All posts by CPNN Coordinator

About CPNN Coordinator

Dr David Adams is the coordinator of the Culture of Peace News Network. He retired in 2001 from UNESCO where he was the Director of the Unit for the International Year for the Culture of Peace, proclaimed for the Year 2000 by the United Nations General Assembly.

Colombia: The 2nd Latin American Congress of Restorative Justice

. . DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION . .

An article from El Litoral

The Ombudsman of Santa Fe, Raúl Lamberto, was the first speaker on Friday, July 3, the last day of the 2nd Latin American Congress of Restorative Justice, which took place on June 30 and July 1, 2 and 3, organized by the santafesina institution along with the General Defender of Lomas de Zamora, the Superior Council of the Judiciary of Colombia and the Ombudsman of Colombia.

On the occasion, Lamberto highlighted the scope of geographical representation and the large participation of listeners. “We have received innumerable messages from all over the world with their adherence, collaboration and encouragement towards this journey. They are very heartfelt messages for us because very important institutions of the world are accompanying us”, he pointed out and reflected:“ We have been the vehicle of something that society is demanding, in face of the emerging insufficiency of the penalty of criminal justice as a tool. It is clear that punitive power is not enough and with restorative justice we are on a path that is necessary. ”

Subsequently, the videos were shared with messages from different national and international references, including the president of the Latin American Ombudsman Institute, Cristina Ayoub Riche, the president of the Ibero-American Ombudsman Federation, Jordán Rodas Andrade, the president of the International Institute of the Ombudsman, Peter Tyndall, and the representative of the Ombudsman of the city of Buenos Aires, Dolores Gandulfo.

After the greetings, the General Defender of Lomas de Zamora,Eduardo Germán Bauche, took the floor and thanked all the participants and said: “Talk about restorative justice without thinking about the contribution that restorative practices make to the culture of peace. it is like leaving the issue unfinished and that is why it seemed important to us to close this Congress with the panel of restorative approaches”. After that, the panel of speakers began.

Restorative approach, culture of peace and social contexts

The speaker in charge of formally opening the last panel of Congress was the expert from the Conflict Prevention and Democratic Dialogue Roster for Latin America of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), Cesar Rojas, who expressed: “We are living a unique situation , difficult, which we could call as a situation of insomnia in which many of us keep our eyes open, worried that there are many who have lost their lives and others continue to become infected and this, undoubtedly, distresses us in a special way, but also this insomniac situation keeps our eyes open to look at a set of unpublished, particularly significant structural developments.

In this sense, he elaborated: “Never before have we been so open to a conjunction of events, thanks to networks and connections. We have a kind of periscope receiving invaluable knowledge and information from different voices and from different parts of the world.”

Rojas also referred to forgiveness and pointed out that this “search is to generate a deep human alchemy in human beings, so that they can conjure up the pain that they carry within”, and he concluded: “It is expected that restorative justice can recover the interiority of those who are suffering, weighed down by pain, so they can once again recover, replace, repair and empower life. ”

Subsequently, and continuing with the panel of speakers, Glaucía Foley, who is coordinator of the Community Justice Program of the Court of Justice of the Federal District of Brazil, spoke, saying: “The culture of peace presupposes profound changes in two spheres , in the sphere of justice where it is necessary to guarantee rights, and in the political sphere where it is also necessary to transform the pattern of power domination”. Likewise, he considered that “restorative practices cannot be limited to an instrument of humanization of criminal justice, but must be combined with a transformative perspective of conflict and not only of the transformation of personal relationships between the people involved”, and proposed the use of the methodology of community circles “that allow a collective analysis of the circumstances in which conflicts arise, including those where structural violence is found and also its possible ways of overcoming them”.

In turn, the reference of the Colombian Ombudsman, Paula Robledo, reflected: “The scenario of the pandemic has allowed us to take advantage of the production of new knowledge from a respectful dialogue, where listening and reflections on restorative practices enrich a network of professionals, academics and public officials, committed to challenging indifference through training oriented to democratic values. ”

Finally, and closing the panels of exhibitors of the Congress, the Director of the Nansen Center for Peace and Dialogue (Norway), Alfredo Zamudio, spoke, who pointed out that “through experience we have been learning how the reunions when societies are broken by conflict”, and he elaborated:“ We speak of reunions and not of reconciliation in a process that begins when the parties understand that the broken history can be reconstructed and this happens when there is a real listening to the other”. He concluded: “In this way the dialogue that builds trust and repairs the damage is produced ”.

(Article continued in the right column)

(Click here for the original article in Spanish)

Discussion question

Restorative justice, What does it look like in practice?

(Article continued from left column)

At the end of his speech, he recalled an experience he had in Africa in which some sheikhs participated and, in order to avoid indiscriminate felling of trees, he placed in the center of the meeting the trunk of an old tree that he had found and asked if they could count all the rings on the trunk. When they reached 150 rings, he explained that these were the years of the tree’s life and that this specimen had surely given shade to their grandparents. “Through this emotional experience we managed to start a process of awareness,” he recalled.

After that, the conclusions of the Congress took place, which was in charge of the Coordinator of Relations with Citizens of the Ombudsman, Eleonora Avilés and the representative of the General Defender of Lomas de Zamora and the Public Ministry of the Province of Buenos Aires, María de los Ángeles Pesado Riccardi.

Sharing perspectives and experiences

Previously, on Friday morning, with the coordination of Mariana Apalategui, responsible for the area of ​​Mediation, Alternative Resolution of Criminal Conflicts and Restorative Justice of the jurisdiction of Juvenile Criminal Responsibility of Lomas de Zamora, the last panel of Sharing Views and Experiences took place, under the slogan “Public policies and restorative practices in juvenile criminal justice”.

The first to speak was Martiniano Terragni, from the Attorney General’s Office for Criminal Policy, Human Rights and Community Services in the Argentine Public Prosecutor’s Office. “I want to celebrate the organization’s effort to achieve a culture of peace and work in justice processes that move away from traditional justice,” said the also university professor, who asked: “We must avoid the reductionism of juvenile justice in the last twenty years which involves focusing on from when to punish a child.” He also defined three complexities that restorative justice must address: gender perspective, multiculturalism and an interdisciplinary approach. “It is a challenge for the future to take into account the gender perspective, which is not present in traditional justice,” he added.

For her part, Celia María Oliveira Passos, from the Institute for Advanced Solutions in Brazil, referred to how to conceive restorative justice with a vision over time and for this she divided it into four waves: linear view, systemic view, holistic view and integrative vision. “Restorative justice invites reflection on the construction of relationships in the personal, institutional and social dimensions. There are three axes that help us act following the principles and values ​​of restorative justice, “added the member of the Permanent Forum on Restoration Mediation and Practices of the Court of Justice of Rio de Janeiro.

In turn, Marcela Kern, of the Juvenile Criminal Responsibility Ombudsman of the Public Ministry of the province of Buenos Aires, outlined: “Since 2016 we began to do, almost without realizing it, restorative justice with adolescents. Today I consider that this is not only an indispensable tool for reaching agreements, but also for an individual healing process for young people. ” And then she added: “We carry out our task teaching adolescents to develop emotional intelligence and we do it with the 10 life skills recommended by the World Health Organization. The most important thing with adolescents has to do with listening ”. To finish, she showed a video with activities, work modalities and their results.

