Surviving the flood at Ahoada in Rivers state Nigeria. Credit: Wikicommons
Opinion by Omer Javed, Dan Beeton (washington dc)
Inter Press Service
WASHINGTON DC, Jan 12 (IPS) – The world faces the existential threat of a climate change crisis, and it is becoming increasingly clear that the outcome of the latest UN climate summit, COP28 — hosted as it was by the CEO of one of the world’s largest oil companies, and filled with a record number of fossil fuel lobbyists — is not going to do much to change that.
Even calls to “phase-out” fossil fuels were met with foot-dragging from the COP28 president and Saudi Arabian delegates. Meanwhile, highlighting the gravity of the challenge at hand, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) pointed out that the last decade (2011–2020) was the warmest on record. Along with the COVID pandemic, this likely contributed to an increase in absolute poverty over the same period.
A key question that COP28 was supposed to tackle is how low- and middle-income countries will be able to pay for climate crisis response and adaptation. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has been thrust into a key role in this regard, but it should not escape criticism for its own climate hypocrisy.
For the Fund to truly begin to join the fight against the climate crisis, it must first end its pointless, unfair, and damaging surcharge policy. The Biden administration could ensure that the Fund instead plays a crucial role in responding to climate challenges by supporting a major new issuance of IMF reserve assets.
Currently, the IMF’s solution is to offer more debt to already severely debt-burdened countries. An October paper from the United Nations Development Programme Global Policy Network noted: “At least 54 developing economies are suffering from severe debt problems,” of which 28 are among “the world’s top-50 most climate vulnerable countries.”
And more than 70 percent of climate finance for these countries has been in the form of loans, as a recent letter from 141 civil society groups points out.
Moreover, a Development Finance International-led report notes the lopsided spending priorities being forced on developing countries, many of which are highly vulnerable to climate change. Among these, “debt service is 12.5 times higher than the amount spent on climate adaptation,” a number projected to “rise to 13.2 times” in the next year.
Contributions to the “loss and damage” climate fund have also been far from satisfactory. Reports note that the US, the EU, and other rich countries have failed to meet their pledges to provide $100 billion per year.
Meanwhile, high-level UN officials estimate that these countries will actually need to spend about $1 trillion per year on climate response by 2025, and about $2.4 trillion per year by 2030.
These countries face debt distress partly because the IMF demands they follow overly broad austerity policies as conditions to receive the loans. This is an avoidable problem, considering that the IMF possesses a ready and appropriate alternative: Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), a reserve asset intended to be issued during times of crisis.
The Fund last allocated $650 billion worth of SDRs in August 2021, in response to the COVID pandemic. But now even countries battered by the climate crisis, such as Pakistan, a third of which was flooded in 2022, are being pushed to take on more debt while the US Treasury Department refuses to green-light a new major SDRs issuance.
This points to the root of the problem: the governance structures of the IMF and World Bank. The US by itself has a veto over decisions, and in practice can control most of what the IMF does, because other high-income countries — mostly in Europe — almost always line up with the United States, giving high-income countries 60 percent of voting power, thereby leaving most of the world without a voice at the IMF.
Critics point out that most of the 2021 SDRs went to rich countries, since they provided the most to the IMF’s resources (their membership quotas); while efforts to rechannel those SDRs have also been wanting both in terms of speed and quantity.
Worse, the IMF’s rechanneling mechanisms turn the SDRs — an international reserve asset that countries receive without any debt or conditions attached — into loans, with conditions attached.
The IMF is contributing to the global debt crisis in other ways. It continues to levy surcharges, essentially, “junk fees” added onto its non-concessional lending. Writing for Eurodad, Daniel Munevar highlighted how climate crisis-ravaged Pakistan faced surcharges of $122 million in 2023, and another $69 million in 2024.
A country that faced catastrophic flooding in 2022, that is one of the most vulnerable to climate change, and that was simultaneously facing possible default, should not be forced to pay surcharges. Moreover, many countries in similar circumstances, such as Armenia, Jordan, and even war-torn Ukraine, also face surcharges.
A recent CEPR report noted, “The IMF will charge over $2 billion per year in surcharges through 2025,” which is unnecessary and counterproductive, given the already constrained fiscal space of developing countries.
Time is quickly running out. The IMF must be brought into the twenty-first century if it is to play a constructive role in ending the climate crisis. The IMF should end its punitive, unnecessary, and counterproductive surcharge policy. And there must be a new major allocation of SDRs to enable developing countries to better deal with debt distress and meet their goals for climate-resilient spending.
This will require leadership by President Biden, since the US is the largest contributor to IMF resources and has the greatest say in IMF decisions. The COP meetings could even be used for timing a yearly release of climate-related SDR allocations to highly climate-vulnerable countries, as suggested under Barbados’s “Bridgetown Initiative.”
These steps would at least show that the Fund is addressing the climate crisis with the leadership and seriousness required.
Omer Javed holds a PhD in Economics from the University of Barcelona, and previously worked at the International Monetary Fund. His contact on ‘X’ (formerly ‘Twitter’) is @omerjaved7.
Dan Beeton is the International Communications Director for the Center for Economic and Policy Research (cepr.net) in Washington, DC. He Tweets at @Dan_Beeton.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, the Netherlands.
by Diana Buttu (toronto, canada)
Inter Press Service
TORONTO, Canada, Jan 11 (IPS) – The Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU) published the following Q&A with human rights attorney and political analyst Diana Buttu on South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice ICJ). The court is scheduled to hold hearings on the petition January 11-12.
She is a former advisor to Palestinian Authority President and Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.
Question: What is the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and how does it differ from the International Criminal Court (ICC)?
Diana Buttu: The International Court of Justice is part of the United Nations system and deals with legal disputes between states. The International Criminal Court, which Israel does not recognize the jurisdiction of, deals with claims against individuals. Israel signed onto the UN Genocide Convention, as did South Africa. Therefore, the ICJ has the jurisdiction to deal with the petition being brought by South Africa.
Q: Why is South Africa filing the petition before the ICJ? What is being requested?
DB: Any country that is a signatory to the Genocide Convention can file a petition to the ICJ. They do not need to be directly affected. That said, it is very powerful that South Africa, a country that lived under a racist apartheid regime, is making a claim against the apartheid regime of Israel.
Diana Buttu
South Africa is seeking an expedited hearing and is hoping that the ICJ will issue a ruling calling upon Israel to immediately halt all military attacks and allow food and other humanitarian supplies to enter Gaza. To that end, South Africa has requested that the ICJ should order Israel “to cease killing and causing serious mental and bodily harm to Palestinian people in Gaza, to cease the deliberate infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction as a group, to prevent and punish direct and public incitement to genocide, and to rescind related policies and practices, including regarding the restriction on aid and the issuing of evacuation directives.”
Q: What exactly is South Africa alleging?
DB: South Africa alleges that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, where 2.3 million Palestinians, half of them children, are trapped with nowhere to escape to. Since October 7, Israel has been carrying out a massive military assault by land, air and sea, on Gaza, which is one of the most densely populated places in the world. Israel’s assault is one of the most destructive and deadly bombing campaigns in history, killing more than 1 percent of the population of Gaza up to this point. At the same time, Israel has cut off food, water, and medical supplies, as part of a deliberate attempt to starve the population.
Israel has also driven nearly the entire population out of their homes in an act of ethnic cleansing, particularly in the north of Gaza. So far, Israel has destroyed or damaged 355,000 homes (approximately 60% of all homes in Gaza); displaced 1.9 million Palestinians (85% of the total population) and has left all of Gaza without food, clean water or sanitation.
Israel’s military has also targeted hospitals and other health care facilities in Gaza as part of its ethnic cleansing campaign. According to South Africa’s petition, “Israel has bombed, shelled and besieged Gaza’s hospitals, with only 13 out of 36 hospitals partially functional, and no fully functioning hospital left in North Gaza. Contagious and epidemic diseases are rife amongst the displaced Palestinian population, with experts warning of the risk of meningitis, cholera and other outbreaks. The entire population in Gaza is at imminent risk of famine…”
According to South Africa’s petition, Israel is:
Engaged in the mass killing of Palestinians in Gaza, a large proportion of them women and children —who are estimated to account for around 70% of the more than 21,110 fatalities. According to reports, Israeli soldiers have also summarily executed civilians;
Deliberately causing starvation and dehydration amongst Palestinians in Gaza by cutting of supplies of food, water, and electricity, and the destruction of bakeries, mills, agricultural lands and other methods of food production and sustenance;
Causing serious mental and bodily harm to Palestinians in Gaza, including through maiming, psychological trauma, and inhuman and degrading treatment;
Forcibly displacing – ethnic cleansing – around 85% of Palestinians in Gaza so far — including children, the elderly, and the sick and wounded — as well as causing the large scale destruction of Palestinian homes, cities, towns, refugee camps, and entire regions in Gaza, precluding the return of a significant proportion of Palestinians to their homes;
Destroying Palestinian life and society in Gaza, through the destruction of Gaza’s universities, schools, cultural centers, courts, public buildings and records, libraries, churches, mosques, roads, infrastructure, utilities and other facilities necessary to the sustained life of Palestinians in Gaza as a group, alongside the killing of entire family groups — erasing entire oral histories in Gaza — and the killing of prominent and distinguished members of society;
Imposing measures intended to prevent Palestinian births in Gaza, through the reproductive violence inflicted on Palestinian women, newborn babies, infants, and children;
Failing to provide for or to ensure the provision for the medical needs of Palestinians in Gaza, including those medical needs created by other genocidal acts causing serious bodily harm, including through directly attacking hospitals, ambulances and other healthcare facilities in Gaza, killing doctors, medics and nurses, including the most qualified medics in Gaza, and destroying and disabling Gaza’s medical system; and
Failing to provide and restricting the provision of adequate shelter, clothes, hygiene or sanitation to Palestinians in Gaza, including the 1.9 million internally displaced people, compelled by Israel’s actions to live in dangerous situations of squalor, alongside the routine targeting and destruction of places of shelter and the killing and wounding of those seeking safety, including women, children, the disabled and the elderly.
Q: What is necessary to establish that genocide is taking place?
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Based on this, two elements are required: the intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial or religious group and the act of doing so. In the petition, South Africa lays out both elements by highlighting numerous statements demonstrating the intent to commit genocide on the part of senior Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Netanyahu, the President of Israel, the Minister of Defense, the National Security Minister, the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Heritage, the Minister of Agriculture and the Deputy Speaker of the Knesset. The petition also highlights the alarm bells raised by a number of UN experts warning that Palestinians are at risk of genocide. It also highlights the many acts that Israel has carried out since October 7 to meet those elements above.
Q: What will happen if the ICJ finds that Israel is committing genocide?
DB: At this stage, what is being sought is a provisional order asking that Israel cease its attacks against Palestinians in Gaza. For a provisional order, it is not necessary to prove that Israel is committing genocide; but rather that the acts complained of fall within the Genocide Convention.
That said, if after hearing the full case the court finds that Israel is committing genocide, this obligates not only Israel but also countries around the world to act to stop genocide. First, according to the ICJ, every UN member state must undertake to comply with a decision of the ICJ in any case to which it is a party. If they do not comply, the other party may go to the UN Security Council which may take measures to give effect to the judgment.
Beyond that, however, the crime of genocide does not just bind the party committing genocide but binds third party states too, whether or not they have ratified the Genocide Convention. What this means is that ALL states are bound and therefore must take measures to stop the genocide as well as measures not to aid Israel in committing genocide. This, of course, can take different forms including by imposing an arms embargo on Israel, boycotting and sanctioning Israel, and prosecuting war criminals.
For more information, contact Chris at [email protected] or (202) 903-3271.
Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC makes her arguments as the Israeli legal team listen intently. Credit: Cecilia Russell/IPS
by Cecilia Russell (johannesburg)
Inter Press Service
JOHANNESBurg, Jan 11 (IPS) – Far from the mayhem, destruction, and humanitarian crisis in Gaza, the South African government argued in the International Court of Justice in the Hague that it had an obligation and a right to bring a case to halt a genocide by the Israeli government and its military.
The top legal team, composed of both South African and international human rights lawyers, spent over two and a half hours arguing that it had an obligation as a signatory to the Genocide Convention to bring this case and that the court had an obligation to accede to the provisional measures included in the application, which include an immediate suspension of its military operations against Gaza and the prevention of acts of genocide against Palestinian people.
