logan

By Marty Logan
KATHMANDU, Apr 4 2022 (IPS)

When Canada and Nepal are used in the same sentence it’s usually because the former is supporting development efforts in the latter. Not when it comes to feeding children at school.

Worldwide 388 million students, or 1 in 2 schoolchildren, received at least one meal or snack per day at school before the COVID-19 pandemic in what the World Food Programme (WFP), quoting the World Bank, calls the world’s “most extensive social safety net.”

When Covid-19 hit and schools shut their doors, roughly 370 million students in 161 countries went without education and a meal or snack, “suddenly deprived of what was for many their main meal of the day”

Nepal is in a unique position because it is poised to completely take over school feeding from the WFP, which still serves some remote areas of the South Asian country, by 2024. Canada is also being watched because it is just now taking steps to create a centrally-managed programme, the last G7 country to do so, to buttress current patchwork provincial initiatives.

Motivations for governments to launch school feeding programmes vary, but are not solely linked to socioeconomic status, says Donald Bundy, Professor of Epidemiology and Development and Director of the Global Research Consortium for School Health and Nutrition, at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK.

“Nearly all countries view the programmes as providing a safety net for the most in need,” writes Bundy in response to email questions. “Many view the programmes as contributing to the creation of good health and education, and thus human capital. A substantial group recognize the local economic value to the agricultural sector. A small but increasing number view the contribution to environmental sustainability as important.”

When Covid-19 hit and schools shut their doors, roughly 370 million students in 161 countries went without education and a meal or snack, “suddenly deprived of what was for many their main meal of the day” says WFP’s report State of School Feeding Worldwide, 2020.

In response, governments, development agencies, donors, academia, the private sector, UN agencies and civil society organizations launched the global School Meals Coalition. Its main goals are to restore by 2023 the school feeding programmes lost worldwide because of the pandemic and, by 2030, to launch new ones to feed the 73 million students globally who lacked school meals before Covid-19.

So far, 60+ countries have joined the coalition, including Nepal but not Canada. Its success will depend on the choices that governments make, says Bundy. “Since Covid has affected economies, there has been a contraction of fiscal space which makes getting back to the original situation more difficult… It would seem that countries are prioritizing this investment in their future generations, as indicated by the creation of the coalition, but this has yet to be seen in practice.”

Nepal demonstrated its commitment to school feeding before Covid-19. From 2017 to 2020 the school meals budget almost quadrupled (from $20 million to nearly $70 million), and external funding fell from $4.2 million to $2.8 million in 2020), according to the WFP report.

Lunch time at Janajagriti Basic School in Dhangadhi, Nepal. Credit: Marty Logan

Interestingly, there have been no evaluations in Nepal of the impact of school feeding on students’ nutritional status, says WFP. The country’s School Sector Development Plan (2016-2022) calls for “midday meals in schools to reduce short term hunger among schoolchildren, and address micronutrient deficiencies through multi-fortified foods and diversifying the food basket, including with fresh and locally produced foods.”

While Nepal has drastically cut malnutrition in children under five in recent decades, progress has slowed in the past few years. For example, the 36% rate for stunting (too short for age) in 2016 was greater than the developing country average of 25% and the Asia average of 21.8%.

Today the government’s diya khaja (midday meal) programme covers 71 of 77 districts and WFP is scheduled to hand over operations in the remaining districts (which are already co-funded by Kathmandu) by 2024.

While media reports highlight examples of problems, such as schools handing out dry food to students instead of cooking a hot meal and possible corruption in handling money, reactions at schools recently visited in Nepal’s Far West Province were mainly positive. Officials, teachers and parents stressed attendance had risen, and that pupils were remaining for the entire school day instead of leaving for lunch and staying at home.

Ten local food menus—based on seasonally available foods in particular regions and designed to meet nutritional targets—were credited for the change. “Students are more satisfied now because the meals change daily. With the WFP system there was only one item,” says Headmaster Dev Bahadur Chand at Nanigad Basic School in Baitadi District.