Then it was the turn of Mariela Prada, defender of Juvenile Criminal Responsibility and professor at the National University of Lomas de Zamora, who referred to interdisciplinary network practices in the juvenile criminal responsibility system with a restorative approach. “For those who experience a destructive act, restorative practices are a before and after,” he evaluated. And then she explained: “When people say that there is no justice, it is because traditional justice is not giving the answers that men and women need. We cannot continue trying to respond with legal and mathematical notions to a social problem ”. In reference to interdisciplinarity, she pointed out that in her area they train municipalities and at the same time receive training from them, which demands that we include youth.

Later, Lácidez Hernández, from the Prison Confraternity of Colombia, took the floor and recounted the work carried out in prisons with those convicted of violent acts in that nation marked by armed conflict. “Confraternity is inspired by restorative justice. In Colombia it has been difficult to carry out a project of peace, dialogue and respect for human rights. The violence has been cyclical. It just changes face. And in this context, the initiative was born in 2004 to apply restorative justice in the country’s prisons. Prisons are a reflection of this violent context, “she said, later detailing how the institution implements the methodology:” We help find victims of violence with their perpetrators. Restorative justice helps break crime circles and build a culture of peace that improves our societies. ”

Finally, Mónica Contreras Cabrera, National Coordinator of the Mediation Unit of the Superintendency of Education of Chile, recounted her experience in the pilot project of juvenile criminal mediation in that country, which is being used as a contribution to the reform of the law on adolescent criminal responsibility . She also referred to the importance of communities in the restorative justice process. “The community perspective of restorative justice is not new. Our practices have to be linked with the broader communities and, in that sense, I propose to introduce the ritual elements of the communities,” she reflected, and concluded: “Restorative justice in Latin America and the community element are evolving and have to take a own and different path, taking into account a more social and political aspect. In Latin America there are many social injustices and restorative justice must be able to respond in this context. ”

More than 29 thousand people registered in the Second International Montessori Congress, a free virtual event

. EDUCATION FOR PEACE .

An article from Murcia.com

From July 6 to 10, the second International Montessori Congress will be held, organized by Miriam Escacena, head of Your Montessori Guide, and by the renowned researchers, trainers and founders of Montessori Canela International, who this year will join the organization of this international event, Marco Zagal and Betzabé Lillo Orellana, who contribute their more than 10 years of experience in teacher training and transformation of schools in Spain and various countries.

The virtual event will bring together thirty experts from Spain, Chile, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Puerto Rico, Sweden, France, Slovakia and Italy. Most of the speakers are friends and collaborators of Montessori Canela and will speak on different topics related to education as an element of social change. The presentations can be seen for free during the week of July 6-10.


In Montessori schools, the children are not required to sit passively in regimented rows of desks.

In Spain there are around 150 Montessori schools.

This year marks the 150th anniversary of the birth of María Montessori, the founder of Montessori schools.

The program is based on eight axes: Montessori Education, Human Development, Inclusive Education, Educational Neuroscience, Public Schools, Educating with the family and Educational documentary films, united by the theme “Educating in the now: Montessori, culture of peace” ..

The opening ceremony will take place on Sunday, July 5 at 6:00 p.m. in mainland Spain and will be broadcast through the organizers’ social networks.

(Article continued in right column)

(Click here for the original Spanish version of this article)

Question related to this article:
 
What is the best way to teach peace to children?

(Article continued from left column)

Betzabé Lillo Orellana points out that “the purpose of this congress is to be able to convey a message of hope, optimism and tranquility in a context as uncertain as we are in, which is why we emphasize Educating in the Now, since it is important to take this crisis as an opportunity to rethink how we want to live life, discovering the essentials in everyday life, getting closer to the real meaning of happiness.”
The Congress promises a space that allows participants to :

– Become aware of the human potential that is present in the adverse situations of life, because, well oriented and accompanied, they become a source of growth to consider adversity as an opportunity.

– Search for alternatives to find within yourself that energy that is needed to overcome and advance in any difficult or problematic situation that we are experiencing.

– Connect with the creativity that is in each child, youth and adult as part of their being, as a transforming force that takes greater prominence in family, socio-cultural and specific adversity situations such as what happens in these times of pandemic.

– Know experiences, life stories and the creative duality of theory and practice in different areas that favor a more humane education.

– Mutually share inspiration to be able to help all of us nurture an awareness that helps us see that everything we are experiencing is an opportunity to change and grow.

This Congress is aimed at all people who seek to contribute to a better education, to a better society. Marco Zagal explains to us that “there are parents, professionals, and self-taught people from different areas who are always looking to learn something new or reinforce ideas that allow them to create respectful spaces in the different areas of childhood and adolescence. The contribution that we believe this Congress will give to families and professionals is directly related to a broader understanding of what children and adolescents are, and how caring for their psychological, emotional, social and physical life is the best gift. and the best inheritance that we can leave them. ”

Miriam Escacena highlights that “after the success of the congress last year, this year we are once again uniting with a spirit of trust with great expectation”. In these times in which we are facing a true paradigm shift, in which that change in the educational system that so many long for is finally coming true, accessible and quality initiatives are necessary more than ever.

Israeli annexation of parts of the Palestinian West Bank would break international law – UN experts call on the international community to ensure accountability 

. . HUMAN RIGHTS . .

A news article from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

The agreement by the new coalition Government of Israel to annex significant parts of the occupied Palestinian West Bank after 1 July would violate a cornerstone principle of international law and must be meaningfully opposed by the international community, UN experts said today. Forty-seven of the independent Special Procedures mandates appointed by the Human Rights Council issued the following statement [on June 16]:

“The annexation of occupied territory is a serious violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the Geneva Conventions, and contrary to the fundamental rule affirmed many times by the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly that the acquisition of territory by war or force is inadmissible. The international community has prohibited annexation precisely because it incites wars, economic devastation, political instability, systematic human rights abuses and widespread human suffering.

Israel’s stated plans for annexation would extend sovereignty over most of the Jordan Valley and all of the more than 235 illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank. This would amount to approximately 30 percent of the West Bank. The annexation of this territory was endorsed by the American Peace to Prosperity Plan, released in late January 2020.

The United Nations has stated on many occasions that the 53-year-old Israeli occupation is the source of profound human rights violations against the Palestinian people. These violations include land confiscation, settler violence, discriminatory planning laws, the confiscation of natural resources, home demolitions, forcible population transfer, excessive use of force and torture, labour exploitation, extensive infringements of privacy rights, restrictions on the media and freedom of expression, the targeting of women activists and journalists, the detention of children, poisoning by exposure to toxic wastes, forced evictions and displacement, economic deprivation and extreme poverty, arbitrary detention, lack of freedom of movement, food insecurity, discriminatory law enforcement and the imposition of a two-tier system of disparate political, legal, social, cultural and economic rights based on ethnicity and nationality. Palestinian and Israeli human rights defenders, who peacefully bring public attention to these violations, are slandered, criminalised or labeled as terrorists. Above all, the Israeli occupation has meant the denial of the right of Palestinian self-determination.

(continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Presenting the Palestinian side of the Middle East, Is it important for a culture of peace?

Israel/Palestine, is the situation like South Africa?

(continued from left column)

These human rights violations would only intensify after annexation. What would be left of the West Bank would be a Palestinian Bantustan, islands of disconnected land completely surrounded by Israel and with no territorial connection to the outside world. Israel has recently promised that it will maintain permanent security control between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River. Thus, the morning after annexation would be the crystallisation of an already unjust reality: two peoples living in the same space, ruled by the same state, but with profoundly unequal rights. This is a vision of a 21st century apartheid.

Twice before, Israel has annexed occupied land – East Jerusalem in 1980 and the Syrian Golan Heights in 1981. On both occasions, the UN Security Council immediately condemned the annexations as unlawful but took no meaningful countermeasures to oppose Israel’s actions.

Similarly, the Security Council has repeatedly criticised the Israeli settlements as a flagrant violation under international law. Yet, Israel’s defiance of these resolutions and its ongoing entrenchment of the settlements has gone unanswered by the international community.

This time must be different. The international community has solemn legal and political responsibilities to defend a rules-based international order, to oppose violations of human rights and fundamental principles of international law and to give effect to its many resolutions critical of Israel’s conduct of this protracted occupation. In particular, states have a duty not to recognise, aid or assist another state in any form of illegal activity, such as annexation or the creation of civilian settlements in occupied territory. The lessons from the past are clear: Criticism without consequences will neither forestall annexation nor end the occupation.

Accountability and an end to impunity must become an immediate priority for the international community. Available to it is a broad menu of accountability measures that have been widely and successfully applied by the UN Security Council in other international crises over the past 60 years. The accountability measures that are selected must be taken in full conformity with international law, be proportionate, effective, subject to regular review, consistent with human rights, humanitarian and refugee law, and designed to undo the annexations and bring the occupation and the conflict to a just and durable conclusion. Palestinians and Israelis deserve no less.

We express great regret about the role of the United States of America in supporting and encouraging Israel’s unlawful plans for the further annexation of occupied territory. On many occasions over the past 75 years, the United States has played an important role in the advancement of global human rights. On this occasion, it should be ardently opposing the imminent breach of a fundamental principle of international law, rather than actively abetting its violation.”

The anti-militarist movement of Colombia rejects the arrival of troops from the United States

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

An statement from La Red Antimilitarista de América Latina y el Caribe (translated by CPNN)

From the Antimilitarist Movement of Colombia we express our deep concern and absolute rejection of the actions led by the Government of Colombia, at the head of the Ministry of National Defense and in coordination with the US Government, regarding the arrival in Colombia of a US Security Force Assistance Brigade -SFAB.

[Editor’s note. According to Wikipedia, a brigade of the US Army usually includes more than 4000 personnel.]

This elite corps was formed 17 years ago by experts in the execution of military operations led by brigade commanders who have been in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their presence in Colombia is a latent threat to Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law. This was assessed in 2009 by the Constitutional Court, when it made constitutional control and rejected the bilateral military agreement between the US and Colombia, headed by Barack Obama and Álvaro Uribe Vélez, which contemplated the arrival of US uniformed personnel to seven military bases in Colombia.

(Continued in right column)

(Click here for the original Spanish version of this article.)

Question related to this article:

What is happening in Colombia, Is peace possible?

(Continued from left column)

The United States’ military presence in Latin America has been transformed in recent years. Currently, the official presence of US military estates is concentrated in strategic points on the Pacific and Caribbean coasts, in El Salvador (Comalpa), Cuba (Guantánamo), Aruba, Curação and Puerto Rico, while a negotiation with the government is taking place. Bolsonaro for the establishment of military bases in Brazil. But this does not mean that the American military presence is decreasing, it is transforming. There is evidence of a growing network of informal facilities that support US operations in the region, the so-called “quasi-bases” are military units that can be installed without prior authorization from parliaments. Parallel to this transformation, it is noteworthy that since 2017 the United States has been carrying out military actions in the Amazon from the management of the Brazilian Army and with their collaboration in Colombia and Peru.

The presence of the -SFAB brigade in Colombia is an unconstitutional military action, given the serious damage and multiple human rights violations that the presence of foreign armed actors in the territories brings, including:

1. Threatening the fundamental right to Peace;

2. Violates national sovereignty;

3. It considerably exposes and threatens the physical and emotional integrity of girls and women, who on previous occasions have been raped and violated by the US military, as confirmed by women’s organizations and the reports of the Historical Conflict Commission; and not least,

4. It is a latent threat of transnational war, because it is presumed that the US will use Colombian territory for strategic purposes of opposition to the government of Venezuela, whose international allies,including Russia and Cuba, they would become per se enemies of Colombia, the US “Strategic Ally”. Extremely serious situation for Colombia and the countries involved.

In consequense:

1. We strongly question and reject the militaristic and warlike policies promoted and implemented by the Colombian and US governments, led by Iván Duque and Donald Trump, whose violent actions violate and threaten the lives of the entire Colombian civilian population, thus like its natural ecosystems.

2. We absolutely reject the presence of the US military, and of any other army, in Colombian territory, that legalizes war as an exercise of territorial control.

Oppostion to Israel’s proposed annexation of occupied Palestinian territory

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A letter from Members of US Congress

Despite lack of attention by the commercial media, described by Jan Oberg, Israel’s proposed annexation of occupied Palestinian territory has been opposed by 100 US organizations and by the following letter by members of the US Congress.


Palestinians are gathering in Gaza City and occupied West Bank for demonstrations against the Israeli plan [Mohammed Salem/Reuters]

June 30, 2020

To: The Honorable Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520

Dear Secretary Pompeo:

We write to you to express our deep concern over the planned annexation of occupied Palestinian territory by the government of Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said annexation could begin as early as July 1, 2020. Should the Israeli government move forward with these plans, they would actively harm prospects for a future in which all Israelis and Palestinians can live with full equality, human rights and dignity, and would lay the groundwork for Israel becoming an apartheid state, as your predecessor John Kerry warned in 2014.We call on you to take all necessary action available to reverse course on this proposal, which will cause more tension and conflict for decades to come. While the full scope and details of the plan are not yet public, Palestinians have overwhelmingly rejected the idea of annexation, and have understandably refused to participate in a process that is not grounded in a recognition of their national rights under international law.

Leading human rights experts warn that annexing parts of the West Bank will perpetuate and entrench human rights violations against the Palestinian people, including limitations on freedom of movement, mass expropriation of privately-owned Palestinian land, further expansion of illegal settlements, continued demolitions of Palestinian homes, and a loss of Palestinian control over their natural resources.

Furthermore, Israel has stated it will not grant citizenship to Palestinians living in annexed territory or to the many more Palestinians living in the isolated enclaves that Israel will opt not to annex, formalizing in law the separate and unequal treatment of the two populations and paving the path toward an apartheid system. Indeed, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967 has stated that it would “crystalize a 21st century apartheid, leaving in its wake the demise of the Palestinians’ right to self-determination.”

Of further concern, Israeli annexation of the West Bank is a clear violation of international law. Annexation is prohibited by Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and is a prohibited act of aggression under Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, of which Israel is a party. Forty-seven of the independent Special Procedures mandates appointed by the Human Rights Council at the United Nations reaffirm this. Further, already existing Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, amount to a war crime under Article 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court because Israel, as the Occupying Power, is prohibited from transferring, either directly or indirectly, parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

(continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Presenting the Palestinian side of the Middle East, Is it important for a culture of peace?

Israel/Palestine, is the situation like South Africa?

(continued from left column)

Annexation is specifically prohibited because it incites armed conflict, political and economic instability, systematic human rights abuses, and, most importantly, legitimizes the erasure ofidentity. There is no question that the acre by acre de facto annexation since 1967 for the purpose of new Israeli settlements is a blatant attempt to suppress Palestinian identity and nationhood.

Unilateral annexation in the West Bank is in direct opposition to the principles of democracy and human rights that the United States of America is supposed to stand for. At a time when the American people are taking to the streets to demand justice for all in our own country, there is no question but that such an action would alienate many U.S. lawmakers and citizens. Members of Congress should not be expected to support an undemocratic system in which Israel would permanently rule over a Palestinian people denied self-determination or equal rights.

Should the Israeli government continue down this path, we will work to ensure non-recognition of annexed territories as well as pursue legislation that conditions the $3.8 billion in U.S. military funding to Israel to ensure that U.S. taxpayers are not supporting annexation in any way. We will include human rights conditions and the withholding of funds for the offshore procurement of Israeli weapons equal to or exceeding the amount the Israeli government spends annually to fund settlements, as well as the policies and practices that sustain and enable them.

The United States must remain committed to a future in which all Israelis and Palestinians live with full rights, dignity, and democracy. This means that we do not support policies that would prevent that future, as annexation would. We therefore urge you to make clear to the Israeli government that such a move is unacceptable.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Representative Pramila Jayapal

Representative Betty McCollum

Senator Bernard Sanders

Representative Rashida Tlaib

Representative Ayanna Pressley

Representative André Carson

Representative Jesús G. “Chuy” García.

Representative Bobby Rush

Representative Raul Grijalva

Representative Ilhan Omar

Representative Danny Davis

Representative Nydia Velázquez

(Thank you to Phyllis Kotite, the CPNN reporter for this article.)

English bulletin July 1, 2020

. THE STRUGGLE AGAINST RACISM .

This was a month of the reactivated struggle against racism.

It started in the United States with an uprising described as a “collective gasp for life” by the Poor People’s Campaign which continues the struggle for justice led by Martin Luther KIng, Jr. Their phrase refers to the last words of George Floyd,” choked and killed by a white police officer “viscerally reminiscent of the lynching photographs that were used to terrorize African-Americans for decades in this nation.”

Excessive force by the police, condemned by fundamental international human rights law and standards, is commonplace in the United States according to a recent study.

As described by Reuters, “tens of thousands of demonstrators amassed in Washington and other U.S. cities on Saturday [June 6] demanding an end to racism and brutality by law enforcement.” ““It feels like I get to be a part of history and a part of the group of people who are trying to change the world for everyone,” said one of the demonstrators.

Thousands took to the streets in Europeen and Asian cities demonstrating in support of the U.S. protests against police brutality, including London, Hamburg, Paris, Berlin, Brisbane, Sydney, Tokyo, Seoul and Bangkok,

The demonstrations in Australia linked the protest to the racist treatment of the aboriginal people in their country, where 432 aboriginals have died in police custody since 1991 without a single conviction. The racism is especially evident in the destruction of Aboriginal heritage sites for development projects. “The NSW Office of the Environment and Heritage shows that between June 2012 and June 2013 there were over 99 applications for the destruction of Aboriginal heritage sites for development purposes – all of which were approved.”

Central to the demonstrations has been the movement of Black Lives Matter, started in 2013 by three radical Black organizers — Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi — in response to the acquittal of the murderer of 17 year old Trayvon Martin. Their project is now a member-led global network of more than 40 chapters that organize and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes.

As described by historian Robiin D. G. Kelley, in addition to Black Lives Matter, there have been many organizing efforts that have built a base for today’s protests. “These include people like Melina Abdullah, Charlene Carruthers of Black Youth Project 100, all the scholar activists who have been working on this question — Barbara Ransby, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Angela Davis, Ruth Wilson Gilmore — and then, before that, the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, Copwatch, Dignity and Power, Critical Resistance, the African American Policy Forum. These were initiatives on the ground who did all this political education, all this organizing work — We Charge Genocide, Dream Defenders, the Rising Majority, Black Organizing for Leadership and Dignity, and also groups like SURJ, you know, [Showing] Up for Racial Justice, which deals with white racism.

Kelly concludes his interview with “And the real question now is whether or not this can be sustained.”

One of the means to sustain the movement is the mobilization in many U.S. communities and organizations to celebrate Juneteenth, the anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation of Abraham Lincoln to put an end to slavery. It is now recognized in 47 states and the District of Columbia.

In the view of noted activist Cornel West , it is important to make the connection between U.S. violence abroad and at home. “When you sow the seeds of greed — domestically, inequality; globally, imperial tentacles, 800 military units abroad, violence and AFRICOM in Africa, supporting various regimes, dictatorial ones in Asia and so forth — there is a connection between the seeds that you sow of violence externally and internally.”

For more on the connection of racism to the culture of war, externally and internally, along with its historical roots, see this month’s blog for the culture of peace.

HUMAN RIGHTS




‘A part of history’: Calm prevails over D.C.’s biggest George Floyd protest

FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION



Decolonising peace journalism – and putting it to work in East Africa

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT



Feeding the people in times of Pandemic: The Food Sovereignty Approach in Nicaragua

DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION



“Listening as governance”, by Amartya Sen

          

EDUCATION FOR PEACE



USA: Historian Robin D.G. Kelley: Years of Racial Justice Organizing Laid Groundwork for Today’s Uprising

WOMEN’S EQUALITY



Philippines: Women’s leadership in the time of pandemic

TOLERANCE & SOLIDARITY


USA: An uprising is a collective gasp for life

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY



Film From USA: Camden’s Turn: A Story of Police Reform in Progress

Feeding the people in times of Pandemic: The Food Sovereignty Approach in Nicaragua

. . SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT . .

An article by Rita Jill Clark-Gollub, Erika Takeo and Avery Raimondo for the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (See original for 48 footnotes)

An array of UN agencies is predicting a global hunger pandemic triggered by COVID-19 lockdowns, with the head of the World Food Program stating that there is “a real danger that more people could potentially die from the economic impact of COVID-19 than from the virus itself.”[1] At least 10 million more Latin Americans are expected to join the 3.4 million who were already experiencing chronic food insecurity.[2] These devastating effects will be long-term, as each percentage point drop in global GDP is expected to cause 0.7 million more children to be stunted from undernutrition.[3] There are clear signs that the food shortages have already arrived, as flags indicating hunger are spotted outside homes from Colombia to the Northern Triangle of Central America,[4] while violently repressed hunger protests have occurred in places such as Honduras[5] and Chile.[6] As a street vendor in El Salvador put it, “If the virus doesn’t kill us, hunger will.”[7]

But in the second poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, there are no hunger flags flying. The market stalls are stocked, customers are buying, and prices are stable. Nicaraguan small farmers produce almost all the food the nation consumes, and have some left over for export. We will examine how this is possible.


