Category Archives: North America

Plan for Campaign Nonviolence Action Week, September 19-27, 2020

…. HUMAN RIGHTS ….

From the website of Campaign Nonviolence

Every year, Campaign Nonviolence organizes a national week of action across the United States and around the world, built around the third week of September, near Sept. 21st, International Peace Day. For the last six years, we have organized an unprecedented national grassroots movements with actions in every state where people connect the dots between the issues of injustice and violence, including war, poverty, racism and environmental destruction, and hold public events, actions and marches demanding immediate positive social change.

In September, 2019, the Campaign Nonviolence National Week of Action held over 3,300 actions, events and marches across the USA and in 20 countries. This was an historic unprecedented new form of organizing in the US, and we invite you to help us build up this national week of action.

The only way positive social change has happened in the US is from bottom up, people power, grassroots movements of nonviolence, so we invite everyone to join this Campaign Nonviolence National Week of Action Sept. 19-27, 2020, as an organizing tool, to help get the movement moving, to invite people of all walks of life to take to the streets against violence and injustice, and to carry on Dr. King’s vision of what we could become—a new culture of nonviolence. Join the growing Campaign Nonviolence national week of action movement by signing up for an action, or join with others planning an event.

(Article continued in the right column)

Questions related to this article:

The post-election fightback for human rights, is it gathering force in the USA?

(Article continued from the left column)

SEE THE FULL LIST OF PLANNED ACTIONS THIS SEPTEMBER

To support these powerful forms of action, Campaign Nonviolence invites people everywhere to:

* Take the Campaign Nonviolence Pledge


* Host or attend a Nonviolence Training in preparation for your action


* Start a Nonviolence Study Group and use our newest nonviolence study guide, Engaging Nonviolence!


* Spread the word on Facebook and Twitter


* Find tools and resources for Action Week. Get the CNV action toolkit, flyers, graphics, action ideas and more! See below.


* Read the 10 Tips for Great Actions and read about some great actions ideas.


* Join action organizers around the country as we come together for the next Campaign Nonviolence National Conference ONLINE to mark the 75th anniversary or Hiroshima and Nagasaki featuring Richard Rohr, Erica Chennoweth and more!


HUMAN RIGHTS, North America

USA: Will COVID-19 Spur a Wave of Unionization?

…. HUMAN RIGHTS ….

An article by Steven Greenhouse from Dissent Magazine

Workers have been infuriated by the callous treatment they’ve received in their workplaces. Many of them recognized that the most surefire way to get their employers to provide the protection they needed was through collective action.


Protestors outside a Staten Island Amazon warehouse fulfillment center on May 1, 2020 (Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)

This essay is part of a special section  on the pandemic in the Summer 2020 issue.

In mid-March, someone asked me whether COVID-19 would spur a wave of unionization. My first reaction was no. How could workers possibly unionize when there was all this social distancing and people couldn’t even meet in groups? Moreover, I thought workers would be so cowed by the horrors of the pandemic that they wouldn’t give much thought to unionizing.

That response was short-sighted. I didn’t realize how furious many workers would become about the uncaring, even callous way their companies have treated them during this crisis—about the many employers that didn’t lift a finger to provide masks or hand sanitizer. Many of these irate workers recognized that the most surefire way to get their employers to provide the protection they needed was through collective action.

We’ve seen that kind of action from workers at Amazon, McDonald’s, Domino’s, Instacart, Perdue Farms, Whole Foods, and smaller grocery stores like MOM’s Organic Market in Philadelphia. Many workers have incorporated social distancing into their battles—standing six feet apart as they picketed their workplace, or using cars to block the drive-thru at their McDonald’s.

Many of these workers would no doubt vote to join a union tomorrow if they could (even though Trump’s anti-union National Labor Relations Board [NLRB] temporarily suspended all unionization elections in late March). But it remains very unclear whether all the coronavirus-inspired anger and activism will result in increased union membership. The overriding reason why it might not is an old one: when there are unionization elections in the United States, the playing field is tilted sharply in favor of corporations and against workers seeking to organize.

