The Most/Recent Articles

Showing posts with label Human Rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Human Rights. Show all posts

Palestine: A Wound That Propaganda Can’t Hide

I refuse to play the condemnation game. Let me make myself clear. I do not tell oppressed people how to resist their oppression or who their allies should be.'

by Arundhati Roy

Writer and activist Arundhati Roy has been awarded the PEN Pinter Prize 2024. This is an annual award set up by English PEN in the memory of playwright Harold Pinter. Shortly after having been named for the prize, Roy announced that her share of the prize money will be donated to the Palestinian Children’s Relief Fund. She named Alaa Abd el-Fattah, British-Egyptian writer and activist, a ‘Writer of Courage’ who she would share her award with. The following is her acceptance speech for the prize, delivered on the evening of October 10, 2024, at the British Library.

Children use candles for lighting in the southern Gaza Strip city of Khan Younis, on Oct. 20, 2023. (Photo by Rizek Abdeljawad/Xinhua)

I thank you, members of English PEN and members of the jury, for honouring me with the PEN Pinter Prize. I would like to begin by announcing the name of this year’s Writer of Courage who I have chosen to share this award with. 

My greetings to you, Alaa Abd El-Fattah, writer of courage and my fellow awardee. We hoped and prayed that you would be released in September, but the Egyptian government decided that you were too beautiful a writer and too dangerous a thinker to be freed yet. But you are here in this room with us. You are the most important person here. From prison you wrote, “[M]y words lost any power and yet they continued to pour out of me. I still had a voice, even if only a handful would listen.” We are listening, Alaa. Closely.

Greetings to you, too, my beloved Naomi Klein, friend to both Alaa and me. Thank you for being here tonight. It means the world to me.

Greetings to all of you gathered here, as well to as those who are invisible perhaps to this wonderful audience but as visible to me as anybody else in this room. I am speaking of my friends and comrades in prison in India – lawyers, academics, students, journalists – Umar Khalid, Gulfisha Fatima, Khalid Saifi, Sharjeel Imam, Rona Wilson, Surendra Gadling, Mahesh Raut. I speak to you, my friend Khurram Parvaiz, one of the most remarkable people I know, you’ve been in prison for three years, and to you too Irfan Mehraj and to the thousands incarcerated in Kashmir and across the country whose lives have been devastated.

When Ruth Borthwick, Chair of English PEN and of the Pinter panel first wrote to me about this honour, she said the Pinter Prize is awarded to a writer who has sought to define ‘the real truth of our lives and our societies’ through ‘unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination’. That is a quote from Harold Pinter’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech.


The word ‘unflinching’ made me pause for a moment, because I think of myself as someone who is almost permanently flinching.

I would like to dwell a little on the theme of ‘flinching’ and ‘unflinching’. Which may be best illustrated by Harold Pinter himself:

“I was present at a meeting at the US embassy in London in the late 1980s.

“The United States Congress was about to decide whether to give more money to the Contras in their campaign against the state of Nicaragua. I was a member of a delegation speaking on behalf of Nicaragua but the most important member of this delegation was a Father John Metcalf. The leader of the US body was Raymond Seitz (then number two to the ambassador, later ambassador himself). Father Metcalf said: ‘Sir, I am in charge of a parish in the north of Nicaragua. My parishioners built a school, a health centre, a cultural centre. We have lived in peace. A few months ago a Contra force attacked the parish. They destroyed everything: the school, the health centre, the cultural centre. They raped nurses and teachers, slaughtered doctors, in the most brutal manner. They behaved like savages. Please demand that the US government withdraw its support from this shocking terrorist activity.’


“Raymond Seitz had a very good reputation as a rational, responsible and highly sophisticated man. He was greatly respected in diplomatic circles. He listened, paused and then spoke with some gravity. ‘Father,’ he said, ‘let me tell you something. In war, innocent people always suffer.’ There was a frozen silence. We stared at him. He did not flinch.”

Remember that President Reagan called the Contras “the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers.” A turn of phrase that he was clearly fond of. He also used it to describe the CIA-backed Afghan Mujahideen, who then morphed into the Taliban. And it is the Taliban who rule Afghanistan today after waging a twenty-year-long war against the US invasion and occupation. Before the Contras and the Mujahideen, there was the war in Vietnam and the unflinching US military doctrine that ordered its soldiers to ‘Kill Anything That Moves’. If you read the Pentagon Papers and other documents on US war aims in Vietnam, you can enjoy some lively unflinching discussions about how to commit genocide – is it better to kill people outright or to starve them slowly? Which would look better? The problem that the compassionate mandarins in the Pentagon faced was that, unlike Americans, who, according to them, want ‘life, happiness, wealth, power’, Asians ‘stoically accept…the destruction of wealth and the loss of lives’ – and force America to carry their ‘strategic logic to its conclusion, which is genocide.’ A terrible burden to be borne unflinchingly.


And here we are, all these years later, more than a year into yet another genocide. The US and Israel’s unflinching and ongoing televised genocide in Gaza and now Lebanon in defence of a colonial occupation and an Apartheid state. The death toll so far, is officially 42,000, a majority of them women and children. This does not include those who died screaming under the rubble of buildings, neighbourhoods, whole cities, and those whose bodies have not yet been recovered. A recent study by Oxfam says that more children have been killed by Israel in Gaza than in the equivalent period of any other war in the last twenty years.

To assuage their collective guilt for their early years of indifference towards one genocide – the Nazi extermination of millions of European Jews – the United States and Europe have prepared the grounds for another.


Like every state that has carried out ethnic cleansing and genocide in history, Zionists in Israel – who believe themselves to be “the chosen people” – began by dehumanising Palestinians before driving them off their land and murdering them.

Prime Minister Menachem Begin called Palestinians ‘two-legged beasts’, Yitzhak Rabin called them ‘grasshoppers’ who ‘could be crushed’ and Golda Meir said ‘There was no such thing as Palestinians’. Winston Churchill, that famous warrior against fascism, said, ‘I do not admit that the dog in the manger has the final right to the manger, even though he may have lain there for a very long time’ and then went on to declare that a ‘higher race’ had the final right to the manger. Once those two-legged beasts, grasshoppers, dogs and non-existent people were murdered, ethnically cleansed, and ghettoised, a new country was born. It was celebrated as a ‘land without people for people without a land’. The nuclear-armed state of Israel was to serve as a military outpost and gateway to the natural wealth and resources of the Middle East for US and Europe. A lovely coincidence of aims and objectives.


The new state was supported unhesitatingly and unflinchingly, armed and bankrolled, coddled and applauded, no matter what crimes it committed. It grew up like a protected child in a wealthy home whose parents smile proudly as it commits atrocity upon atrocity. No wonder today it feels free to boast openly about committing genocide. (At least The Pentagon Papers were secret. They had to be stolen. And leaked.) No wonder Israeli soldiers seem to have lost all sense of decency. No wonder they flood the social media with depraved videos of themselves wearing the lingerie of women they have killed or displaced, videos of themselves mimicking dying Palestinians and wounded children or raped and tortured prisoners, images of themselves blowing up buildings while they smoke cigarettes or jive to music on their headphones. Who are these people? 


What can possibly justify what Israel is doing?

The answer, according to Israel and its allies, as well as the Western media, is the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7th last year. The killing of Israeli civilians and the taking of Israeli hostages. According to them, history only began a year ago.