Professor Vaughan Lowe KC summarized the arguments heard throughout the day succinctly, saying:
“South Africa believes that the publicly available evidence of the scale of the destruction resulting from the bombardment of Gaza and the deliberate restriction of food, water, medicines, or electricity available to the population of Gaza demonstrates that the Government of Israel, not Jewish people or Israeli citizens, the government of Israel, and its military are intent on destroying the Palestinians in Gaza as a group and are doing nothing to prevent or punish the actions of others who support that aim.
“And I repeat, the point is not simply that Israel is acting disproportionately. The point is that the prohibition on genocide is an absolute, peremptory rule of law. Nothing can ever justify genocide,” he told the court.
“This is not a moment for the court to sit back and be silent.”
The preceding arguments included the reasons the court should act—and act urgently.
Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC argued that if the bombardment continued, there would be irreparable harm to the Palestinian people, where entire multigenerational families would be obliterated.
She referred to what she termed a “terrible new acronym” that emerged from the Israeli action.
“WCNSF—wounded child, no surviving family.”
Ghralaigh argued there was no merit in the argument of Israel that it was not responsible for the humanitarian crisis; she told the court that humanitarian workers stretching as far back as the Killing Fields of Cambodia had not seen a humanitarian crisis so utterly unprecedented that they had “not the words to describe it.”
She also accused the international community of erring in their duty to prevent genocide.
“Now, notwithstanding the genocide conventions and recognition of the need to rid the world of the odious scourge of genocide, the international community has repeatedly failed. It failed the people of Rwanda. It had failed the Bosnian people and the Rohingya, prompting this court to take action,” Ghralaigh argued, saying it failed again by ignoring the early warnings and the grave risk of genocide to the Palestinian people.
“The international community continues to fail the Palestinian people, despite the overt, dehumanizing genocidal rhetoric by Israeli government and military officials, matched by the Israeli army’s actions on the ground—despite the horror of the genocide against the Palestinian people being live streamed from Gaza to our mobile phones, computers, and television screens—the first genocide in history where its victims are broadcasting their own destruction in real time.”
Professor Max Du Plessis argued that South Africa had jurisdiction to bring this matter to court. Quoting the court’s findings in the case filed by The Gambia against Myanmar in 2019, he said: “All the States’ parties to the Genocide Convention have a common interest in ensuring that acts of genocide are prevented.”
This court action should not have come as a surprise. Professor John Dugard explained that the South African application followed a long series of diplomatic efforts to express concern about the Israeli action in Palestine.
“South Africa has a long history of close relations with Israel. For this reason, it did not bring the dispute immediately to the attention of the court. It was harder as Israel responded to the terrible atrocities committed against his people on the 7th of October with an attack on Gaza that resulted in the indiscriminate killing of innocent Palestinian civilians, most of whom were women and children,” Dugard told the court. “The South African government repeatedly voiced its concerns in the Security Council and in public statements that Israel’s actions had become genocidal.”
Adila Hassim, an attorney, gave a detailed account of the effects of the bombardment on the civilian population when she informed the court that Israeli forces had killed 23,210 Palestinians during the continuous attacks over the previous three months, with 70% of them thought to be women and children. Some 7,000 Palestinians are still missing, presumed dead under the rubble.
“Palestinians in Gaza are subjected to relentless bombing, wherever they go. They are killed in their homes, in places where they seek shelter, in hospitals, in schools, in mosques, in churches, and as they try to find food and water for their families. They have been killed if they failed to evacuate in the places to which they have fled, and even while they attempted to flee along Israeli-declared safe routes,” Hassim said.
Showing photographs of mass graves, she told the court: “More than 1,800 Palestinian families in Gaza have lost multiple family members, and hundreds of multi-generational families have been wiped out with no remaining survivors. Mothers, fathers, children, siblings, grandparents, aunts, and cousins are often all killed together. This killing is nothing short of the destruction of Palestinian life. It is inflicted deliberately. No one is spared. Not even newborn babies.”
Advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi said the genocidal rhetoric was nurtured at the highest level of the state.
“There is an extraordinary feature in this case that Israel’s political leaders, military commanders, and persons holding official positions have systematically and in explicit terms declared their genocidal intent,” he said, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s public address when he declared war on Gaza, where he warned of an unprecedented price to be paid by the enemy.
On October 28, Ngcukayitobi said Netanyahu referred to the people of Gaza as the Amalekites, a biblical reference to the retaliatory destruction of a people, men and women, children and infants with their cattle and sheep, camels, and donkeys, considered the enemies of the Israelites.
The language of genocide had not stopped there, as the Palestinian people were often referred to as “human animals.”
Other high-level politicians also made comments that confirmed the country’s genocide intent.
Israel’s Energy and Infrastructure Minister, MK Israel Katz, called for the denial of water and fuel: “As this is what will happen to a people of children: kill us and slaughter us.”
Ngcukaitobi said there was no ambiguity. “It means to create conditions of death for the Palestinian people in Gaza to die a slow death because of starvation and dehydration, or to die quickly because of a bomb attack or snipers.”
South African Justice Minister Ronald Lamola told the court this was brought in the spirit of Nelson Mandela’s humanity, and the country unequivocally condemned the targeting of civilians by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups in the taking of hostages on October 7, 2023.
Vusi Madonsela, SA Ambassador to the Netherlands, read the provisional measures that the South African government requests the court consider, including responding to the application as a matter of urgency. Among others, these include:
that military operations are immediately ceased;
that the State of Israel take reasonable measures within its power to prevent genocide, including desisting from actions that could bring about physical destruction;
rescind orders of restrictions and prohibitions to prevent forced displacement and ensure access to humanitarian assistance, including access to adequate fuel, shelter, clothes, hygiene, sanitation and medical supplies;
avoid public incitement;
ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of acts and
submit a report to the court on all measures taken to give effect to the order.
NEW YORK, Jan 05 (IPS) – Nearly nine months of war have tipped Sudan into a downward spiral that only grows more ruinous by the day. As the conflict spreads, human suffering is deepening, humanitarian access is shrinking, and hope is dwindling. This cannot continue.
2024 demands that the international community – particularly those with influence on the parties to the conflict in Sudan – take decisive and immediate action to stop the fighting and safeguard humanitarian operations meant to help millions of civilians.
Now that hostilities have reached the country’s breadbasket in Aj Jazirah State, there is even more at stake. More than 500,000 people have fled fighting in and around the state capital Wad Medani, long a place of refuge for those uprooted by clashes elsewhere.
Ongoing mass displacement could also fuel the rapid spread of a cholera outbreak in the state, with more than 1,800 suspected cases reported there so far.
The same horrific abuses that have defined this war in other hotspots – Khartoum, Darfur and Kordofan – are now being reported in Wad Medani. Accounts of widespread human rights violations, including sexual violence, remind us that the parties to this conflict are still failing to uphold their commitments to protect civilians.
There are also serious concerns about the parties’ compliance with international humanitarian law. Given Wad Medani’s significance as a hub for relief operations, the fighting there – and looting of humanitarian warehouses and supplies – is a body blow to our efforts to deliver food, water, health care and other critical aid.
Once again, I strongly condemn the looting of humanitarian supplies, which undermines our ability to save lives.
Across Sudan, nearly 25 million people will need humanitarian assistance in 2024. But the bleak reality is that intensifying hostilities are putting most of them beyond our reach. Deliveries across conflict lines have ground to a halt.
And though the cross-border aid operation from Chad continues to serve as a lifeline for people in Darfur, efforts to deliver elsewhere are increasingly under threat.
The escalating violence in Sudan is also imperiling regional stability. The war has unleashed the world’s largest displacement crisis, uprooting the lives of more than 7 million people, some 1.4 million of whom have crossed into neighbouring countries already hosting large refugee populations.
For Sudan’s people, 2023 was a year of suffering. In 2024, the parties to the conflict must do three things to end it: Protect civilians, facilitate humanitarian access, and stop the fighting – immediately.
A statement made by Martin Griffiths, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator
Mahmoud Abbas (centre right), President of the State of Palestine, addresses an event to commemorate the 75th Anniversary of the Nakba, held by the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People on 15 May 2023.
by Thalif Deen (united nations)
Inter Press Service
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 05 (IPS) – The atrocities against Palestinians in a ruthlessly devastated Gaza — with over 21,000 mostly civilian deaths in retaliation to the killings of 1,200 inside Israel —have resurrected a longstanding question: is it time for Palestine to be recognized as a full-fledged UN member state?
The question has also been triggered by a statement by China, a veto-wielding permanent member of the UN Security Council (UNSC).
Addressing the UNSC on December 29, Geng Shuang, Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative of China, said: “We support Palestine’s full membership in the UN, and the early resumption of direct negotiations between Palestine and Israel.”
According to the UN, States are admitted to UN membership by a decision of the 193-member General Assembly upon the recommendation of the 15-member Security Council.
The resolution needs a two-thirds majority (currently 128 votes) in the General Assembly– and no vetoes in the Security Council.
And with the crisis in Gaza– and worldwide sympathy towards the Palestinians– would this be the right time to stake that claim?
But any such move for Palestinian UN membership is most likely to be vetoed by the US which continues its undying loyalty to Israel.
The State of Palestine was accepted as “a non-member observer state” of the UN General Assembly in November 2012.
Mahmoud Abbas (centre right), President of the State of Palestine, addresses an event to commemorate the 75th Anniversary of the Nakba, held by the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People on 15 May 2023.
Asked for his comments on a meeting with Palestinian leader Abbas in Beijing when the Chinese President Xi called for the Palestinians to become a full Member State of the United Nations, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters last year: “As you know, the decision on Palestine or any other entity moving from observer to Member State or just becoming a Member State is a decision that the Member States themselves can take. It does not involve the Secretary-General.”
Samir Sanbar, a former UN Assistant Secretary-General and head of the Department of Public Information, told IPS a two thirds majority by the General Assembly was voted recently to overcome a U.S. veto at the Security Council on Gaza.
“Perhaps that is why the US abstained on a following resolution– perhaps to avoid further isolation, particularly with increasing public support for the Palestinians within the United States, especially among the younger generation.”
He also pointed out the “diligent work by certain members of the Security Council, including the Arab Council representative of UAE, Ambassador Lana Zaki Nusseibeh.”
“It is indeed about time for full membership of Palestine at the United Nations since the General Assembly decades ago recognized the full “Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People” and repeated assertions to apply General assembly and Security Council resolutions,” said Sanbar.
Ramzy Baroud, an author, a syndicated columnist, editor of Palestine Chronicle & a Senior Research Fellow at Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA), told IPS admitting Palestine as a full member at the UN is significant in terms of strengthening Palestine’s political and legal positions in the ongoing attempt to hold Israel accountable for its genocide in Gaza, and military occupation and apartheid in general.
“It would also send a message to Israel that while it is actively discussing the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians to Congo and elsewhere, the international community sees Palestine as an entity that belongs to the Palestinian people.”
“History has taught us that Palestine commands the kind of support that would allow it to win the two-thirds majority at the General Assembly”, he pointed out.
“We also know that countries like China and Russia will fully back this effort at the Security Council. The challenge is the Americans and their vetoes,” he said.
The Biden Administration has, thus far, proven to be dedicated to the rightwing agenda of the Israeli government, even when Netanyahu’s agenda directly damages US economic and political interests, let alone reputation throughout the Middle East, in fact the world, said Baroud.
“The US is likely to do everything in its power to block the vote, and, as is often the case, attempt to bribe, and, when needed, threaten those who are likely to support a full Palestinian membership.”
“We have no reason to believe that Washington will not use the veto considering Israel’s complete rejection of the recognition of Palestine as a full UN member.” declared Baroud.
The last six members to join the UN include Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Tuvalu (in 2000); Switzerland and Timor-Leste (2002); Montenegro (2006) and South Sudan (2011).
According to the UN, the procedure for membership is as follows:
• The State submits an application to the Secretary-General and a letter formally stating that it accepts the obligations under the Charter.
• The Security Council considers the application. Any recommendation for admission must receive the affirmative votes of 9 of the 15 members of the Council, provided that none of its five permanent members — China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America — have voted against the application.
• If the Council recommends admission, the recommendation is presented to the General Assembly for consideration. A two-thirds majority vote is necessary in the Assembly for admission of a new State.
• Membership becomes effective the date the resolution for admission is adopted.