Kate Bronfenbrenner of Cornell University found in a study that companies often use intimidation tactics to thwart organizing drives. In her analysis, which looked at NLRB-supervised unionization elections between 1999 and 2003, 57 percent of companies threatened to close operations if workers voted to unionize, while 47 percent said they would cut wages or benefits. Bronfenbrenner also found that 34 percent illegally fired union supporters, 28 percent illegally attempted to infiltrate the union organizing committee, and 22 percent illegally used “bribes and special favors” to encourage workers to vote against the union. Another study of elections in 2016 and 2017 found that companies terminated nearly one in five rank-and-file workers who spearheaded unionization campaigns.

(Article continued in the right column)

Question(s) related to this article:

The right to form and join trade unions, Is it being respected?

(Article continued from the left column)

The federal judiciary’s conservative tilt makes unionization harder still. Not only do employers often require workers to hear anti-union consultants and watch anti-union videos, but they also have the right to prohibit union organizers from setting foot on company property, thanks to a 1992 Supreme Court ruling that exalted private property rights far above workers’ rights and concerns. Under that ruling, employers can even bar organizers from putting flyers on windshields in the employee parking lot.

During the pandemic, many employers remain as aggressive as ever in fighting unions. Amazon seems to have gone out of its way to signal that it won’t tolerate organizing efforts. The company fired Christian Smalls, who spearheaded a walkout by employees at its Staten Island warehouse who felt Amazon was doing far too little to protect them from the virus. Amazon also fired Bashir Mohamed, the lead worker-activist at a Minnesota warehouse, as well as two tech workers in Seattle who were outspoken climate campaigners and had criticized safety conditions at the warehouses. Whole Foods, an Amazon subsidiary, has created a heat map that uses twenty-five metrics, including diversity levels and number of complaints about safety, to keep tabs on which of its stores are most at risk of union activity.

On March 31, the CEO of Trader Joe’s sent an anti-union letter to all employees, while a Trader Joe’s worker in Louisville said the company fired him for airing safety concerns about COVID-19 on his Facebook page. All that came after Google fired four worker leaders who were promoting collective action and after the tech darling, Kickstarter, suddenly dismissed several members of its union organizing committee. (Kickstarter said they were not terminated for backing a union.)

The outlook for unionizing isn’t all glum. The burst of coronavirus-related walkouts and sickouts comes after the biggest wave of strikes since the 1980s: the 2018–19 #RedforEd strikes, as well as major work stoppages at General Motors, Marriott, and Stop & Shop. The public approval rating for unions has climbed to nearly its highest level in fifty years. There has also been a surge of unionization among adjunct professors, grad students, digital and print journalists, museum workers, nurses, cannabis store workers, and nonprofit employees.

Another welcome development for labor is that this year’s crop of Democratic presidential candidates put forward the most ambitious plans to rebuild unions in decades, perhaps ending a long period in which the party took labor for granted. One Democratic candidate after another seemed to realize (or acted as if they just realized) that if wage stagnation is going to end, if income inequality is going to be reduced, if the Democrats are to win back Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, then it will be vital to strengthen the labor movement. It’s hard to know whether the presumptive nominee Joe Biden means what he says about fighting hard to rebuild unions; one sure thing is that workers would benefit from a Democratic majority on the NLRB, which comes with control of the White House.

In a video of a walkout at an Amazon warehouse in Chicago, one courageous worker said, “This is not about Amazonians being lazy. We want to work. We want to work in a clean facility. We want to work where it’s going to be safe and our kids are going to be safe and our families are going to be safe. How can we be essential workers when our lives are not essential?”