So, this is the part in my speech where I am expected to equivocate to protect myself, my ‘neutrality’, my intellectual standing. This is the part where I am meant to lapse into moral equivalence and condemn Hamas, the other militant groups in Gaza and their ally Hezbollah, in Lebanon, for killing civilians and taking people hostage. And to condemn the people of Gaza who celebrated the Hamas attack. Once that’s done it all becomes easy, doesn’t it? Ah well. Everybody is terrible, what can one do? Let’s go shopping instead…


I refuse to play the condemnation game. Let me make myself clear. I do not tell oppressed people how to resist their oppression or who their allies should be.

When US President Joe Biden met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli war cabinet during a visit to Israel in October 2023, he said, ‘I don’t believe you have to be a Jew to be a Zionist, and I am a Zionist.’

Unlike President Joe Biden, who calls himself a non-Jewish Zionist and unflinchingly bankrolls and arms Israel while it commits its war crimes, I am not going to declare myself or define myself in any way that is narrower than my writing. I am what I write.


I am acutely aware that being the writer that I am, the non-Muslim that I am and the woman that I am, it would be very difficult, perhaps impossible for me to survive very long under the rule of Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Iranian regime. But that is not the point here. The point is to educate ourselves about the history and the circumstances under which they came to exist. The point is that right now they are fighting against an ongoing genocide. The point is to ask ourselves whether a liberal, secular fighting force can go up against a genocidal war machine. Because, when all the powers of the world are against them, who do they have to turn to but God? I am aware that Hezbollah and the Iranian regime have vocal detractors in their own countries, some who also languish in jails or have faced far worse outcomes. I am aware that some of their actions – the killing of civilians and the taking of hostages on October 7th by Hamas – constitute war crimes. However, there cannot be an equivalence between this and what Israel and the United States are doing in Gaza, in the West Bank and now in Lebanon. The root of all the violence, including the violence of October 7th, is Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land and its subjugation of the Palestinian people. History did not begin on 7 October 2023.

I ask you, which of us sitting in this hall would willingly submit to the indignity that Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank have been subjected to for decades? What peaceful means have the Palestinian people not tried? What compromise have they not accepted—other than the one that requires them to crawl on their knees and eat dirt? 

Israel is not fighting a war of self-defence. It is fighting a war of aggression. A war to occupy more territory, to strengthen its Apartheid apparatus and tighten its control on Palestinian people and the region.

‘Polls show that a majority of the citizens in the countries whose governments enable the Israeli genocide have made it clear that they do not agree with this.’ Photo: Ahmed Abu Hameeda/Wikimedia commons

Since October 7th 2023, apart from the tens of thousands of people it has killed, Israel has displaced the majority of Gaza’s population, many times over. It has bombed hospitals. It has deliberately targeted and killed doctors, aid workers and journalists. A whole population is being starved – their history is sought to be erased. All this is supported both morally and materially by the wealthiest, most powerful governments in the world. And their media. (Here I include my country, India, which supplies Israel with weapons, as well as thousands of workers.) There is no daylight between these countries and Israel. In the last year alone, the US has spent 17.9 billion dollars in military aid to Israel. So, let us once and for all dispense with the lie about the US being a mediator, a restraining influence, or as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (considered to be on the extreme Left of mainstream US politics) put it, ‘working tirelessly for a ceasefire’. A party to the genocide cannot be a mediator. 

Not all the power and money, not all the weapons and propaganda on earth can any longer hide the wound that is Palestine. The wound through which the whole world, including Israel, bleeds.

Polls show that a majority of the citizens in the countries whose governments enable the Israeli genocide have made it clear that they do not agree with this. We have watched those marches of hundreds of thousands of people – including a young generation of Jews who are tired of being used, tired of being lied to. Who would have imagined that we would live to see the day when German police would arrest Jewish citizens for protesting against Israel and Zionism and accuse them of anti-Semitism? Who would have thought the US government would, in the service of the Israeli state, undermine its cardinal principle of Free Speech by banning pro-Palestine slogans? The so-called moral architecture of western democracies – with a few honourable exceptions – has become a grim laughingstock in the rest of the world.

When Benjamin Netanyahu holds up a map of the Middle East in which Palestine has been erased and Israel stretches from the river to the sea, he is applauded as a visionary who is working to realize the dream of a Jewish homeland.

But when Palestinians and their supporters chant ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’, they are accused of explicitly calling for the genocide of Jews.

Are they really? Or is that a sick imagination projecting its own darkness onto others? An imagination that cannot countenance diversity, cannot countenance the idea of living in a country alongside other people, equally, with equal rights. Like everybody else in the world does. An imagination that cannot afford to acknowledge that Palestinians want to be free, like South Africa is, like India is, like all countries that have thrown off the yoke of colonialism are. Countries that are diverse, deeply, maybe even fatally, flawed, but free. When South Africans were chanting their popular rallying cry, Amandla! Power to the people, were they calling for the genocide of white people? They were not. They were calling for the dismantling of the Apartheid state. Just as the Palestinians are.

‘Neither the ballot boxes not the palaces or the ministries or the prisons or even the graves are big enough for our dreams’. Photo: Shome Basu in Dhaka.

The war that has now begun will be terrible. But it will eventually dismantle Israeli Apartheid. The whole world will be far safer for everyone – including for Jewish people – and far more just. It will be like pulling an arrow from our wounded heart.

If the US government withdrew its support of Israel, the war could stop today. Hostilities could end right this minute. Israeli hostages could be freed, Palestinian prisoners could be released. The negotiations with Hamas and the other Palestinian stakeholders that must inevitably follow the war could instead take place now and prevent the suffering of millions of people. How sad that most people would consider this a naïve, laughable proposition. 

As I conclude, let me turn to your words, Alaa Abd El-Fatah, from your book of prison writing, You Have Not Yet Been Defeated. I have rarely read such beautiful words about the meaning of victory and defeat – and the political necessity of honestly looking despair in the eye. I have rarely seen writing in which a citizen separates himself from the state, from the generals and even from the slogans of the Square with such bell-like clarity.

“The centre is treason because there’s room in it only for the General…The centre is treason and I have never been a traitor. They think they’ve pushed us back into the margins. They don’t realize that we never left it, we just got lost for a brief while. Neither the ballot boxes not the palaces or the ministries or the prisons or even the graves are big enough for our dreams. We never sought the centre because it has no room except for those who abandon the dream. Even the square was not big enough for us, so most of the battles of the revolution happened outside it, and most of the heroes remained outside the frame.”

As the horror we are witnessing in Gaza, and now Lebanon, quickly escalates into a regional war, its real heroes remain outside the frame. But they fight on because they know that one day—

From the river to the sea

Palestine will be Free.

It will.

Keep your eye on your calendar. Not on your clock.

That’s how the people – not the generals – the people fighting for their liberation measure time.

Arundhati Roy is an author, with novels including “The Ministry of Utmost Happiness.” Her most recent work is the essay collection “Azadi: Freedom. Fascism. Fiction.”