Opinion by Maria Noel Vaeza, Michelle Muschett (panama city, panama)
Inter Press Service
PANAMA CITY, Panama, Jan 04 (IPS) – Violence against women and girls is one of the most widespread and persistent abuses of fundamental rights at a global level that, to a certain extent, derives from what we consider “normal” in our societies. In addition to firmly condemning that every three women in the world suffer from physical or sexual violence, we must question what we are normalizing as a society for this to happen.
Faced with this question, the Gender Social Norms Index published by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) reveals that 90% of the population has at least one fundamental prejudice against women, which ranges from believing that men are better business leaders and that they have more rights than women to take a job, to the conviction that it is okay for a man to be violent with his partner.
Gender violence is not a phenomenon that arises out of nowhere and its prevention and eradication also require each of us to be aware of our own biases.
At UN Women and UNDP, we work to reduce gender discrimination and transform sexist attitudes by promoting social norms and positive gender roles. This requires empowering girls and women and working with the entire society to remove stereotypes that promote violent masculinities.
To achieve this, at UN Women we apply the behavioral sciences to involve men and commit them to the prevention of violence against women and girls with more effective awareness campaigns that adapt to the reality of each country in the region. Social norms that limit women’s rights also harm society, they hinder the expansion of human development and increase inequality gaps.
It is no coincidence that the difficulty in achieving progress in social gender norms occurs during a human development crisis. The global Human Development Index (HDI) lost value in 2020 for the first time in history; the same thing happened the following year.
In turn, for Latin America and the Caribbean, the UNDP estimated – based on its proposal for a Multidimensional Poverty Index with a focus on women, that 27.4% of women in 10 countries in the region live in conditions of multidimensional poverty.
The impact of poverty on women varies depending on their location in the territory: in the 16 countries analyzed, 19% of those who live in urban areas are multidimensional poor, while 58% live in rural areas.
The poorest women are those who face greater inequalities, participate less in the labor market, and experience greater time poverty caused by excessive unpaid care work.
These inequality gaps, in addition to being a barrier to human development, are a threat to democracy. Latin America and the Caribbean, the third most democratic region in the world and the only emerging region that aspires to – and still has the possibility of – achieving development through democracy and respect for human rights, will not achieve it if it continues to be the most violent and dangerous region for women.
The Gender Social Norms Index (GSNI) quantifies biases against women, capturing people’s attitudes on women’s roles along four key dimensions: political, educational, economic and physical integrity. The index, covering 85 percent of the global population, reveals that close to 9 out of 10 men and women hold fundamental biases against women. Credit: UNDP
The Latinobarometro 2023 report points out a clear democratic decline in Latin America: the percentage of its population that sees democracy as the preferred form of government fell from 60% in 2000 to 48% in 2023. Women remain underrepresented in decision-making decisions and are the most dissatisfied with democracy with 70%.
At the same time, according to the latest data reported by official organizations to the Gender Equality Observatory of Latin America and the Caribbean, in 2022, at least 4,050 women saw their lives cut short. 4,004 from Latin America and 46 from the Caribbean, from 26 countries in the region, were victims of femicide or feminicide.
This is a clear sign that despite the progress in several countries in the region with the approval of specific and comprehensive legal frameworks and the establishment of specialized prosecutors and protocols to respond to gender violence, the fundamental rights of women continue without translating into tangible achievements.
Without effective governance and solid institutions that guarantee women and girls the full enjoyment of their rights, including the right to live a life free of violence and discrimination, it will be impossible to regain confidence in democracy in the region.
In building more peaceful, just, and inclusive societies, universal access to justice is essential to eradicate gender violence and impunity. Girls, adolescents, and women who suffer violence do not find sufficient protection in the judicial system, and when they have the courage to report, they are often re-victimized until they give up their complaint and seek help and protection from the authorities. public institutions.
At the same time, these women have a triple workload: they face caretaker tasks, domestic work and their paid jobs, which are usually precarious, informal and low-income.
Furthermore, much of the impetus for the judicial process falls on the complainant, who must not only appear before the court on numerous occasions, but also bear the financial costs of transportation, the difficulties in organizing household responsibilities, and the fear of retaliation by the aggressor or members of their communities.
To this must be added both the possible lack of knowledge that many women may have about judicial or extrajudicial procedures, as well as the difficulties in accessing free services and/or ignorance of their existence. There is also little or no public information about specialized services.
For example, in the case of experiencing violence, there is usually distrust on the part of women regarding the speed and effectiveness of the judicial response to their situation and, they also often face practices of re-victimization such as being forced to tell the facts on several occasions. or have their testimony called into question.
From UNDP and UN Women, we call to build more just societies for women. All people and societies can advance through education, social mobilization, adoption of legal and political measures, advocacy for greater budgets to prevent violence, promotion of dialogue, and search for consensus to break down biases and open passage to more peaceful, secure, fair, inclusive, and egalitarian societies as a requirement to leave no one behind on the path towards sustainable development.
María Noel Vaeza is regional director of UN Women for the Americas and the Caribbean; Michelle Muschett is regional director of UNDP for Latin America and the Caribbean.
Destruction in Gaza Strip. Credit: UNICEF/Hassan Islyeh
Opinion by Connor Echols (washington dc)
Inter Press Service
WASHINGTON DC, Jan 03 (IPS) – In its military campaign in Gaza, Israel faces a seemingly endless list of alleged human rights violations. International monitors argue the Israel Defense Forces have starved Gazans, targeted journalists attempting to cover the carnage, tortured detainees, and attacked hospitals full of wounded civilians.
The U.S. — a passionate backer of civilian protections in Ukraine — has struggled to find the right way to address these claims while still standing by its long-time partner. The bombing has been “indiscriminate,” says President Joe Biden, but perhaps it will improve tomorrow. Killing more than 10,000 women and children in two months is not “genocide,” argues White House spokesperson John Kirby, but Hamas’ brutal Oct. 7 attacks were.
If human rights are fundamentally a matter of world consensus, then what does it tell us that the United States threatens to cast a second veto against a United Nations Security Council resolution begging for a humanitarian suspension of fighting?
What does it mean when a supposed champion of human rights seems to jettison them when it becomes inconvenient? For that matter, why should Israel care about human rights when it perceives its fight as existential?
Displaced Palestinians wait for food at Al-Shaboura camp, in Rafah. Credit: WHO
Kenneth Roth has a unique perspective on these questions. Roth, considered by many to be a dean of the human rights movement, spent nearly three decades as the executive director of Human Rights Watch before stepping down last year to become a visiting professor at Princeton University.
Under his leadership, HRW drew flak for, among other things, declaring Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories to be apartheid, all while documenting in meticulous detail abuses committed by Palestinian groups, including Hamas.
RS spoke with Roth to get his thoughts on human rights at a time of crisis. The following conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Responsible Statecraft (RS): How would you rate the Biden administration’s handling of the Gaza crisis from a human rights perspective?
Roth: The Biden administration has been far too deferential to the Israeli Government, despite the pretty clear commission of war crimes in Gaza. And while the administration has pushed to ameliorate some of those war crimes — by pressing for humanitarian access, by urging greater attention to avoiding civilian casualties — that rhetorical push has not been backed by the use of the leverage that the administration has that might have really put pressure on the Israeli government to stop, whether that would be withholding or conditioning ongoing arm sales or military assistance, or even allowing a Security Council resolution to go forward.
RS: What would a better approach look like?
Roth: The initial problem was that Biden pretty unconditionally wrapped himself in the Israeli government’s response to the horrible October 7 attacks by Hamas. If you look at his initial comments, while there were caveats written in about the need to respect humanitarian law, there was no emotional punch behind them.
It was pretty clear that Biden simply stood with Israel and was giving it a green light to proceed with its military response to Hamas without much effort, at least during the first few weeks, to ensure that that response really did comply with humanitarian law. So, I think the Israeli government got the message that the references to humanitarian law were necessary for certain audiences, but that the administration’s heart was not in them.
RS: Would a more forceful form of messaging at the start have led to different results?
Roth: Obviously, it’s hard to know the counterfactual. But the U.S. government, which has the greatest leverage of any external actor, didn’t really use that leverage to ensure that its periodic rhetorical commitment to the need to respect humanitarian law was matched by its much more forceful embrace of the Israeli military response to Hamas.
RS: I’ve seen some reporting that the State Department has done internal inquiries as to whether U.S. officials could be legally complicit if Israel is found to have committed war crimes in Gaza. Do you have any thoughts on that question?
Roth: Well, they could be. Biden’s references to the Israeli military conducting indiscriminate bombing were clearly not just a verbal slip. It probably reflected the internal conversations that the administration has. The second one even seems to have been somewhat deliberate.
And the significance of that is that indiscriminate bombardment is a war crime. As any administration lawyer would know, continuing to provide weapons to a force that is engaged in war crimes can make the sender guilty of aiding and abetting war crimes.
That is not some crazy, wacko theory. That was the basis on which former Liberian President Charles Taylor was convicted by an internationally backed tribunal, the so-called Special Court for Sierra Leone, for providing weapons to the Sierra Leonean rebel group known as the Revolutionary United Front, a group that was notorious for chopping off the limbs of its victims.
Because Taylor kept providing arms in return for the RUF’s diamonds while he knew the RUF was committing these war crimes, this internationally-backed tribunal found him guilty of aiding and abetting, convicted him, and sentenced him to 50 years in prison, which he is currently serving in a British prison.
RS: My next question is a little tricky, but I’m curious how you approach it. Israel claims that this war is a fight for its very survival. Why should a country that views itself as being in that position care about respecting human rights?
Roth: Well, I think the question is why should it care about adhering to international humanitarian law and protocols. It’s worth noting that humanitarian law was not drafted by a bunch of human rights activists and peaceniks. This was drafted by the world’s leading militaries. It was designed for war, for situations where governments often feel that they are existentially at risk, and these were the limits that the world’s leading militaries imposed on themselves. Israel has signed on to these standards, and it claims to abide by them. It has many capable lawyers who could be applying them. It just isn’t applying them.
It probably requires a certain psychological analysis to figure out why, but some of the signals being sent from the top indicate a willingness to disregard the requirements of humanitarian law. When you have Defense Minister Galant referring to the residents of Gaza as “human animals,” when you have Netanyahu invoking the biblical story of Amalek in which there’s a divine injunction to not spare the men, women, children, or animals, these are not-so-subtle signals that the top political and military leadership in Israel doesn’t care that much about civilian casualties. This has seemed to have manifested itself in the indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks that the Israeli military has carried out in Gaza.
RS: It seems to me that focusing on war crimes or potential war crimes can sometimes lead to really bad policy outcomes. In this case, Israel is really spotlighting Hamas’ alleged war crimes. You think back to the war in Iraq, where there was a lot of highlighting of Saddam’s alleged war crimes. How can advocacy for human rights avoid supporting unfettered militarism?
Roth: First, I think it’s important to note that war crimes by one side do not justify war crimes by the other. If a warring party could cite the other side’s war crimes, you would quickly have no more Geneva Conventions because allegations of war crimes are often made in the passions of conflict. The fact that some people have committed war crimes — in this case, both sides — doesn’t justify that others resort to criminal conduct. Now, in terms of military action, few people contest that Israel had every right to respond to Hamas’ military attack. It was an extraordinarily lethal military attack. It was ruthless, with widespread murder, rape, abduction, and indiscriminate bombardment. So with an attack of that sort, no one should be surprised that the Israeli government responds. The only real question was, will it respond consistent with humanitarian law? Or would it flout that law?
RS: What does all this mean — especially the fact of the U.S. seemingly taking a step back in advocacy for the protection of human rights — what does all this mean for the state of human rights today?
Roth: It is harmful because the U.S. government is such a powerful voice, and when it does seem to make an exception in its human rights advocacy for a close ally like Israel, it discredits the U.S. as a voice for human rights around the world. Now, I should say this is not the only instance of inconsistency on the part of Washington. We’re seeing it as well as the Biden administration tries to build alliances to oppose Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or to contain China. So while the administration has spoken numerous times about its fundamental commitment to human rights, it’s been a very inconsistent commitment. And that inconsistency is probably most visible in the Middle East, which has been essentially a black hole in the administration’s human rights policy. It’s very difficult to be so permissive of human rights violations in one region of the world and have a whole lot of credibility on human rights in other parts of the world.