Lucila Reyes of the Marlon Alvarado community, in Santa Teresa, Carazo where women play an active role in the construction of food sovereignty through peasant organizations and government programs. Shown with tomatoes grown in her agroecological garden. Photo-credit: Asociación de Trabajadores del Campo (Rural Workers Association or ATC)]

At the June 9, 2020 launching of his Policy Brief: The Impact of COVID-19 on Food Security and Nutrition,[8] UN Secretary-General António Guterres not only called for urgent action to address this hunger crisis, but also to take the opportunity to shift towards more sustainable food systems. This transition is something that the world’s peasants have been calling for since they founded La Vía Campesina (LVC) in 1993. It is now urgent to listen to what over 200 million peasants, women farmers, indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples, fisherfolk, and pastoralists have been saying about our food systems:

“The pandemic has highlighted yet another ill of countries becoming too dependent on large international food industries [and their international supply chains]. For decades, governments did little to protect small farms and food producers which were pushed out of business by these growing dysfunctional corporate giants. … They stood idle as their countries grew increasingly dependent on a few major suppliers of food who forced local producers to sell their produce at unfairly low prices so corporate executives can keep growing their profit margins.”[9]

Agribusiness is also exacerbating the world’s most pressing problems: its Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) crowd immune-stressed animals, making them susceptible to viruses that can cross over to humans;[10] its fossil fuel- and chemical-intensive practices account for at least a third of the greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change;[11] and its genetically modified seeds are known to diminish biodiversity. Moreover, in Latin American commercial food systems, it is fueling price increases during the pandemic.[12]

La Vía Campesina’s answer is food sovereignty, which is defined as “the right of people to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems.”[13] It prioritizes: 1. local agricultural production in order to feed the people; and 2. peasants’ and landless people’s access to land, water, seeds, and credit. This approach actually works in combating hunger, as peasants and smallholders produce 70-75 percent of the world’s food on less than one quarter of the world’s farmland.[14] When peasant movements partner with progressive governments, the results can be astounding, as in the case of Nicaragua.

The peasant movement in Nicaragua

The Asociación de Trabajadores del Campo (Rural Workers Association or ATC) was founded during the war to overthrow the U.S.-backed Somoza dictatorship, one year before the 1979 victory of the Sandinista People’s Revolution. It brought together peasants, both small farmers wanting to procure their own land as well as farm workers organizing for union rights. The ATC has continued to represent these groups of workers throughout its 42-year history and was one of the national organizations that founded La Vía Campesina in 1993.[15]

In the 1980s, the Nicaraguan revolutionary government launched a massive land reform program, which distributed about half the country’s arable land (5 million acres) to 120,000 peasant families. Several other peasant groups formed during that first decade of the revolution as the cooperative farming movement prospered, even coming to include the families of former contra fighters, who had been adversaries of the Sandinista government. Later, during the neoliberal administrations of 1990-2006, these groups worked to defend the gains of the revolution, sometimes including worker occupations of state farms to prevent them from being privatized. By 2006, and inspired by the 1987 Constitution that guarantees protection against hunger,[16] some 73 Nicaraguan organizations belonged to the Interest Group for Food and Nutritional Sovereignty and Security (GISSAN) that was advocating for a Food Sovereignty Law. Several of them helped the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) get elected back into office at the end of that year.[17]

Food Sovereignty since 2007

In the current stage of Sandinista governance that started in 2007, the strategy to increase food sovereignty by providing land has continued. Almost 140,000 land titles (some from land distributed during the 1980s land reform) were issued to small producers from 2007 to 2019. Women have particularly benefited from receiving proper titles to their land (55 percent) and 304 indigenous and Afro-descendant communities on the Caribbean coast have received collective titles. The titled area amounts to 37,842 Km2, or 31.16 percent of the national territory.[18]

Social programs that help small farmers feed themselves and their communities have imbued life in the countryside with dignity while reducing hunger. These initiatives are inspired by Augusto C. Sandino’s vision of an economy based on land-owning peasants and indigenous peoples farming in organized cooperatives—a core component of the FSLN’s Historic Program. Law 693 on Food and Nutritional Sovereignty and Security, enacted in 2009, was one of the first in Latin America to recognize the concept of food sovereignty and actually build it with government support.[19] The commitment of the FSLN government to food sovereignty has led to dozens of programs to improve the livelihoods and autonomy of small farmers while strengthening local food systems.

The signature initiative is the Hambre Cero (Zero Hunger) program which began in 2007 and provides pigs, cows, chickens, plants, seeds, and building materials to women in rural areas to diversify their production, improve the family diet, and strengthen women-led household economies.[20] By 2016, the program had benefited 150,000 families or 1 million people, increasing both their food security and the nation’s food sovereignty.[21]

Interviews completed as part of a solidarity testimonies project[22] with ATC members in the Marlon Alvarado community, many of whom are also beneficiaries of government programs, illustrate the impact of Hambre Cero. For example, one woman said:

“I have always been in social movements, since I was young. We are a group of women working here. We are united and in solidarity, all of us. …The ATC has taught us about women’s entrepreneurship… The government is encouraging us to always cultivate our land, so that we have our food. They give us citrus, they give us bananas, papaya, lemons. We just have to go harvest. We have jocote, mango. They always continue the [Hambre Cero] program so that we grow something. In our plot, we are always growing something.”

Another woman in the same community said:

“I have two male pigs, boars, for breeding: if someone else has a sow, they bring it to the boar and I get a piglet in return. For every sow they bring to the boar, I get a little pig. Or if someone says to me, ‘I have all the piglets sold; I’ll give you the money. What do you say?’ ‘Okay,’ I say. We agree.”

Additionally, the Ministry of the Family, Community, and Cooperative Economy (MEFCCA) and municipal governments organize farmers markets to improve peasant incomes while making nutritious, locally-grown food accessible to consumers, that is produced without chemical fertilizers or pesticides. The Nicaraguan Institute of Agricultural Technology (INTA) works to improve and maintain the country’s genetic material by organizing community seed banks,[23] and the National Technological Institute (INATEC) provides free technical degrees in agriculture, livestock care, value-added processing, and beekeeping, to name a few.[24] A new program called NicaVida will reach 30,000 rural families with tools, fencing, water tanks, chickens, and other materials to improve family diets and household economies in the Dry Corridor[25] areas which are particularly impacted by climate change.[26]

The breadth and territorial reach of these programs keep Nicaragua’s peasants and small farmers free from dependence on global markets; their diversified production is organized to feed their families and local communities, with increasing access to seeds, water, and credit, thereby creating the conditions to achieve food sovereignty.

(Article continued on right side of page)

Question for this article:
 
What is the relation between movements for food sovereignty and the global movement for a culture of peace?

How can we work together to overcome this medical and economic crisis?

(article continued from left side of page)

A poverty and hunger fighting program targeting urban residents is Zero Usury, which is part of the national food ecosystem since it serves many who work in open-air markets. This program, administered by the MEFFCA, gives low interest loans and grants to small business owners (primarily women) and offers free entrepreneurship training, funded in part by Venezuela and other ALBA countries. Over 800,000 women have benefited from the program since 2007, which has been crucial to the success of the popular economy (self-employed workers, small farmers, family businesses, and cooperatives) which accounts for over 70 percent of employment.

Long-time activist and current presidential advisor Orlando Núñez explains the philosophy behind these programs and why they work:

“The heart of the Hambre Cero program is giving capital to peasant families. A cow is capital because she reproduces; sows, seeds, and hens reproduce. The first message is not to treat people like poor people; they are only poor because they have been impoverished. … Offering poor people a glass of milk or a slice of bread is an act of charity, not revolution. … The revolutionary thing about Hambre Cero in Nicaragua is that it treats people like economic actors. …That is the most revolutionary message of the Sandinista revolution.”[27]

The initiatives for this second phase of the Sandinista Revolution are all complemented by the grassroots work of social movements. The ATC and LVC have established a campus of the Latin American Institute of Agroecology (IALA) in Nicaragua for youth from Nicaragua and throughout the Mesoamerican and Caribbean region. The school not only imparts technical training on agro ecological production of crops and animals, but also political and ideological education so that students come to understand today’s clash between two models of agriculture: one (the agribusiness model) in which food is a business for the benefit of corporations, and another (the food sovereignty model) in which food is a human right for all. The program encourages peasants to be each other’s teachers and have agency over their own lives, reclaiming their peasant identity and culture. It is an education that focuses on staying in the countryside and producing food that stays within the local market.

Throughout the country the ATC and other peasant organizations have been organizing local workshops to train agroecological promoters, support women’s cooperatives in marketing their farm products, formalize peasants’ land titles, and prepare on-farm biofertilizers and composts. All of this supports the construction of food sovereignty.

Hunger outcomes in Nicaragua and Central America

All indications are that these programs have resulted in a better fed population in Nicaragua. In its 2019-2023 Strategic Plan for Nicaragua, the United Nations World Food Program said that “In the last decade… Nicaragua is one of the countries that has reduced hunger the most in the region,”[28] while the government reports that chronic child malnutrition dropped from 21.7 percent in 2006 to 11.1 percent in 2019 for children under 5 years of age.[29] Nicaragua was also one of the first countries to achieve Millennium Development Goal Number 1 of cutting undernutrition in half from 2.3 million in 1990-1992 to 1 million in 2014-2016, placing it among the countries of the region that had reduced hunger the most in the previous 25 years. Vitamin A deficiency among children under 5 was also eliminated.[30]

Nicaragua’s advances are reflected in the Food and Agriculture Organization’s Hunger Map.[31] Unfortunately, that map shows that neighboring Honduras and El Salvador did not achieve the Millennium Development Goal on hunger reduction, and that Guatemala did not even make progress. This stagnancy may be related to the fact that US exports to the Northern Triangle countries increased substantially since the signing of the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR). These three countries imported about US$5.9 billion of agriculture products from the world in 2016, including beans and dairy products from Nicaragua, and corn, soybean meal, wheat, poultry, rice, and prepared foods from the US. Imports of many of these US foods increased by 100 percent or more from 2006-2016, coming to comprise about 40 percent of all food imports for these countries.[32] Unfortunately, food prices in these countries are on the rise precisely when people have less income with which to purchase food due to COVID-19 lockdowns at home and in the US, from which Central American countries receive remittances. Parts of Guatemala are already receiving half the remittances they received at this time last year.[33] Even Nicaragua’s wealthier neighbor to the south, Costa Rica, has become dependent on imported beans, rice, beef, and corn after opening the market through free trade agreements. At a recent LVC regional meeting, a Costa Rican peasant leader discussed how vulnerable the country has become, saying “COVID is stripping us bare.” Not only are grain prices rising while vegetable crops rot because they cannot reach consumers, unemployment is expected to double from 12.5 percent to 25 percent,[34] and 57 percent of Costa Ricans report having trouble making ends meet.[35] This brings major worries of increased hunger.

Food sovereignty and the pandemic in Nicaragua

Ninety percent of the food consumed in Nicaragua is produced within the national borders, 80 percent of it by peasants.[36] This includes all of the beans, corn, fruits, vegetables, honey, and dairy products, while there is sufficient surplus of beans and dairy to export. Nicaragua’s food self-sufficiency is growing precisely while other developing countries are increasingly becoming agro-exporters of a few crops (e.g. pineapples or bananas) while ever more dependent on imports to feed their populations. Rice is the only component of the basic diet that is not completely homegrown, but domestic rice production has increased from meeting 45 percent of the country’s demand in 2007 to 75 percent of demand today. The government is working with producers to bring it up to 100 percent within 5 years. Nicaragua is indeed very close to achieving food sovereignty, the true anti-hunger model, which bodes well for times of crisis such as now with the economic impacts of the pandemic and the interruption of food distribution supply chains in other countries.

In the context of the pandemic, both the government and social movement organizations are determined to take food sovereignty to the next level. For example, the government just launched a National Plan for Production focused on increasing production of basic grains to cover all internal food needs, and also guarantee the production of crops for export.[37] Food stocks are normal, prices are stable, production has continued normally since there has not been a work lockdown and most food is produced in small family units, and the rains have started for what looks to be a good planting season. Meanwhile, the Nicaraguan member organizations of LVC are launching the Agroecological Corridor, a process of territorializing agroecology based on peasant-to-peasant exchanges as a response to the threats being posed by climate change.[38] Because training of youth also must continue, coursework at LVC’s flagship Latin American Institute of Agroecology is taking place online[39] while the institute’s campus is implementing a full food production plan that includes grains, root vegetables, and animals. LVC has also launched the emergency campaign “Return to the Countryside”[40] to be adopted not just in Nicaragua, but internationally.

Other challenges to Nicaragua during the pandemic

COHA has previously reported on the Nicaraguan government’s robust response to COVID-19 within the health sphere, amidst a vigorous disinformation campaign waged against the population and government in what clearly appears to be a regime change operation funded by the US.[41] That regime change effort is no doubt partially inspired by Nicaragua’s food sovereignty policy, which threatens the dominance of US corporate agribusiness around the globe. For example, USAID has flooded food systems with Monsanto (now Bayer) GMO seeds in countries ranging from India[42] to Iraq[43] to several countries of Africa[44] and Latin America.[45] This approach could be undermined if more developing countries decide to produce their own food through agroecological practices.

USAID was one of the agencies funding opposition groups involved in a violent attempted coup in Nicaragua in 2018, as is well-documented in Live from Nicaragua: Uprising or Coup?[46] It is not surprising, then, that the representative of Cargill in Nicaragua and head of the U.S.-Nicaragua Chamber of Commerce was one of the leaders of the opposition during the attempted coup.[47] While Nicaragua does not have the oil and minerals that draw international attention to Venezuela and Bolivia, agribusiness is a hugely profitable industry and the Nicaraguan peasants are setting a powerful example by rejecting it and feeding their people to boot.

Fighting a disinformation campaign while the country faces the same pandemic that has overwhelmed much wealthier countries will certainly be challenging for Nicaragua, particularly since unilateral coercive measures illegally imposed by the US block access to aid funds. But at least her people have the comfort of knowing that there will be no death caused by hunger. In fact the food system recently withstood a formidable test during the 2018 coup attempt, when violent roadblocks held all the main roads and highways captive. Thanks to local food production and distribution systems, and clever determination to circumvent the roadblocks, people using the popular economy were still able to get food and at relatively stable prices, even when the Walmart-owned supermarket chains had empty shelves.

In an interview in late April, the leader of a peasant women’s organization was asked about Nicaragua’s handling of the coronavirus. Her concern was not as much about catching the virus as that,

“We will have food. It’s true that it is going to be hard; we will probably have a recession. But the important thing is that we have all the basic foodstuffs. We Nicaraguans are not quite 100 percent food self-sufficient. But we [in the Fundación Entre Mujeres] will do everything within our power to be as self-sufficient as we can so that the government does not need to give us aid and can give it to people who have greater needs than we have. We are taking a stance of dignity, being part of the solution.”[48]

That attitude, coupled with a commitment to agroecology and food sovereignty, is what has Monsanto/Bayer, Cargill, and their guardians at USAID worried.

Palestine Must Live: An Online Petition

TOLERANCE & SOLIDARITY .

A petition on AVAAZ: The World in Action

In 7 days, Israel’s Prime Minister is set to expand Israel into much of Palestine.

Palestine is recognised by the United Nations. But Israel’s government is simply taking it over, in violation of all international law.

Virtually everyone opposes this, but the question is whether anyone will do anything about it. Europe and others have the power to make Israel think twice, but they need to hear a massive demand for action from citizens first. Let’s give it to them!

(article continued in right column)

Question related to this article:

Presenting the Palestinian side of the Middle East, Is it important for a culture of peace?

How can a culture of peace be established in the Middle East?

(article continued from left column)

CPNN readers are encouraged to add their names to the following petition.

To Heads of State, Foreign Ministers, and Trade Ministers:

The treatment of the Palestinian people has become a stain on the conscience of the world. It is time for the world to stand up and act, to bring sanctions on key Israeli industries until Palestinians are granted full and equal civil rights. We appeal to you for moral leadership and action to save lives.

To sign the petition, go here.

(Thank you you to Phyllis Kotite, the CPNN reporter for this article)

USA: The Failure of Police Use of Force Policies to Meet Fundamental International Human Rights Law and Standards

. HUMAN RIGHTS . .

Introduction and Conclusion from a report by the University of Chicago Law School – International Human Rights Clinic

Introduction

This Report is being published in the midst of a long series of horrifying incidents of police abuse of power in the United States. The deaths of George Floyd, Lacquan McDonald, Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Ahmaud Arbery, Tony McDade, Regis Korchinski-Paquet, Breonna Taylor and many others, have echoed throughout the communities of this nation and prompted protests across the country. The video and testimonies from these incidents provide grim illustrations of the power law enforcement officers have over the people they are sworn to serve and protect, and the deadly consequences when they abuse that power.

Society vests law enforcement with the responsibility to protect public safety and enforce the law when necessary. For these reasons, and these reasons only, law enforcement officers are granted the immense power to use force, including lethal force. This authority – state sanctioned violence – necessarily comes with limits and obligations to ensure those who enforce the law do not abuse it. These limits and obligations require that police use their power in a manner that protects and serves the entire community that has vested them with this privilege. The exercise of this authority also requires accountability when abuses occur. Without accountability, state sanctioned violence is nothing but the exercise of arbitrary brute force, a common tool of tyrannical and despotic governments.

Yet, as endless reports and studies have indicated, the police in the United States do not always use their power in a manner that reflects the restraint, care and humility promised to its people. The many and terrible deaths of unarmed African Americans, the targeting of poor communities and communities of color, and the absence of a mandate to protect individuals from domestic violence, all sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the United States in the name of police discretion, have scarred many and raised questions of whether the police sufficiently serve their mandate.

Even as the evidence of criminality and misconduct permeates the news, drives thousands to the streets, and garners national outrage, the exact scope and scale of lethal use of force remains unknown. The United States does not count the number of lives lost nationally due to police use of force. And police departments vary as to how and whether data on officer use of force, including the discharge of police firearms and deaths, is collected and published. This absence of comprehensive reporting and publishing of data on police use of force severely limits our ability to see the full picture and to accurately evaluate police misconduct. It also constrains our ability to identify practices and institutional mechanisms in need of reform. The failure by states and the federal government to address this lack of transparency and accountability tells its own story and is, on its own, a cause for great concern.

The human rights of people living in the United States are profoundly affected by how law enforcement officials carry out their duties. Police use of force implicates the basic rights of every individual subject to this power – the rights to life, security of person, freedom from discrimination and equal protection of the laws. These rights, established following the atrocities of World War II in the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, form the cornerstone of the human rights system. The challenge of managing police power is a global one. People in every country face the difficult and complex balance between granting police the discretion and resources needed to achieve their purpose, while holding them accountable when they abuse their power in violation of the human rights of the communities they serve.

To address this global challenge, the 193 member states of the United Nations, which include the United States, have developed principles and standards to constrain, direct and ensure the proper use of lethal force. These principles – legality, necessity, proportionality and accountability – have been developed and concretized in various forms in the international system, and have been articulated in resolutions by the U.N. General Assembly, rules by committees of experts, and findings by U.N. Special Procedure Mechanisms. These principles and the rules they establish represent the best global effort to consider how police discretion and accountability can contribute to a just and humane society that respects and protects the rights of all its individuals.

In the United States, some of these principles have been adopted and articulated by our courts and law makers. However, this country lacks a comprehensive and effective national legal framework that places specific conditions on the use of force and establishes mechanisms of accountability.5 While the Constitution sets some limits on the use of force, the standards set by the Supreme Court in its case law fall woefully short of meeting the international standards, and Congress has failed to take action to fill this critical gap in federal law.6 Due to the decentralized nature of law enforcement in the United States, and the failure of national leadership to set uniform, federal standards, the main restrictions on police use of force exist at the state and local level. State law and police departmental policies provide the principles and standards on use of force and the consequences for when that authority is abused.

(Report continued in right column)

Questions for this article:

Where are police being trained in culture of peace?

(Report continued from left column)

While, in many states, legislation provides some direction on the use of force to police departments, research and data indicates that state laws have overwhelmingly failed to do so in an effective manner. In 2015, Amnesty International, USA released “Deadly Force: Police Use of Lethal Force in the United States,” evaluating state laws’ compliance with international human rights standards. Alarmingly, the report found that not a single state’s law fully complied.

This Report builds on Amnesty’s findings by examining the other main source of accountability for the use of force: police department policies. To capture a large portion of the population and a diverse set of contexts, this Report evaluates the police policies from the 20 largest cities in the United States during 2017 to 2018.7 These internal departmental policies provide the primary guidance to police officers on when and how they may use lethal force.8 They are intended as manuals for officers on how to execute their duties, written by police leadership and, for the most part, adopted by the governing police boards.9 These policies provide the substantive standards that officers are trained on and the principles that departments must operationalize. Policy violations trigger internal and sometimes external reviews and possible disciplinary measures.

While police policies vary, a use of force policy generally establishes the magnitude and nature of the threat that must exist, and the level of certainty police officers must have, to justify the use of lethal force.10 Some policies call for a gradual escalation of the use of force; some list a series of measures an officer must or should take before resorting to lethal force.11 They also prescribe what must happen after force has been used, who must be notified, and how an investigation unfolds.

This Report reviews and analyzes these policies to better understand how and whether police departments provide meaningful and effective direction to officers on the use of lethal force in a manner that respects the rights of the people they are charged to protect and serve. To evaluate use of force policies, authors developed and applied a grading system based on international law and standards on police lethal use of force. Through this evaluation, authors found that the policies in all 20 cities reviewed fail to meet international human rights law and standards. These use of force policies grant police undue discretion and insufficient guidance on when lethal force can be used, and they fail to establish strong enough accountability mechanisms.

Part I of this Report provides summary of findings and recommendations for the development of a robust mechanism to constrain police lethal use of force. Police departments across the country allow for the use of force in circumstances where there is no immediate threat to life, such as allowing exceptions for the capture of a fleeing suspect. And almost none of the city policies provide adequate oversight and accountability mechanisms.

Part II presents the international law and standards governing police use of lethal force in the United States. It highlights the four main principles derived from these standards – legality, necessity, proportionality, and accountability – and explains their application to police use of force policies.

Part III uses these four principles to analyze and grade the use of lethal force policies of the 20 largest U.S. cities. Like the laws of the 50 states, not a single policy fully complied with international human rights law and standards. In fact, some policies fell well below full compliance, for example, failing to require that lethal force only be used in response to the immediate threat of deadly force.

Ultimately, deep, structural reform of the United States’ law enforcement system is needed. The police in the United States kill more people than any of our peer nations.12 In a 24-day period in 2015, police in the United States shot more people than the police did in England and Wales in 24 years.13 By all measures, the current system is broken. As this Report demonstrates, the very laws and departmental policies that are meant to guide police officers on how to make the difficult, life and death decisions that are required of them, do not comply with human rights. Structural reform to end police killings of unarmed black and brown men and women must start in the police departments themselves with human rights-compliant use of force policies.

Conclusion

Not one of the police departments in the 20 largest cities in United States has a human rights compliant use of force policy. None of the policies are constrained by a state law that complies with human rights law and standards. And too many police departments allow the use of lethal force in response to a non-lethal threat, thereby sanctioning unnecessary and disproportionate use of force.

These policy failures have contributed to the tragic killings of unarmed black and brown men and women by police officers around the country. Ensuring police use of lethal force in the United States is constrained by international human rights law and standards requires a broad range of legal, institutional and practical measures, from a solid grounding in legislation, to a committed political and police leadership. Human rights compliant laws and police policies are an absolutely necessary component, but they alone cannot operationalize and make real the human rights law and standards embodied in the four core principles. Instead, law and policies provide the foundation on which a structure of reinforcing attitudes, practices and mechanisms must be built.

Making law and police policies more than just paper promises requires, among other things: comprehensive, effective and ongoing officer training; effective supervision and planning; robust corrective measures applied to officer misbehavior; independent and transparent investigating and reporting; disciplinary measures; and mechanisms with real independence, resources, power and will to provide accountability. Nevertheless, true structural transformation of law enforcement practices in the United States must begin with police policies that comply with international human rights law and standards.

“Listening as governance”, by Amartya Sen

. DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION .

An article by Amartya Sen in Sixteens

We have reason to take pride in the fact that India is the largest democracy in the world, and also the oldest in the developing world. Aside from giving everyone a voice, democracy provides many practical benefits for us. We can, however, ask whether we are making good use of it now when the country, facing a gigantic health crisis, needs it most.

[Editor’s note: Click here for Professor Sen’s recent recognition by the peace prize of the German Book Trade..


Tackling a social calamity is not like fighting a war which works best when a leader can use top-down power to order everyone to do what the leader wants — with no need for consultation. In contrast, what is needed for dealing with a social calamity is participatory governance and alert public discussion. Famine victims may be socially distant from the relatively more affluent public, and so can be other sufferers in different social calamities, but listening to public discussion makes the policy-makers understand what needs to be done. Napoleon may have been much better at commanding rather than listening, but this did not hamper his military success (except perhaps in his Russian campaign). However, for overcoming a social calamity, listening is an ever-present necessity.

This applies also to the calamity caused by a pandemic, in which some — the more affluent — may be concerned only about not getting the disease, while others have to worry also about earning an income (which may be threatened by the disease or by an anti-disease policy, such as a lockdown), and — for those away from home as migrant workers — about finding the means of getting back home. The different types of hazards from which different groups suffer have to be addressed, and this is much aided by a participatory democracy, in particular when the press is free, public discussion is unrestrained, and when governmental commands are informed by listening and consultation.

(Article continued in the column on the right)

Questions related to this article:

Where in the world can we find good leadership today?

How can we work together to overcome this medical and economic crisis?

(Article continued from the column on the left)  

In the sudden crisis in India arising from the spread of COVID-19, the government has obviously been right to be concerned with rapidly stopping the spread. Social distancing as a remedy is also important and has been rightly favoured in Indian policy-making. Problems, however, arise from the fact that a single-minded pursuit of slowing the spread of the disease does not discriminate between different paths that can be taken in that pursuit, some of which could bring disaster and havoc in the lives of many millions of poor people, while others could helpfully include policies in the package that prevent such suffering.
  
Employment and income are basic concerns of the poor, and taking special care for preserving them whenever they are threatened is an essential requirement of policy-making. It is worth noting in this context that even starvation and famines are causally connected with inadequacy of income and the inability of the impoverished to buy food (as extensive economic studies have brought out). If a sudden lockdown prevents millions of labourers from earning an income, starvation in some scale cannot be far off. Even the US, which is often taken to be a quintessential free enterprise economy (as in many ways it indeed is), has instituted income subsidies through massive federal spending for the unemployed and the poor. In the emergence and acceptance of such socially protective measures in America, a crucial part has been played by public discussion, including advocacy from the political opposition.

In India the institutional mechanism for keeping the poor away from deprivation and destitution will have to relate to its own economic conditions, but it is not hard to consider possible protective arrangements, such as devoting more public funds for helping the poor (which gets a comparatively small allocation in the central budget as things stand), including feeding arrangements in large national scale, and drawing on the 60 million tons of rice and wheat that remain unused in the godowns of the Food Corporation of India. The ways and means of getting displaced migrant labourers back to their homes, and making arrangements for their resettlement, paying attention to their disease status and health care, are also challenging issues that call for careful listening rather than inflexible decisions without proper consultation.

Listening is central in the government’s task of preventing social calamity — hearing what the problems are, where exactly they have hit, and how they affect the victims. Rather than muzzling the media and threatening dissenters with punitive measures (and remaining politically unchallenged), governance can be greatly helped by informed public discussion. Overcoming a pandemic may look like fighting a war, but the real need is far from that.