She expressed an essential point: in a society where corporations are relentlessly focused on maximizing profits and productivity, collective action is by far the most effective way for workers to get employers to address their pressing needs. Most corporate executives couldn’t care less whether their employees have a voice at work. It’s up to the nation’s workers to make their employers hear their voice—loud and clear. There is no more pressing time to do this than during a horrid pandemic, when many workers have died because their companies failed to take adequate safety precautions.

Steven Greenhouse was a New York Times reporter for thirty-one years, spending his last nineteen years there as its labor and workplace reporter. He is the author of Beaten Down, Worked Up: The Past, Present, and Future of American Labor, which was published last year by Knopf and will be released in paperback in July.

HUMAN RIGHTS, North America

For colleges in the United States: First Year Connect

EDUCATION FOR PEACE .

An announcement from Search for Common Ground

American society is plagued by far-reaching polarization stemming from deep grievances and divides. College campuses have become a battleground, with racial hate incidents, controversy over guest speakers, and heated debates over creating safe spaces or protecting free speech.

First Year Connect aims to combat polarization on college campuses and in American society by equipping a generation of young Americans to engage constructively across their differences. We intend for First Year Connect to be the primary orientation program used by colleges to develop healthy campus communities, reaching tens of thousands of students per year on a fee-for-service basis.

THE PROGRAM

First Year Connect is an orientation program for first-year students that will facilitate intra-campus dialogue and build trust, respect, and constructive coexistence across differences.

Students will meet in small groups (8-12 members) through an online video-conferencing platform before arriving on campus. Each group will be composed of students spanning political, racial, and other lines of diversity within the student body, and will be guided by a highly-trained facilitator.

A wide range of topics will be discussed, such as politics, religion, and personal values, and students will be given the chance to feel heard, welcomed, and embraced before they arrive on campus.

(continued in right column)

Question related to this article:
 
What is the relation between peace and education?>

Youth initiatives for a culture of peace, How can we ensure they get the attention and funding they deserve?

(continued from left column)

First Year Connect builds on over 20 years of experience facilitating online, cross-cultural dialogue experiences for young people from varied backgrounds in universities, language centers, and youth organizations across the globe.

OUR GOALS

First Year Connect will empower students to set the cultural and social norms on campus during times of tension. The program will enable students to drive constructive dialogues on campus themselves rather than relying on top-down direction from administrators.

Even before starting classes, the student body will develop norms of constructive discourse, helping all students to feel heard and respected.

First Year Connect aims to protect both safe spaces and free speech. Students will be able to express themselves openly while creating a productive, genuine, and respectful dialogue with others.

A greater sense of community across campus will be developed and maintained as a result of the mutual trust and respect cultivated by First Year Connect. Students will become trained facilitators themselves, which will help hold the community together during times of heightened tension.

PATHWAY TO SUSTAINABLE SCALE

First Year Connect has partnered with a state university and a small liberal arts college for its 2-year pilot program. These pilot institutions have agreed to cover a portion of the program costs for the first two years, and then will cover the full costs starting in year 3 if the program meets agreed-upon metrics. If successful, First Year Connect can achieve scale by tapping into new markets through a fee-for-service model rather than relying on philanthropy.

In order to scale, a public relations campaign will target higher education leaders to popularize First Year Connect as the preferred program for orienting diverse student bodies into healthy campus communities.

Search for Common Ground has partnered with Soliya and Tiger 21 to implement First Year Connect.

North America, TOLERANCE & SOLIDARITY

US: WNBA players wearing T-shirts opposing Dream owner

.. DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION ..

An article from ESPN

WNBA players are wearing “Vote Warnock” T-shirts to games this week to support Rev. Raphael Warnock, who is challenging Atlanta Dream co-owner Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.) for her U.S. Senate seat.

Last month, Loeffler wrote a letter to WNBA commissioner Cathy Engelbert objecting to the league’s promotion of Black Lives Matter — which is painted on the courts at IMG Academy in Bradenton, Florida, where the league is holding its restart — and advocating instead for teams to add American flags to jerseys.