This means that one of those powerful voices we have has weakened itself. It’s not the first time that has happened. Under Trump, the U.S. essentially abandoned any pretense of enforcing human rights. Prior administrations have had comparable inconsistencies. The U.S. still has been able to be a useful voice for human rights, despite these inconsistencies, in some cases, but it is a much weaker voice than if it had really been principled and consistent.
RS: How do you see the future of the push to get states to protect human rights? Are we in a moment of crisis that galvanizes change?
Roth: If you look at the various efforts to uphold human rights, they’ve been quite vigorous in certain cases. There has been a very strong response to Russian war crimes in Ukraine, complete with multiple General Assembly resolutions, the Human Rights Council standing up a commission of inquiry, the International Criminal Court launching an immediate investigation and actually charging Putin and one of his aides with war crimes.
A place where it’s been weaker has been, say, China’s crimes against humanity against the Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang, where we came within two votes of putting on the agenda a discussion of then-UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet’s very strong report on what she called possible crimes against humanity. But we didn’t even get that agenda item, so that’s a place where the world has been much weaker.
But there’s been greater mobilization, greater willingness to speak out on a range of other situations, whether that be Myanmar or Iran, Saudi abuses in Yemen for a time, Sudan, Ethiopia for a time, Venezuela, Nicaragua. So the idea that because there’s this black hole in U.S. human rights policy, therefore nothing can get done, that’s just not true. A lot gets done, but the defense of human rights is weaker because the U.S. has been an inconsistent supporter of the effort.
Source: Responsible Statecraft (RS)
Connor Echols is a reporter for Responsible Statecraft. He was previously an associate editor at the Nonzero Foundation, where he co-wrote a weekly foreign policy newsletter. Echols received his bachelor’s degree from Northwestern University, where he studied journalism and Middle East and North African Studies.
The views expressed by authors on Responsible Statecraft do not necessarily reflect those of the Quincy Institute or its associates.
ABUJA, Nigeria, Jan 02 (IPS) – In 2022 alone, flooding killed at least 662 people, injured 3,174, displaced about 2.5 million, and destroyed 200,000 houses individuals.
As far back as 2012, the World Bank reported that erosion was affecting over 6,000 square kilometres of land in the country, with about 3,400 square kilometres highly exposed.
Under the NEWMAP, the country began working with the World Bank to rehabilitate degraded lands and reduce erosion and climate vulnerability in 23 states. The project had four work streams:
1. Investing in erosion and watershed management infrastructure to reduce land degradation,
2. Developing information services to strengthen erosion and watershed monitoring and disaster risk management,
3. Strengthening Nigeria’s strategic framework for climate action to promote low carbon development, and
4. Supporting project management at federal and state levels with financial, social and environmental safeguards and oversight, outreach, and project monitoring and evaluation.
The outcomes reported in 2021 were positive: the project benefitted 35,000 people directly and more than 100,000 indirectly through small grants to community interest groups. The team trained 185,058 persons, 42 percent of them women.
On the first work stream, the project more than doubled the land under sustainable management, completed nearly five dozen participatory surface water management plans and reduced gully erosion considerably.
On the second, it made drafted environmental impact assessment guidelines and launched over a hundred automated hydrology and meteorology and flood early warning systems in the region.
The government is restoring lands in the northern states of Bauchi, Jigawa and Sokoto by planting thousands of tree seeds and seedlings.
On the third, the country issued green bonds to spark private investment in climate smart projects, such as distributing fuel-efficient cookstoves and developing solar-based electricity generators for rural health centers.
On the fourth, the team tested the use of remote sensing, geographic information system techniques, and 360-degree cameras and drones for remote supervision and grievance resolution.
Overall, NEWMAP showed Nigeria’s appetite for action and results.
Calls for accelerated action
Currently, about 178 local government areas (LGAs) in 32 of 36 states in Nigeria and the Federal Capital Territory fall within the highly probable flood risk areas, according to the Nigeria Hydrological Services Agency (NIHSA). Another 224 of the country’s 744 LGAs fall within moderately probable flood risk areas, and 372 fall within probable flood risk areas.
Nigeria’s more than 830 kilometres of coastline are increasingly threatened by floods, erosion, water and air pollution. Communities in the Niger Delta states bordering the Atlantic Ocean have lost or fear losing their homes and farmlands due to the eroding bedrock shielding the shoreline.
Forests are disappearing because of desertification. According to Action Against Desertification, only half the forests that existed in 2007 remain in the area where it operates.
Suleiman Hussein Adamu, minister of water resources through May 2023, had warned that floods would take a high toll on life and livelihoods, agriculture, livestock, infrastructure and the environment.
The frequency of natural disasters in the country links to climate change, according to Alhaji Musa Zakari, director of human resource management at the National Emergency Management Agency, responsible for managing disasters in Nigeria.
“Nigeria may need to re-examine some fundamentally new and more efficient approach to disaster management,” Mr. Zakari said in an interview.
New approaches
In August, Nigeria’s National Defence College (NDC) presented the government with its research findings, “Building Climate Resilience for Enhanced National Security: Strategic Options for Nigeria by 2035.” It recommended adopting strategies to achieve the short-, medium- and long-term objectives in climate adaptation programmes.
Vice President Kashim Shettima said the current administration was prioritizing climate change interventions to address desertification, coastal erosion and flooding by collaborating with relevant individuals and institutions.
The government shares the “concerns for the security implications of underestimating the devastations of climate change,” he said, while receiving the NDC report.
Part of the government’s strategy is to inform the public of preventive measures that save lives and reduce damage to property and infrastructure.
In addition, through the Great Green Wall initiative, which aims to increase the size of arable land in the Sahel, the government is restoring lands in the northern states of Bauchi, Jigawa and Sokoto by planting thousands of tree seeds and seedlings.
Said Vice President Shettima, “It is heartening to witness the alignment between findings and our government’s policy objectives, reinforcing our belief that a holistic and comprehensive approach is essential to tackling these challenges effectively.”
Source: Africa Renewal, a United Nations digital magazine that covers Africa’s economic, social and political developments.
NEW YORK, Dec 22 (IPS) – Benjamin Netanyahu must go. Under the guise of judicial reform, Netanyahu has undermined the rule of law and divided the country. He is toxic to Arab states, even those which have signed the Abraham Accords. Netanyahu has become an impediment to Israel’s democratic development and regional relations.
Israel needs a new government committed to peace and a cabinet that champions reconciliation. Perpetual war plays into the hands of Hamas. It placates Jewish hardliners who oppose the national aspirations of Palestinians. War also serves Netanyahu by distracting voters and delaying accountability for his government’s intelligence failures on October 7.
It took up to ten hours for the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) to react to Hamas’ invasion. Known for its security and intelligence services, Israel was caught flat-footed. Panicked residents of kibbutzim cowered in safe rooms, while 1,200 Israelis were killed, butchered in their homes and on the grounds of the Nova Music Festival. Hundreds were taken hostage by Hamas, gang-raped and turned into sexual slaves. One hundred and thirty remain in captivity.
It is impossible to reconcile Israel’s objectives. Israel cannot eradicate Hamas and free hostages captive in the subterranean world of Gaza’s tunnel network. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin just visited Jerusalem to discuss priorities and scaling back Israel’s offensive.
In the fog of war, the IDF killed three Israeli hostages last week displaying a white flag and speaking in Hebrew. Shooting people, even Hamas members who surrender, violates the laws of war and Israel’s military code. Exhausted and trigger happy, the incident is under investigation. The Israeli army chief of staff and the intelligence chief issued apologies. Netanyahu prevaricated, delaying his meeting with hostage families.
The incident caused outrage across Israel, raising questions about Israel’s conduct of the war. The Hamas Ministry of Health claims that 20,000 Palestinian civilians have died as a result of IDF activities. Hostage families are demanding an investigation.
There is a growing clamor to bring the hostages home. Hostage families are also demanding a plan to end the war. They have generally been supportive of Netanyahu’s response, but they are wavering. They believe that continued action in Gaza risks the lives of the remaining 130 hostages. The bungled operation has brought Israeli institutions – the IDF, Shin Bet and Mossad – into disrepute.
Even President Joe Biden, Israel’s biggest backer, criticized the IDF for its “indiscriminate bombing.” France, Germany and Britain are also fed up and have demanded a “sustainable ceasefire.”
Netanyahu said there will be a time and place for an inquiry into the Hamas attack and Israel’s response. He believes that the longer it takes for an inquiry, the more the passions of hostage families will be mollified.
Israel’s slow grinding war with Hamas must stop. Israel was justified in launching a reprisal after October 7, especially as details of the brutality came to light. Two months later, the IDF seems to be flailing about. Israel has been characterized as the aggressor and has lost the moral high ground. For sure, Israel has every right to defend itself. But what started as calculated counterterrorism now seems more like rage and revenge.
Can Hamas even be defeated? Hamas is more than an organization. It is a movement. For every Hamas terrorist that Israel kills, more Palestinian militants are waiting in the wings.
It’s time for a new approach. An interim government overseen by the Palestinian Authority should be established and make plans for an eventual Palestinian state living side-by-side at peace with Israel.
Indiscriminate bombing is counterproductive. A more surgical approach would differentiate between Hamas and Gazans, addressing claims of collective punishment.
Internationally mediated talks would ensue when the hostages are freed. Palestinians need a national horizon to separate themselves from the clutches of Hamas.
Israeli elections would likely repudiate Netanyahu and lead to the creation of a peace cabinet, putting Israel back on track as a democracy that respects minority rights and values good neighborly relations.
It is unimaginable that Netanyahu can survive his putrid performance. Prosecutors are waiting to charge Netanyahu with corruption. Israelis can debate the details of government formation for months, but polling suggests that regime change is something that Israelis agree on now.
David Phillips is an Adjunct Professor at the Security Studies Program of Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service.
Displaced families in a school in Gaza. 21 December 2023 Credit: WFP/Arete/Abood al Sayd
by Thalif Deen (united nations)
Inter Press Service
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 22 (IPS) – As the killings of civilians in Gaza rose to over 20,000, the besieged city — which has been virtually reduced to rubble by Israeli bombardments — is also being ravaged by hunger and starvation.
In new estimates released December 21, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), a global partnership, which includes the World Health Organization (WHO), said Gaza is facing “catastrophic levels of food insecurity,” with the risk of famine “increasing each day.”
An unprecedented 93% of the population in Gaza is facing crisis levels of hunger, with insufficient food and high levels of malnutrition.
At least 1 in 4 households are facing “catastrophic conditions”: experiencing an extreme lack of food and starvation and having resorted to selling off their possessions and other extreme measures to afford a simple meal. Starvation, destitution and death are evident.
The World Food Programme warns that these levels of acute food insecurity are unprecedented in recent history and that Gaza risks famine.
Shaza Moghraby, Spokesperson for the UN World Food Programme (WFP) said: “I have been exposed to many IPC reports on various countries throughout my time at WFP and I have never seen anything like this before. The levels of acute food insecurity are unprecedented in terms of seriousness, speed of deterioration and complexity.”
Gaza risks famine. The population falling into the “catastrophe” classification of food security in Gaza or IPC Level 5 is more than four times higher than the total number of people currently facing similar conditions worldwide (577,000 compared to 129,000 respectively).
A family cooks a meal in a temporary accommodation in the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital. Credit: WFP
“We need an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, the opening of all border crossings and the resumption of commercial cargo to provide relief, put an end to the suffering and avert the very serious threat of famine. We cannot wait for famine to be declared before we act,” she said.
On recent missions to north Gaza, WHO staff say that every single person they spoke to in Gaza is hungry. Wherever they went, including hospitals and emergency wards, people asked them for food.
“We move around Gaza delivering medical supplies and people rush to our trucks hoping it’s food,” they said, calling it “an indicator of the desperation.”
Meanwhile, in a new report released this week, Human Rights Watch (HRW) accused the Israeli government of using “starvation of civilians as a method of warfare in the occupied Gaza Strip, which is a war crime.”
“Israeli forces are deliberately blocking the delivery of water, food, and fuel, while willfully impeding humanitarian assistance, apparently razing agricultural areas, and depriving the civilian population of objects indispensable to their survival”.
Since Hamas-led fighters attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, high-ranking Israeli officials, including Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Energy Minister Israel Kat have made public statements expressing their aim to deprive civilians in Gaza of food, water and fuel – statements reflecting a policy being carried out by Israeli forces, HRW said.
Other Israeli officials have publicly stated that humanitarian aid to Gaza would be conditioned either on the release of hostages unlawfully held by Hamas or Hamas’ destruction.
“For over two months, Israel has been depriving Gaza’s population of food and water, a policy spurred on or endorsed by high-ranking Israeli officials and reflecting an intent to starve civilians as a method of warfare,” said Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch.
“World leaders should be speaking out against this abhorrent war crime, which has devastating effects on Gaza’s population.”
Human Rights Watch interviewed 11 displaced Palestinians in Gaza between November 24 and December 4. They described their profound hardships in securing basic necessities. “We had no food, no electricity, no internet, nothing at all,” said one man who had left northern Gaza. “We don’t know how we survived.”
Abby Maxman, President and CEO of Oxfam America said the shocking figures describing the high levels of starvation in Gaza are a direct, damning, and predictable consequence of Israel’s policy choices – and President Biden’s unconditional support and diplomatic approach.
“Anyone paying attention cannot be surprised by these figures after more than two months of complete siege, denial of humanitarian aid, and destruction of residential neighborhoods, bakeries, mills, farms, and other infrastructure essential for food and water production,” she said.
“Israel has the right to defend its people from attacks, but it does not have the right to use starvation as a weapon of war to collectively punish an entire civilian population in reprisal. That is a war crime.”
“The US government has repeatedly given Israel diplomatic cover, but now must urgently change course and put politics aside to prioritize the lives of civilians”, said Maxman.
“ As humanitarians, we know no amount of aid can meaningfully address this spiraling crisis without an end to the bombing and siege, but it is unconscionable to deny it to Palestinian families who are starving”.
She argued the Biden administration must use all of its influence to achieve an immediate ceasefire to stop the bloodshed, allow for the safe return of hostages to Israel, and allow aid and commercial goods in, “so we can save lives now.”
“The US cannot continue to stand by and allow Palestinians to be starved to death.”
According to WHO, Gaza is also experiencing soaring rates of infectious diseases. Over 100, 000 cases of diarrhoea have been reported since mid-October. Half of these are among young children under the age of 5 years, case numbers that are 25 times what was reported before the conflict.
Over 150 000 cases of upper respiratory infection, and numerous cases of meningitis, skin rashes, scabies, lice and chickenpox have been reported. Hepatitis is also suspected as many people present with the tell-tale signs of jaundice.
“While a healthy body can more easily fight off these diseases, a wasted and weakened body will struggle. Hunger weakens the body’s defences and opens the door to disease,” WHO warned.
Meanwhile, HRW said international humanitarian law, or the laws of war, prohibits the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) provides that intentionally starving civilians by “depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including willfully impeding relief supplies” is a war crime.
Criminal intent does not require the attacker’s admission but can also be inferred from the totality of the circumstances of the military campaign.
In addition, Israel’s continuing blockade of Gaza, as well as its more than 16-year closure, amounts to collective punishment of the civilian population, a war crime. As the occupying power in Gaza under the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel has the duty to ensure that the civilian population gets food and medical supplies.
Opinion by Alice Wolfle, Tanja Sejersen (bangkok, thailand)
Inter Press Service
BANGKOK, Thailand, Dec 21 (IPS) – Have you ever tried to register a birth, a death or maybe your own marriage? Unfortunately, many of these vital events in Asia and the Pacific remain unregistered often with dire consequences for individuals, families and communities.
Civil registration can be a labyrinth to navigate, comprising of multiple stages with many bureaucratic hurdles. Such complex systems discourage individuals from either commencing or completing the arduous registration process.
But what if the process of registering a birth or death could be made less stressful for a new parent or a grieving relative? As an implementing partner of the Bloomberg Philanthropies Data for Health Initiative, ESCAP has been working with selected countries in the region to improve their Civil Registration and Vital Statistics (CRVS) systems using the CRVS Systems Improvement Framework.
This framework provides the tools for a participatory approach to identify bottlenecks and solutions to streamline registration processes. The framework has now been used in Niue, Maldives, Nauru, Fiji, Vanuatu, Samoa, and Turkmenistan.
In many cases, people are not aware of the legal timeframes for registering vital events, leading to late registration of births often at school enrolment age, which often means having to pay additional late registration fees or the submission of additional documentation.
People living overseas may be unaware of the need to notify a vital event in their home country or are unable to visit a civil registration office to register the event. Lack of systems for recording overseas vital events in many countries means that events are either not captured, or in some cases may be double counted.
So, why is registering a vital event so complex?
In many countries, notification of a birth or death occurs at a health facility, but an individual must then register the event at a civil registration office. This multi-stage process means several trips to different offices for family members, which can be expensive and time-consuming, especially for those in remote areas.
Additionally, births or deaths occurring outside of health facilities frequently remain unregistered.
Civil registration processes are not only cumbersome for people attempting to register an event, but also for staff engaged in the process. Paper-based registration forms slow down the transfer of information between health facilities and civil registration offices and sometimes staff must (re)enter personal information by hand.
Where digital civil registration systems are used, staff often encounter obstacles in leveraging the potential benefits due to outdated ICT hardware and software, as well as limited internet connectivity. This ‘system’ may be something as simple as a spreadsheet or an MS Access database.
It is hardly surprising that this process is time-consuming for already understaffed facilities, often resulting in long queues at registration offices, not to mention the increased scope for errors or misplaced forms. In many countries, replacing lost forms or changing a mistake is akin to reaching a dead end in the registration labyrinth!
The lack of training and inconsistent forms for coding causes of death in line with the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is also an issue. This means that accurate statistics on causes of death cannot be utilized by government agencies for future planning. Additionally, in many countries, the sharing of data may not be possible among government agencies due to regulations or the absence of integrated digital data systems. This means important data is not utilized to its full potential.
Once the main obstacles for registering a birth or death have been identified, stakeholders are able to develop redesigned civil registration processes. Although CRVS Business Process Improvement aims to encourage longer-term sustainable solutions to strengthen CRVS systems, (e.g., changing legislation, developing digitized platforms, improving interoperability, integrity and efficiency), ‘quick win’ solutions also constitute an important outcome of this work.
These facilitate immediate improvements that require minimal investment (e.g. amending a field on a registration form) to minimize the burden on families and combat the lack of awareness about the importance of registering vital events. ‘Quick win’ solutions may be used as an advocacy tool for increasing future resources for CRVS system improvements.
Examples of longer-term sustainable solutions have included the development of online registration forms, appointment booking systems, SMS mobile messaging communications and development of standard operating procedures for civil registry staff.
The process of implementing a simplified CRVS system is iterative, monitoring progress until complete and timely civil registration is achieved in the Asia and Pacific region as outlined in the Ministerial Declaration to “Get every one in the picture’ in Asia and the Pacific. A smooth experience encourages people to register events, increasing registration completeness alongside accuracy and timeliness of vital statistics, supporting the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development where no one is left behind.
Azzawieh Market in Gaza City lies in ruins. Credit: UNICEF/Omar Al-Qattaa
Opinion by Mouin Rabbani (montreal, canada)
Inter Press Service
MONTREAL, Canada, Dec 18 (IPS) – The political significance of US-Israeli differences is easily exaggerated.
It is certainly true that tensions in the relationship exist. Israel is currently committing genocide against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. The US would like Israel to reduce – not cease, but reduce – its slaughter Palestinian civilians,
Israel has stated its intention to indefinitely maintain a military presence within at least parts of the Gaza Strip, and rejects any role for the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the governance of the Gaza Strip. The US has indicated it would like to see Israel withdraw to the 1967 boundary and supports replacing Hamas rule with that of the PA, which it believes to be in Israel’s best interest.
Washington would like to resume bilateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations under US supervision, and has paid lip service to a two-state settlement. Israel has repeatedly and emphatically rejected both proposals.
Neither these nor other disagreements resulting from the current crisis have resulted in any reduction of US military, political, or diplomatic support for Israel, which remains total and unconditional. In other words, US-Israeli tensions have the political significance of a loving couple deciding whether to dine on steak or sushi for their next date.
It has been widely reported, for years, that Biden and his key lieutenants detest Netanyahu, and intensely so. If so, the Israeli prime minister must be thinking: “With enemies like these, who needs friends?”.
On December 12, the 193-member UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on “Protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations” during the 45th plenary meeting of the resumed 10th Emergency Special Session. Member States adopted a resolution, demanding an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire”, the unconditional release of all hostages as well as a call for “ensuring humanitarian access”. It was passed with a majority of 153 in favour and 10 against, with 23 abstentions. Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe
The US is not only complicit in Israel’s genocide, it is a full and active partner. For it to propose a “humanitarian pause” under present conditions, which in addition to the continuous, relentless bombing include measures intended to produce starvation, dehydration, and epidemic disease is tantamount to advocating for a Khmer Rouge coffee break.
A meaningless and diversionary charade if ever there was one.
If the Biden administration does take action to enforce international law during the current crisis it won’t be against Israel, but rather against Yemen for interfering with global shipping. Israeli impunity might as well be incorporated into the US constitution.
The performance of the UN Secretariat also leaves much to be desired. It has been extremely slow off the mark, hesitant to a fault, and excessively deferential to the US and Israel. It’s head of Political and Peacekeeping Affairs, Rosemary DiCarlo, has been enveloped in an impenetrable invisibility cloak.
For his part Secretary-General Guterres has been condemning Hamas in the strongest possible terms on an almost daily basis since 7 October but has yet to explicitly condemn Israel for anything.
Candidates for Guterres’s censure would include the mass killings of thousands of children; a medieval siege designed to produce widespread starvation, dehydration, and epidemic disease; an unprecedented campaign to destroy an entire territory’s health sector; the bombing of UN facilities sheltering civilians fleeing hostilities, and a record number of UN staff killed in a conflict, often together with their families.
Among senior officials only Martin Griffiths, the UN’s Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, the World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus, and to a lesser extent Philippe Lazzarini, Commissioner-General of UNRWA, have defied the echo chamber and been more explicit in framing the atrocities in the Gaza Strip.
To his credit, Guterres on 6 December invoked Article 99 of the UN Charter, thereby identifying the crisis as not only a humanitarian emergency but also a threat to the maintenance of international peace and security.
Its significance notwithstanding, history will question why Guterres dithered for two months when it came to calling out Israel for its ferocious onslaught on Gaza before suddenly reaching for his heaviest weapon.
Rather than using the stature and authority of his office during the crucial months of October and November to call for an immediate and comprehensive cessation of hostilities and accountability for all who have violated the laws of war or international humanitarian law, he instead chose to advocate for a vaguely-defined “humanitarian ceasefire”.
For Guterres, the Gaza Crisis constitutes a low point in an already unremarkable and frankly mediocre tenure. There’s a reason morale at the UN is disintegrating.
One does not require the benefit of hindsight to conclude that Guterres would have done better to align himself with the overwhelming majority of UN member states, who on 12 December, in numerous speeches from the floor, once again spoke out against the horrors of this war and called for it to end forthwith.
Opinion by Mathias Schluep (st. gallen, switzerland)
Inter Press Service
ST. GALLEN, Switzerland, Dec 15 (IPS) – While the COP28 presidency celebrated an “historic deal” to transition away from fossil fuels, we must remind ourselves that the future wellbeing of human societies in a livable planet depends on more than that.
The resounding consensus of the recent World Resources Forum Conference: in order to achieve wellbeing for all within planetary boundaries, humanity needs to rethink how it values resources.
Keeping fossil fuels in the ground is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one. To achieve the ultimate goal, we need to fundamentally rethink the value of natural resources and reassess their link to long-term human wellbeing.
Having a world climate conference with a tunnel vision on fossil fuels does not help us in that.
At stake is the long-term ability of human societies to provide for wellbeing, especially in light of a growing global population and widening inequalities. Over the past decades, resource use has significantly improved living standards for many, particularly in high-income countries, but this now comes at an unprecedented cost to the environment and human health.
According to the UN International Resource Panel, today resource extraction and processing are responsible for 90% of biodiversity loss and water stress, 50% of carbon emissions and 1/3 of air pollution health impacts.
The use of resources has more than tripled since 1970 and, if current trends continue, global material consumption is predicted to double again by 2060. This growth is especially prominent for metals and non-metallic minerals, which are the backbone of major industries and the enablers of the energy and digital transitions.
The International Energy Agency forecasts that global demand for critical raw materials will quadruple by 2040 – in the case of lithium, demand is expected to increase by a factor of 42.
Resources are the bridge between economic productivity and ecological balance. A bridge that, in most policy and governance frameworks, has often remained invisible. The main reason for this lies in an economic model not valuing natural resources.
Economists have severely downplayed the dependence of economic activity on resources and the natural systems that generate them. This has contributed to overexploitation, environmental degradation and the exacerbation of global challenges, such as climate change and biodiversity loss.
Distorted economic incentives and market signals are now ubiquitous, such as in the well-known cases of the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest or the depletion of fish stocks due to overfishing. Others are less discussed, especially in relation to the mining sector, which will become the engine of the global economy.
If not responsibly managed, mining activities can lead to soil erosion, habitat destruction and contamination of water sources, impacting the local ecosystems and nearby communities who depend on those ecosystems.
A prominent example is the handling of mining waste and mining tailings, the residue remaining after mineral processing. Recent research reveals that a third of the world’s mine tailings facilities are located within or near protected areas, posing a significant threat to biodiversity and ecosystem integrity in the event of facility failures or accidents.
Unfortunately, these accidents are not as uncommon as one may think. The disaster of the Brumadinho (Brazil) tailings storage facility in 2019 unleashed a toxic tidal wave of around 12 million cubic meters, which killed 270 people and destroyed a significant area of the Atlantic forest and a protected area downstream.
Economic models are human-made and can be changed. If we are serious about sustainability and long-term human wellbeing, they must be transformed to better account for the unreplaceable value that natural resources provide.
This shift, advocated for by participants at the World Resources Forum 2023, requires acknowledging the interconnectedness of economic, ecological and social systems, underpinning the need for new accounting models to integrate ecological and social indicators.
Profound changes need to permeate climate negotiations and international policies, if future COPs are to play a meaningful role in preserving life on this planet. This year we witnessed once again how climate change discussions tend to overlook the central role played by the excessive and irresponsible use of resources, and apply a tunnel vision focused on CO2 emissions which are a key aspect to tackle, but essentially a symptom of a more profound ill.
The cure goes through integrating natural resource management in the institutional fabric and extending the relevant policy options beyond the prevailing energy supply. Ecological health and human wellbeing are interlinked objectives which call for reassessing our values and rethinking how we use natural resources.
Mathias Schluep is Managing Director World Resources Forum
The Secretariat building in New York City, where staff of the UN Secretariat carry out the day-to-day work. Credit: UN Photo/Manuel Elías
by Thalif Deen (united nations)
Inter Press Service
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 15 (IPS) – Going back to the 1970s, thousands of UN staffers were given legal status opting for permanent residency in the US– after their retirement.
But that longstanding privilege now seems to be in jeopardy forcing retirees to return to their home countries uprooting their lives in the US.
The United States Immigration and Nationality Act has for long allowed long-serving UN staff members, who held the traditional G-4 visa status, and who met certain criteria, to apply for Legal Permanent Residency, also known as a “Green Card,” under the “Special Immigrant” category (EB-4), upon separation on retirement.
The UN’s Department of Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance (DMSPC) last week sent an “urgent notice” to staffers that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has temporarily suspended accepting applications to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (I-485 form) under the “Special Immigrant” category (EB-4).
This development may affect the ability of staff members who hold G-4 visas to continue to reside in the United States following their separation from service on retirement.
The suspension may also affect recent retirees; children of current or retired staff members, as well as a surviving spouse, who have been planning to apply for Legal Permanent Residency under the “Special Immigrant” category.
The UN has advised staffers to seek legal advice from an immigration firm about their future status in the US.
Speaking off-the-record, a long-time UN staffer told IPS the programme is in jeopardy with no clear indication when it will resume or get resolved.
The reason is apparently a backlog of applications, but it may even be political, he said. ”You may never know”.
Basically, he said, it has been suspended because of some changes that came into effect early this year in the immigration laws –and also due to the existing backlog of applications.
“This means no priority processing for G4 visa holders from the UN. The situation is quite serious as it was taken by surprise many in the Secretariat”.
“We have been told that within 30-days, we have to leave the US upon separation unless the individual manages to change the status by going through an immigration lawyer. I don’t see it restored in the near future. A big disappointment and a mess to say the least.”
Most UN staffers who own apartments or house and property—and are on short notice– will have to dispose them before they leave the US while others with children in US colleges will have to make adjustments.
“It’s an absolute nightmare”, said one staffer whose retirement is due in February next year when he will be forced out of the US.
Meanwhile, In Geneva, which houses more than 40 international organizations, mostly affiliated to the United Nations such as the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO), staffers apply for “resident permits” on their retirement.
After they have lived 5-10 years, including years spent at the UN, they are entitled to permanent residency leading to Swiss citizenship.
Currently, the US is home to over 9,000 staffers who work in the Secretariat and in UN agencies in New York, including the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the UN children’s agency UNICEF and UN Women– with some on retirement after living the US for over 30 to 40 years.
ASTANA, Kazakhstan, Dec 14 (IPS) – The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) is addressing the issue of youth entrepreneurship and employment in Central Asia by launching a seven-year €200 million (US$ 218 million) Youth in Business (YiB) programme.
The programme is designed to provide better access to finance and relevant training to young entrepreneurs in the region, where up to one third of the population is aged between 18 and 34 years.
The Youth in Business programme in Central Asia (YiB CA) will target micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) led or owned by young individuals under the age of 35.
It will consist of up to €200 million for on-lending to up to 20 partner financial institutions in Central Asia and Mongolia; targeted non-financial services for eligible small businesses will be provided by the Bank’s Advice for Small Businesses programme to help develop their entrepreneurial skills through training, advisory services and networking opportunities.
The EBRD’s investment will be complemented by a package of up to €30 million consisting of grants and concessional co-financing to stimulate inclusive lending and youth entrepreneurship.
It is expected that the first loan agreements under the YiB CA will include: a loan of up to US$ 10 million to Uzbekistan’s largest private bank Hamkorbank, a loan of up to US$ 8 million to Shinhan Bank Kazakhstan, a loan of up to US$ 4 million to Mongolia’s leading micro lender Transcapital, and a loan of up to US$ 2 million to Kazakhstan-based microfinancial organisation Arnur Credit.
A market assessment conducted by the EBRD in the region reveals that while many young people across Central Asia have a strong entrepreneurial mindset, very few have access to equal economic opportunities. Only around 10 per cent of them have access to necessary training and professional expertise.
This is very important for Central Asia, where MSMEs account for almost half of total employment and contribute to almost 40 per cent of regional GDP.
Grant support and concessional finance to the programme is provided by the government of Kazakhstan, the Small Business Impact Fund and the European Union.
The EBRD is a leading institutional investor in Central Asia. It has to date provided close to €19 billion through more than 1,000 projects.
Anton Usov is EBRD Chief Spokesman for Central Asia and Mongolia
Colombian President Gustavo Petro presented his environmental plans at COP28 in Dubai and added his country to the small group of nations that support the negotiation of a binding treaty to prevent the proliferation of fossil fuels, despite his country being an oil producer. CREDIT: Emilio Godoy / IPS
by Emilio Godoy (dubai)
Inter Press Service
DUBAI, Dec 12 (IPS) – One of the most heated debates at the annual climate summit coming to a conclusion in this United Arab Emirates city revolved around the phrasing of the final declaration, regarding the “phase-out” or “phase-down” of fossil fuels within a given time frame.
Experts who talked to IPS at the summit agreed on the magnitude of the bill, which for some Latin American nations could be unaffordable.
Fernanda Carvalho of Brazil, global leader for Energy and Climate Policy at the non-governmental World Wildlife Fund (WWF), referred to the amount without specifying a figure.
“Financial support will be needed. There must be a differentiated approach, differentiated timing, and developed countries must come up with the resources,” the expert, who was present at COP28, held at Expo City on the outskirts of Dubai, told IPS.
COP28 engaged in an acrimonious debate between phase-out and phase-down, with a definite date, of oil, gas and coal, which has already anticipated a disappointing end in Dubai, that in line with the tradition at these summits extended its negotiations one more day, to conclude on Wednesday, Dec. 13.
The “phase-down” concept has been in the climate-energy jargon for years, but it really took off at the 2021 COP26 in the Scottish city of Glasgow, whose Climate Pact alludes to the reduction of coal still being produced and the elimination of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.
Throughout the climate summits since 1995, developing countries have insisted on differentiated measures for them, in accordance with their own situation, the need for financing from developed nations and the transfer of technology, especially energy alternatives.
Enrique Maurtúa of Argentina, senior diplomacy advisor to the Independent Global Stocktake (iGST) – an umbrella data and advocacy initiative – said they hoped for a political signal to determine regulations or market measures regarding a phase-down or phase-out.
“If a target date is not set, there is no signal. If you set a phase-out for 2050, that is a pathway for the transition. With a deadline, the market can react. And then each country must evaluate its specific context,” the expert told IPS in the COP28 Green Zone, which hosted civil society organizations at the summit.
Available scientific knowledge indicates that the majority of proven hydrocarbon reserves must remain unextracted by 2030 to keep the planetary temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius, the threshold agreed in the 2015 Paris Climate Change Agreement to avoid massive disasters.
On Sunday, Dec. 10 the non-governmental Climate Action Network (CAN) delivered at COP28 a dishonorable mention to the United States for its role in Israel’s carnage in Gaza, in the traditional Fossil of the Day award for “doing the most to achieve the least” in terms of progress on climate change at the summits. CREDIT: Emilio Godoy / IPS
Failed attempts
In the Latin American region there are unsuccessful precedents of fossil fuel phase-outs.
In 2007, the then president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa (2007-2017), launched the Yasuní-Ishpingo Tambococha Tiputini initiative, which sought the care of the Yasuní National Park in the Ecuadorian Amazon rainforest, in exchange for funds from governments, foundations, companies and individuals of about 3.6 billion dollars by 2024 to leave the oil in the ground.
The aim was to leave 846 million barrels of oil untouched underground. But a special fund created by Ecuador and the United Nations Environment Fund only raised 13 million dollars, according to the Ecuadorian government. So Correa decided to cancel the initiative in 2013, at a time when renewable energies had not yet really taken off.
In a referendum held in August, Ecuadorians decided to halt oil extraction in a block in Yasuní that would provide 57,000 barrels per day in 2022 – the same result sought by Correa, but without foreign funds.
The result of the referendum is to be implemented within a year, although the position of the government of the current president, banana tycoon Daniel Noboa, who took office on Nov. 23, is still unclear.
Meanwhile, in Colombia, President Gustavo Petro has put the brakes on new oil and coal exploration contracts, a promise from his 2022 election campaign.
In addition, the president announced on Dec. 2 in Dubai that his country was joining nine other nations that are promoting the formal initiation of the negotiation of a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Colombia will thus become the first Latin American nation and the largest oil and coal producer to join the initiative that first emerged in 2015 when several Pacific Island leaders and NGOs raised the urgent need for an international mechanism to phase out fossil fuels.
For the undertaking of a just energy transition to cleaner fuels, Petro estimates an initial bill of 14 billion dollars, to come from governments of the developed North, multilateral organizations and international funds.
The latest summit of hope for the climate kicked off on Nov. 30 in this Arab city under the slogan “Unite. Act. Deliver” – the least successful in the history of COPs since the first one, held in Berlin in 1995.
The hopes included commitments and voluntary declarations on renewable energy and energy efficiency; agriculture, food and climate; health and climate; climate finance; refrigeration; and just transitions with a gender focus.
In addition, there were financial pledges of some 86 billion dollars, without specifying whether it is all new money, to be allocated to these issues.
Like many countries, the host of COP28, the United Arab Emirates, has had a pavilion in the so-called Green Zone, which hosts non-governmental organizations, companies and other institutions. The Emirati government bet a lot on the climate summit to deliver results, but without directly targeting the fossil fuels on which its economy depends. CREDIT: Emilio Godoy / IPS
Billions
Given the production and exploration plans of the main hydrocarbon producing countries in the region, the magnitude of the challenge in the medium and long term is enormous.
In October, Brazil, the largest economy in the region and the 11th largest in the world, extracted 3.543 billion barrels of oil and 152 million cubic meters (m3) of gas per day.
This represented approximately two percent of the domestic economy that month.
Mexico, the region’s second largest economy, extracted 1.64 million barrels and 4.971 billion m3 of gas per day in October, equivalent to 52 million dollars in revenues.