They Now Know What Real Bombing Means

You might ask: what about the rockets fired on Israel by Hezbollah and Iran? Are they not part of the brutality of war?

by Vijay Prashad
 
On 1 October, US Representative Michael McCaul, the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee issued a statement urging US President Joe Biden to ‘place maximum pressure on Iran and its proxies, rather than pressure Israel for a ceasefire. We need to expedite arms transfers to Israel that this administration has delayed for months, including 2,000-pound bombs, to ensure Israel has all the tools to deter these threats’. McCaul’s belligerent call came days after Israel used over eighty US-made 2,000-pound bombs and other munitions on 27 September, to strike a residential neighbourhood in Beirut and kill – amongst hundreds of civilians – Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah (1960–2024), the leader of Hezbollah. In this one bombing raid, Israel dropped more of these ‘bunker buster’ bombs than the United States military used in its 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Ayman Baalbaki (Lebanon), Untitled, 2020.

A former US aviator, Commander Graham Scarbro of the US Navy, reviewed the evidence of the Israeli strikes for the US Naval Institute. In a very revealing article, Scarbro notes that Israel ‘seems to have taken a notably different approach to collateral damage than US forces over the past few decades’. While the US has never demonstrated any significant concern for civilian casualties or ‘collateral damage’, it is worth noting that even senior US military officials have raised their eyebrows at the degree of Israel’s disregard for human life. Israel’s military, Scarbro writes, ‘seems to have a higher threshold for collateral damage… meaning they strike even when chances are higher for civilian casualties’.


Despite Washington’s knowledge that the Israelis have been bombing Gaza, and now Lebanon, with complete abandon – and even after the International Court of Justice ruled that it is ‘plausible’ that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza – the United States has continued to arm the Israelis with deadly weaponry. On 10 October 2023, Biden said, ‘We’re surging additional military assistance’, which has amounted to a record-level of at least $17.9 billion during the past year of genocide. In March 2024, The Washington Post reported that the US had ‘quietly approved and delivered more than 100 separate foreign military sales to Israel that amounted to ‘thousands of precision-guided munitions, small-diameter bombs, bunker busters, small arms and other lethal aid’. These ‘small’ sales fell below the minimum threshold under US law which requires the president to approach Congress for approval (which anyway would not have been denied). These sales amounted to the transfer of at least 14,000 of the 2,000 pound MK-84 bombs and 6,500 500-pound bombs that Israel has used in both Gaza and Lebanon.


In Gaza, the Israelis have routinely used the 2,000-pound bombs to strike areas populated by civilians – who had been told to take refuge at these locations by the Israeli authorities themselves. ‘In the first two weeks of the war’, The New York Times reported, ‘roughly 90 percent of the munitions Israel dropped in Gaza were satellite-guided bombs of 1,000 or 2,000 pounds’. In March 2024, US Senator Bernie Sanders tweeted, ‘The US cannot beg Netanyahu to stop bombing civilians one day and the next send him thousands more 2,000 lb. bombs that can level entire city blocks. This is obscene’. A 2016 report by Action on Armed Violence offered the following assessment of these weapons of mass destruction:

These are extremely powerful bombs, with a large destructive capacity when used in populated areas. They can blow apart buildings and kill and injure people hundreds of metres from the point of detonation. The fragmentation pattern and range of a 2,000lb MK 84 bomb are difficult to predict, but it is generally said that this weapon has a ‘lethal radius’ (i.e. the distance in which it is likely to kill people in the vicinity) of up to 360m. The blast waves of such a weapon can create a great concussive effect; a 2,000lb bomb can be expected to cause severe injury and damage as far as 800 metres from the point of impact.

I have several times walked around the Beirut neighbourhood of Haret Hreik in Dahiyeh, which was struck by Israeli bombs in the attack on the Hezbollah leadership. This is a highly congested area, with barely a few metres between high-rise residential buildings. To strike a complex of these buildings with over eighty of these powerful bombs cannot be called ‘precise’. Israel’s bombing of Beirut mirrors its harsh attacks on Gaza and symbolises the disdain for human life that characterises both Israeli and US warfare. On 23 September, Israel bombarded Lebanon at a rate of more than one airstrike per minute. In days, Israel’s ‘intense airstrikes’ displaced over a million people, a fifth of the entire population of Lebanon.

The first bomb to ever fall from an aircraft was a Haasen hand grenade (Denmark) dropped by Lieutenant Giulio Cavotti of the Italian Air Force on 1 November 1911 onto the town of Tagiura, near Tripoli, Libya. A hundred years later, in a grotesque commemoration of sorts, French and US aircraft bombed Libya once more as part of their war to overthrow the government of Muammar Gaddafi. The ferocity of aerial bombing was understood from the very outset, as Sven Lindqvist documented in his book, A History of Bombing (2003). In March 1924, UK Squadron Leader Arthur ‘Bomber’ Harris authored a report (later expunged) about his bombings in Iraq and the ‘real’ meaning of aerial bombardment:

Where the Arab and Kurd had just begun to realise that if they could stand a little noise, they could stand bombing… they now know what real bombing means, in casualties and damage; they now know that within forty-five minutes a full-sized village … can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured by four or five machines which offer them no real target, no opportunity for glory as warriors, no effective means of escape.

A hundred years later, these words of ‘Bomber’ Harris aptly describe the kind of ruthlessness inflicted on both Palestine and Lebanon.

You might ask: what about the rockets fired on Israel by Hezbollah and Iran? Are they not part of the brutality of war? Certainly, these are part of the ugliness of warfare, but an easy parallel cannot be drawn. Iran’s ballistic missiles followed Israel’s attack on an Iranian diplomatic facility in Syria (April 2024), the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran following the inauguration of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian (July 2024), the assassination of Nasrallah in Beirut (September 2024), and the killing of several Iranian military officials. Significantly, whereas Israel has launched countless strikes targeting civilians, medical personnel, journalists, and aid workers, Iran’s missiles exclusively targeted Israeli military and intelligence facilities and not civilian areas. Hezbollah, meanwhile, targeted Israel’s Ramat David Airbase, east of Haifa, in September 2024. Neither Iran nor Hezbollah have fired their munitions into congested neighbourhoods of Israeli cities. Since 8 October 2023, Israeli airstrikes against Lebanon have far outnumbered Hezbollah’s strikes against Israel. Before the current wave of hostilities, by 10 September, Israel had killed 137 Lebanese civilians and displaced hundreds of thousands of Lebanese from their homes; meanwhile, Hezbollah rockets had by then killed 14 Israeli civilians, with their rockets leading to the evacuation of 63,000 Israeli civilians. There has been not only a quantitative difference in the number of strikes and death toll, but a qualitative difference in the use of violence. Violence that is directed largely at military targets, is permissible in certain conditions under international law; violence that is indiscriminate, such as when massive bombs are used against civilians, violates the laws of war.


Etel Adnan (1925–2021), a Lebanese poet and artist, grew up in Beirut after her parents fled the collapsing Ottoman Empire that became modern day Turkey. She dug deep into the soil of conflict and pain, the ingredients for her poetry. Her voice resonated from the balcony of her apartment in Ashrafieh, the ‘little mountain’, from where she could see the ships come in and out of the port. When Etel Adnan died, the novelist Elias Khoury (1948–2024), who himself died just before Beirut was again bombarded, wrote that he mourned a woman who would not die, but he feared for his city which was suffering alone. Here are a few extracts from Etel’s poem, ‘Beirut, 1982’, to remind us that we are as angry as a storm.