Photo from Twitter – Sue Bird

Elizabeth Williams, a forward on the Atlanta Dream, told ESPN that the league’s executive committee began exploring the shirt idea as a response to Loeffler’s statements, because “for effective change to happen, there has to be policy changes. And so if we’re going to sit here and talk about wanting justice reform, part of that is making sure that we have officials in office that understand that.”

Williams said the Dream and other players have made a coordinated effort not to discuss Loeffler or her statements in recent weeks, and instead focused on how they could best support a candidate they felt better represented their political views.

“I think when all this stuff started happening with her, we didn’t want to feel like we were pawns,” Williams said. “We can only control so much about what the league does [in regard to Loeffler], and so for us, we wanted it to be bigger than that.

“That’s kind of been the theme of this season. So we wanted to make sure we could still keep the focus on our social justice movement, and funny enough, Rev. Warnock is somebody who supports everything that we support and just happens to be running in that seat. So it just worked out really well.”

Williams said Seattle Storm guard Sue Bird initially came up with the idea.

Bird told ESPN that participation in the campaign to support Warnock is voluntary and that all players have discussed the idea over Zoom calls while at IMG Academy, where the WNBA season resumed in late July.

“This was a situation where given what was said in regards to the owner of Atlanta and how, basically, she came out against a lot of what the women in our league stand for, I think was emotionally tough for a lot of the women in our league to hear that,” Bird said. “But very quickly we started to realize that this was only happening for her political gain. This was something that she wanted. And the more noise we made, whether it was a tweet saying to get her out, that was just playing into her hands.

“I’m not some political strategist, but what I do know is that voting is important. And I think our league has always encouraged people to use their voices and to get out and vote.

“So, what a great way for us to get the word out about this man, and hopefully put him in the Senate. And, if he’s in the Senate, you know who’s not. And I’ll just leave it at that.”

Last month, Loeffler told ESPN that she feared the WNBA’s public support for the Black Lives Matter movement could drive some fans away.

“I think a lot of people feel that they may not have a place,” Loeffler said. “They may feel excluded from this sport and other sports that make them feel like American values aren’t at the core of what we’re doing here.”

(Article continued in right column)

Question for this article:

How can sports promote peace?

(Article continued from left column)

She also contended that there is a difference between saying “Black lives matter” and the organization Black Lives Matter.

“I think we all agree the life of every African American is important,” Loeffler said. “There’s no room for racism in this country, and we have to root it out where it exists. But there’s a political organization called Black Lives Matter that I think is very important to make the distinction between their aim and where we are as a country at this moment.

“The Black Lives Matter political organization advocates things like defunding and abolishing the police, abolishing our military, emptying our prisons, destroying the nuclear family. It promotes violence and anti-Semitism. To me, this is not what our league stands for.”

Warnock released a statement through his campaign Tuesday saying he was “honored and humbled by the overwhelming support from the WNBA players. This movement gives us the opportunity to fight for what we believe in, and I stand by all athletes promoting social justice on and off the court.

“Senator Loeffler and those like her who seek to silence and dismiss others when they speak up for justice have planted themselves on the wrong side of history. We are in a moment of generational, transformative change, and there is no place in that movement for bigotry. We celebrate the courage and resolve of these players standing for justice, and I am proud to stand with them.”

Later Tuesday, Loeffler followed up with a statement of her own, saying, “This is just more proof that the out-of-control cancel culture wants to shut out anyone who disagrees with them. It’s clear that the league is more concerned with playing politics than basketball, and I stand by what I wrote in June.”

Following the Dream’s 81-74 loss to the Phoenix Mercury on Tuesday night, the players’ decision was a primary talking point.

“We definitely decided to wear it because he’s for Black Lives Matter,” guard Chennedy Carter said. “He supports the league and the movement, and we support him. We’re voting for Warnock.”

Forward Betnijah Laney concurred.

“He’s just somebody that also supports the Black Lives Matter — the movements that the WNBA is standing behind this year,” she said. “So, this is somebody that we’re supporting, as well.”

Also on Tuesday, the Seattle Storm defeated the Connecticut Sun 87-74. After the game, several members of the Storm spoke about the process.

“What we’re trying to do is first educate ourselves, and then educate everyone else. Initially, this kind of came from Sue — vote for Warnock. We had an opportunity to be on two separate Zooms with him and see what he stands for and what he’s fighting for,” forward Breanna Stewart said. “I think he’s someone who’s fighting to create change and fighting to be on the right side of things. Obviously, I’m not voting for Georgia, but continuing to use my platform to help with that — but I did vote today, just want to let you know.”

Guard Sami Whitcomb concurred, saying the players “are very concerned with leadership in this country and people that we want to be representing us and the morals that they represent. I think [Loeffler has] proven that she doesn’t represent us, she doesn’t represent our voices — not in this league, not in the community. Rev. Warnock does, so we’re putting our support behind him because of the person that he is and the type of legislation that he stands for. You can call it politics. We call it supporting the human race and morals.”

Seattle guard Jordin Canada added that this “is bigger than basketball. We’re more than athletes. To have someone in our league that doesn’t represent or support African Americans, who are 80% of our league, is disheartening, honestly, and sickening.”

Former Dream player Layshia Clarendon, who has written and spoken out about Loeffler’s comments, was also heavily involved in the planning of the WNBA players’ campaign.

“It’s important for us to support voting and the overall campaign to flip the Senate,” said Clarendon, who now plays for the New York Liberty. “We want people in office who support the same values and morals as we do. Rev. Warnock is pro criminal justice reform, for LGBT+ rights, and pro choice/reproductive rights. Those are the kind of people we want representing us, because that’s what our league stands for.”

DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION, North America

USA: New Haven Alders Put Peace On The Ballot

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

An article by Thomas Breen in the New Haven Independent

Peace will be on the ballot this November — in the form of a nonbinding referendum asking New Haveners how they’d like Congress to spend the majority of the federal budget.

On the military, as is currently the case? Or on jobs, education, environmental sustainability, and other human services instead?


Monday night’s virtual aldermanic hearing.

During Monday night’s regular monthly meeting of the full Board of Alders, local legislators voted unanimously in support of adding that question about federal spending priorities to the Nov. 3 general election ballot.

The non-binding advisory referendum, proposed by the city’s Peace Commission, will ask New Haveners the following question: “Shall Congress prepare for health and climate crises by transferring funds from the military budget to cities for human needs, jobs and an environmentally sustainable economy?”

Hill Alder Ron Hurt urged his colleagues to vote in favor of the resolution that included the ballot update. He said the purpose of the resolution and nonbinding referendum is to give New Haven voters an opportunity to weigh in on whether or not they would like to see Congress and the President “end foreign wars, scrap all nuclear weapons, rebuild infrastructure, and develop a new economy based on renewable energy.”

According to a June committee hearing on the item, 53 percent of the current federal budget is devoted to military spending. Many who testified during that two-and-a-half-hour hearing spoke of the perversity of this country spending so much on weapons and vehicles of destruction when that money could instead be going to bolster the nation’s public health infrastructure, which has so struggled to keep up with the pandemic. The Department of Defense’s budget, meanwhile, has proven seemingly impossible to audit because of bookkeeping errors, deficiencies, and irregularities.

In a press release put out after the vote, Downtown/Yale Alder Eli Sabin, who is the aldermanic representative on the Peace Commission, applauded the move. He quoted Peace Commission Chair Joelle Fishman as saying, “this ballot referendum will allow New Haven voters to express their hopes and dreams, and perhaps inspire other cities to do the same, building the momentum needed to create the political will for every person to be treated with dignity and respect, for every person to have health care, housing, a living wage job, food security, in a peaceful and sustainable world.”

(Article continued on the right column)

Questions for this article:

Does military spending lead to economic decline and collapse?

How can culture of peace be developed at the municipal level?

(Article continued from the left column)

Westville Alder and Health and Human Services Committee Chair Darryl Brackeen, Jr. is also quoted in that release as saying that supporting the peace resolution “is the right thing to do and now it’s time to hear from the people.”

Peace Resolution

Below is the resolution adopted by the Board of Alders Monday night. The title of the resolution is: From the Peace Commission, a Resolution calling on Congress and the President to prepare for health and climate crises by transferring funds from the military budget to cities and states for human needs, jobs, and an environmentally sustainable economy and placing a non-binding advisory referendum to that effect on the November 3, 2020 New Haven municipal ballot.”

Whereas, the severity of the U.S. economic crisis, compounded by the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, has caused severe budget shortfalls at all levels of government, necessitating a re-examination of national spending priorities; and

Whereas, every dollar spent on the military produces fewer jobs than spending the same dollar on education, healthcare, clean energy and other beneficial programs; and

Whereas, U.S. military spending has ballooned to more than half of federal discretionary spending – more than during the Cold War, the Vietnam conflict, or the Korean War; and

Whereas, the United States trails many other nations in life expectancy, infant mortality, education, housing, and environmental sustainability;

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Board of Alders of the City of New Haven, Connecticut calls on the U.S. Congress and the U.S. President to end foreign ground and air wars; refrain from new military ventures; work toward an end to all nuclear weapons; reduce military spending in order to meet human needs; promote job creation; re-train and re-employ those losing jobs in the process of conversion to non-military industries; rebuild infrastructure; assist municipal and state governments; and develop a new economy based on renewable energy.

Be it further resolved that the most honorable City Clerk of New Haven is hereby directed to accomplish any and all actions necessary to place the following non-binding advisory referendum on the November 3, 2020 municipal ballot:

“Shall Congress prepare for health and climate crises by transferring funds from the military budget to cities for human needs, jobs and an environmentally sustainable economy?”.

DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION, DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, North America

US: Remembering Congressman John Lewis with gratitude

. DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION . .

Special to CPNN by Anne Creter, U.S. Dept. of Peacebuilding Campaign

Inspired from having just watched Rep John Lewis’s poignant Memorial Service, allow me to make some “good trouble” by sharing the following FYI.  Rep John Lewis is a true Peace Hero to us at the Peace Alliance because he was an original cosponsor of the first Department of Peace bill introduced in Congress by former Rep Dennis Kucinich on July 11, 2001 (along with then Rep Bernie Sanders!). 


Unlike Bernie who moved on to the Senate, Rep Lewis continued to faithfully cosponsor the bill in each of the 10 additional congressional sessions it has been reintroduced (presently HR-1111 sponsored by Rep Barbara Lee of Ca).  Few other Members of Congress have that long-enduring distinction.  

Our Georgia Dept of Peacebuilding Committee member had a wonderful relationship with Rep Lewis, so we often visited his office during our Advocacy Days in DC (first picture). 

(Article continued in the column on the right)

Questions related to this article:

Where in the world can we find good leadership today?


(Article continued from the column on the left)  
  
His Deputy Chief of Staff, Jamila Thompson, who just spoke at the Service, is in middle of the second picture.   

We will sorely miss him making “good trouble” — “necessary trouble” for the culture of peace in the beloved community of our one world.  

Here is a recent Peace Alliance tribute to Rep Lewis.  https://peacealliance.kontribune.com/articles/10053

If you are not already on the Peace Alliance list of individual / organizational endorsements for the Department of Peacebuilding bill, now is a great time to do so.  Thanks. 
https://peacealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/DoPOrgEndorsements6-5-20.pdf

DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION, FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION, North America

US  Conference of Mayors’ 2020 Vision for America: A Call to Action

.. DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION ..

Excerpts from the website of The United States Conference of Mayors

As the leading voice of America’s cities, The U.S Conference of Mayors is uniquely qualified to recommend a strategic vision for America. Since its founding in 1932, the Conference remains the place where America’s mayors – Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike – come together in a collegial, cooperative, bipartisan manner to get things done.

The mayors of cities of all sizes, across all regions and all manner of demographic and socio-economic composition, are working side-by-side to solve problems, improve conditions, and create and catalyze positive change for the people we all serve.

Our Mayors’ 2020 Vision for America: A Call to Action platform of 12 priorities is organized under the Conference’s bipartisan focus on Infrastructure, Innovation and Inclusion. Together they represent a positive way forward.

* Protect and Advance Human and Civil Rights

(Continued in right column)

Questions for this article:

How can culture of peace be developed at the municipal level?

(Continued from left column)

* Re-imagine and Modernize the Nation’s Transportation Infrastructure

* Invest in America’s Water and Wastewater Systems

* Address Climate Change by Accelerating Clean Energy Use

* Embrace Efficient, Effective Modern Technology While Protecting Consumers and Cities

* Strengthen Education, Improve Schools, and Build the Workforce of the Future

* Join with Mayors and Police Chiefs to Support Public Safety for All

* Fix our Broken Immigration System

* Make Housing More Affordable and End Homelessness

* Guarantee Access to Affordable, Quality Healthcare and Critical Human Services

* Rewrite the Tax Code to Help Hardworking Taxpayers and Reduce Economic Inequality

* Promote American Exports, Fair Trade, and International Tourism

DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION, North America

US: Progressive Caucus Announces Opposition to ‘Wasteful, Bloated’ $740 Billion Pentagon Budget Proposal

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY .

A article by Jake Johnson from Common Dreams (reprinted under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License)

The Congressional Progressive Caucus said Sunday that it will formally oppose the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2021 unless “significant action” is taken to reduce the bill’s proposed Pentagon outlay.


Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) speaks during an oversight hearing in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill February 8, 2019 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

“Rubber-stamping a record $740 billion for the Pentagon shortchanges millions of families trying to get by in this crisis,” tweeted the CPC, which has more than 90 members. “Enhanced unemployment benefits expire in less than two weeks. The federal eviction moratorium expires in six days.”

“Congress should be focused on addressing these urgent crises,” the CPC added, “not passing a wasteful, bloated $740 billion defense bill to line the pockets of defense contractors.”

(Article continued on the right column)

Question for this article:

Does military spending lead to economic decline and collapse?

(Article continued from the left column)

Along with Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), CPC co-chairs Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) are advocating the passage of an NDAA amendment that would cut the proposed Pentagon budget by 10%—$74 billion—and redirect the savings toward healthcare, housing, and education in poor communities.

“This 10% cut is eminently doable and reasonable,” Jayapal said  during an event late last month. “But it’s not going to be easy… As progressives, it is our job to redefine and reimagine what it is to be strong. Strong means an end to endless wars and a return to robust diplomacy and international coalition building.”

Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) are co-sponsoring a companion amendment in the Senate. In a speech on the Senate floor last month, Sanders described the proposed 10% cut as a “modest” way to begin shifting U.S. spending priorities away from endless war and toward urgent domestic concerns.

With the amendment expected to receive a vote this coming week, Sanders wrote in an email to supporters Sunday that “the time is now to cut military spending and use that money for human needs.”

“How can it be that we have enough to spend more on defense than the next eleven countries combined, but we don’t have enough to make sure every American child has a roof over their head and enough food to eat?” Sanders wrote. “A great nation is not judged by the size of its military budget, it is judged by how well it treats its weakest and most vulnerable citizens.”

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, North America

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.)

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, Mideast, North America,

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.

DISARMAMENT & SECURITY, HUMAN RIGHTS, North America