Meanwhile, Colombia produced 780,487 barrels of oil in the first eight months of 2023 and 1,568 cubic feet per day of gas, equivalent to 12 percent of public revenues.
“We have to think about decarbonization measures. We want Latin America to be a clean energy powerhouse,” said Carvalho.
As of September, Brazil’s state-owned oil giant Petrobras was working on obtaining 9.571 billion barrels of oil equivalent, according to the Global Oil & Gas Exit List produced by the German non-governmental organization Urgewald.
This represents an excess of 94 percent above the limit set by the 2015 Paris Agreement to keep global warming below two degrees Celsius.
Meanwhile, Mexico’s state-owned oil company Pemex is producing 1.444 billion barrels of oil equivalent, 56 percent above the threshold set by the Paris Agreement.
Finally, the public company Ecopetrol, mostly owned by the Colombian state, is working to obtain 447 million barrels, 98 percent above the Paris Agreement limit, according to Urgewald.
In addition, the cost of action against the climate crisis is far from affordable for any Latin American nation.
For example, Mexico estimated that the implementation of 35 measures, including in the power, gas and oil generation sector, would cost 137 billion dollars in 2030, but the benefits would total 295 billion dollars.
But Maurtúa says the budget question is only relative. “There is a lot of public money with which many things can be done,” complemented by international resources, he argued.
WASHINGTON, Dec 12 (IPS) – The writer is President, World Alliance for Mercury-Free DentistryAs it strives to be the prototype environmental treaty of this era, the Minamata Convention on Mercury continues its razor-like focus on ending all major uses of mercury. Emerging as the force leading the charge is the Global South, particularly the Africa Region, whose proposals led to hard-charging changes addressing dental amalgam, mercury-based skin creams, and fluorescent lights.
At the Fifth Conference of the Parties to the Minamata Convention (“COP5”), concluding in Geneva on 3 November, countries debated the African Amalgam Amendment, calling for the phase out of amalgam. The Africa region, led by Roger Baro, the Environment Minister of Burkina Faso, strategically built alliances beforehand, starting with the crucial 27-nation European Union.
Civil society was inspired watching one delegate after another rising to support the phase out of mercury in dentistry: from West Asia (Saudi Arabia, Jordan) to South Asia (Pakistan) and Southeast Asia (Indonesia, Vietnam), from Oceania (Australia, Tuvalu) to South America (Argentina) and non-E.U. Europe (Norway, Switzerland).
But several dissenters, while agreeing action is needed, were not yet amenable to a phase out date. Emerging therefore was the worldwide consensus to take three giant leaps toward mercury-free dentistry:
• For the first time, the treaty recognizes that countries can phase out amalgam – and more and more have already succeeded!
• The nations amended the treaty to add a new requirement: those countries that have “not yet phased out dental amalgam” must submit an action plan or a report on their progress.
• Most exciting of all, the nations inserted into the treaty, in brackets, a phase-out date for amalgam – an action that is not legally binding but which automatically agendizes a debate and a vote, at COP6 in 2025, on whether and when to phase out amalgam.
Africans, both government and civil society, are grimly determined to protect its people from mercury exposure and not to let its continent be made a dumping ground for toxic products, including amalgam.
In the national capitals, the march to mercury-free dentistry continues unabated. In October, Gabon decided amalgam is no longer allowed – and huge credit here goes to Serge Molly of Libreville, a long-time leader at the Minamata Convention.
This month the European Parliament and the Council of Europe debate when—not if—to phase out amalgam in all 27 member states (a dozen already have). Other Parties are ending amalgam piecemeal . . . banning its use in children, pregnant women, and breastfeeding mothers . . . or in the military . . . or in government programs.
No consumer or parent these days wants amalgam; no one with the power to choose accepts a mercury implant in the mouth. Where choice reigns—the private sector—amalgam use is ending.
Well-ensconced inside government bureaucracies, the mercury lobby imposes amalgam outrageously on powerless consumers—the indigenous, the poor, the racial minorities, the immigrants, the institutionalized, the privates in the army and the seamen in the navy.
Unchecked by their superiors, the condemnable chief dental officers of the U.S. and Canada (1) ignore their legal duty to comply with the Minamata Convention Children’s Amendment, (2) violate their Hippocratic Oath daily by outright defiance of the recommendations against use by both Health Canada and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and (3) maintain mercury-toxic workplaces for dental workers while they sit protected from mercury exposure in their plush government bureaus.
The great Minamata Convention had its genesis from studies showing mercury in the Arctic, drifting there via air or waterways, was harming indigenous peoples. In stark defiance of the spirit of Minamata, Health Canada dentists fly planeloads of mercury fillings daily into the Arctic and sub-Arctic, leaving the dental mercury behind to pollute the Tribal Lands.
Equally ignominiously, the U.S. Indian Health Service has ignored for seven years the resolution from the National Congress of American Indians to cease amalgam use on Tribal Lands.
To the profound disappointment of the environmental community, Canada’s Environment & Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault MP—despite his superb résumé fighting toxins while an NGO leader—does nothing to reduce amalgam use by Health Canada, even though his ministry is the lead at Minamata.
It is time for Minister Guilbault to condemn this wholesale usage of mercury fillings that is poisoning tribal lands. Inaction by ECC Canada portends another Grassy Narrows scandal in the making.
Rather than apply President Biden’s splendid priority of environmental justice to the U.S. Public Health Service, Assistant Secretary for Health Admiral Rachel Levine opts for physician-to-dentist professional courtesy—giving carte blanche to the pro-mercury chief dental officers to pollute Tribal lands, prisons, Army forts, Navy bases, and minority-dominated inner cities.
By the stroke of a pen, the 4-star Admiral could order the dentists under her command at the Public Health Service to end amalgam use—and the World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry calls on her to do so now.
Dentists still implanting this colonial-era primitive device do so not because they need to; but because they want to. Inaction in Ottawa and Washington must end; these two federal governments are the major reason that North American oral health care remains two-tiered: choice for the middle class and mercury for the powerless.
On Oct. 19, 2023, Ahmad, 9, stands in the ruins of his house, destroyed by an aerial bombardment in Rafah city. “Here was my room, my bed, my toys, and my clothes,” he said. “I cannot see anything now except rubble and traces of the fire that destroyed everything.” Credit: UNICEF/UNI457839/El Baba
by Thalif Deen (united nations)
Inter Press Service
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 11 (IPS) – As the civilian death toll in Gaza continues to rise to unprecedented heights —reaching over 17,000 since October 7, with more than 46,000 injured – one of the most distressing reports to come out of the war zone is the use of excessively heavy weaponry by Israel.
The Hamas attack on October 7, which killed 1,200 inside Israel, has resulted in a disproportionate number of Palestinians killed so far—and rising.
In a report last month—comparing Israeli bombings with US attacks in Middle East conflicts—the New York Times pointed out that the aerial bombs used by American forces against the Islamic State (ISIS) in urban areas in Mosul, Iraq and Raqqa, Syria were 500-pound weapons.
But, in contrast, “Israel’s liberal use of very large weapons in dense urban areas” included American-made 2,000-pound bombs that flattened buildings, houses and an apartment tower in Gaza while killing thousands of Palestinians.
“It’s beyond anything that I’ve seen in my career” Marc Garlasco, a former intelligence analyst at the Pentagon, was quoted as saying.
Which triggers two questions: would Israel have survived without the $130 billion in weapons and military assistance provided by the US since Israel’s creation in 1948. And should Israel be charged with war crimes, along with US, the primary arms supplier to Israel?
But both scenarios are not likely to happen. Any such attempts in the Security Council—either against the US or Israel will be vetoed by the Americans—as it happened last week on a resolution for cease-fire in Gaza.
The resolution suffered a US veto (even though it had the support of 13 of the 15 members in the Security Council, with one abstention by UK.
According to a December 1 report in the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. last week provided Israel with additional 2,000-Pound bombs for the Gaza War.
The U.S. has provided Israel with large bunker buster bombs, among tens of thousands of other weapons and artillery shells, to help dislodge Hamas from Gaza, U.S. officials were quoted as saying.
The surge of arms, including roughly 15,000 bombs and 57,000 artillery shells, began shortly after the Oct. 7 attack and has continued in recent days, the officials said. The U.S. hasn’t previously disclosed the total number of weapons it sent to Israel nor the transfer of 100 BLU-109, 2,000-pound bunker buster bombs.
After sending massive bombs, artillery shells, U.S. also urged Israel to limit civilian casualties: a warning ignored by Israel.
According to Wikipedia, the Mark 84 or BLU-117 is a 2,000 pounds (907 kg) American general-purpose bomb. It is the largest of the Mark 80 series of weapons. Entering service during the Vietnam War, it became a commonly used US heavy unguided bomb (due to the amount of high-explosive content packed inside) to be dropped.
Norman Solomon, Executive Director, Institute for Public Accuracy and National Director, RootsAction.org, told IPS military aid from the U.S. government has been essential for Israel to maintain itself as an expansionist country during the last several decades.
“That assistance has enabled Israel to systematically crush the human rights of Palestinian people while continuing to violate international law with occupations of Gaza and the West Bank. Israel has used its military might to, in effect, sadistically turn Gaza’s residents into abused prisoners,” he said.
He pointed out that much of the strength of the Israeli armed forces has been due to Washington’s extraordinary quantities of support with military aid. Recent events have underscored how the U.S. government is willing to step up military assistance with massive amounts of weaponry and other war material while Israel continues to slaughter civilians in Gaza.
“The wanton and purposeful killings of more than 15,000 civilians during the last two months are war crimes that deserve unequivocal condemnation and prosecution. What’s more, the U.S. government is more than complicit – it is an accomplice in these crimes against humanity. The same standards that should emphatically condemn Hamas’ murders of civilians on October 7 should also emphatically condemn Israel’s murders of civilians since then,” said Solomon, author, “War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine.”
In recent days, a pair of developments involving the United States government have underscored its direct complicity in the ongoing mass murder by Israel in Gaza.
On December 8, the U.S. vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution for a ceasefire. The next day, the Biden administration disclosed that it is bypassing Congress to sell 13,000 rounds of tank ammunition to Israel. Overall, in Washington, bipartisan zeal is persisting to actively support the slaughter of Palestinian civilians in Gaza.
“Propaganda efforts to equate calls for a single standard of human decency with antisemitism are specious and demagogic”.
“Like a growing number of other Jewish Americans, I reject any and all efforts to equate Judaism with the state of Israel. The government of Israel continues to be engaged in large-scale war crimes, with the support of the U.S. government. They should be unequivocally denounced and opposed,” declared Solomon.
Dr Ramzy Baroud, author, a syndicated columnist, editor of Palestine Chronicle & a Senior Research Fellow at Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA), told IPS a long-term narrative has served to explain Washington’s relationship with Tel Aviv: that the former is the latter’s benefactor and main backer, whether financially, military or politically.
“The latest war on Gaza and the direct US involvement in this war are forcing us to rethink our perception of the US-Israeli relationship”, he said.
“If we list everything that Washington has done to help Israel in carrying out and sustain its ongoing genocide in Gaza, we would need many hours explaining the degree of US involvement”.
This includes the immediate blank check signed by Washington to justify any Israeli response to the October 7 operation, the dispatching of aircraft carriers, of hundreds of military airplanes, along with seemingly endless financial and other forms of support.
So, this is no longer about a certain, fixed amount of money that Washington sends to Tel Aviv. It is also about 2,000 pounds bombs with the full knowledge of how and when these bombs would be used, with intelligence information as to where these bombs would be dropped, and the full political backing in justifying the devastating outcome once the bombs are dropped, he argued.
“In other words, Washington is a direct partner in the Israeli war on Gaza. This realization shall have direct consequences, not only to US reputation in the Middle East, but in the short and even long-term US-Middle East strategies, including its military presence in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere.”
Palestinians, and millions around them, understand that they are also fighting a war against the US. They are not wrong, he said.
Meanwhile, according to a breaking story in the New York Times last week, the US State Department is pushing through a government sale to Israel of 13,000 rounds of tank ammunition, bypassing a congressional review process that is generally required for arms sales to foreign nations.
The State Department notified congressional committees at 11 p.m. last Friday that it was moving ahead with the sale, valued at more than $106 million, even though Congress had not finished an informal review of a larger order from Israel for tank rounds.
The department invoked an emergency provision in the Arms Export Control Act, the State Department official and a congressional official told The New York Times. Both spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivities over the sales. The arms shipment has been put on an expedited track, and Congress has no power to stop it.
The Defense Department posted a notification of the sale before noon on Saturday. It said Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken had informed Congress on Friday that “an emergency exists that requires the immediate sale.”
It is the first time that the State Department had invoked the emergency provision for an arms shipment to the Middle East since May 2019, when Secretary of State Mike Pompeo approved weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, a move that was criticized by lawmakers and some career officials inside the State Department, according to the Times.
The State Department has used the emergency provision at least two times since 2022 to rush arms to Ukraine for its defense against Russia’s invasion.
But in the case of the Israel-Gaza war, there has been growing condemnation in the United States and abroad of the way Israel is carrying out its offensive. The State Department’s decision to bypass Congress appeared to reflect an awareness of some Democratic lawmakers’ criticism of the Biden administration for supplying arms to Israel with no conditions or scrutiny, the Times said.
The so-called “Green Zone” at COP28, which brings together pavilions of non-governmental organizations and companies that are not officially accredited by the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, features a clean energy area showcasing progress made on the ground, at the climate summit in Dubai. CREDIT: Emilio Godoy / IPS
by Emilio Godoy (dubai)
Inter Press Service
DUBAI, Dec 08 (IPS) – One of the world’s largest solar power plants, the Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum Park, captures solar rays in the south of this United Arab Emirates city, with an installed capacity of 1,527 megawatts (Mw) to supply electricity to some 300,000 homes in the Arab nation’s economic capital.
However, it is difficult to find solar panels on the many buildings that populate this city of nearly three million inhabitants, host to the 28th Conference of the Parties (COP28) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – an unlikely venue for a climate summit at a site built on oil industry wealth and at the same time highly vulnerable to the effects of the climate crisis.
But it is not unusual considering that this Gulf country, made up of seven emirates, is one of the world’s largest producers of oil and gas, which it is trying to compensate for by hosting the annual climate summit, which began on Nov. 30 and is due to conclude on Tuesday, Dec. 12, with the Dubai Declaration.
That is why the Dec. 2 launch of the Global Renewables and Energy Efficiency Pledge, endorsed by 123 countries and consisting of tripling by 2030 the alternative installed capacity to 11 terawatts (11 trillion watts) and doubling the energy efficiency rate to four percent per year, along with other announcements, comes as a surprise in a scenario designed by and for crude oil.
Governments, international organizations and companies have already pledged five billion dollars for the development of renewable energy in the coming years at the Expo City Dubiai, the summit venue.
For Latin America, a region that has made progress in the transition to alternative energy, although with varying levels of success depending on the country, these voluntary goals involve financial, regulatory, social and technological challenges to make real progress in that direction.
Peri Días, communications manager for Latin America of the non-governmental organization 350.org, said the existence of a declaration on renewables at COP28 is essential for the phasing out of fossil fuels, the burning of which is the main cause of global warming.
“It is fundamental that the energy transition be fair, include affected communities and the most vulnerable. We have to ask ourselves why generate more electricity and for whom. What we see today is a complementary growth that does not replace fossil fuels, it is not what we need,” the activist told IPS in the summit’s Green Zone, which hosts civil society in its various expressions.
The Jebel Ali power plant, the world’s largest gas-fired power plant, includes a seawater desalination plant to supply water to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. The plant is visible on the outskirts of the city, where the climate summit is being held in the Expo City this December. A reminder that renewable energy is still far from replacing fossil fuels, the main cause of global warming. CREDIT: Emilio Godoy / IPS
In the Latin American region, Brazil has emerged as the undisputed leader, developing an installed capacity of 196,379 MW, 53 percent of which comes from hydroelectric plants, 13 percent from wind energy and 5 percent from solar power.
In Chile, solar energy contributes 24 percent of energy, wind 13 percent and hydroelectric 21 percent, although thermoelectric plants still account for 36.9 percent.
Despite the lag since 2018 due to the current government’s outright support for hydrocarbons, which has halted the transition to low-carbon energy sources, Mexico is next in line, with 7000 Mw of solar power capacity and 7312 Mw of wind power, although its energy mix still depends 70 percent on fossil fuels.
Meanwhile, in Argentina, 73 percent of renewable energy comes from wind, 15 percent from the sun, 6 percent from bioenergy and 5 percent from mini-hydroelectric plants.
The Climatescope 2023 report, produced by the private consulting firm BloombergNEF, found that Brazil, Chile and Colombia are the most attractive countries in the region for investment in renewables, while Mexico is one of the least attractive.
Limitations
While it is true that most Latin American nations have set renewable generation targets, they also face hurdles to reaching them. Around the world, this segment suffers from high interest rates for financing, a bottleneck in the manufacture of wind turbines that affects producers, and slow delivery of environmental permits.
Ricardo Baitelo, project manager of the non-governmental Brazilian Institute of Energy and Environment, said the maintenance of policies plays a central role in the evolution of renewables, which require higher generation speed, integration in the electric grid and the reduction of energy losses by moving them from one point to another.
“In recent years, Brazil has intensified the regimentation of renewables, expansion has been steady, but planning is important. And it is necessary to improve processes and build infrastructure, which costs more money,” he told IPS.
The deployment of renewable energies involves concerns about respect for the rights of indigenous peoples and communities, water use, deforestation risks and the impacts of mining for elements such as copper, tin, cobalt, graphite and lithium.
Several reports warn of both the demand for these materials and the consequences.
An electric vehicle recharges at a hotel in northeast Dubai, the second largest city in the United Arab Emirates and host of COP28. In this city built on oil wealth, the Dubai climate summit includes messages of promotion and commitment to renewable energies. CREDIT: Emilio Godoy / IPS
The demand for copper and nickel would grow by two to three times to meet the needs of electric vehicles and clean electricity grids by 2050. The extraction of minerals, such as graphite, lithium and cobalt, could rise by 500 percent by 2050 to meet the requirements of energy technologies, according to the World Bank Group.
Chile and Mexico produce copper; Argentina, Bolivia and Chile, lithium; and Brazil, iron – all of which are necessary for the energy transition, which is not innocuous because it leaves environmental legacies, such as mining waste or water use and pollution.
The declaration “must clearly include routes for implementation and for a just and equitable transition. Financing is the number one priority. The transition must be fully funded, with access to affordable long-term funds. Technology transfer is vital. Renewables are the most recognized and affordable solution for climate mitigation and adaptation,” she told IPS.
The Dubai commitment implies a greater effort than Latin American countries had in mind.
By 2031, renewables are to account for 48 percent of primary energy and 84 percent of electricity generation, which means wind and solar would double in Brazil.
Argentina, meanwhile, plans to add 2,600 gigawatts (Gw) of renewables by 2030 and Chile has set targets of 25 percent renewable generation by 2025, 80 percent by 2035 and 100 percent by 2050.
Under its 2015 Energy Transition Law, Mexico is to generate 35 percent clean energy by 2024 and 43 percent by 2030, although these goals are in doubt due to stagnant supply of renewables.
Jorge Villarreal, climate policy director of the non-governmental Mexico Climate Initiative, said Dubai’s commitment is feasible, but argued that there must be a radical change in the country’s energy policy.
“It is not oriented towards renewables. On the contrary, we have invested in gas. Permits (for renewable plants) are at a standstill. Mexico has the potential to expand the penetration of renewables. That is where new investment in energy should be directed,” he told IPS.
Mexico committed at COP27, held in Egypt a year ago, to add 30 Gw of renewable energy and hydropower by 2030, although there is still no clear pathway towards that goal.
While governments, NGOs and academia make their calculations, it is not yet certain that the commitment made on day 2 at Expo City Dubai will translate into a clear message in the final COP28 declaration.
Opinion by Mary Assunta, Irene Reyes (bangkok, thailand)
Inter Press Service
BANGKOK, Thailand, Dec 08 (IPS) – As the world commemorates the 75th anniversary of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ( on Human Rights Day December 10), we turn the spotlight on a glaring contradiction the world is experiencing from a harmful industry. Despite causing 8 million annual deaths and a myriad of diseases, the tobacco industry has enjoyed six decades of the legal right to manufacture and sell its harmful products.
This travesty to human rights remains unaddressed with no admission of liability, compensation for victims, or withdrawal of the product.
Instead, the tobacco industry has thwarted and undermined government efforts to protect public health, intimidated governments with legal challenges, used exaggerated data to persuade policy makers that tobacco is a good investment, and funded charity during crisis to polish its tarnished image.
The tobacco business and human rights are diametrically opposed. To protect public health, the UN global treaty, the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) has set standards to regulate the industry and reduce tobacco use globally.
Article 5.3 of the WHO FCTC empowers governments to shield their tobacco control policies from being derailed and undermined by the tobacco industry and its representatives. Governments can address conflicts of interest issues and keep the industry at arm’s length.
In 2017, the UN Global Compact removed the tobacco companies from its list in recognition of the harm caused by tobacco and hence deserving distinct treatment.
Despite the strong action from the UN system, the tobacco industry has remained defiant. To spruce up its image, it is even mischievously associating itself with human rights. Reports from Philip Morris International and Japan Tobacco claim to “respect” human rights, and BAT released a report on human rights and modern slavery.
Unfortunately, many governments have not utilised Article 5.3 of the WHO FCTC which provides clear guidance to avoid conflicts of interest and unnecessary interactions with the tobacco industry.
The 2023 Global Tobacco Industry Interference Index, a survey of 90 countries, has reported widespread unnecessary interactions between the government and the tobacco industry, opening the door for conflicts of interest through potential partnerships and collaborations. These interactions occurred even in countries that prohibit such engagements.
The Global Index is a civil society report on how well governments are protecting their health policies from tobacco industry interference according to the recommendations in Article 5.3 Guidelines and ranks countries accordingly (Figure 1).
Some governments have taken action, but still face meddling from the industry. For example when they limit interactions with the tobacco industry, they often face challenges from industry-funded front groups, as seen in Uganda and Brazil. Usually, governments are unaware of their industry links because they have not implemented transparency measures.
The Global Index found that transparency and accountability are lacking globally, with most countries failing to implement rules for disclosure of industry ties. Most countries do not have rules for disclosure of meetings with the tobacco industry, a register of lobbyists from the tobacco industry, or policies to require the tobacco industry to disclose information on its marketing and lobbying.
In Asia, none of the 19 countries surveyed have a registry disclosing affiliations, or individuals linked to or operating on the tobacco industry’s behalf.
Since the harms of smoking are well established, the tobacco industry is now rebranding itself as a “responsible and caring industry” by marketing supposedly less harmful products, while simultaneously undermining government efforts to combat the tobacco epidemic and protect future generations.
Vaping (use of e-cigarettes) was even presented as ‘a human rights issue’ at an industry-sponsored event claiming it should be made affordable for smokers in poor countries. In Argentina, Malaysia, Philippines and Pakistan, industry front groups participated in discussions on the regulation of e-cigarettes and HTPs to convince governments to embrace these products.
The Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance warns of the alarming increase in vaping, particularly among the youths. Countries that allow sales of e-cigarettes such as Canada, Indonesia, New Zealand, Philippines and the UK, have all seen rapid and high uptake by youths because enforcement is a challenge, as traders continue to market to minors, offering products in appealing designs and thousands of flavors and making them easily accessible online.
In 2022, the Philippines passed legislation on e-cigarettes that lowered the purchase age, allowed flavors and online advertising, contributing to the alarming rise of vaping among Filipino adolescents. The ease of access through online shopping platforms, lacking age verification, exacerbates the problem.
Malaysia recently passed a new omnibus tobacco control law, seen as weaker than originally proposed, and some policy makers have pointed a finger at Big Tobacco’s influence particularly in removing a forward-thinking generational endgame clause.
By yielding to industry influence, Malaysia has missed an opportunity to prevent future generations from becoming victims of the tobacco epidemic.
Malaysia ranked 78 out of 90 countries in the Global Index and their scores have been deteriorating over the years by allowing the tobacco industry in policy development and engaging in unnecessary interactions with the industry.
Governments alone hold the power to determine the health standards for their citizens and decide how to protect the current and future generations. Every instance of a government yielding to tobacco industry lobbying, represent a step backward in ensuring health and fundamental human rights of their people.
Mary Assunta is the Head of Global Research and Advocacy at Global Center for Good Governance in Tobacco Control; Irene Reyes is the Tobacco Industry Denormalization Manager at Southeast Asia Tobacco Control Alliance