I never believed
that vengeance
would be a tree
growing in my garden

*

Trees grow in all directions
So do Palestinians:

uprooted
and unlike butterflies
wingless,
earthbound,
heavy with love
for their borders and their
misery,

no people can go forever behind
bars
or under the rain.


We shall never cry with tears
but with blood.


It is not on cemeteries that we shall
plant grain
nor in the palm of my hand
We are as angry as a storm.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, editor and journalist. He is a writing fellow and chief correspondent at Globetrotter. He is an editor of LeftWord Books and the director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. He is a senior non-resident fellow at Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China. He has written more than 20 books, including The Darker Nations and The Poorer Nations. His latest books are Struggle Makes Us Human: Learning from Movements for Socialism and (with Noam Chomsky) The Withdrawal: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Fragility of U.S. Power.

World Leaders Urge Biden to Remove Cuba from Terror List

Former Leaders Across the World Urge President Biden to Reconsider Sanctions and Remove Cuba from State Sponsors of Terrorism List

A collective of former world leaders from Latin America, the Caribbean, Europe, Africa, and Asia has issued an urgent appeal to President Joseph Biden to reconsider the United States’ stance on Cuba, specifically addressing the economic sanctions and Cuba’s inclusion on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list. In a detailed letter dated September 11th, 2024, they highlighted the dire situation faced by the Cuban population and called for a more humanitarian approach to the decades-long political standoff.

Evening in Havana: The Cuban flag waves proudly over the bustling streets, where classic cars, colonial architecture, and vibrant street life paint a picture of the city's enduring charm and cultural vitality [ AI Generated Image]

The letter underscores the severe impact of the U.S. sanctions on Cuba’s economy, describing the country as being at a “point of no return.” It points out that these unilateral sanctions have made the Cuban economy one of the most heavily impacted in the world. The leaders argue that the sanctions not only harm Cuba’s economy but also adversely affect the most vulnerable sectors of the Cuban population, especially in light of the recent pandemic.

Historical Context and Appeal for Diplomacy:
During the Obama administration, which President Biden was a part of, there were significant efforts toward easing sanctions and normalizing diplomatic relations between the two nations. This historical step was seen as progress toward mutual cooperation despite the countries’ differing ideological systems. The signatories of the letter remind President Biden of this effort and call for a return to this diplomatic path.

The letter argues that international relations should not be conditioned on ideological alignment, emphasizing the importance of sovereignty and self-determination. The former leaders urge the United States to recognize that keeping Cuba on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list contradicts recent decisions by the State Department. In May of the same year, the State Department removed Cuba from the list of countries not cooperating fully against terrorism, a move the signatories commended.

How can it be asserted, at the same time, that a country cooperates in the global fight against terrorism while simultaneously accusing it of openly supporting it?

Contradictory U.S. Policy:
The letter criticizes the U.S. for simultaneously claiming that Cuba cooperates in the fight against terrorism while maintaining its status as a supporter of terrorism. It points out the lack of evidence supporting the allegations against Cuba, which has also been a victim of terrorist activities. The signatories argue that these sanctions are unjust and contribute to the destabilization of Cuba’s economy, thereby worsening the humanitarian situation.

Human Rights and International Support:
The former leaders express concern that the ongoing sanctions violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by impacting Cuba’s most vulnerable populations. The letter notes that these measures have been condemned in over thirty United Nations General Assembly resolutions, where an absolute majority voted against the blockade. The letter also highlights Cuba’s active role in peace-building efforts, such as the Peace Accord signed in Havana between the Colombian government and the FARC, and recent dialogues seeking peace between the Colombian State and the ELN.

Call for Humanitarian Action:
The appeal is framed as a compelling humanitarian plea, emphasizing the devastating impact of the U.S. sanctions on innocent people in Cuba. The former leaders argue that the sanctions have contributed to a dramatic situation in Cuba, evidenced by the unprecedented wave of Cuban migrants to the United States. They urge President Biden to send a clear message of humanism and understanding, transcending ideological differences for the sake of millions of people.

A Call for Historic Gesture:
The signatories call on President Biden to make a historic gesture by removing Cuba from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism, suggesting that this would be recognized as a significant act of diplomacy and humanity by the Cuban people and the international community. The letter concludes with a respectful appeal for President Biden to consider the seriousness of the fight against terrorism and the importance of acting beyond political purposes.

Global Appeal: Former leaders from Latin America, the Caribbean, Europe, Africa, and Asia unite in a joint letter urging President Biden to remove Cuba from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list, advocating for a humanitarian approach to international relations.

THE FULL TEXT OF THE LETTER IS AS FOLLOWS:

September 11th, 2024

Mr. JOSEPH BIDEN

President of the United States of America Mr. President,

As you are aware, for decades of unilateral sanctions and coercive measures, the Cuban economy has been one of the most heavily impacted in the world and is currently, socially, at a point of no return. During the Barack Obama administration -of which you were a part- progress was made in a historic step towards the easing of those sanctions and the normalization of diplomatic relations between two neighbors who should not deprive each other of their mutual cooperation simply because they have political systems with different ideological inspiration.

There is no record in our post-war history, since the founding of the United Nations System, of any international normativity that stipulates that relations between States must be governed or conditioned according to their level of ideological alignment, which would imply the end of sovereignty and self-determination as fundamental pillars upon which the world governance system has been established in peace since the end of World War II. Precisely based on this reasoning, Obama himself recognized the anachronism of some unilateral measures against states like Cuba.

In May of this year, the State Department decided to remove Cuba from the list of countries not cooperating fully against terrorism, a fair and correct decision that we applauded at the time. Despite this, in a contradictory manner, your country’s authorities insist on keeping Cuba included on another list -the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism-. How can it be asserted, at the same time, that a country cooperates in the global fight against terrorism while simultaneously accusing it of openly supporting it?

Without any evidence, Cuba is accused of having links to terrorist activities of which it has also been a victim and harsh sanctions are imposed based on this presumption, directly impacting its population and permanently destabilizing its economy.

Furthermore, maintaining Cuba’s inclusion on the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism constitutes a coercive measure that is difficult to justify in the 21st century when equality among states must be a reality. This unjust decision also affects the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – the ethical pillar of contemporary international relations-, by impacting the most vulnerable sectors of the Cuban population, who have been severely affected recently by the devastating effects of the pandemic, exacerbated by the lack of medicines and equipment to address the emergency.

The difficult situation that the Cuban economy is going through can be explained – among other factors – by the unilateral sanctions applied by the United States, which have been condemned for their unilateralism by the United Nations system and by many people and institutions on various occasions and opportunities. In the United Nations General Assembly, the blockade against Cuba has been condemned in more than thirty resolutions by an absolute majority.


In Cuba, Mr. President, the situation is beginning to be dramatic. This reflects a critical juncture that can and should be corrected if justice is done with Cuba’s demonstrated efforts to fight against, and not with, terrorism.

The unprecedented wave of Cuban migrants to the United States is perhaps the most illustrative example of the devastating impact and suffering caused by extreme measures against the Cuban

economy, resulting from its inclusion in the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. The extraterritorial effect of financial blockade measures against Cuba also affects the interests of our countries, including the banking and business sectors.

The active participation of the Cuban government in the construction of the Peace Accord signed in Havana in 2016 between the State of Colombia and “Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia” (FARC), coupled with its recent role as a guarantor country in the dialogue seeking peace between the Colombian State and the “Ejército de Liberación Nacional” (ELN), Cuba demonstrates the humanitarian will for peace and not for war that animates Cuba and its government.

In summary, Mr. President, the reasons we present for requesting that Cuba be removed from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism are grounded in a compelling humanitarian appeal aimed at alleviating the situation of millions of innocent people and our profound conviction that the Cuban government is seriously committed against terrorism and promoting peace in the region and the world. No country should compromise, with political purposes, the seriousness of the fight against the scourge of terrorism.


Therefore, we ask you to consider sending this clear message of humanism and understanding beyond the legitimate ideological differences that cannot and should not justify acting otherwise. The people of Cuba and the countries we represent will recognize your historic gesture, Mr. President.

Respectfully,

  1. Dilma Rousseff, former president of Brazil.
  2. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, former president of Argentina.
  3. Ernesto Samper Pizano, former president of Colombia.
  4. Evo Morales, former president of Bolivia.
  5. Rafael Correa, former president of Ecuador.
  6. Donald Ramotar, former president of Guyana.
  7. David Arthur Granger, former president of Guayana.
  8. Moses Nagamootoo, ex primer ministro de Guyana.
  9. Ollanta Moisés Humala Tasso, former president of Peru.
  10. Mirtha Esther Vásquez Chuquilín, former prime minister of Peru.
  11. Aníbal Torres Vásquez, former prime minister of Peru.
  12. Salomón Lerner Ghitis, former prime minister of Peru.
  13. Said Musa, former prime minister of Belize.
  14. Dean Barrow, former prime minister of Belize.
  15. Salvador Sánchez Cerén, former president of El Salvador.
  16. Vinicio Cerezo, former president of Guatemala.
  17. Manuel Zelaya, former president of Honduras.
  18. Martin Torrijos, former president of Panama.
  19. Ernesto Pérez Balladares, former president of Panama.
  20. Baldwin Spencer, former prime minister of Antigua y Barbuda.
  21. Leonel Fernández, former president of the Dominican Republic.
  22. Hipolito Mejía, former president of the Dominican Republic.
  23. Charles Angelo Savarin, former president of the Commonwealth of Dominica.
  24. Keith Mitchell, former prime minister of Grenada.
  25. Percival James Patterson, former prime minister of Jamaica.
  26. Kenny Anthony, former prime minister of Saint Lucia.
  27. José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, former president of the Spanish Government.
  28. Tomislav Nikolić, former president of Serbia.
  29. John Dramani Mahamat, former president of Ghana.
  30. Joaquim Alberto Chissano, former president of Mozambique.
  31. Hifikepunye Pohamba, former president of Namibia.
  32. Sam Nujoma, former president of Namibia.
  33. Danny Faure, former president of Seychelles.
  34. Mari Bim Amude Alkatiri, former prime minister of East Timor.
  35. Mahatir Mohamad, former prime minister of Malaysia.

How Corporate Media Desensitizes Americans to Gaza’s Tragedy

In-depth content analysis by the Intercept found that coverage of the war’s first six weeks by the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times “showed a consistent bias against Palestinians.”

by Norman Solomon

As the Gaza war enters its 12th month with no end in sight, the ongoing horrors continue to be normalized in U.S. media and politics. The process has become so routine that we might not recognize how omission and distortion have constantly shaped views of events since the war began in October.

The Gaza war received a vast amount of U.S. media attention, but how much the media actually communicated about the human realities was a whole other matter. Easy assumptions held that the news enabled media consumers to see what was really going on. But the words and images reaching listeners, readers, and viewers were a far cry from experiences of being in the war zone. The belief or unconscious notion that news media were conveying of the war’s realities ended up obscuring those realities all the more. And journalism’s inherent limitations were compounded by media biases.

A woman mourns for victims at Nasser Hospital in the southern Gaza Strip city of Khan Younis, Aug. 13, 2024. (Photo by Khaled Omar/Xinhua)

In-depth content analysis by the Intercept found that coverage of the war’s first six weeks by the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times “showed a consistent bias against Palestinians.” Those highly influential news outlets “disproportionately emphasized Israeli deaths in the conflict” and “used emotive language to describe the killings of Israelis, but not Palestinians.” For example: “The term ‘slaughter’ was used by editors and reporters to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 60 to 1, and ‘massacre’ was used to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 125 to 2. ‘Horrific’ was used to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 36 to 4.”


During the first five months of the war, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post applied the word “brutal” or its variants far more often to actions by Palestinians (77 percent) than to Israelis (23 percent). The findings, in a study by Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR), pointed to an imbalance that occurred “even though Israeli violence was responsible for more than 20 times as much loss of life.” News articles and opinion pieces were remarkably in the same groove; “the lopsided rate at which ‘brutal’ was used in op-eds to characterize Palestinians over Israelis was exactly the same as the supposedly straight news stories.”

Despite exceptional coverage at times, what was most profoundly important about the war in Gaza—what it was like to be terrorized, massacred, maimed, and traumatized—remained almost entirely out of view. Gradually, surface accounts reaching the American public came to seem repetitious and normal. As death numbers kept rising and months went by, the Gaza war diminished as a news topic, while most interview shows seldom discussed it.


Gaps widened between the standard reporting in media terms and the situation worsening in human terms. “Gazans now make up 80 percent of all people facing famine or catastrophic hunger worldwide, marking an unparalleled humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip amid Israel’s continued bombardment and siege,” the United Nations reported in mid-January 2024. The UN statement quoted experts who said: “Currently every single person in Gaza is hungry, a quarter of the population are starving and struggling to find food and drinkable water, and famine is imminent.”

President Biden dramatized the disconnect between the Gaza war zone and the U.S. political zone in late February when he spoke to reporters about prospects for a “ceasefire” (which did not take place) while holding a vanilla ice-cream cone in his right hand. “My national security adviser tells me that we’re close, we’re close, we’re not done yet,” Biden said, before sauntering off. On the same day as Biden’s photo op at an ice cream parlor near Rockefeller Center, where he had just taped an appearance on NBC’s “Late Night” show with comedian Seth Meyers, the UN lamented that “very little humanitarian aid has entered besieged Gaza this month, with a 50 percent reduction compared to January.” Israel was halting aid convoys ready to enter Gaza at border crossings. More than 10 policemen providing security for the aid trucks had been purposely killed by the Israeli military. Disastrous consequences were obvious.


“The volume of aid delivered to Gaza has collapsed in recent weeks as Israeli airstrikes have targeted police officers who guard the convoys, UN officials say, exposing them to looting by criminal gangs and desperate civilians,” the Washington Post reported. “On average, only 62 trucks have entered Gaza each day over the past two weeks, according to figures from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs—well below the 200 trucks per day Israel has committed to facilitating. Just four trucks crossed on two separate days this week. Aid groups, which have warned of a looming famine, estimate that some 500 trucks are needed each day to meet people’s basic needs.”

While such numbers peppered news stories, countless real-life horrors were out of media sight that shower people in private agony and grief. Major media coverage did include some commendable human-interest reporting and investigative features about individual tragedies in Gaza. But even at its best, such journalism didn’t do much to convey the size, scope, and depth of the widening disaster. And the narratives of catastrophe were short on zeal for exploring causality—especially when the trail would lead to the U.S. “national security” establishment. American media frames around heartrending portrayals of Palestinian victims rarely also encompassed their victimizers in Washington. Top government officials readily voiced facile regret for the tragic loss of life, while they continued to put out enormous welcome mats for the Grim Reaper.

Source: Economy for All

Norman Solomon is a co-founder of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. Distributed in partnership with Globetrotter, this text is excerpted from Solomon’s new book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine (The New Press, 2023). All rights reserved.

Amnesty’s Hollow Crusade: Ideology Over Justice

Amnesty International, Rather Than Defending Human Rights, Seeks to Shield Rapists from Punishment Under the Guise of Advocacy, Prioritizing Ideological Agendas Over Justice

by Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit

The phony quest for human rights by Amnesty not only lays bare its ideological propaganda but also showcases the hollow nature of its advocacy.

Adorned as a custodian of human rights by the woke ecosystem, Amnesty International stands as an exemplary organization that has abandoned its core objective and taken refuge in the ideological musings of ultra-liberal fantasies. Preserving or defending human rights no longer guides its actions and policies; instead, it is more focused on looking morally superior and casting unfounded judgments.

Children study under the light of candles at their home after a power cut in Nagaon district of India's northeastern state of Assam, April 22, 2022. (Str/Xinhua)


DEFENDING THE RAPISTS?

Last week, Amnesty’s ideological agenda was on full display. Aakar Patel, Chair of the Board of Amnesty International, while discussing the horrific incident at Kolkata’s RG Kar Medical College and Hospital, noted that the “death penalty is never the solution.” The statement was shocking, no matter how you view it. Patel’s argument was about the need for “far-reaching procedural and institutional reform” in the long term. However, based on Amnesty’s track record, most of its statements regarding India in recent years have not been about defending human rights but about casting negative perceptions of the country.

Rather than addressing the immediate situation, the organization sought to preach about long-term reforms. Long-term solutions to women’s safety are, of course, critical, and governments are working in varying capacities to implement such measures. But the current priority is to deal with what has already happened. Suggestions from Amnesty (and similar organizations) often miss the reality on the ground, where people in Bengal and beyond are genuinely agitated and demanding justice. Such measures only serve to demean the efforts of the public, as these so-called reputable international organizations, meant to defend human rights, seem to be shielding the rapists from punishment under the guise of human rights advocacy.

HOLLOW ADVOCACY

Amnesty’s phony quest for human rights exposes not just its ideological propaganda but also the emptiness of its advocacy. The organization may be vocal and fierce in its criticism of countries in the Global South, but it rarely directs the same level of scrutiny at the West, except on token issues.

There are other points to consider about the organization. In the 1990s, Amnesty shifted its strategy from publishing long-format reports to focusing mainly on press releases, which now closely resemble standard media reporting. However, unlike the media, which claims to present news as it is, Amnesty is a value-serving organization that prioritizes certain values over others.

Funding is the most crucial aspect to understanding the functioning of any organization, especially those like Amnesty that have a global presence and influence. Over the years, Amnesty has received funding from governments like the UK, the European Commission (EU), and the US State Department, which makes its claims of objectivity appear farcical.

Amnesty, under the guise of objectivity, has engaged in problematic practices, such as giving platforms to Taliban sympathizers. Similarly, reports suggest its highly paid officials have connections to various banned groups around the world, including the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

Additionally, discrimination, racism, sexism, and mental abuse within the organization have gone largely unnoticed. Despite calling for transparency from others, Amnesty has failed to address its internal toxic work culture. The suicides of its employees have brought these issues to light. Furthermore, there has been internal dissent regarding Amnesty’s work that has not been publicly acknowledged, a level of accountability the organization demands from others.

TARGETING INDIA

Accusing and pointing fingers is not a new tactic for Amnesty, but for reasons only known to its leadership, India holds special interest for the organization. Over the past decade, Amnesty has covered almost every human rights violation story in India. While no such violation is excusable, and no respectable individual, political group, or government would argue otherwise, Amnesty’s portrayal of these crimes as commonplace crosses a line between “what’s true” and “what the organization is trying to make true.”

India is a vast country facing challenges typical of the developing world, including crime, which all governments and regions are trying to address. However, for Amnesty, criticizing India seems convenient—and, frankly, it appears to be a lucrative strategy that aligns with the interests of its funders.

Some may argue that Amnesty’s issues with India stem from its opposition to the BJP-led government, particularly following the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) investigation into the organization’s financial activities, especially regarding foreign funds. However, a similar situation occurred in 2009, when Amnesty ceased operations in India under Congress rule. Therefore, the issue is not tied to the ruling government.

Amnesty seems to have a consistent agenda against India, as evident in its selective coverage. On the Manipur issue, it called for government action against the accused, yet in Bengal, it declared, “the death penalty is never the solution.” Meanwhile, Kashmir remains a favorite topic for Amnesty to portray India as a human rights violator, even as it overlooks the positive developments following the revocation of Article 370.

CONCLUSION

Amnesty’s track record reveals a clear selection bias, driven by ideological preferences, which results in disproportionate coverage of certain issues in specific countries. Governments may underperform, and human evils exist everywhere, but the solution is not to vilify nations based on ideological leanings and parochial interests. The moral policing by international organizations that flout the very rules they demand others follow is the dangerous flipside of these multi-million-dollar entities. The Indian government’s decision to expose Amnesty’s financial misdeeds was necessary. However, countering the false narratives of such organizations is even more crucial in this age of social media and clickbait culture.

When these organizations advocate for leniency towards rapists under the pretext of “the death penalty is never the solution,” it becomes imperative to challenge their false crusades. We must question and discredit these self-entitled paragons of virtue who, while claiming to uphold human rights, serve only their ideological agendas.

Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit is an Indian academic and the current Vice-chancellor of Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

The first China-Latin America Human Rights Roundtable will be held in Brazil

This is the first institutional exchange and seminar activity in the field of human rights between China and Latin America and the Caribbean.

by Han Bo

As the largest developing country in the world and one of the regions with the largest number of developing countries, China has long been working with Latin American and Caribbean countries to actively promote mutually beneficial economic and trade cooperation. In the field of human rights cooperation, China and Latin American and Caribbean countries share similar backgrounds, similar ideas, common paths, and converging goals. 2024 marks the 10th anniversary of the establishment of the comprehensive cooperative partnership between China and Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and Brazil. Xi’s diplomatic thought has been responded to and recognized by more and more countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Federal University of Fluminense, Brazil.

The first China-Latin America Human Rights Roundtable will be held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil on September 10, 2024, local time. The forum is jointly sponsored by the China Human Rights Research Association, Renmin University of China, and the Federal University of Fluminense, Brazil, and is jointly organized by the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies of Renmin University of China and the Law School of the Federal University of Fluminense, Brazil.

This is the first institutional exchange and seminar activity in the field of human rights between China and Latin America and the Caribbean. The theme of the roundtable is “The Diversity of Civilization and the Choice of the Path to Realize Human Rights “, with three sub topics: “Contributions of china-latin american and caribean states to the civilization of human rights”,”Realization of the right to development and enjoyment of fundamental human rights “,

” Current challenges and solutions for global human rights governance”.More than 120 senior officials, experts and scholars in the field of human rights from China and Latin American and Caribbean countries, as well as representatives from relevant social organizations, think tanks, and media, will attend the conference.

Han Bo is a journalist working for Legal Daily, a prominent publication in China. He specializes in covering legal affairs and important societal issues. He can be contacted at legaldailyhan@hotmail.com.

Children’s Rights: Crucial for Climate Action and Environmental Change

Birth equity is essential for ecological security.


by Esther Afolaranmi and Carter Dillard

The actual cause of the climate crisis is the anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution. But the proximate cause—the underlying activity that sparked the climate crisis and the intertwined environmental crises—is how we have built society, starting from when humans are born.

Despite the threat of the sixth extinction, ecosystem collapse, air and water pollution, and the numerous associated health impacts, few environmental activists or politicians recognize the proximate cause.

Palestinian children are seen at a temporary shelter in the southern Gaza Strip city of Khan Younis, Dec. 13, 2023. According to the United Nations (UN), approximately 1.9 million people in Gaza, or 85 percent of its population, have been internally displaced, some of whom have been displaced for multiple times. (Photo by Rizek Abdeljawad/Xinhua)

The climate crisis has fundamentally been fueled by countries treating future generations as a means to sustain their economies instead of as an intrinsic part of their nations. Society is set up to view children as workers, consumers, and taxpayers rather than as empowered citizens with an influential voice in their democracies. This ill-advised social doctrine is the proximate cause of the climate crisis. We must take remedial measures and seek justice for the natural world—humanity and all species—through legal means that address children’s rights via birth equity.

By shifting the focus to children’s rights as a fundamental aspect of policy evaluation, we can reshape climate policy, save countless lives, and redefine wealth entitlements.


This is especially important since extreme temperatures will lead to more suffering for already vulnerable populations worldwide. According to international studies, these extreme weather conditions are likely to impact ethnic minorities more and will lead to the “greatest risks” for people from developing countries. To protect future generations from heat waves, the attenuation of democracy, and the reduction of representation ratios, children’s rights and the rights of individuals must drive policymaking.

If we addressed these factors, particularly intergenerational justice, climate policy would be different, saving countless lives and trillions of dollars.


Why Advocacy Organizations Need to Focus on Family Planning


Advocacy organizations working to bring about positive social, economic, and environmental changes should consider including family planning in their goals. Including birth and development equity in their work is essential to ensuring meaningful changes for future generations. Ignoring this aspect might undo the positive impact these organizations might otherwise have.

The climate crisis goes beyond emissions; it is a multifaceted catastrophe, with efforts to mitigate it being undone on all levels as children enter the world without access to birth and development equity. For example, not using children’s rights as the basis for family planning systems has allowed ecocidal growth and also diluted the role of each person in governance and their capacity to halt the crisis.

Family policies should be integral to animal protection, child welfare, environmental protection, human rights, and democracy to secure children’s futures.

Impact Fraud: Good Work Is Being Undone

Instead of focusing on increasing the economic wealth of nations, governments should ensure that women and their families have access to child welfare resources consistent with the Children’s Rights Convention. Unfortunately, family planning policies have failed to achieve this. Instead, children (primarily of color) enter the world with no functional protections and are exposed to environmental and socioeconomic conditions that are not conducive to helping them survive and thrive.

According to a July 2022 Pew Research Center study, almost half of U.S. parents felt the government was doing “too little” to resolve issues that concerned them, while 54 percent gave the same reply regarding the government’s response to addressing problems faced by children.


Evidence of ubiquitous and horrific child abuse worldwide demonstrates this, along with the push for mindless growth, which comes at the cost of environmental damage. According to a 2020 study published in the Journal of Population and Sustainability, “more than three-quarters of the reductions in carbon emissions achieved since 1990 by increased efficiency and reducing carbon dioxide emissions from energy production have been canceled out by the effects of a growing population.”

Studies also show that the increasing financial burdens and “climate change fears” are deterring people from having children. According to a 2021 article in the Lancet, 39 percent of young people globally were reluctant to have children due to climate change.

This constitutes fundamental threshold harm on at least seven distinct or incommensurable levels (welfare, equity, human rights and democracy, environmental, reproductive rights, efficiency, and trust).

A February 2024 press release by UNICEF is a reflection of how we are failing child welfare globally, with 1.4 billion children not having any “basic social protection.” “Fewer than one in ten children in low-income countries have access to child benefits, leaving them vulnerable to disease, missed education, poor nutrition, poverty and inequality.”

The family policies many support are quietly doing more harm—undoing climate mitigation efforts that will lead to 4 million people dying between 2000 and 2024—than other policies are doing good. This dynamic can be labeled “impact fraud.”

“Overall, the effects of global climate change are predicted to be heavily concentrated in poorer populations at low latitudes, where the most important climate-sensitive health outcomes (malnutrition, diarrhea, and malaria) are already common, and where vulnerability to climate effects is greatest. These diseases mainly affect younger age groups, so… the total burden of disease due to climate change appears to be borne mainly by children in developing countries,” research by Australian epidemiologist Anthony McMichael and his team concluded.


These policies position us to benefit from a coercive legal system of entitlements without paying the high costs. We can also meet our obligation to future generations by ensuring children are born and raised in conditions that protect their rights and guarantee birth and developmental equity.

Impact fraud can be measured against a few simple metrics, like whether we invest enough in children, whether states are capable of holding functional constitutional conventions, or the concept of child rights-based legitimacy (the idea that children’s rights logically precede and enable human rights and are thus the basis of political obligation and state legitimacy).

A Fatal Decision: The United Nations Human Rights Conference of 1968

The climate crisis is less about emissions or population growth. It should be viewed as more of a policy mistake made by world leaders in 1968 (when the United Nations held its International Conference on Human Rights in Tehran) that allowed society to benefit at a fatal cost to future generations. At the time, politicians and policymakers conflated the disparate acts of having children and choosing not to as covered by autonomy rather than birth equity and children’s rights.

The human rights policy of 1968 hid actual costs and favored wealthy families that relied on a growing class of workers and parental autonomy. Therefore, it chose cyclical inequity and unsustainable growth over the inclusivity that creates genuine political autonomy. This obscured the overriding nature of birth equity as the first human right.

At the most fundamental level, the policy cemented by United Nations agencies in 1968 limited the interventions regarding the decision to have children—their number, the resources they deserve, the conditions in which they are born and raised, their level of influence in setting the rules of democracy, and the actual impact of population on the nonhuman world, etc.


Indeed, no one can justly benefit from a system when the reason for preventing intervention is based on the value of autonomy, pointing to the misconceived logic behind this thinking. It placed greater value on the rights of people to decide whether or not to have children rather than the rights of children.

People—Not Documents—Constitute Nations

The current and widespread concept of reproductive autonomy is the antithesis of self-determination—an inversion of autonomy where some children are born into horrible circumstances, and others live in extreme wealth but are controlled by others.

People, not documents, constitute nations. If liberalism has struggled to find a way to include oneself in a system yet remain free, the easy answer would be this: You have to care enough about each child born into the world to position them so that you will both be empowered. You must be empathetic enough to care about the children born into unfortunate circumstances and their impact on the nonhuman world they need to survive.

The Act of Having Children Is Not a Private Act

Our current policy treats children as means to be used by others, substitutes coercion for inclusion in rulemaking, and is the genesis of the fallacy of personal autonomy irrespective of our accessibility to intergenerational wealth. Any person having a child does so while being part of a political system, making this choice hardly a personal or private act for parents.

Maintaining the status quo family policy—including the greenwashing that hides its impacts—has killed many simply because we hid liability and did not move the extreme wealth that was made at the cost of pursuing these policies.

Because of these mistakes, people were not valued, which allowed consumption, population growth, inequity, and exclusive political systems to grow, which fundamentally drove the current child welfare crisis. Some (primarily white people) benefited at a cost to others (and controlled the basic criteria for cost/benefit analysis) by never meeting their most fundamental obligations: Ensuring birth and development conditions consistent with children’s rights.

A few benefitted from a coercive legal system of entitlements, the legitimacy of which was falsely premised as a form of inclusive freedom.

‘Distractivistism’

The animal law/animal rights movement can lead us toward ecocentrism and help shift the focus to nature’s integral role in ensuring the survival of future generations.

We cannot protect nonhuman animals without accounting for how the children we have and raise will individually and collectively relate to them as vulnerable entities outside of functional legal protection and as the inhabitants of the ecologies that allow humans to be free and thrive.

Protecting animals requires more meaningful action than prosecuting animal cruelty, setting a precedent through legal cases, or introducing a new vegan product. This means animal law implementation should not be limited to discussions or hijacked by “distractivists.” We must recognize that animal personhood is integral to human reproductive rights, and our family planning policies must reflect that.

A more fundamental vision aligns animal rights with other social justice movements because it shifts focus from legal coercion to ensuring that all beings inhabiting the planet are treated well.

The anthropocentric approach we currently follow perpetuates a cycle of growth and environmental destruction instead of concentrating on reversing the climate crisis by adopting a bottom-up approach centered around ensuring that children and animals thrive.

The animal rights movement’s claims of success are the most inaccurate when we factor in the impact of family policy on animals. More animals have died from unchecked human population growth than have been saved by dietary change. Focusing on food without first focusing on family, inclusion, and legitimacy turns a fundamental justice movement into a racket of selling vegan products to a tiny percentage of consumers and leads to low-impact campaigns that are examples of distractivism.

Moreover, funders have driven animal organizations toward growth-based food because they are invested in the companies that make it. This is another example of turning the focus away from pressing issues like animal welfare.

Animal rights should thus not ask how humans should treat nonhumans, which is the arrogant and anthropocentric mindset that led to the climate crisis and threatens the existence and survival of humans and nonhuman animals alike.

Major animal protection organizations have been publicly called on to assess whether their approach to family policy harms animals more than their other work does good, and they have had no response. Activists like Wayne Hsuing have advocated for truth and change in this area to avoid undoing the work done to protect nonhuman animals.

Animal law must concentrate on policies, like family law, which have the most significant impact, not sensational or profitable policies premised on our ability to replace other species. It is the most unifying form of justice around a zero baseline to avoid harming others.

But this will not work if wealthy funders silo the movement and base assessments of legitimacy on whether the law protects their current entitlements or focus on low-impact precedent, sensational victories, or on cases and statutes, the benefits of which are being undone by inequitable families. These funders live in a fictitious juridical world where calling something nature or saying it has rights has some magical impact, while in the real world, pro-natal policies have been undoing the work done to create more equity and hiding life-saving reparations.

Living in that top-down fantasy world clouds the high ideal of a legitimate system that protects nonhumans. Such a system would need to be more inclusive and thus aligned with minimal “social sources” conceptions of positive law, consistent with reasonable representative ratios.

Most people define law as unique because it comes from the participation of its subjects. But of course, that depends on several factors, like how many people are involved, whether they are represented, whether their votes are diluted, etc. By most measures, current legal systems are far too crowded and attenuated from their members to be participatory and legitimate.

Redefining State Sovereignty Around Birth Equity

A petition before the United Nations, filed by our group, Fair Start Movement, would redefine state sovereignty and legitimacy around the most primary value, child rights/birth and developmental equity, as defined by the metrics above, and require certain things of member nations. This is not altruism but creating freedom through equitable relations that ensure we show the trust democracy or relative self-determination requires.

Today’s extreme wealth was made at a cost to that value and is owed to those who have paid the most to ensure “increased economic prosperity.” This way of functioning has also violated the fundamental human right to matter. And those who have benefited are trying to hide this fact to ensure they continue to gain from this unequal system.

This policy and outlook change would set a baseline for any climate harm evaluation that does not scam victims out of what they are owed—self-determination, prioritizing reparations as the first human right, and providing conditions that ensure maximum protection for children.

Reforming the baselines can be accomplished through existing programs that invest in women. Examples include Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG)  policy reforms, requiring an objective standard for social and environmental claims that match the actual harms to infants and mothers, and getting high-profile entities to admit their prior use of terms like sustainable was inaccurate given the growth they embraced.

In the field of family planning, storytelling has had an enormous impact and can be used to increase demands for equity reparations as activists model them.

Tax reforms, baby bonds, child welfare, and minimum income policies are also geared to incentivize and support the birth of children at a time, place, and with resources that ensure each child’s development conditions are minimally consistent with the Children’s Convention and ensure birth equity. Children’s rights must also be aligned with animal rights or ecological restoration rather than human rights.

Even if ethicists cannot agree on this standard, it should be used provisionally to avoid more irreparable harm. All of this work cascades from an action currently before the United Nations seeking to concretize equity/self-determination as the basic norm underlying human rights. There are a variety of national, state, and local model statutes to implement this change.

At a corporate level, nonprofit and for-profit companies can be certified, ensuring they are not benefiting at a deadly cost to others.

Requiring restorative or ecocentric environmental policies and birth and developmental equity, as included in constitutional rights to personal freedom or the ability to control the influence others have over us is another step in this direction. Environmentalism failed because it treated the environment as a human resource rather than the homes of nonhuman families and communities that value autonomy.

Creating a system of child welfare entitlement, consistent with intergenerational justice and political legitimacy, would require identifying a series of thresholds for family planning entitlements:

– A minimum level of welfare.

– A minimum level of equity.

– Restoration of the nonhuman world and climate.

This work could, in the long run, help prevent mass violence where those who lash out feel disempowered and are unable to access the justice system because they were never included in it in a meaningful way.

We can avoid continuing to make the deadly mistake described above by asking ourselves and others one question: What are we doing to ensure that the conditions all children are born and raised in, including their environment and resources, help them become self-determining individuals? Also, what are we doing to ensure that the benefits of our work are not undone?

We must make conscious choices to improve the planet on which we raise our children by respecting nonhuman beings and the environment. Learning the importance of co-existing in harmony is essential to breaking away from our unhealthy lives and policy choices. We must also choose to place greater value on individuals over senseless growth.

Source: Independent Media Institute

Esther Afolaranmi is an attorney, humanitarian, researcher, and writer. She is co-executive director of the Fair Start Movement and founder and executive of Golden Love and Hands of Hope Foundation, a registered NGO in Nigeria that targets the needs of the vulnerable and underprivileged.

Carter Dillard is the policy adviser for the Fair Start Movement. He served as an Honors Program attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice and also served with a national security law agency before developing a comprehensive account of reforming family planning for the Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal.