Image by Thanos Pal.

Once again, Donald Trump is taking steps to destroy our planet. He signed an executive order fast-tracking deep-sea mining in U.S. and international waters for critical minerals such as cobalt, nickel, and manganese. The problem is that such activity will cause irreversible damage to fragile deep-sea ecosystems.

The Trump administration has framed the directive, which involves the 1980 Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act, as a strategy to boost the U.S. economy and counter China’s dominance in mineral supply chains. They claim it secures America’s national interests but it threatens marine ecosystems, violates global governance, and creates a diplomatic problem where none needs to exist in the first place.

A 1970s mining test, reviewed by the National Oceanography Centre, showed that while some deep-sea creatures recovered after mining, larger animals did not return to the test site. Trump’s directive, which encourages mining without robust environmental safeguards, risks permanent damage. Environmental groups like Oceana and the Center for Biological Diversity are warning that heavy machinery scraping the seabed will disrupt ecosystems for centuries, with sediment plumes smothering marine life and altering oxygen flows. The Clarion-Clipperton Zone, considered a prime mining target, is important to scientists due to its rich marine life and they fear it will disappear forever if Trump gets his way.

Not enough research has been conducted to safely ensure that we will not permanently destroy marine ecosystems. The deep sea is fragile and highly misunderstood. Other countries, such as France and Canada, understand the seriousness of the situation and have called for a moratorium until countries can agree on stronger regulations. Trump, of course, has no respect for international maritime law or the concern of other countries and is intent on disregarding scientific consensus, jeopardizing fragile marine ecosystems, and threatening an environmental disaster. Through his order, Trump is deliberately attempting to preempt global consensus on this sensitive and important issue and risks sparking a free-for-all in international waters, as competing nations will exploit resources without any international oversight.

By signing such a directive, Trump is flouting the International Seabed Authority (ISA), established under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Furthermore, the ISA is working on negotiations to finalize mining rules and if Trump bypasses the ISA, what is the point of rules-based order? This will cause nothing but retaliation between countries, perhaps a possible conflict, and certainly the erosion of trust.

Of course the White House is calling its effort to carry out destructive deep-sea mining as a boon for the U.S. economy, and estimates it will cause $300 billion in GDP growth and bring in more than 100,000 jobs over the next decade. But will it? This is nothing but speculation aimed at exciting the public. The facts remain that deep-sea minig has not been proven to be cost-effective commercially, and environmentalists agree that land-based resources are sufficient to meet America’s mineral demands.

In fact, Trump’s directive willfully ignores the economic fallout of environmental damage that deep-sea mining will cause. Fishery operations will be disrupted, waters will become contaminated, and any lost biodiversity will harm coastal communities and industries reliant on healthy oceans.

Trump’s “America First” approach may sound like music to MAGA ears, but this policy endangers deep-sea ecosystems, causes severe ecological devastation, flouts international law, and rejects global cooperation. We must protect – not exploit or destroy – our oceans.

Trump should be taking seriously the warnings of scientists, environmentalists, and climate activists. Instead of racing to mine the ocean bed and destroy fragile ecosystems, the U.S. should join global efforts to study and protect deep-sea ecosystems. It’s not “America First” – it’s “Our Planet First.”

The post Don’t Let Trump Get Away with Deep Sea Mining  appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

Image by Breana Panaguiton.

Racial and social justice remains a cornerstone of liberal philosophy and activism. As we live through another terrifying four years with President Trump in the now-excessively gaudy and overgilded Oval Office, we must fight for reforms to dismantle inequities, promote marginalized communities, and promote inclusivity across all institutions.

Let’s start with criminal justice reform. We need to end mass incarceration, reform policing practices, and eliminate racial bias during sentencing. One proposal to achieve this is to end for-profit prisons, reallocate police budgets to community welfare services, and decriminalize non-violent offenses.

But such reform is pointless unless it is accompanied by equitable education funding. We must fight to ensure schools in underserved communities receive adequate funding and resources. This is a critical issue, and we cannot allow a cut in federal funding for public schools, student debt relief, or programs that assist minority students.

The LGBTQ+ community is rightfully concerned that the Trump administration is crossing red lines by reducing federal protections against discrimination in employment, housing, and healthcare. We must push Congress to pass the Equality Act to ensure our rights and counter any restrictions on transgender rights – whether state-level or federal – especially in schools and healthcare. The Trump administration is weakening the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, such as those under the Civil Rights Act, and is dismantling DEI programs in federal agencies and schools. Trump’s support for restricting discussions of race or limiting transgender rights will only embolden further discrimination.

With all that is going on now regarding immigration and Trump’s horrific ICE agency, we need to fight for the rights of individuals and families who have arrived in our country in the hope of pursuing a better life. The Trump administration must end its Soviet Stasi-style arrests of innocents, racial profiling, and mass deportations reminiscent of some communist countries.

Trump’s agenda prioritizes divisive rhetoric and policies that are reversing decades of civil rights progress.

Centuries of systemic injustice in America – whether slavery or segregation – means we need proactive policies that level the playing field. The alternative means the continuation of inequity across society. By reducing racial and social disparities, we can boost economic growth. Closing the racial wealth gap will benefit all Americans. Equality is a moral imperative and we, as a just society, must guarantee equal opportunities and protections for all citizens, regardless of race, gender, or identity.

Social cohesion and political stability requires inclusive policies – the opposite of what the Trump administration is doing. Instead, they are deepening division with misguided policies and creating more problems than solutions.

And when it comes to America’s global standing, the administration’s isolationist and exclusionary policies aren’t helping. We must champion human rights abroad since this will enhance our credibility.

But the only way we can achieve our goals is to unite. Currently, the Democratic Party is fractured, and we don’t have much time to piece it back together. Through grassroots organizations and legislative advocacy, we can raise awareness and pressure lawmakers to support liberal policies such as protecting voting rights, expanding healthcare access, and defending the LGBTQ+ community.

Liberals can and should file lawsuits to block discriminatory state laws, such as those restricting transgender healthcare or banning critical race theory in schools.

The Trump administration’s misguided policies should serve as a reminder of the urgency of the situation in the United States today, especially since it is not too late to protect our rights and our values of equity and justice. By banding together, we can overcome political headwinds and shape America’s future for the better.

The post The Pursuit of Racial and Social Justice During the Trump Era appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

Image, Wikicommons.

Actor and comedian Seth Rogen spoke for millions of Americans when he ascended the stage alongside Edward Norton earlier this month at the Breakthrough Prize Ceremony and delivered a pointed jab at President Trump.

Rogen criticized the tech titans in attendance for supporting Trump whom he accused of destroying science.

“It’s amazing that others in this room underwrote electing a man who, in the last week, single-handedly destroyed all of American science,” Rogen reportedly said in the since-cut remark. “It’s amazing how much good science you can destroy with $320 million and RFK Jr., very fast.”

Rogen and Norton were presenting the Special Breakthrough Prize in Physics to Gerardus’t Hooft, a Dutch theoretic physicist and Nobel-winner who has spent his career in quantum field theory.

The remark was edited out of the official YouTube video of the event but it managed to spark widespread discussion anyway among viewers and supporters of Rogen’s comment.

The Breakthrough Prize ceremony is an event co-founded by tech giants like Mark Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin, and Yuri Milner to honor significant scientific achievements.

The point Rogen was making is that the Trump administration is moving to reshape federal science policy, specifically through budget cuts, deregulation, and controversial appointments – at the expense of scientific research and environmental protections.

This raises serious questions as to why Trump is cutting significant funding for agencies like the National Institute of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the Environmental Protection Agency – all of which are critical to advancing medical research, climate science, and technological innovation.

Of course, the fact that Trump has appointed Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as health secretary is beyond just contentious – it’s ridiculous. Kennedy is a vocal critic of vaccines and has promoted the claim that links vaccines to autism. This has been widely debunked by the scientific community. Kennedy’s control of important agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is raising concern among scientists, public health experts, and the general public.

Further disturbing, Trump’s skepticism of climate change means he will institute policies that dismantle environmental regulations and withdraw support for renewable energy research. His sidekick, Elon Musk, is using the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to sideline science for political and economic gain.

Rogen’s jab hits home because he highlighted the complicity of tech moguls who, despite funding scientific awards, have aligned with an administration hostile to research.

Just ask Harvard University. This week, the Trump administration announced it would freeze $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts to the elite university. Trump also threatened to revoke the school’s tax-exempt status, suggesting it should be taxed as a “political entity” instead.

Rogen’s comments resonated with millions of Americans mainly because his critique of Trump tapped into widespread and lingering frustration with Trump’s politicization of science. Of course, it helped that Rogen’s ability to blend comedy with political commentary made the moment memorable and relatable.

However, it wasn’t just Rogen’s comment that made the difference. His position as an outsider to the tech and science elite universe gave his words authenticity. He is known for his candor so when he throws a jab at Trump at the Breakthrough Prize ceremony it carries more weight.

Rogen’s willingness to challenge powerful figures like Zuckerberg and Brin, who have been criticized for their post-election meetings with Trump at Mar-a-Lago, is admirable and millions of Americans appreciate it.

The editing of Rogen’s remarks from the official event video only amplified public support, with many seeing it as an attempt to censor dissent.

Trump’s policies, particularly on health and the environment, have polarized discourse. Rogen’s jab encapsulated the fears of those who value scientific progress, especially younger audiences who feel science is under siege and who see climate change and medical research as existential issues. By calling out the hypocrisy of tech leaders who fund science while supporting anti-science policies, Rogen struck a nerve with millions of Americans who are concerns over tech moguls like Musk and Zuckerberg with too much influence over government policy.

By calling out the tech titans who fund the “Oscars of Science” while supporting policies that undermine research, Rogen represented the frustrations of scientists, academics, and everyday citizens. Though edited from the official record, his comments sparked a vital public conversation about the intersection of science, politics, and overreach by tech titans.

Here’s to Rogen, not just for his humor, but for his ability to face a room full of billionaires and fight for scientific progress. And for throwing yet another jab at Trump.

The post Good for Seth Rogen’s Jab at Trump appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

Image by Katelyn Perry.

The Democrat’s new candidate for 2028 is… Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?

As it begins to strategize for the 2028 presidential election, the Democratic Party may be misjudging the nation’s mood and which issues Americans consider a priority. The Party’s success will hinge on whether it is able to properly “read the room” and understand fully the concerns, frustrations, and needs of its voters. It will then need to translate this into actionable tasks and tackle each problem one by one. The problem is that so far, the Democrats might be at risk of losing the next election as well if they don’t learn from the past.

In the last decade, Democrats relied heavily on minority voters, urban progressives, and suburban moderates, many of whom were united in voting against President Donald Trump.

But what happens in the next election cycle, when Trump will no longer be a candidate? The anti-Trump messaging will have lost its main goal – keeping Trump out of the White House. With him leaving anyway, the Democrats will need a new message – one that resonates with voters and appeals to their needs. Democrats will need to provide solutions for ongoing issues like inflation, housing, and healthcare.

An oft-voiced critique against the Democrats has been that they are out of touch with working-class voters. It is true that the party has made inroads with college-educated voters and affluent suburbanites, but it has not found full support among blue-collar workers, especially in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The right candidate will need to speak to the struggles of factory workers, small-town residents, and other working-class voters. It’s the economy and money in the pocket that matters most to this large and crucial demographic.

Democrats will need to address issues that matter to these workers and not focus solely on elite cultural issues such as climate change or identity politics. Cosmopolitan liberalism will only push away these voters and hand the Democrats a defeat once again.

The Democrats in 2028 will have the advantage of having been in power for only four of the previous 12 years. Voters undergo fatigue when one party has control of the White House for a long period, and desire change. Although Republicans might insist on Vice President JD Vance or another figure close to President Trump for the sake of continuity, this could backfire if the public demonstrates eagerness for a political shakeup.

Young voters especially might be the engine for such change, demanding a bold departure from the status quo, especially if the economy does not improve or global crises persist.

Then there are the culture wars. The Democratic Party has positioned itself as a warrior for progressive social change. While this has succeeded in energizing its base, it has also alienated the more conservative or moderate voters within the party. Gender identity, critical race theory, and cancel culture have all backfired and if Democrats continue to place these issues front and center, it will likely lose again in 2028.

Choosing a hyper-progressive candidate to appeal to the activist wing of the party might prove to be a mistake since swing voters are now likely weary of divisive rhetoric, craving instead practical governance over ideological crusade.

Reading the room wrong means the Democrats will either overreach or underperform.

Personality also matters and much of the skepticism surrounding former Vice President Kamala Harris’ run for president focused on her personality and “word salad” interviews.

Barack Obama’s charisma carried him to victory and Joe Biden won due to his “everyman” appeal. Democrats will need to choose a relatable candidate who can connect emotionally with voters – not someone who fails to inspire.

Ocasio-Cortez, or AOC, as she is otherwise known, is not yet the Democratic Party’s official next presidential nominee, but the 35-year-old New York congresswoman is positioning herself well for a run.

Several recent polls show how voters are thinking about the upcoming primary – with AOC emerging as one of the top few contenders.

A CNN poll carried out from March 6 to 9 showed that AOC was the top politician among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents when asked which “one person best reflects the core values” of the party.

The path to 2028 is fraught with opportunities to slip up and misread the room. The Democratic Party must be careful not to underestimate the desire for change, misjudge cultural fault lines, or overlook the power of charisma. The party must listen closely to the electorate and hear its frustrations, needs, and hopes. The room is shifting and Democrats must utilize the next few years to prove they can still read it – and win the next election.

The post Why Democrats Might Be Misreading the Room for 2028 appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

Image by manish panghal.

Much to the joy of many of its citizens, and perhaps to the chagrin of a significant number of others, Germany has just decriminalized marijuana. Adults in Germany can now carry up to 25 grams of cannabis for their own consumption and store up to 50 grams at home, as well as keep three plants for home cultivation. Public consumption will be allowed, so long as it is not within sight of children or near sports facilities. It will also be prohibited in pedestrian zones between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. Special cannabis clubs will be allowed to grow and purchase the drug on a limited basis from July 1. The clubs can have up to 500 members.

While the move comes with these crucial caveats, it is still a major step for a country that until now avoided stepping into the weed abyss.

Across the pond, many Americans are still waiting to gain the freedoms Germans now have and as time passes, more Americans support the move.

According to Pew Research Center, more states are passing laws legalizing marijuana for recreational use and Americans “continue to favor legalization of both medical and recreational use of the drug.”

Pew notes that “an overwhelming share of U.S. adults (88%) say marijuana should be legal for medical or recreational use.”

This means that nearly six-in-ten Americans (57%) believe that marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational purposes, while roughly a third (32%) say that marijuana should be legal for medical use only.

“Just 11% of Americans say that the drug should not be legal at all,” according to Pew.

And according to Gallup polling, “Seventeen percent of Americans in 2023 reported they smoke marijuana, similar to the 16% found in 2022 but higher than the 11% to 13% range recorded from 2015 to 2021.

Interestingly, Gallup noted in Nov. 2023 that “Twelve percent of Americans backed legalizing marijuana when Gallup first asked about it in 1969. Support cracked the 50% threshold in 2013, jumping 10 percentage points to 58% after Colorado and Washington became the first states to legalize the recreational use of marijuana.”

Marijuana use in America has allegedly more than doubled since 2013, when Gallup first added the question in its annual Consumption Habits survey. That year, 7% said they did.

Gallup also found that age is “a significant driver” of the likelihood of smoking marijuana. About a quarter of young adults, those aged 18 to 34, say they smoke marijuana (26%), but reported use falls to 18% among adults aged 35 to 54 and is even lower, 11%, among adults aged 55 and older.

Marijuana usage varies across other demographic groups. Men (19%) are more likely than women (14%) to use marijuana. College graduates (9%) are about half as likely as those without a college degree (21%) to smoke marijuana. Democrats (22%) are more likely than Republicans (12%) to report smoking marijuana, with independents’ rate (17%) falling between them.

Civic Science conducted its own survey and, similar to Gallup, has found that cannabis is quite popular among young adults today. Nearly 60% of Gen Z adults (18-24) say they use it at least monthly. They’re followed by 55% of young Millennials (25-34), who also average as the biggest daily users.

The bottom line, as Gallup points out, is that the American people have reached a broad consensus on legalizing marijuana, with a full seven in 10 now supportive. Today, most U.S. adults favor it, and so do majorities of all major political and ideological subgroups.

Of course, some health organizations and commentators have raised concerns about the medical risks of marijuana, but this hasn’t diminished the public’s desire for legalization. Many people are willing to accept the health consequences and even view marijuana as healthier than tobacco cigarettes or even vaping. For now, according to Gallup, “the high level of support among younger adults suggests national backing will only expand in the years ahead, likely resulting in more states, and perhaps the federal government, moving to legalize it.”

The post Americans Want Germany’s Weed Laws appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

A US Navy F/A-18 fighter jet taking off at night prior to the 2024 Yemeni airstrikes. Photograph Source: U.S. Air Force – Public Domain

The long-anticipated coordinated airstrikes carried out by the United States and the United Kingdom against Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen on Friday were a response to several weeks of attacks targeting commercial cargo ships in the Red Sea. The U.S. and UK have warned that the Houthi attacks threaten the free passage of goods through the region, which in turn could destabilise the global economy.

The U.S. military fired missiles from ships and submarines, and backed those attacks with airstrikes by U.S. and British warplanes, on Houthi sites housing drones, ballistic and cruise missiles and coastal radar stations. This anticipated military action, which came after several repeated warnings by both the U.S. and UK, has raised questions of whether the U.S. or even the word as whole is moving closer to a global conflict.

The Houthis, whose official name is Ansar Allah, have vowed to that the U.S. and British strikes won’t go without “punishment or retaliation.”

The Houthis, a Yemeni militia group named after their founder, Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi, emerged in the 1980s in opposition to Saudi Arabia’s religious influence in Yemen. With an estimated 20,000 fighters, the militant group runs most of the west of the country and controls the Red Sea coastline.

The airstrikes signify a notable escalation of U.S. involvement in the Middle East and is potentially the most significant escalation in a conflict that has the potential to spread throughout the region. Just last week, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken embarked on his fourth mission to the Middle East in three months, with the objective of containing the spill-over effects from the ongoing conflict in Gaza.

Some foreign affairs and defense experts suggest that the U.S. military’s response may not dissuade the Houthi rebels, which has endured and outlasted years of bombings carried out by a coalition of Arab nations led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The Houthi rebels have expressed their determination to continue their attacks until Israel ends its military operations against Hamas.

Not everyone was pleased with the decision to strike back at Houthi targets.

Progressive Democrats in Congress excoriated U.S. President Joe Biden Thursday for failing to seek congressional authorization before launching the airstrikes.

“These strikes are in direct response to unprecedented Houthi attacks against international maritime vessels in the Red Sea — including the use of anti-ship ballistic missiles for the first time in history,” Biden said in a statement. “More than 50 nations have been affected in 27 attacks on international commercial shipping.”

The Biden administration also defended the strikes, carried out with the United Kingdom and backed by the Netherlands, Bahrain, Australia and Canada, declaring that they were launched “in accordance with the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense, consistent with the UN Charter.”

American lawmakers, however, challenged that justification, arguing that Biden violated Article 1 of the Constitution — which requires Congress to first authorize military action — by side-stepping Congressional approval. Biden informed Congress of the move but did not request approval.

Progressive Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich, and Cori Bush, D-Mo., called Biden’s actions unconstitutional and asserted Americans don’t want war.

Tlaib wrote on X that Biden is “violating Article I of the Constitution by carrying out airstrikes in Yemen without congressional approval. The American people are
tired of endless war.”

Bush wrote on X that Biden “can’t launch airstrikes in Yemen without congressional approval. This is illegal and violates Article I of the Constitution. The people do not want more of our taxpayer dollars going to endless war and the killing of civilians. Stop the bombing and do better by us.”

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, the Progressive Caucus chair, also denounced the administration, writing on X that Biden’s decision was “an unacceptable violation of the Constitution.”

Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., also expressed his displeasure at the decision, writing on X, “The President needs to come to Congress before launching a strike against the Houthis in Yemen and involving us in another middle east conflict…”

These Democrat lawmakers are correct in their assessment and they should be lauded for their effort to hold Biden accountable for sidestepping Congress on such an important decision. Now is not the time to take America into another years-long war and while the Houthi rebels must be dealt with, there are other avenues, such as diplomacy, that have worked in the past and should be put to the test here.

The post Are We Facing All-Out War? appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

On June 30, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 2690 effectively terminating MINUSMA’s previous mandate and requesting the transfer of its tasks as well as the safe and orderly reduction and withdrawal of the mission by Dec. 31, 2023, to be followed by a transitional liquidation period.

The UN force was deployed to Mali in 2013 following a violent insurrection by separatist rebels attempting to take control of the north of the country and a subsequent military-led coup. The mission included more than 15,000 troops and personnel who served in cities and towns around the country.

“I think our work impacted the lives of many civilians in Mali,” said El-Ghassum Wane, outgoing Special Representative of the Secretary-General and head of MINUSMA.

The MINUSMA sites of Gao and Timbuktu were the last camps not to have been handed over because it was planned there, after January 1, for what the UN calls the “liquidation” or winding down of the mission, which includes handing over equipment to the authorities or terminating existing contracts.

According to the UN, MINUSMA “was established by Security Council resolution 2100 of April 25, 2013 to support the shaky political processes in Mali and carry out a number of security-related tasks. At the time, the Mission was asked to support the transitional authorities of Mali in the stabilization of the country and implementation of the transitional roadmap.

UN resolution 2164 of June 25, 2014, called for the mission to focus on additional responsibilities, such as ensuring security, stabilization and protection of civilians; supporting national political dialogue and reconciliation; and assisting the reestablishment of State authority, the rebuilding of the security sector, and the promotion and protection of human rights in that country.

But the security situation in the country deteriorated amid jihadist attacks and precipitated the definitive departure of MINUSMA to Timbuktu.

During the official handover ceremony, the governor of the region, Bakoun Kanté, declared, “In the name of the highest authorities of the transition, in the name of the population of the Timbuktu region and my name, I would like to say thank you to MINUSMA for the efforts made within the framework of the return of peace, of living together and social cohesion.”

In its decade of operations, MINUSMA aided Mali in tackling multiple challenges. Among the UN’s most challenging peacekeeping missions, it has suffered more than 300 fatalities of its troops and personnel amid continuing extremist violence and rampant insecurity across much of the country’s north and center.

As UN Res. 2164 called for, MINUSMA indeed supported the political process and carried out a number of security-related stabilization tasks, with a focus on major population centres, protecting civilians, human rights monitoring, creating conditions for providing humanitarian assistance and the return of displaced persons as well as preparing free, inclusive and peaceful elections.

Although MINUSMA itself is withdrawing, the larger UN system in Mali, including the 21 agencies, funds and programs in collaboration with the UN Office for West Africa and the Sahel (UNOWAS) and the Special Coordinator for Development in the Sahel, will continue its support in pursuit of the UN’s Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development in the country.

“UN funds, agencies and programmes were in Mali well before the deployment of MINUSMA and will stay in Mali well after the withdrawal,” he said.

Echoing that statement, UN Secretary-General António Guterres reaffirmed the UN’s commitment to work with the Malian people and transitional government towards the restoration of constitutional order, as well as the promotion of peace and security and sustainable development.

Although MINUSMA’s withdrawal will likely have a profound impact on the stability of the region, it is hoped that Agenda 2030 will end poverty and hunger, ensure healthy lives, and promote well-being for Malian citizens.

The post Instability Femains as UN Mission Withdraws from Mali appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

Image by Sujeeth Potla.

A caravan of over 6,000 people, reportedly the largest in more than a year, departed recently from Mexico’s southern border with Guatemala and is on its way to the United States. The migrants hail from countries in Central America, Venezuela, and even Cuba. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is expected to travel to Mexico City to discuss new agreements to control the surge of migrants seeking entry into the U.S.

But this approach is wrong and must be corrected. These migrants are escaping for numerous reasons including poverty, natural disasters, political repression and organized crime. While the U.S. has legitimate concerns, there are better ways to deal with this pressing issue.

In April, the Department of State (State) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced sweeping new measures “to further reduce unlawful migration across the Western Hemisphere, significantly expand lawful pathways for protection, and facilitate the safe, orderly, and humane processing of migrants.”

Like other COVID-era public health measures, the CDC’s temporary Title 42 public health order also came to an end. With the lifting of Title 42, the U.S. returned to using Title 8, allowing immigration authorities to expeditiously process and remove individuals who arrive at the U.S. border unlawfully. The consequences for unlawful entry, include at least a five-year ban on reentry and  potential  criminal prosecution for repeated attempts to enter unlawfully. The return to processing under Title 8 was expected to reduce the number of repeat border crossings over time, which increased significantly under Title42. Individuals who cross into the U.S. at the southwest border without authorization or having used a lawful pathway, and without having scheduled a time to arrive at a port of entry, would be presumed ineligible for asylum.

Some of the main issues surrounding the unlawful entry of migrants into the U.S. are related to national security, drugs and weapons smuggling, and human trafficking. These are serious threats to the country and pose a serious threat to women and girls who are often the main victims of trafficking. Of course, in addition to these threats, migrants who enter the country unlawfully pose a threat to the job security of average American citizens as well as to those migrants who did enter lawfully.

For this reason, considering that there are serious U.S. concerns as well as a legitimate humanitarian crisis on the other side of the border, Blinken and the Biden administration must come up with a creative, resourceful solution that helps the migrants, while simultaneously safeguarding U.S. interests and concerns. The solution must be multi-pronged, addressing the root causes of migration, such as economic disparity and safety concerns in the migrants’ home countries.

One of the ways the U.S. could tackle the problem is through foreign aid, development programs, or diplomatic efforts to improve conditions in those regions. Working with governments in Central and South America could ensure a healthy collaboration that would assist in preventing waves of illegal migrants flooding the border. At the same time, Biden should focus on strengthening border security in a humane and effective way, ensuring that the processes for lawful entry are fair and efficient, and addressing the needs of those who seek asylum or refugee status.

The key in resolving the migrant problem is to find a balance that respects their dignity and rights while also safeguarding the economic and security interests of the U.S. This requires collaborative efforts not only within the U.S. government but also with international partners, including the countries of origin and transit for these migrants. By taking a comprehensive and empathetic approach, it’s possible for the Biden administration to address the complexities of unlawful migration in a way that benefits both migrants and the U.S.

This is only one aspect of the problem. The Biden administration must also address the needs of those who have already crossed into the U.S. and in need of assistance. Whole families with young children require food, water, shelter, and medical care. They need access to jobs and education as well.

Similarly, the U.S. is struggling with the growing fentanyl epidemic, fuelled largely by smugglers coming across the border unlawfully. The double-sided issue needs to be dealt with on both ends of the border and Blinken’s visit must include a discussion on how to stem the flow of weapons, narcotics, and other substances.

The DHS, together with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (CIS) must continue to work together and strengthen cooperation. These government bodies, working in conjunction with foreign governments south of the border, will ensure that the U.S. remains a safe country while helping those migrants arriving in search of a better life.

The post U.S. Must Find a Better Solution for Migrants appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

Image by Dawn McDonald.

In what many see as a first-of-its-kind deal signaling the eventual end of the oil age, representatives from nearly 200 countries agreed on Wednesday to begin reducing global consumption of fossil fuels to avert the worst impact of climate change.

In a demonstration of global solidarity, negotiators joined together at the COP28 climate summit in Dubai, agreeing on the world’s first “global stocktake” to ratchet up climate action before the end of the decade – with the overarching aim to keep the global temperature limit of 1.5°C within reach, according to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

“Whilst we didn’t turn the page on the fossil fuel era in Dubai, this outcome is the beginning of the end,” said UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell in his address. “Now all governments and businesses need to turn these pledges into real-economy outcomes, without delay.”

This landmark agreement is a key component of the inaugural “global stocktake,” an initiative designed to enhance the implementation of the Paris Agreement’s objectives.

According to an analysis by CarbonBrief, the global stocktake emerged as the pivotal outcome of COP28, encapsulating all negotiated elements and serving as a framework for countries to advance their climate action plans, scheduled for submission by 2025.

This stocktake acknowledges the scientific consensus that to maintain global warming within 1.5°C, it is imperative to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by 43% by 2030 relative to 2019 levels. However, it also recognizes that current efforts are falling short of meeting the objectives outlined in the Paris Agreement.

Central to the stocktake’s directives is a call for nations to collectively work toward a signifcant increase in renewable energy capacity and a doubling of energy efficiency improvements by 2030. The agenda further emphasizes reducing widespread coal power, eliminating inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, and implementing other strategies to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems. The hope is that this transition will be managed in a manner that is just, orderly, and equitable, with developed nations continuing to lead these efforts.

However, the agreement has been met with mixed reactions. Several nations expressed their disappointment due to the lack of a decisive strategy for completely phasing out fossil fuels within the next few years. Additionally, there are concerns regarding certain ambiguities in the agreement that may allow the continued use of coal, oil, and gas.

An important achievement at the outset was the establishment of a fund to address the losses and damages associated with climate change. Despite this, there was a noted absence of new financial commitments to aid developing countries in transitioning away from fossil fuels and adapting to the effects of climate change.

Dr. Sultan Al Jaber, president of COP28 and the head of the UAE’s state-owned oil company, the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC), commended the historic inclusion of “fossil fuels” in a UN climate change agreement. His appointment to the role of climate talks arbiter sparked significant controversy and faced scrutiny over allegations that the UAE was using COP28 as a platform for securing oil and gas agreements.

Beyond the negotiation table, COP28 marked a significant number of new international pledges. These pledges covered a wide range of issues, including the reduction of emissions in the oil and gas sectors, a threefold increase in renewable energy initiatives, improvements in food systems, and the integration of climate change strategies with biodiversity preservation efforts.

Unfortunately, while many member states voted for a transition away from fossil fuels, they disappointed millions of climate activists around the world by failing to commit to a phasing out entirely of fossil fuels. This is a serious setback in expectations and COP28 has proven that at the end of the day, the big oil corporations and oil-producing countries are the decisionmakers and maintain an iron grip on the industry.

India, China, and the U.S. continue to stand out as the world’s greatest polluters and African nations are still bearing much of the brunt of climate change as natural disasters wreak havoc on the continent. Recent commitments to help third-world countries in the global south are good, but not sufficient and more needs to be done.

While COP28 has brought significant change and remarkable progress, there is more room for improvement. Hopefully, the next 12 months will see a renewed effort on the part of environmental organizations to raise awareness and press the big industry players to finally commit to phasing out fossil fuels.

The post COP28 Agreement to Move Away From Fossil Fuels appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

Image by Joel Heard.

Pakistan is ethnically cleansing Afghani people from its territory.

In early October, the caretaker government in Islamabad stated that all undocumented foreigners – Afghan refugees – illegally residing in Pakistan had until November 1 to leave the country.

After an outcry by human rights organizations, this deadline was extended to the end of the year for those who possess documentation. However, not only is that extension omitting a great number of the vulnerable but it is also too late for the 280,000 who have already crossed the border, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

Pakistan is currently host to about 4 million Afghans. Approximately 2.5 million of them have some form of approved government documentation. The government has stated that 1.7 million Afghan nationals currently in Pakistan have no paperwork at all.

Critics have decried the move, slamming the Pakistani authorities and accusing them of ethnic cleansing, saying the crackdown is indiscriminate and seems to be based not on bureaucracy but rather on ethnic considerations.

It seems clear then that the government’s crackdown on Afghans allegedly living in the country illegally is indiscriminate and goes well beyond the governments stated purview of targeting “undocumented” people only.

So why in fact is Pakistan targeting Afghan refugees?

Islamabad blames the refugees for a recent spike in attacks by armed groups, most of them carried out by Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), also known as Pakistani Taliban because of its ideological affinity with the Afghan Taliban.

Pakistan’s reaction to these attacks is to expel all those affiliated with Afghanistan, including these refugees.

The expulsions come after earlier efforts by Pakistan, such as trade restrictions, to exert pressure on Kabul to rein in the TTP whose attacks on military and police present a severe security challenge to the Pakistani state. Acting Prime Minister Anwar ul-Haq Kakar said earlier this month that TTP attacks have risen by 60 percent since the Taliban regained control of Afghanistan, with over 2,000 people killed.

It is unclear how the refugees are considered to be involved with the TTP as they are not known to have any affiliation with the group other than sharing the same nationality. Pakistan’s decision to kick out nearly two million refugees appears to be a “wide-brush” move without any consideration for their rights or well-being.

Amnesty International (AI) has called on Pakistan to “immediately halt the continued detentions, deportations and widespread harassment of Afghan refugees.”

“Thousands of Afghan refugees are being used as political pawns to be returned to Taliban-ruled Afghanistan where their life and physical integrity could be at risk amidst an intensified crackdown on human rights and an ongoing humanitarian catastrophe. No one should be subjected to mass forced deportations, and Pakistan would do well to remember its international legal obligations, including the principle of non-refoulement,” said Livia Saccardi, AI’s Deputy Regional Director for Campaigns for South Asia.

“If the Pakistani government doesn’t halt the deportations immediately, it will be denying thousands of at-risk Afghans, especially women and girls, access to safety, education and livelihood,” she said.

Indeed, Saccardi is correct and Afghani refugees are being used as nothing more than political pawns between Pakistan’s government and the extremist Taliban.

While it is true that the UN International Organization for Migration (IOM) is delivering critical aid, encompassing shelter, water, sanitation, essential household items, healthcare, protection, nutrition services, and cash assistance for basic needs, transportation, and food, much more needs to be done.

In response to the escalating crisis, the organization has issued a preliminary request for assistance, hoping to head off any crisis and to prepare for any eventuality. The circumstances are exceptionally difficult for women and girls in Afghanistan, and the coming of winter only heightens the urgency for global aid.

The IOM reports that, after enduring prolonged periods of conflict, instability, and economic turmoil, Afghanistan faces significant challenges in accommodating the influx of returning families. This includes many individuals who have not resided in the country for an extended period, if at all.

“With over six million people already internally displaced throughout the country, Afghans returning from Pakistan face a precarious, uncertain future,” the agency said.

Afghanistan currently has the third-largest number of internally displaced people globally, according to the UN.

Adding to this difficulty are the many refugees who already crossed as well as the nearly three million refugees Pakistan is expected to expel. This humanitarian crisis is only growing larger as Pakistan refuses to back down from its demands and Afghanistan is not capable of handling such an influx of refugees.

The UN and other international organizations must do more to mitigate this crisis, which has the potential to expand into an all-out war between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the Afghani refugees will continue to be used as political pawns as they are ethnically cleansed from Pakistan.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

Image by Mark Harpur.

The citizens of New Delhi were faced with unimaginable levels of pollution recently when the Air Quality Index (AQI) reached an unimaginable and whopping 999 (between 0-50 is considered “good”).

Across the Arabian Sea, in Kenya, a UN-led meeting on plastic pollution failed to reach a consensus supposedly after oil-producing countries placed obstacles to prevent agreements. No international, legally binding treaty on plastic pollution exists and it is the job of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for Plastics to achieve such an agreement.

An AP report notes that the world “produces more than 430 million tons of plastic
annually, and two thirds of that are products that are disposed of soon after use, becoming waste and, often getting into the human food chain, according to the United Nations. Global plastic waste is expected to nearly triple by 2060, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Plastics are often made from oil, or other planet-warming fossil fuels.”

Toward the end of the month, approximately 70,000 people are expected to descend upon Dubai’s Expo City including activists, global leaders, negotiators, climate advocates, industry representatives, and diplomats from numerous countries.

For 13 days beginning Nov. 30, thousands of people will debate the failures and successes to date of efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

India’s severe pollution problem as well as plastic production and waste are all part of the growing global crisis and COP28 is meant to address these very issues.

The main discussion at the conference will almost certainly focus on further plans to cut the use of fossil fuels and how wealthy nations will assist poorer nations suffering from the effects of global warming.

But some people believe this is not enough and more forceful action must be taken to convince people that more needs to be done.

The populist rage and backlash in Europe over government policies has seen protestors pour onto the streets of Britain. Just Stop Oil, a British activist group opposed to new U.K. fossil fuel projects, has protested vehemently in order to raise public awareness and combat climate change on a grassroots level.

In 2015, at COP21, more than 190 countries approved the Paris Agreement which was aimed at limiting global warming to an ambitious 1.5 degrees.

This year’s conference is not without controversy. CNN reported that “the backlash to this year’s host — the United Arab Emirates — has been particularly sharp; not only is the UAE a major oil-producing nation, it has also appointed a top fossil-fuel executive as its COP president. Critics say it’s a conflict of interest to have Sultan Al Jaber, the head of the UAE’s national oil company, taking charge of the most important climate conference of the year. In facing that criticism, the UAE has embarked on a major campaign to boost its green credentials ahead of the summit…”

Heads of states and governments will deliver speeches at the start of the summit and more than 160 member nations, including the UK, France, Germany and Japan, have confirmed their attendance.

Perhaps the highest-profile attendees will be King Charles III, who will deliver an address at the summit’s opening ceremony, and Pope Francis, who will be the first pontiff to attend a COP. At the moment, it appears US President Joe Biden and China’s Xi Jinping will not be attending.

The excitement over the potential of COP28 may be there but the expectations among delegates are still low. And they are not the only ones worried about another climate conference going nowhere.

On Monday, the UN Environment Programme tweeted on X, “As the world gears up for #COP28, a climate reality check reveals worrying trends. UNEP will be in Dubai to showcase solutions and advocate for a transition to a low-carbon, climate-resilient future.”

It is true that last year’s climate conference, COP27 at Egypt’s Sharm el-Sheikh,
closed with a breakthrough agreement to provide loss and damage funding for vulnerable countries hit hard by floods, droughts and other climate disasters.

But this is only one step of many that must be taken to mitigate the crisis. The crucial steps include reducing greenhouse emissions and moving away from fossil fuels to green energy.

One of the greatest producers of plastics, China, is not yet fully on board to tackle the climate crisis, and India, the next greatest polluter on Earth, is also not
prepared to deal with this issue head-on. Of all nations, it is these two that must be fully aware of the crisis as their cities are literally blanketed in dangerous levels of smog and pollution.

At the same time, US President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping met recently in San Francisco and published a joint statement in which they pledged to commit to results at COP28.

“The United States and China recognize that the climate crisis has increasingly affected countries around the world,” the statement said. “They will work together… to rise up to one of the greatest challenges of our time for present and future generations of humankind.”

Hopefully, COP28 will yield satisfactory results and we will begin to see the slow move towards a greener and healthier planet.

The post India Pollution, COP28 and Plastics Treaty are all Intertwined appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

Image by Eelco Böhtlingk.

Scientists are warning that this year could be the warmest in over 100,000 years, indicating a trend that points dangerously to even hotter temperatures in the future and spelling even further disaster. The world has warmed 1.2 degrees Celsius (2.2 degrees Fahrenheit) since the mid-19th century, and shows no sign of slowing.

Human-generated greenhouse gas emissions have been causing extreme weather events from tornadoes, hurricanes and extreme drought to massive flooding and forest fires. The world is experiencing one natural disaster after another. Massive forest fires in Hawaii, Canada, and Australia, and unimaginable flooding in Libya has killed thousands of people combined.

The World Meteorological Organization published a Tweet on X saying, “It was the warmest October on record by a HUGE margin, says @CopernicusECMWF. 5th straight month of extraordinary heat. 2023 is almost certain to be the warmest year on record. WMO will release provisional #StateofClimate 2023 report 30 Nov at #COP28.”

The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), an independent intergovernmental organisation, research institute and a 24/7 operational service producing and disseminating numerical weather predictions to its 35 Member States has bad news.

Earth is warming up and we aren’t doing enough to stop it fast enough to prevent catastrophic and irreversible damage.

With oceans warming and becoming less effective at counteracting and absorbing the effects of global warming, the world is fast losing its best weapon to fight climate change.

At the COP27 international climate summit last year, leaders agreed to establish the “loss and damage” fund. Unfortunately, the 2022 agreement left many practical details unresolved and hopefully it can be ratified at this year’s COP28 summit, set to begin later in November.

Under the agreement, the World Bank would host the fund on an interim basis, while governance would fall to a board comprised of developed and developing countries, with decisions requiring a four-fifths majority.

Rachel Cleetus, the policy director and lead economist for the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, criticized the agreement as tilted toward wealthy countries.

The COP28 climate change summit is expected to be attended by a host of world leaders and high-profile public figures — including Pope Francis and King Charles III.

Expected to be held in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, COP28 will see governments, businesses, and NGO’s review how they can work harder to meet the goals of the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement.

Now, a three-year drought has left millions of people in Syria, Iraq and Iran with little water due to hotter-than-normal temperatures evaporating the little rainfall that has fallen.

“Wealthy nations also steamrolled developing countries into accepting a lopsided compromise to locate the fund at the World Bank, an institution with a donor-driven lending model and an undemocratic governance structure that raises serious concerns about its ability to host the Loss and Damage Fund,” Cleetus said in a written statement.

New research published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B explains that the cheetah, which is normally a daytime hunter, could avoid extreme heat by hunting at night. This move could cause increased competition among nocturnal predators that hunt at night.

At the same time, on the other side of the globe, beavers are expanding their range in the Arctic, creating dams and flooding vegetation and causing methane buildup, according to The Wildlife Society.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) said that while a transformative shift in how the planet is powered was underway, more effort would be required to hit the 1.5 degrees goal.

The IEA issued a statement saying, “As things stand, demand for fossil fuels is set to remain far too high to keep within reach the Paris Agreement goal of limiting the rise in average global temperatures to 1.5 °C.”

The IEA’s report said its Stated Policies Scenario was now “associated with a temperature rise of 2.4 °C in 2100 (with a 50% probability).”

This is sobering news but there is reason to believe progress can be made.

At the COP28 gathering, the attending nations can and should focus on several key aspects that will place the world on track by the year 2030 and keep the still-realistic goal of 1.5 °C alive.

According to the IEA, “Tripling renewable energy capacity, doubling the pace of energy efficiency improvements to 4% per year, ramping up electrification and slashing methane emissions from fossil fuel operations together provide more than 80% of the emissions reductions needed by 2030 to put the energy sector on a pathway to limit warming to 1.5 °C. In addition, innovative, large-scale financing mechanisms are required to support clean energy investments in emerging and developing economies, as are measures to ensure an orderly decline in the use of fossil fuels, including an end to new approvals of unabated coal-fired power plants.”

“Every country needs to find its own pathway, and it needs to be inclusive and equitable to secure public acceptance,” the IEA said.

It will be incumbent on every country to clarify the next steps they intend to implement, and the bar should be set to a realistic level.

The cheetahs and beavers are not the only organisms on Earth that will suffer irreversible damage if we fail.

The post The Hottest on Record? appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

The post Kim Kardashian Appeals to Biden to Prevent Another Armenian Genocide appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

The post Pakistan Faces Political, Economic and Natural Disaster all at Once appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

Image by Markus Spiske.

Why are America’s streets devoid of climate protesters? The internet was set ablaze by a viral video featuring a German woman forcefully removing a climate change protester from the road by grabbing her hair. This incident has garnered significant attention, highlighting the ongoing activism by protesters throughout Europe who are vehemently opposing governmental endorsement of oil drilling practices that activists argue should be halted to combat climate change. Climate change protesters in Europe have been actively raising awareness and demanding urgent action from governments and corporations to address the escalating climate crisis. These protesters are part of a global movement that has gained significant momentum in recent years. While the specific tactics and strategies employed may vary, several notable forms of protest have been observed throughout Europe. Activists from the “Last Generation” movement caused a stir in Germany in recent months by gluing themselves to streets, highways and even airport runways to raise awareness of the need to step up the fight against climate change.

Environmental protest groups have also been targeting art history’s greatest treasures to raise awareness about climate change. Over the last few months, in a series of ongoing art demonstrations, protesters affiliated with the organization Just Stop Oil took a bold stance by gluing themselves to Vermeer’s renowned masterpiece, Girl With a Pearl Earring. Consequently, at the Musée d’Orsay in Paris, guards swiftly intervened when a Just Stop Oil protester attempted to glue and deface Van Gogh’s Self-portrait in Saint-Rémy. Just Stop Oil, however, does not operate in isolation. Their activities have garnered support and participation from other activist groups such as Extinction Rebellion, Letzte Generation from Germany, and Ultima Generazione from Italy. Although the latter two groups share similar names, meaning “The Last Generation,” they are apparently unrelated. Furthermore, some of these activists have received financial backing from individuals like Aileen Getty, an oil heiress.

Large-scale protests have been a hallmark of climate activism in Europe. Organizations such as Fridays for Future, inspired by Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, have mobilized thousands of young people and students to participate in strikes and marches. These protests often involve colorful banners, placards, and chants, emphasizing the need for immediate action on climate change. Demonstrations of this nature have taken place in major cities across the continent, including London, Berlin, Paris, Madrid, and Stockholm. Activists often use nonviolent civil disobedience to disrupt business-as-usual and draw attention to the urgency of the climate crisis. Extinction Rebellion (XR), a prominent activist group, has organized protests involving sit-ins, road blockades, and occupations of public spaces. Their aim to generate media coverage and push for governments to declare a climate emergency and enact more ambitious policies has proven successful to a limited extent.

Unfortunately, they still have a long way to go. Climate change protesters in Europe have embraced creative and attention-grabbing tactics to convey their message. Art installations, performances, and symbolic actions have been used to make a visual impact and engage the public. For example, activists have created large-scale sculptures, staged die-ins to represent the potential human and ecological toll of climate change, and used striking visuals like blood-red paint or melting ice sculptures to underscore the severity of the crisis. Similar to Europe, climate change activists in America have employed a range of strategies and tactics to raise awareness and demand action on climate issues. The movement in the United States has gained significant momentum in recent years, with various organizations and grassroots movements at the forefront of the protests. Large-scale marches and rallies have been organized across major cities in the United States. These events bring together diverse groups of people, including activists, students, scientists, indigenous communities, and concerned citizens, to call for immediate action on climate change. The People’s Climate March, the Global Climate Strike, and the March for Science are examples of notable mobilizations that have taken place in various cities. The Sunrise Movement is a youth-led organization in the United States focused on climate action and the Green New Deal. They have staged protests and engaged in civil disobedience to demand political action on climate change.

Like Europe, divestment campaigns have been popular in the United States. Activists have called on universities, religious institutions, and other organizations to divest from fossil fuel companies. By pressuring institutions to withdraw their investments, these campaigns aim to delegitimize and financially weaken the fossil fuel industry while promoting clean energy alternatives. But American activists need to do more. Where are America’s activists? Why aren’t masses of people blocking I-80 at the entrance to New York? Why aren’t thousands of people staging a sit-in in major intersections in Chicago or Los Angeles? This is the type of activism that will garner nationwide attention. True, like their European counterparts, some climate change activists in America have resorted to civil disobedience as a means to disrupt business-as-usual and draw attention to the urgency of the climate crisis. Extinction Rebellion, which originated in the UK but has a presence in the US, has organized protests involving sit-ins, road blockades, and acts of nonviolent disruption. They seek to force governments and corporations to take immediate action to address the climate emergency. Climate activists and environmental organizations are utilizing legal avenues to hold governments and corporations accountable for their contribution to climate change. Lawsuits have been filed against fossil fuel companies, seeking damages for the costs of climate change impacts and alleging that these companies misled the public about the risks associated with their products. Hopefully, these efforts will bear fruit.

In response to specific environmental threats, activists have organized direct actions and protests against fossil fuel infrastructure projects, particularly oil and gas pipelines. Groups like Indigenous Environmental Network and 350.org have led efforts to oppose pipeline construction, highlighting the environmental risks, indigenous rights, and the need to transition to renewable energy. It is important, if not necessary, for activists to adapt their strategies to the specific context and engage in a combination of these tactics to maximize their effectiveness. American activists should watch closely what is happening in Europe and take note of the progress activists there are making. Building a strong and diverse movement, collaborating with other stakeholders, and applying consistent pressure on policymakers and the fossil fuel industry are key elements in advocating for a transition away from oil drilling. Hopefully, these tactics will finally lead America on the right path to slowing and perhaps even reversing climate change.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

The post The Great Tragedy of Desperate Migrants and How to Help Them appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

The post Embracing Diversity: Multiculturalism in France appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

The post Roe V. Wade One year Later appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

Photo: OceanGate Expeditions

Rescue efforts to find and rescue the passengers of the Titan submersible who had ventured into the Atlantic Ocean to view the remains of the Titanic have, as of this writing, proven fruitless. The submersible, operated by OceanGate Expeditions, has been missing since Sunday, with five individuals on board including British billionaire Hamish Harding, OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush, a French navy veteran Paul-Henri Nargeolet, and Shahzada Dawood, a Pakistani businessman accompanied by his son Suleman.

The US Coast Guard (USCG) has been engaged in an intensive search, alongside British and French teams and a Canadian ship, along with numerous other vessels and aircraft. The news coverage of this tragedy has been immense, piquing the interest of millions of people around the world who have been closely following this terrible saga.

At the same time, one must ask the obvious question: Why is such an extensive and expensive effort being made to rescue five people who took a voluntary leisure excursion when thousands of migrants are constantly drowning in their effort to escape hardship, poverty, and war? While some of the Titan’s passengers paid $250,000 for their doomed trip, migrants are often penniless and are escaping to western countries to find work. Why aren’t nations working together to help them and save them from dying at sea?

Amidst the coverage of the missing submersible, there is an even more tragic story that unfolds. On June 14, what is believed to be one of the deadliest refugee and migrant shipwrecks occurred off the Greek coast, potentially claiming the lives of around 800 individuals. Greek authorities had been aware of the vessel’s presence and early indications suggest that the response from the country’s coast guard was slow, despite numerous warning signs. This incident sheds light on Europe’s ongoing refugee crisis and highlights the indifference with which many European nations treat migrants who are desperately seeking safety on their shores. Remarkably, this significant news story has received limited attention in the media, with the coverage of the missing submersible overshadowing the tragedy of the shipwreck and the broader refugee crisis it represents.

Just this week, more than 30 migrants were feared dead after a small boat headed for Spain’s Canary Islands sank Wednesday. The Canary Islands off the coast of West Africa have become the main destination for migrants trying to reach Spain, with a smaller amount of migrants trying to cross the Mediterranean Sea to the Spanish mainland. The Atlantic migration route is one of the deadliest in the world. Attempts to reach the Canary Islands’ shores saw at least 559 people, including 22 children, die in 2022, according to data from the U.N.’s International Organization for Migration.

The Mediterranean Sea has also become a perilous route for migrants seeking a better life in Europe, with a tragic loss of life. Over the years, countless migrants have embarked on treacherous journeys, often packed onto overcrowded and unseaworthy vessels in their desperate attempt to reach European shores. The exact number of deaths is difficult to ascertain due to the clandestine nature of these journeys and the challenges in recording accurate data. However, according to estimates from various sources, including international organizations and NGOs, tens of thousands of migrants have lost their lives in the Mediterranean.

According to the UNHCR, the UN’s refugee agency, although the total number of migrants who embark upon the dangerous journey has fallen since the peak in 2015, the number of those who are killed during the dangerous endeavor has in fact risen.

“[In 2021], some 3,231 were recorded as dead or missing at sea in the Mediterranean and the northwest African routes, with 1,881 in 2020, 1,510 in 2019, and more than 2,277 for 2018,” the UNHCR reported.

These tragic deaths highlight the urgent need for comprehensive and humane solutions to address the underlying causes of migration and provide safer alternatives for those seeking refuge and a better future. Efforts should be focused on addressing the root causes of migration, improving search and rescue operations, combating human trafficking networks, and establishing legal pathways for migration to reduce the risks faced by those embarking on these dangerous journeys.

While every life is valuable, countries must often make tough decisions. From a purely statistical and numbers perspective, it makes more sense to try and rescue a boatload of people from drowning than it is to try and find five people in a tiny submersible in an area twice as large as the U.S. state of Connecticut.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

The post Why are Iran and China Executing Thousands? appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

The post Congo Floods Serve as Reminder of Larger Problems appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

The Supreme Court on Friday preserved women’s access to a drug used in the most common method of abortion, rejecting lower-court restrictions while a lawsuit continues.

Women seeking to end their pregnancies in the first 10 weeks without
more invasive surgical abortion can take mifepristone, along with
misoprostol.

According to an AP report, abortion opponents filed a lawsuit in Texas in November, asserting that the FDA’s original approval of mifepristone 23 years ago and subsequent changes were flawed. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled in their favor on April 7, revoking FDA approval of mifepristone. The judge gave the Biden administration and Danco Laboratories a week to appeal and seek to keep his ruling on hold.

Responding to a quick appeal, Judges Andrew Oldham and Kurt Engelhardt said the FDA’s original approval would stand for now, but most of the rest of Kacsmaryk’s ruling could take effect while the case winds through federal courts.

As AP notes, “The challenge to mifepristone is the first abortion controversy to reach the nation’s highest court since its conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade 10 months ago and allowed more than a dozen states to effectively ban abortion outright. In his majority opinion last June, Alito said one reason for overturning Roe was to remove federal courts from the abortion fight. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives,” he wrote.

According to Webmd, Mifepristone (also known as RU 486) is used to end a pregnancy during the early part of a pregnancy. It is used up to week 10 of pregnancy. Mifepristone blocks a natural substance (progesterone) that is needed for a pregnancy to continue. It is usually used together with another medicine called misoprostol. Mifepristone must not by anyone with a rare abnormal pregnancy that is outside the womb (ectopic pregnancy). It will not end the pregnancy in this case.

And according to Planned Parenthood, “Mifepristone is the first of two medications used in a medication abortion (also known as the ‘abortion pill’). Mifepristone has been safe and legal in the United States since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the brand name Mifeprex nearly 20 years ago. In April 2019, the FDA approved the first generic form of mifepristone, following a review of the evidence that medication abortion is a safe, effective way to end an early pregnancy — with a safety record of over 99%.”

“As a result of the Supreme Court’s stay, mifepristone remains available and approved for safe and effective use while we continue this fight in the courts,” US President Joe Biden said in a statement. “The stakes could not be higher for women across America. I will continue to fight politically-driven attacks on women’s health.

“But let’s be clear – the American people must continue to use their vote as
their voice, and elect a Congress who will pass a law restoring the protections of Roe v Wade.”

This new case, surely one among many to come, demonstrates the need to strengthen the rights of women to receive an abortion if they so desire and in the manner they wish. The infuriating Republican intrusion on the rights of women in America should serve as a reminder that freedom and liberty is subjective.

Women and girls in today’s society enjoy many more rights than we used to, but we still have a long way to go. Women in America still face various forms of disadvantage despite significant progress in advancing gender equality. Women continue to be paid less than men for doing the same work, with the gender pay gap being around 82 cents to every dollar earned by men. This gap is even larger for women of color, such as Black and Latina women.

Women are also underrepresented in leadership positions and political office. We make up only a small fraction of CEOs, board members, and elected officials, despite comprising nearly half of the workforce and population. This lack of representation can limit the perspectives and ideas that are brought to decision-making tables.

Gender-based violence also remains a pervasive issue in America. One in three women experience physical or sexual violence in their lifetime, and the vast majority of these crimes are committed by men. Women also face a significant risk of sexual harassment in the workplace, which can lead to a hostile work environment and limit their career opportunities.

With so many issues still at stake, women cannot allow a lower court to block our rightful access to an abortion pill we have been taking for years. Our very freedom depends on it.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

The post Sudan must quickly resolve internal security issue to avoid collapse appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

The post China, Diplomacy and North Korea appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

Russia’s involvement in Africa is growing, as it increases its military cooperation, trade, and energy cooperation with African nations. While there are concerns about Russia’s motives and the human rights records of some of the African nations that Russia is cooperating with, it is clear that Russia sees Africa as an important partner in its efforts to increase its global influence. Russia’s involvement in Africa dates back to the Soviet era when it supported African nations during the Cold War. However, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia’s interest in Africa waned. In recent years, Russia has been making a renewed effort to strengthen its ties with African nations.

But Russian entrenchment in Africa could be detrimental to the continent for several reasons. Firstly, it could lead to increased competition between global powers for access to Africa’s natural resources, which could result in further exploitation of these resources and exacerbate existing conflicts. This will likely have a negative impact on the continent’s economic and political stability.

Secondly, the proliferation of foreign arms and military equipment could fuel existing conflicts and contribute to the rise of extremist groups. This could further destabilize the continent and threaten the safety and security of its people.

Thirdly, foreign involvement in Africa could undermine the efforts of African countries to establish their own sovereignty and economic independence. This could be particularly damaging for countries that are already struggling to emerge from poverty and underdevelopment.

Fourth, it could have a negative impact on democracy and human rights in the region. Russia has a history of supporting authoritarian regimes and suppressing political opposition, and its involvement in Africa could reinforce these tendencies.

Russia’s decision to sell weapons and military equipment to African nations is driven by a combination of economic, political, and strategic interests. While this has generated controversy and concern among some, it is likely that Russia will continue to pursue these sales as a means of advancing its interests in the region.

As an arms supplier, Russia is one of the largest exporters in the world, and selling to African countries provides a lucrative market. Many African countries have experienced conflicts and political instability, which has created a demand for military hardware to address security challenges. Russia is able to supply these nations with a wide range of weapons and military equipment, including fighter jets, tanks, and small arms.

By selling such hardware to African nations, Russia is able to establish and maintain relationships with key players on the continent, which can be leveraged for diplomatic and geopolitical gains. Russia has also been known to use arms sales as a tool to counterbalance other countries’ influence in the region, such as the United States and China. Russia is also able to advance its strategic interests by gaining access to ports and airfields on the continent, which could be used for military operations.

Russia has also increased its trade with African nations. In 2019, with Africa reached $20 billion, with the majority of this trade coming from the export of oil and gas. Russia has also been investing in infrastructure projects, such as the construction of railways and ports. Energy cooperation is another important element of Russia’s influence in Africa and it has provided expertise in the development of nuclear power there. One example of this is the construction of the El Dabaa nuclear power plant in Egypt, which is being built with Russian assistance.

Critics have raised concerns over Russia’s heavy involvement in Africa, with some arguing that, like China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), it is part of Russia’s efforts to increase its global influence and counter the influence of Western nations. Others have raised concerns about the human rights records of some of the African nations that Russia is cooperating with, such as the Central African Republic.

China’s BRI is a massive undertaking aimed at building infrastructure
and increasing connectivity across Asia, Africa, and Europe. By building
ports, highways, railways, and other infrastructure projects in
countries along the routes of the ancient Silk Road, China hopes to
increase its trade and economic ties with these countries, as well as to
extend its geopolitical influence.

Notably, Russia’s investment in Africa is significantly smaller in scale compared to China’s BRI, Russia’s investment has primarily been focused on military cooperation and arms sales, rather than large-scale infrastructure projects.

In addition to its other activities on the continent, Russia has been involved in Africa’s mining industry through various means, including investment, exploration, and providing mining equipment and technology, mainly through partnerships. Russia has also invested in gold mining operations in countries such as Guinea and Sudan. Russian mining companies such as Alrosa and Norilsk Nickel have been active in Africa, particularly in diamond and nickel mining respectively. These companies have operations in countries such as Angola, Botswana, and South Africa. Russia has also provided mining equipment and technology to several countries including Rwanda.

Some experts believe that with China’s increasing investment in Africa and numerous western countries focusing on the continent’s potential, the stage is set for a swift expansion of Russia’s presence on the continent. However,
following Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression in Ukraine, the competition for influence between the three power blocks could potentially become a destabilizing force in certain areas of Africa.

According to Miguel Garrido at Modern Diplomacy, “Africa should liberate herself from the turbulence Russia brings to her soil. That, however, may not be all that simple… Many African countries have come to depend either on Russia’s assistance, or on imports of Russian grain or defense equipment. Russia’s ties with Africa even seem to have played a part in multiple African countries’ decisions not to sanction Russia, nor vote against Moscow in UN General Assembly resolutions on the war in Ukraine.”

Chatham House Africa programme director Dr. Alex Vines also noted that “most abstentions (51 per cent) condemning Russia’s invasion at the UN came from African countries, marking a partial resurgence of what was many African nations’ default position in the Cold War.”

In Garrido’s view, African nations must decide if they want to free themselves from Russia’s harmful influence. As noted by a recent study for the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, “the West can and should support such a purpose, by means of policies encouraging the strengthening of democracy in the African continent, promoting regional security, and backing Africa’s economic development.”

And according to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “Through the infamous Wagner mercenary group, Moscow is inserting itself in countries such as Mali and Burkina Faso and is taking advantage of Western policy missteps, growing anti-European sentiment, and longstanding failures of international and local actors to address the root causes of regional instability.”

It is clear then that African countries face a period of severe instability if they continue to allow other countries to interfere in their internal politics. But if they allow Russia continued influence, they face an even more detrimental challenge. The future of Africa lies in each of the continent’s countries’ ability to prevent Russian entrenchment in the region.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

The post History Will Hold Trump Accountable appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

The post Moldova’s Future is Bleak Unless it Saves Itself appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

The post Ban Assault Weapons Now appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

The post Russia’s Tainted Hand in Eswatini won’t Benefit its Citizens appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

Russian women have the reputation of being strong and demanding, but they can be sweet and caring when they want to be. Nationalistic by nature, Russian women have long been patriotic and willing to send their husbands and sons off to war. But this has come at a steep price to the country. Today, with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war on Ukraine failing dismally, the women of Russia are turning their backs on him and are calling for their male family members to be returned home from the front lines.

Russian men have died in large numbers in many wars since the time of the Cossacks, due to a variety of factors. The Cossacks, who were a semi-nomadic warrior class, were heavily involved in conflicts with neighboring powers, such as the Ottoman Empire and Poland. In the more recent history, during World War I and II, the Soviet Union suffered staggering losses, with an estimated 10 million military deaths and an additional 8-13 million civilian deaths. In addition to the devastating human toll, these conflicts also had a significant impact on the country’s economy and infrastructure. Furthermore, during the Cold War, the Soviet Union was involved in several armed conflicts, such as the Afghanistan war, which also caused many deaths of Russian men.

With this history in mind, it is easy to understand why females in Russia make up 54% of the population, while males only make up 46%. The problem is only getting worse. In 2022, roughly a million Russians left the country to escape the ravages of wartime living. More than 500,000 Russian citizens are estimated to have left Russia by the end of August 2022, and an additional 400,000 by early October. This number includes political refugees and economic migrants.

Unlike the case with Ukraine, where millions of women and children escaped to neighboring countries, most Russians who fled their country are men. Experts on global migration are calling the current mass exodus from Russia the largest since the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution when millions of intellectuals and economic elites fled the rise of the Soviet Union.

If Russia’s military operations continue in 2023, as is likely, Russia may see its lowest birthrate in modern history. In addition, total deaths in Russia average close to two million annually, though the number increased during the pandemic and approached 2.5 million last year. Now, that death toll has risen drastically and will continue to do so as real numbers are released.

A 2015 Pew Research Center article explains that “This region has been predominantly female since at least World War II, when many Soviet men died in battle or left the country to fight. In 1950, there were just 76.6 men per 100 women in the territory that is now Russia. That number rose steadily in subsequent decades, climbing to 88.4 by 1995 before declining again.”

The Pew research also shows that the population in Russia and the former USSR as a whole is older than that of the world. Most of these nations, including the most populous, also have low fertility rates compared with the global average. This skews the population’s gender ratio because older people are more likely to be female, while more younger people are male.

Younger men in the former Soviet Union also have an unusually high
mortality rate, which has deepened the population’s gender imbalance. One way to see this is to look at the life expectancy of men and women and the differences between those numbers. Russian women born from 2010 to 2015 are expected to live to age 75.6, while Russian men are expected to live to age 64.2 – a significant gap of 11.4 years.

Furthermore, alcoholism has long been a problem in the former USSR, especially for young men. A 2014 study in The Lancet medical journal found evidence that excess vodka use is a top killer in Russia, responsible for a disproportionate amount of deaths among Russian men.

A female activist affiliated with the feminist group Feminist Anti-War Resistance (FAR), said in an interview recently that angry women “can do anything.”

“Mobilisation [in Russia] currently resembles ethnic cleansing,” she lamented. “This is not new and not an idea I have come up with. There are lots of villages that have been completely emptied. Not a single man remains.”

Another organization, the Council of Soldiers’ Wives and Mothers, has partnered with FAR to combat the Russian government and fight for the men being sent to Ukraine where they are dying by the thousands.

Today, Russia’s women know they are paying the price for the war in Ukraine. For one, they are losing their husbands and sons. And two, they are the ones out protesting against the war since men are too worried about being arrested and then drafted. They have made an emotional appeal to Putin to cease sending their family members to the slaughter, and are demanding that the authorities return their underequipped and undertrained men.

But to no avail.

Dr. Jade McGlynn, a specialist in Russian memory and foreign policy at the Monterey Initiative in Russian Studies, notes that before September, the visible lack of such protests had led many to question why women were reacting differently to Russia’s war on Ukraine, as compared with the wars in Chechnya and Afghanistan. While factors such as the comparative weakness of civil society should not be overlooked, the key difference was that conscripts were sent to those conflicts, while until September contractors were sent to Ukraine.

McGlynn also points out that mothers of conscripts “hold a different moral authority to that of a contractor in Russian society. Many mothers of the contractors, rather than calling for peace, spent the early months of the war fomenting pro-war sentiment, touring schools, organising online and offline meetings with students to ‘form in their minds the correct picture of the world’. They urged children to show support to the soldiers and officers of the Russian armed forces and ‘separatists’ of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics who ‘fight fascism and Nazism in Ukraine.’”

The question today is how the Russian government will react to the protests. Russian wives and mothers have played a destabilizing role in other wars and they are now working to destabilize the current war against Ukraine. While many supported Putin’s initial moves, today they realize they are losing their sons and brothers for no reason other than to fulfill Putin’s maniacal desire to conquer Ukraine. Putin and his henchmen will attempt to assuage the women – while working to silence them as soon as possible. Putin needs their men to fight his ego war – even if it means he must destroy Russia’s entire male population once and for all.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

Photograph Source: Galería del Ministerio de Defensa del Perú – CC BY 2.0

Peru unrest highlights country’s instability As Peru experiences nationwide anti-government protests following the removal of President Pedro Castillo after what appears to have been an attempted self-coup, current President Dina Boluarte said she would not step down in the face of violent protests over her predecessor’s ouster as she called on lawmakers to bring forward elections as a way to quell unrest.

Authorities in Peru also arrested six police generals on Monday as part of an investigation into corruption which authorities say Castillo was directly involved in.

It is unclear if this was a self-coup or an imposed coup. Some of the leaders of the region’s countries see Castillo as the victim of a coup rather than the perpetrator. The leaders of Mexico, Argentina, Colombia and Bolivia issued a statement declaring the ousted Castillo as “the victim of anti-democratic bullying” and calling on Peru’s government institutions “to refrain from reversing the people’s will as expressed in a free vote.”

Protesters have blocked highways, set buildings on fire and taken over airports in the wake of Castillo’s move, after he tried to shut down Congress to avoid an impeachment vote he feared losing.    Demonstrators are demanding early polls, and the release of Castillo who

Demonstrators are demanding early polls, and the release of Castillo who appears to have caused this political upheaval over his claim that he is protesting what he said is a hostile Congress which made it extremely difficult for him to govern.

Castillo, 53, was the president of Peru since July 2021. Prior to his presidency, Castillo was a school teacher from a humble background and a union leader in Peru’s rural areas. He ran for president as the candidate of the Peru Libre party and campaigned on a platform that included promises to reduce poverty, combat corruption, and promote social justice. Castillo was elected by a public deeply frustrated by conventional politics, so when he delivered his surprise address to the nation that he intended to dissolve Congress and replace it with an “exceptional emergency government” and also declared a nationwide state of emergency, which he said was aimed at “re-establishing the rule of law and democracy,” the public was not willing to accept it.

Boluarte, 60, the former vice president who assumed the presidency on December 7, has insisted that Congress approve her proposal for a constitutional amendment that would have pushed up elections, originally scheduled for 2026, to December 2023. But now, Boluarte has refused to resign despite the worsening protests that have left at least 20 people dead and more than 500 demonstrators and security forces wounded.

The crisis has only deepened the instability gripping the country, which has seen six presidents in as many years. The country has seen a series of presidents ousted and a number of ex-presidents sent to prison for crimes committed during their time in office. Castillo’s cabinet underwent constant change and in one unusual incident in 2020, the country had three presidents in the space of only five days.

Yet Peru’s problems go back a few decades, if not more. Peruvians experience deep poverty, inequality, corruption, social and political instability, and a lack of access to quality education, healthcare, and other basic services. In addition, natural disasters, such as earthquakes and floods have also caused hardship and discontent in the country as dysfunctional governments have been slow to respond to the needs of citizens. Peruvians, like people in many other countries, want change for a variety of reasons.

They feel that the current political, economic, or social systems in Peru are not meeting their needs or addressing their concerns, and therefore want to see changes in these systems. They feel that the country is facing significant challenges, such as poverty, inequality, and corruption. They also see that the country is not making progress in areas such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure, and want to see improvements and not just empty political promises. Peruvians are fed up with the status quo and the election of Castillo was an expression of their feelings that the status quo is not serving them or their country well, and that there are opportunities for improvement.

US State Department Spokesperson Ned Price announced that Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken spoke on December 16 with Boluarte. “Blinken encouraged Peru’s institutions and civil authorities to redouble their efforts to make needed reforms and safeguard democratic stability,” he said, adding that the US “looks forward” to working with Boluarte on “human rights, security, anti-corruption, and economic prosperity.”

Blinken also called for “constructive dialogue to ease political divisions and focus on reconciliation.”

Through its embassy in Lima, the United Kingdom also condemned “acts of vandalism and violence,” especially “those who take advantage of peaceful protests to sow discord and instability.” “We call to seek dialogue, reach agreements, and work together with President Boluarte and her government to follow the constitutional order, and guarantee a peaceful and democratic path,” the UK added.

These calls for order, peace, and stability are expected but they do little to help the citizens on the ground. Castillo’s self-coup should be viewed as testament to the poor political reality in Peru and the dysfunctional relationship between the executive and legislative branches. The unrest should also be viewed through the prism of the changing world order, with public protests taking place in Iran and China, and the ongoing Russian war against Ukraine.

The people of Peru may be seeing this is an opportune time to rise up and fight for their cause as opposed to sitting back and relying on the politicians. Castillo, whom the people hoped would prove to be the answer to their problems, seems not to have achieved their trust as their living conditions have not improved. The public’s discontent that brought Castillo into power will only grow further unless Peru’s leaders can find a way to improve the lives of citizens and ensure stability. Peru’s leaders must buckle down and deal with poverty, inequality, and corruption as well as problems with education, healthcare and infrastructure. Only then will Peru see a return to stability.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

The post Trump 2.0 Could Destroy America as We Know It appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

The post How the US Midterm Elections will Affect Nigeria appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

Photograph Source: Darafsh – CC BY-SA 4.0

Mahsa Amini, 22, did not deserve to die. Women across Iran are burning their headscarves and baring their heads in protest after Amini died in police custody over an alleged violation of the country’s strict religious dress code. There were reports that police beat Amini’s head with a baton and banged her head against one of their vehicles, Acting UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Nada al-Nashif said. Amini lay in a coma for three days before succumbing to her injuries.

The protests have led to a massive crackdown. Three protesters were shot dead by security forces in Urmia, Piranshahr and Kermanshah. This news stands in sharp contrast to the news published by Iran’s state news agency, the Islamic Republic News Agency, which reported that “Iranian people demonstrated on Sunday to protest recent unrest and to support law enforcement forces and values honored by religion and the Islamic Revolution.”

Are Iranians now protesting against the protestors in support of the regime? There is no way to know for sure. It is difficult to verify any of the news emerging from Iran as the regime has cut off internet access and has likely flooded the internet with its own propaganda.

The current protests by women against the morality police, the enforcement of laws over the hijab, and against the regime in general, are not new. Iranian citizens have publicly expressed their views before – and not without massive risk to their own lives.

In 2014, Iranian women began sharing photos and videos of themselves publicly flouting the hijab laws as part of an online protest campaign called “My Stealthy Freedom”. It has since inspired other movements, including “White Wednesdays” and “Girls of Revolution Street.” Those protests ended without fanfare and did not succeed in introducing any major changes, but they inspired other activists to maintain the fight against the regime.

Now, according to Iranian government-run media reports, police have also arrested those responsible for planning riots. And London-based media site Iran International reports that although security forces have killed more than 75 protesters (according to Norway-based Iran Human Rights group), the killings have not reached the horrific level of November 2019, when Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei reportedly authorized unrestricted use of military weapons, killing at least 1,500 protesters.

But while the protesters appear to be demanding change or even the downfall of the regime, it is unlikely this will happen. According to senior columnist Abdulrahman Al-Rashed, “these protests are not likely to bring down the current regime, unlike the 1979 protests that overthrew the Shah.” In Al-Rashed’s view, the regime today, while more violent, is “still standing.” However, Al-Rashed believes that while the regime is “far from collapsing,” it is ”crumbling piece by piece.”

Surely, today’s protestors hope this is the case and any signs of weakness on the part of the regime will possibly encourage further protests in the hope the regime will fall. On the flipside, if the regime acts with a heavy hand, it will either quell the protests or lead to even further protest.

The western world appears nonplussed and seems to want to stay out of Iran’s business. Since the hijab is often seen as a “women’s choice” and a “sign of respect”, the western world doesn’t seem to understand that the hijab is in fact a sign of submission and control. Human rights defenders such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali have long argued that the hijab is a sign of oppression – not freedom.

Even more shocking of course, is CNN’s Christiane Amanpour’s desire to interview Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi. While she did rightfully refuse to comply with his demand that she don a headscarf for the interview, the question remains why she was so eager to interview him in the first place. CNN and Amanpour should have notified Raisi that they were cancelling the interview in protest of the regime and its heavy-handed treatment of Iran’s citizens. CNN blew a terrific and unique opportunity to demonstrate western resolve against autocratic regimes like Iran.

The silence of progressive leaders in America such as US Representatives Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib should be concerning for those who work to highlight the plight of Iranian citizens. Yes, these lawmakers have paid lip service to the cause, but shouldn’t they be doing more? Iran is suppressing protests, gunning down protestors, targeting women and minorities, and using violence to stop what it sees as a direct threat to the regime, but American leaders who are often outspoken on human rights and women’s rights especially, are now largely silent.

While New York Congresswoman AOC did post a comment on Twitter in support of the rioters, she received push back in the comments, one of which told her to “stop projecting your feminist biases upon what is a national struggle for the Iranian people. Stop appropriating Iran for your Woke agenda & liberation theology.” Not to say that this criticism is warranted, but it does represent the feelings of some people who seem to believe American lawmakers and those of other western countries can be doing more to confront Iran over its abusive policies and violent reactions to public protests.

Today, with or without support from the west, protestors are chanting in the streets – not about hijab or the heavy-handed morality police – but about their disenchantment with Iran’s leadership. Today, a large portion of the Iranian public desires regime change. But the only way they can bring this about is to remain resilient and maintain a presence on the streets until the regime capitulates. Short of this, nothing will change.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

The post Afghanistan’s Women and Girls Lose Freedom Under Taliban Rule appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.

Image by Marcus Kauffman.

Our planet is burning up – at least that is what it seems. The UK is experiencing some of its hottest days ever recorded. From massive wildfires burning thousands of acres of land in California to record-setting heat waves in Western Europe, something is afoot and it doesn’t feel like the next Ice Age. So what is happening and why?

Scientists have long clamored that human activity on Earth has led to the calamitous weather changes we are witnessing today. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has confirmed that climate change makes heatwaves hotter and more frequent. According to the research, greenhouse gas emissions have heated the planet by an estimated 1.2 degrees Celsius (2.16 degrees Fahrenheit) over the last two centuries.

The Nature journal published an article this month detailing what its authors say is proof that heatwaves in Europe have increased three-to-four times faster than in other northern mid-latitude areas such as the United States. The reason for this, according to the article, is due to the fast west-to-east air stream, or atmospheric circulation, which is carrying hot air across the northern atmosphere.

Most scientists appear to agree that temperatures will continue to rise unless humans cease adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Without a drastic change in the way mankind conducts its business, heatwaves are predicted to worsen. Tackling climate change should be a top priority for every country today.

Heatwaves that occurred once every decade are now happening at three times that rate. The 2015 Paris Agreement and last year’s Glasgow climate conference were intended to bring the issue to global attention and generate movement on the ground. But current climate policies are not sufficient to avoid the dangerous effects of global warming. More must be done.

Today, wildfires are raging in Spain, France, Greece, Portugal, Morocco and Italy. Over one thousand people have died so far and many thousands more have been evacuated from their homes out of concern for their safety. Climate change plays a significant role in the cause of wildfires since it increases the hot and dry tinderbox conditions that help fires start and then spread quickly. Less precipitation means dry land and vegetation. This means that when a fire starts, it burns faster and more intensely. Hot and dry conditions are a perfect recipe for a massive inferno.

However, it is important to note that not every fire is caused by climate change. Forest management programs, which deal with how forests are maintained specifically to prevent massive infernos, are often insufficient. In addition, it is often careless people who ignite fires through arson or simply by barbecuing.

Human fire starters aside, they don’t cause the actual heatwave. Individuals are not responsible necessarily but since mankind is collectively composed of individuals, it does fall on each and every one of us to take steps to minimize our carbon footprint. There is a reason why famed reality star Kylie Jenner was slammed on social media for posting a photo of her private jet parked next to boyfriend Travis Scott’s plane, asking “You wanna take mine or yours?” And she was slammed again for taking her jet in the end for what turned out to be a paltry 12-minute flight.

Clearly, we have a long way to go until everyone understands that each person must do their part if we are going to affect climate change and minimize the risk to our planet and future generations. Countries like India and China, which are mass-polluters mainly through their numerous factories and industrial output, need to begin taking climate change seriously and not just leave it up to Western countries to figure out.

Yes, climate change is causing the multiple heatwaves and wildfires we are seeing today. It is only a matter of time before the average global temperature rises another degree, the polar ice caps melt and sea levels rise. To prevent this from happening or at least mitigate it enough, we must each take responsibility.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Chloe Atkinson.