Chand was the only person we spoke to who was satisfied with the programme’s budget of 15 rupees (US$0.12) per meal per child (20 rupees in five remote districts). Others said that while the amount could cover food costs it didn’t leave enough to pay a cook or fuel and transport fees.

At the Nepal Government office that manages the burgeoning programme, the Centre for Education and Human Resources Development (CEHRD), Director Ganesh Poudel acknowledges that issue. “Each child is allotted only 15 rupees; this is the main challenge. This amount is very low—prices are increasing day by day and there are management costs. How can we survive? We have very limited resources,” he says in an interview in his office.

The other major challenge, says Poudel, is human resources. “Nearly one million people are involved in preparing and delivering the school meal programme, directly and indirectly. Some will cook, some will manage, some will pay… How can we prepare them? It requires a big amount of money and preparation.”

While WFP will no longer implement a school feeding programme from 2024, it will remain a partner in the effort, says Nepal Representative and Country Director Robert Kasca. Today, it’s working with the government to upgrade physical and human resources for school feeding in Nuwakot district, a two-hour drive from Kathmandu. Kitchens are being renovated, menus developed and an SMS-based system tested to monitor how the Rs15 allocation is spent.

“Our plan in the next five years will be to try to replicate it around the country,” says Kasca. “If we only do it in Nuwakot it’s not going to automatically happen around the country. We need to do it in many more places to start gaining momentum.”

Students at James S. Bell Community School in Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada where they have a salad bar style lunch programme, first developed in southern California. Credit: FoodShare/Laura Berman/Greenfuse Photography

In Canada, the issue is not launching more school meals programmes but getting the central government to play a guiding role, says Debbie Field, Coordinator of the Coalition for Healthy School Food. Why now? “Basically every country in the North comes up against a new crisis, which is the crisis of fast food and the crisis of health problems related to an industrialized food system,” says Field.

“First and foremost for me, it is a crisis of food and the way in which parents of all incomes are really struggling to feed their children healthy food.” Compared to 1948, when the federal cabinet last discussed school meals, “we have a vast difference of women’s participation rates in the workforce and a complete shift in our school day—most schools have a half hour a day for lunch,” adds Field.

In a written response to questions, Karina Gould, Canada’s Minister of Families Children and Social Development, wrote that the school food policy being developed would “provide access to healthy, diversified and balanced food as a matter of equity, which is essential to addressing food insecurity, reducing the risk of chronic disease and enabling every child to reach their full potential.”

Thirty-five percent of publicly-funded schools in Canada offered a programme in 2018-2019, covering 21 percent of students, from junior kindergarten to Grade 12, found a recent survey. But coverage varied immensely, with one province covering at least 90 percent of schools another just 10 percent.

Field says she is expecting the government to announce C$200 million in the upcoming budget to develop the framework for the eventual programme. But her coalition wants some of that money allocated to existing programmes in the provinces and territories. Eventually, says Field, the central government should provide $2.7 billion, or half the cost of a universal programme, with the provinces and territories contributing the rest.

“We want (the central government) to take a leadership oversight role and provide a federal framework that will allow for development of the best school food programme in the world. We want them to be visionary… and they’re responding well to this idea.”

This work was supported by a Global Nutrition and Food Security Reporting Fellowship from the International Center for Journalists and the Eleanor Crook Foundation.

Credit: Religions for Peace

By Azza Karam
NEW YORK, Feb 21 2022 (IPS)

A “Joint Statement of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China, issued on February 4, 2022 on International Relations Entering a New Era and the Global Sustainable Development”, contains laudable and strong language about commitment to democracy and human rights:

“The sides [the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China] call on all States to pursue well-being for all and, with these ends, to build dialogue and mutual trust, strengthen mutual understanding, champion such universal human values as peace, development, equality, justice, democracy and freedom, respect the rights of peoples to independently determine the development paths of their countries and the sovereignty and the security and development interests of States, to protect the United Nations-driven international architecture and the international law-based world order, seek genuine multipolarity with the United Nations and its Security Council playing a central and coordinating role, promote more democratic international relations, and ensure peace, stability and sustainable development across the world… The sides share the understanding that democracy is a universal human value, rather than a privilege of a limited number of States, and that its promotion and protection is a common responsibility of the entire world community.”

The fact that these are the words from one country that is amassing thousands of troops on the borders of a sovereign nation (threatening to enter it and ‘protect’ its people at any moment as of the writing of this), together with another country which is denying the existence of camps housing over a million people of one particular religion and ethnicity, within its borders, is interesting – eerily so.

And yet it was not so long ago, that ‘noblesse oblige’, ‘la mission civilisatrice’ and ‘white man’s burden’ were being articulated as pretexts for territorial takeover and the oppression and subordination of people, land, and dignity.

The colonial missions (mandates, protectorates, etc.) created a fundamental imbalance in the power of man over (others’) resources, and the power of some (men) over others, and a continuing legacy of interference in others’ affairs ostensibly to help (hence presumably the reference to sovereignty in the above statement), and usually – and here is part of the vexing reality – at the behest of nationals who ask for the ‘assistance’.

And it is still the case, that the very ideologies of supremacy of one people over another, including of one race and/or one sex or one religion over another, the refusal to be held accountable to centuries of discrimination now part of the DNA of almost all institutions; the insistence on subjugation of nature to man; and the perpetuation of misogyny – all continue to define our present broken world.

But today we have an awareness among esteemed politicians, academics, and several governmental, intergovernmental and non-governmental institutions, that religion matters. Indeed, that in various forms of ‘engagement’ with (usually specific and selective) religious institutions, religious NGOs, and/or religious leaders, good things come about.

Salvation may be imminent. “Faith for [insert the wording here]” or “religion and [insert appropriate term here] is the new formula for overcoming most difficulties, from vaccine hesitancy to gender discrimination, from electoral gerrymandering to racism, and everything in between.

And why not? After all, religious institutions (churches, mosques, temples, etc.) actually are the original development and humanitarian actors, and are still critical service providers in countries where governments are increasingly struggling to serve basic needs of many of their populations.

The very first schools and hospitals known to societies all around the world originated in and through religious bodies. Today, Catholic Churches alone manage significant public health infrastructures from North America to Sub-Saharan Africa. Caritas Internationalis for instance, is one of the largest (Catholic) humanitarian and development NGOs in the world.

If we begin to look at other religiously inspired NGOs, we will find a significant number of them delivering much needed refuge and support to the largest refugee and displaced populations ever recorded in human history, as well as health, education, sanitation, nutrition and humanitarian relief services, to hundreds of millions, in all corners of the world.

Furthermore, ‘Islamic finance’ is a source of funding for major United Nations entities’ development and relief efforts (e.g. UNHCR, UNDP, UNICEF) around the world – and more of that is being sought after, with various Muslim entities rushing to provide fatwas (religious edicts) and justifications for why this is good Islamic practice.

Increasing ‘faith investments’ in and for sustainable development are being strongly advocated for by some, with new initiatives emerging in that advocacy space to ‘help and encourage… ethical religious investments’. Private sector interest is focusing on how ‘faith-based actors’ are facilitators of emerging markets – and possibly multipliers of profits, for some pharmaceuticals, among other companies.

Just as in the 1990s, we started to learn how investing in women’s rights makes economic sense. Today, we are hearing how investing in faith actors makes that kind of sense too. In fact, some humanitarian and development religious NGOs (mostly with a Christian background, many Evangelical) are being actively mobilised to run initiatives to champion freedom of religion and belief, and/or to facilitate strategic ‘advocacy’ for major faith-based NGOs – ostensibly as part of their learning and wisdom acquired defending other human rights (albeit sometimes with an underdeveloped track record).

Yet, while they touched on almost every single aspect in their strong statement, neither the Russian Federation nor China reference ‘faith’, or ‘religion’ in their Joint Statement. Indeed, not once is ‘civil society’ mentioned. For these powerful states, as with others like them, religions, and any aspect of civic engagement, are either non-existent, or totally subservient to their own will, as to be unworthy of singling out.

Instead, an appropriation of the language of human rights, of democracy, of “cultural diversity”, “balance, harmony and inclusiveness” and even “moral principles” is de rigeur. But you see, this is the other side of using religion. You can overemphasize its value, or you can eclipse it.

Religious institutions, faith leaders and faith-based NGOs, have a responsibility to protect civil society. Instead of seeking to earn a celebrity status with some governments or political parties, or trying to leverage their own influence as Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox/Evangelical/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist/etc., all faith actors need to learn to come together as a collective power that is part of their secular civil brethren.

In doing so, their combined moral, economic, financial, political, cultural, and social weight, will dwarf the most authoritarian of structures. At the very least, in coming together to serve all, religious communities can hold all decision makers accountable to a collective justice – of gender, of environment, of voice, of representation, and ultimately, of dignity.

Civil societies are the barometers of collective planetary wellbeing. As we dismember and silence civil societies, by using/focusing on (some) religions at a time, and serving piecemeal selective interests, we ensure that the arc of history remains mired in the abuse of indivisible and interdependent human rights, which are central to vibrant and healthy democracies.

To the tyranny of states and religious institutions alike, I would say: stop using your power to gain political and financial expediency. Instead, work with all religions on a level playing field, with the rest of civil society, to hold one another accountable, and thereby, to ensure peace and security for all times.

Prof. Azza Karam, PhD, is Secretary General, Religions for Peace International.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

US Congress.
In the midst of the current crisis, what about progressives in the US Congress? It’s a dangerous crisis in decades that risks pushing the world into nuclear war, very few are doing anything more than mouth safe platitudes. Credit: Commons Wikipedia.Org

By Norman Solomon
SAN FRANCISCO, USA , Feb 2 2022 (IPS)

Hidden in plain sight, the extreme hypocrisy of the U.S. position on NATO and Ukraine cries out for journalistic coverage and open debate in the USA’s major media outlets. But those outlets, with rare exceptions, have gone into virtually Orwellian mode, only allowing elaboration on the theme of America good, Russia bad.

Aiding and abetting a potentially catastrophic — and I do mean catastrophic — confrontation between the world’s two nuclear superpowers are lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Like the media they echo and vice versa, members of Congress, including highly touted progressives, can scarcely manage more than vague comments that they want diplomacy rather than war.

Imagine if a powerful Russian-led military alliance were asserting the right to be joined by its ally Mexico — and in the meantime was shipping big batches of weapons to that country — can you imagine the response from Washington?

Yet we’re supposed to believe that it’s fine for the U.S.-led NATO alliance to assert that it has the prerogative to grant membership to Ukraine — and in the meantime is now shipping large quantities of weaponry to that country.

Mainstream U.S. news outlets have no use for history or documentation that might interfere with the current frenzy presenting NATO’s expansion to the Russian border as an unalloyed good.

“It is worth recalling how much the alliance has weakened world security since the end of the Cold War, by inflaming relations with Russia,” historian David Gibbs said last week. “It is often forgotten that the cause of the current conflict arose from a 1990 U.S. promise that NATO would never be expanded into the former communist states of Eastern Europe.

Not ‘one inch to the East,’ Russian leaders were promised by the U.S. Secretary of State at the time, James Baker. Despite this promise, NATO soon expanded into Eastern Europe, eventually placing the alliance up against Russia’s borders. The present-day U.S.-Russian conflict is the direct result of this expansion.”

The journalists revved up as bloviating nationalists on the USA’s TV networks and in other media outlets have no use for any such understanding. Why consider how anything in the world might look to Russians?

Why bother to provide anything like a broad range of perspectives about a conflict that could escalate into incinerating the world with thermonuclear weapons? Jingoistic conformity is a much more prudent career course.

Out of step with that kind of conformity is Andrei Tsygankov, professor of international relations at San Francisco State University, whose books include Russia and America: The Asymmetric Rivalry. “Russia views its actions as a purely defensive response to increasingly offensive military preparations by NATO and Ukraine (according to Russia’s foreign ministry, half of Ukraine’s army, or about 125,000 troops, are stationed near the border),” he wrote days ago.

“Instead of pressuring Ukraine to de-escalate and comply with the Minsk Protocol, however, Western nations continue to provide the Ukrainian army with lethal weapons and other supplies.”

Tsygankov points out that Russian President Vladimir Putin “has two decades of experience of trying to persuade Western leaders to take Russia’s interests into consideration. During these years, Russia has unsuccessfully opposed the U.S. decision to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and build a new missile defense system in Romania, expand NATO, invade Iraq and Libya, and support Kyiv’s anti-Russian policies — all in vain.”

The professor nails a key reality: “Whatever plans Russia may have with respect to Ukraine and NATO, conflict resolution greatly depends on the West. A major war is avoidable if Western leaders gather confidence and the will to abandon the counter-productive language of threats and engage Russia in reasoned dialogue.

If diplomacy is given a fair chance, the European continent may arrive at a new security system that will reflect, among others, Russia’s interests and participation.”

In the midst of all this, what about progressives in the US Congress? As we face the most dangerous crisis in decades that risks pushing the world into nuclear war, very few are doing anything more than mouth safe platitudes.

Are they bowing to public opinion? Not really. It’s much more like they’re cowering to avoid being attacked by hawkish media and militaristic political forces.

On Friday, the American Prospect reported: “A new Data for Progress poll shared exclusively with the Prospect finds that the majority of Americans favor diplomacy with Russia over sanctions or going to war for Ukrainian sovereignty.

Most Americans are not particularly animated about the escalating conflict in Eastern Europe, the poll shows, despite round-the-clock media coverage. When asked, 71 percent of Democrats and 46 percent of Republicans said they support the U.S. striking a diplomatic deal with Russia. They agreed that in the effort to de-escalate tensions and avoid war, the U.S. should be prepared to make concessions.”

The magazine’s reporting provides a portrait of leading congressional progressives who can’t bring themselves to directly challenge fellow Democrat Joe Biden’s escalation of the current highly dangerous conflict, as he sends still more large shipments of weaponry to Ukraine with a new batch worth $200 million while deploying 8,500 U.S. troops to Eastern Europe.

Asked about the issue of prospective Ukraine membership in NATO sometime in the future, Rep. Ro Khanna treated the situation as a test of superpower wills or game of chicken, saying: “I would not be blackmailed by Putin in this situation.”

Overall, the American Prospect ferreted out routine refusal of progressive icons in Congress to impede the spiraling crisis:

** “The 41 co-sponsors of a sanctions package moving through the Senate include progressive heavyweights like Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Jeff Merkley of Oregon. In a press release on the bill, Markey said the legislation was designed to ‘work in concert with the actions the Biden administration has already taken to demonstrate that we will continue to support Ukraine and its sovereignty.’”

** “Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, put out a statement on Wednesday with Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA). ‘Russia’s strategy is to inflame tensions; the United States and NATO must not play into this strategy,’ the representatives said. The statement raises concerns over ‘sweeping and indiscriminate sanctions.’ But pressed on what, exactly, the United States should be prepared to offer in diplomatic talks, a spokesperson for Lee did not respond.”

** “Reached by the Prospect, spokespeople for leading progressives, including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), declined to comment on questions including whether the U.S. should commit not to bring Ukraine into NATO and whether it should provide direct military aid to Ukraine. Sanders declined to weigh in. In a statement, Warren said, ‘The United States must use appropriate economic, diplomatic, and political tools to de-escalate this situation.’”

** “Spokespeople for Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, and Rashida Tlaib, who have previously criticized American interventionism in the Middle East, did not respond to questions from the Prospect, including ones on sanctions policy and NATO commitments.”

Progressives in Congress have yet to say that Biden should stop escalating the Ukraine conflict between the two nuclear superpowers. Instead, we hear easy pleas for diplomacy and, at best, mildly worded “significant concerns” about the president’s new batch of arms shipments and troop deployments to the region.

The evasive rhetoric amounts to pretending that the president isn’t doing what he’s actually doing as he ratchets up the tensions and the horrendous risks.

All this can be summed up in five words: Extremely. Irresponsible. And. Extremely. Dangerous.

Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and the author of a dozen books including Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America’s Warfare State, published in a new edition as a free e-book in January 2022. His other books include War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. He was a Bernie Sanders delegate from California to the 2016 and 2020 Democratic National Conventions. Solomon is the founder and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

US President Joseph R. Biden Jr. addresses the general debate of the UN General Assembly’s 76th session last year. In his inaugural address to the annual gathering of world leaders at the UN, Biden called for a new era of global unity against the compounding crises of COVID-19, climate change and insecurity. Credit: UN Photo/Cia Pak

By Norman Solomon
SAN FRANCISCO, USA, Jan 17 2022 (IPS)

The final big legislative achievement of 2021 was a bill authorizing $768 billion in military spending for the next fiscal year. President Biden signed it two days after the Christmas holiday glorifying the Prince of Peace.

Dollar figures can look abstract on a screen, but they indicate the extent of the mania. Biden had asked for “only” $12 billion more than President Trump’s bloated military budget of the previous year — but that wasn’t enough for the bipartisan hawkery in the House and Senate, which provided a boost of $37 billion instead.

Overall, military spending accounts for about half of the federal government’s total discretionary spending — while programs for helping instead of killing are on short rations at many local, state, and national government agencies. It’s a nonstop trend of reinforcing the warfare state in sync with warped neoliberal priorities. While outsized profits keep benefiting the upper class and enriching the already obscenely rich, the cascading effects of extreme income inequality are drowning the hopes of the many.

Corporate power constrains just about everything, whether healthcare or education or housing or jobs or measures for responding to the climate emergency. What prevails is the political structure of the economy.

Class war in the United States has established what amounts to oligarchy. A zero-sum economic system, aka corporate capitalism, is constantly exercising its power to reward and deprive. The dominant forces of class warfare — disproportionately afflicting people of color while also steadily harming many millions of whites — continue to undermine basic human rights including equal justice and economic security.

In the real world, financial power is political power. A system that runs on money is adept at running over people without it.

The words “I can’t breathe,” repeated nearly a dozen times by Eric Garner in a deadly police chokehold, resonated for countless people whose names we’ll never know. The intersections of racial injustice and predatory capitalism are especially virulent zones, where many lives gradually or suddenly lose what is essential for life.

Discussions of terms like “racism” and “poverty” too easily become facile, abstracted from human consequences, while unknown lives suffocate at the hands of routine injustice, systematic cruelties, the way things predictably are.

An all-out war on democracy is now underway in the United States. More than ever, the Republican Party is the electoral arm of unabashed white supremacy as well as such toxicities as xenophobia, nativism, anti-gay bigotry, patriarchy, and misogyny.

The party’s rigid climate denial is nothing short of deranged. Its approach to the Covid pandemic has amounted to an embrace of death in the name of rancid individualism. With its Supreme Court justices in place, the “Grand Old Party” has methodically slashed voting rights and abortion rights.

Overall, on domestic matters, the partisan matchup is between neoliberalism and neofascism. While the abhorrent roles of the Democratic leadership are extensive, to put it mildly, the two parties now represent hugely different constituencies and agendas at home. Not so on matters of war and peace.

Both parties continue to champion what Martin Luther King Jr. called “the madness of militarism.” When King described the profligate spending for a distant war as “some demonic, destructive suction tube,” he was condemning dynamics that endure with a vengeance.

Today, the madness and the denial are no less entrenched. A militaristic core serves as a sacred touchstone for faith in America as the world’s one and only indispensable nation. Gargantuan Pentagon budgets are taken for granted, as is the assumed prerogative to bomb other countries at will.

Every budget has continued to include massive outlays for nuclear weapons, including gigantic expenditures for so-called “modernization” of the nuclear arsenal. A fact that this book cited when it was first published — that the United States had ten thousand nuclear warheads and Russia had a comparable number — is no longer true; most estimates say those stockpiles are now about half as large.

But the current situation is actually much more dangerous. In 2007, the Doomsday Clock maintained by The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists pegged the world’s proximity to annihilation at five minutes to apocalyptic Midnight.

As 2022 began, the symbolic hands were at one hundred seconds to Midnight. Such is the momentum of the nuclear arms race, fueled by profit-driven military contractors. Lofty rhetoric about seeking peace is never a real brake on the nationalistic thrust of militarism.

With the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, the third decade of this century is shaping up to unfold new wrinkles in American hegemonic conceits. Along the way, Joe Biden has echoed a central precept of doublethink in George Orwell’s most famous novel, 1984: “War is Peace.”

Speaking at the United Nations as the autumn of 2021 began, Biden proclaimed: “I stand here today, for the first time in twenty years, with the United States not at war. We’ve turned the page.” But the turned page was bound into a volume of killing with no foreseeable end.

The United States remained at war, bombing in the Middle East and elsewhere, with much information withheld from the public. And increases in U.S. belligerence toward both Russia and China escalated the risks of a military confrontation that could lead to nuclear war.

A rosy view of the USA’s future is only possible when ignoring history in real time. After four years of the poisonous Trump presidency, the Biden strain of corporate liberalism offers a mix of antidotes and ongoing toxins. The Republican Party, now neofascist, is in a strong position to gain control of the U.S. government by mid-decade.

Preventing such a cataclysm seems beyond the grasp of the same Democratic Party elites that paved the way for Donald Trump to become president in the first place. Realism about the current situation — clarity about how we got here and where we are now — is necessary to mitigate impending disasters and help create a better future. Vital truths must be told. And acted upon.

This article is adapted from the new edition of Norman Solomon’s book “Made Love, Got War,” just published as a free e-book.

Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and the author of a dozen books including Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America’s Warfare State, published in a new edition as a free e-book in January 2022. His other books include War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. He was a Bernie Sanders delegate from California to the 2016 and 2020 Democratic National Conventions. Solomon is the founder and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

US President Donald Trump addresses the seventy-third session of the United Nations General Assembly. September 2018. Credit: UN Photo/Cia Pak

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Jan 6 2022 (IPS)

Unless the Republicans and Democrats put the nation above their party and personal interests, our democracy will face the gravest danger in more than a hundred years.

Authoritarianism will creep in, leading to the collapse of American political institutions and the demise of our democracy as we know it.

Righting the Wrong

On January 6, Trump was planning to hold a press conference during which he was expected to repeat lies for the hundredth time that the election in 2020 was stolen, that the insurrection a year ago was actually peaceful, and that he – not Biden – is the duly-elected president.

He canceled the press conference at the urging of the GOP and now is expected to instead spread these lies at his Arizona rally next week. He will, needless to say, remain true to himself and deny any wrongdoing and blame the Democrats for persistently undermining his presidency as well as for all the ills that face America today.

Trump is uniquely dangerous; he wants to solidify his absolute control over the Republican Party, rouse his followers, instill hatred of the Democrats, and of course raise enough money for his re-election campaign should he decide to run again.

Moreover, the Arizona rally will be his first foray into the mid-term elections designed to rouse the rank-and-file of the Republican Party to recapture the House and the Senate as the forerunner to the 2024 election.

The tragic aspect of the Trump phenomenon is that the elected leaders of the Republican Party continue to follow him religiously, regardless of the fact that he is corrupt, was defeated in re-election as an incumbent, was impeached twice, and faces several criminal charges.

Indeed, no former president in American history has been able to maintain his grip on his party the way Trump has. And no Republican Party has abdicated its moral and constitutional responsibilities and willingly succumbed to a deranged egomaniac, misogynist, and habitual liar. How could this happen, and why? The answer is Trump’s and the Republicans’ voracious lust for power.

The Republican Party has become a minority party and there is no circumstance under which the party can win nationally in a free and fair election. Demographically, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, and other minorities currently represent more than 40 percent of the American population, and it is estimated that by 2045 they will become the majority, who largely vote for Democrats.

Collectively, even at the present they can deny the Republican Party from ever capturing the White House again if they go out and vote en masse.

The Republican Party faces two choices: one is to adapt to the changing demographic reality and develop socio-economic programs that respond to the needs of people of color (POC) without sacrificing much of their conservative ideology.

This includes lowering taxes, particularly for those who earn less than $200,000 a year, immigration reform, which the Republican Party has long-acknowledged needs addressing and will help in outreach especially to Hispanic voters, and supporting minority small business owners with tax breaks and other financial incentives, which won’t incur further government spending.

The second choice is to prevent or make it extremely difficult for POC to exercise their right to vote through a variety of deplorable measures. One state after another is passing discriminatory rules, including gerrymandering districts on racial lines, restricting early voting, which disproportionately affects Black Americans who are more likely than any other ethnic or racial group to cast early ballots (whether in-person or by mail and absentee ballots), enacting voter ID laws even though voter impersonation fraud is exceedingly rare and those who don’t have valid ID are disproportionately POC, and empower state legislators to invert their own elections and manipulate the electoral college to their advantage.

Sadly, if not tragically, the Republican Party went for the latter option. Many Republicans simply believe that POC are illegitimate citizens and should not be able to vote and have the power, as they fear accurately or otherwise, to enact laws against whites, the way whites have enacted discriminatory laws against POC. America, from their perspective, was founded by white people, and the thought that the US is becoming browner every passing day scares them to the core.

They needed a leader who is a bigot, shameless, and crude, with no scruples and no morals, but audacious—a performer with the ability to sway large audiences with his lies and sneering face. The Republicans need him to promote their agenda without fear of public repercussions, and he needs the party to satisfy his ego in order to exercise raw power, and also grant him its full support should he decide to run again.

We are still reeling from the violent storming of the Capitol on January 6 to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. Trump, who incited his followers to attack the Capitol, was ready to shatter our democracy only to bask in his authoritarian impulse.

What does that say about the Republican Party, which largely ignored or downplayed the insurrection in its determination to seize power and chose chaos and violence over voting, even at the expense of tearing our democratic institutions apart? How ironic and deeply troubling that 52 percent of Republicans say that the insurrectionists were trying to protect democracy.

The most ominous note that must be repeated loud and clear is that the party under the leadership of Trump will incite violence should they fail to win the 2022 election, as anyone who carefully listens to the many utterances spewed by reckless Republicans leaders can discern with clarity.

In that context, although Trump during his rally will not openly encourage his followers to resort to violence to undo the result of the election, the message to them will be loud and clear.

It is hard to exaggerate the transformation of the Republican Party since the rise of Trump in 2016, from a patriotic party that stood for democracy to a white supremacist party willing to destroy it only to stay in power.

Many thousands of Republican leaders should follow the footsteps of Representative Liz Cheney, who stood up against Trump and in favor of the truth, and still rescue our democracy by accepting reality and being truthful with their followers.

The election of Biden gave the country hope of preserving our democracy and attending to the political and social malaise that swept the nation, especially during Trump’s tenure in the White House. But to address these ills, the Democrats must spare no effort to hold onto the House and Senate in the 2022 mid-term election, as these will be the most consequential in more than a century.

Indeed, should the Republicans manage to recapture both chambers of Congress, our democracy will slide toward the precipice of disintegration while authoritarianism creeps in, and Biden’s agenda will be shattered.

The Democrats have their work cut out for them. They must rise in unison, which is bitterly still missing, stop short of nothing to strengthen voting rights, prevent the appointment of partisans to subvert the election, fight political corruption at every level, make political power decreasingly dependent on money, get out the vote, and eliminate the filibuster to pass the voting rights bill.

Furthermore, they must hold accountable the traitors behind the insurrection on January 6, including Trump.

Democrats and the millions of law-abiding Republicans should sound the alarm before it’s too late, and never waver to preserve and protect America’s 244-year-old democracy that served as a beacon of hope and freedom to the global community.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University (NYU). He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies for over 20 years.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau