Chris Hedges's Blog, page 189

Environmentalists Risk Their Lives to Save the Planet

One year ago, on July 31, 2018, just after leaving home in the Ukrainian city of Kherson, Deputy Mayor Kateryna Gandziuk felt a splash of liquid across her head and face. An assailant had thrown a full liter of sulfuric acid on her, leaving her near death with burns across half her body. In the months leading up to the attack, she had accused several local politicians of illegal logging in the nearby Oleshky forest. She spent several painful months in the hospital, finally dying of her wounds on Nov. 4. After protests and international pressure, several suspects were arrested, but Gandziuk’s family and supporters allege a cover-up to protect the organizers of the assault that rises to the highest levels of the Ukrainian political elite.

Kateryna Gandziuk’s brutal attack is just one of 164 murders of environmentalists and land and water defenders that occurred in 2018, cataloged in a new report titled “Enemies of the State? How governments and business silence land and environmental defenders.” Published by Global Witness, an international nonprofit organization that works to protect human rights and the environment by confronting corruption, the report notes that “the real figure is likely to be much higher, because cases are often not recorded and very rarely investigated.”

The report is global in scale. Among the most dangerous places for land defenders in 2018 were the Philippines, Guatemala and Brazil. The pace of violence in Brazil has only accelerated since the right-wing, climate change-denying extremist Jair Bolsonaro assumed the presidency last January.

“Jair Bolsonaro was elected promising an anti-environmental campaign. Now he’s delivering, unfortunately,” Carlos Rittl, executive secretary of Climate Observatory, a network of Brazilian civil society organizations, said on the “Democracy Now!” news hour. “The department responsible for combating deforestation, the Ministry of the Environment, was shut down.” Since Bolsonaro took office, the rate of destruction of the Amazon rainforest has increased by almost 40%. Known as “the lungs of the planet,” the rainforest plays a vital role in regulating the world’s climate. In May, eight former Brazilian environment ministers warned, “We’re facing the risk of runaway deforestation in the Amazon.” As one put it, Brazil is becoming an “exterminator of the future.”

In late July, Emyra Wajapi, a leader of the indigenous Wajapi tribe in the Amazon, was murdered by a group of 10-15 armed men who were part of an illegal mining operation. The United Nations high commissioner for human rights, Michelle Bachelet, the former president of Chile, called his murder “tragic and reprehensible in its own right. It is also a disturbing symptom of the growing problem of encroachment on indigenous land – especially forests – by miners, loggers and farmers in Brazil.”

Another country where Global Witness reports numerous murders of activists is Colombia. A 50-year civil war between the Colombian government and the leftist FARC rebel army was settled in 2016 with a historic peace agreement. However, since the FARC laid down arms and its members rejoined Colombian civil society, over 500 social and community leaders have been assassinated. Many blame the right-wing administration of President Ivan Duque for failing to implement key provisions of the peace agreement.

“People are being killed because they are demanding their basic rights, in particular, the rights to access to land and to be free in their territories,” Luis Gilberto Murillo, the former governor of the predominantly Afro-Colombian state of Choco and former minister of environment and sustainable development, said on “Democracy Now!” “The way to avoid these killings is the full implementation of the peace process. There is a national commission to guarantee the protection of social leaders in the country [which] has not been convened regularly by the current government.”

A shocking video surfaced recently, showing the aftermath of the murder of renowned community activist Maria del Pilar Hurtado in Colombia, with her young son wailing next to her corpse. That video prompted a day of protest, with thousands gathering in Bogota, Colombia’s capital city, and at solidarity rallies around the world. Murillo was among those who protested in front of the Washington, D.C., residence of the Colombian ambassador to the United States.

Front-line land and water defenders are doing all they can, risking their freedom, their very lives, to save the planet. It is the least we can do in the United States, the most powerful country on Earth, to demand a world where people engaging in this vital, lifesaving work can do so free from persecution, harm or even death. This epic struggle to avoid climate catastrophe must heat up faster than the planet itself.

* * *

Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 1,400 stations. She is the co-author, with Denis Moynihan and David Goodman, of the New York Times best-seller “Democracy Now!: 20 Years Covering the Movements Changing America.”

(c) 2019 Amy Goodman and Denis Moynihan

The Fight Over Mauna Kea Is About More Than a Telescope

Hawaii Gov. David Ige this week rescinded his emergency proclamation aimed at thwarting native Hawaiian protesters and granted the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) Observatory a two-year extension to begin construction on Mauna Kea, one of two mountains on the Big Island of Hawaii. The move is a partial victory for the indigenous-led movement opposing the TMT. For weeks now, native Hawaiians have blockaded a road leading up to the summit, preventing workers from breaking ground. Ige explained he wants to “find a peaceful solution to move this project forward” and “deescalate things.”

The battle between astronomers and indigenous Hawaiians over Mauna Kea began decades ago. Even before the TMT was a full-fledged project, Hawaiians objected to the desecration of their sacred space, on which 13 observatories already operate. Although I am not native to Hawaii, it is also a personal story for me. From 1996 to 1998, I attended the graduate program at the University of Hawaii’s Institute for Astronomy (IfA) and was one of a small crop of privileged astronomy students, professional astronomers and technicians who were allowed to step onto Mauna Kea’s pristine snow-capped summit and use the observatories. For astronomers, Mauna Kea is the ideal location, with an altitude above cloud cover and its extremely dry weather that offers a low-moisture view through the atmosphere.

Over the course of my two years at the IfA, I went on several observing runs on the summit, thrilled to gather data from the powerful telescopes that dotted the red dirt. Not once during my training was I told of the importance of Mauna Kea to native Hawaiians. The first time I heard about it was at a campus talk given by one of the Trask sisters—I cannot remember now if it was Mililani or Haunani-Kay, considered the founders of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement—who debated an IfA astronomy professor over the use of Mauna Kea for astronomical observations. It was an eye-opening experience and an early part of my political education.

Kealoha Pisciotta is a practitioner of traditional and customary cultural and religious practices relating to Mauna Kea. Once upon a time, she, too, used the observatories on Mauna Kea, working as a telescope operator for 12 years. Today, Pisciotta is the president of Mauna Kea Anaina Hou (MKAH), the group that has brought multiple legal challenges against the TMT, which would be North America’s largest and most expensive telescope project. Last fall, Hawaii’s Supreme Court ruled in favor of the TMT, which led to the current wave of protests against the start of construction. In an interview about the latest activism, Pisciotta explained to me that for native Hawaiians, Mauna Kea is “our origin place. It’s where we believe all of man came from, and it is the home of our deities from the creator to all of our gods and goddesses.” In addition, Mauna Kea is “a burial ground of our most significant and revered ancestors, including navigators that discovered Hawaii thousands of years ago.”

Pisciotta says she descends from navigators, and during her time as a telescope operator on Mauna Kea she loved her work. But eventually she found herself on the opposite side of those who claim a right over the sacred mountain. “The TMT has alternatives,” she explained, “but we don’t.” Indeed, there have been several alternative sites proposed for the TMT, including the Canary Islands and Chile. Pisciotta says she does not call for the dismantling of the existing 13 observatories on Mauna Kea, but she and others draw the line at the TMT. A good analogy for their demand is the climate justice movement’s call for “no new fossil fuel infrastructure” as part of the transition to renewable energy.

Related Articles











Mauna Kea Protectors Get Assist From the Weather Gods



by Gregory Glover

Hawaiians want no new telescopes on Mauna Kea, and they have a moral right to make that claim. According to Pisciotta, it is about “our right to religious freedom.” There have been attempts to cast the opposition to the TMT as “anti-science,” or as a battle between religious irrationality and rational inquiry into our natural world. But activists in the movement rarely, if ever, express opposition to scientific research. The TMT represents the latest assault on the rights of indigenous Hawaiians, whose rights have been marginalized in favor of corporate, colonial and military interests for far too long.

One Hawaiian writer, Trisha Kehaulani Watson, placed the struggle in the context of U.S. militarism on the islands and how another sacred space—the Hawaiian island of Kahoolawe—was turned into a bombing range by the U.S. during World War II. In a piece titled “Mauna Kea Is Our Modern-Day Kahoolawe,” Watson wrote, “The movement to protect Mauna Kea has nothing to do with a telescope. It has everything to do with the enduring battle over Hawaii’s future.”

The issue is so important, Hawaiian elders—or “kupuna,” as they are called—situated themselves on the front lines of the Mauna Kea blockade. In mid-July, about 30 kupuna were arrested, and some had to be carried to police vans. It was a public relations nightmare for the TMT and the state of Hawaii. The protesters are calling themselves “protectors” just as native American movements like the Standing Rock Sioux did in their resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline. Indeed, representatives of the Standing Rock Sioux have visited the Hawaiian-led blockade of the TMT project to lend their solidarity. First Nations chiefs in Canada have asked their government to pull funding from the TMT in support of their indigenous Hawaiian brothers and sisters. Celebrities like the actor Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson and musician Jack Johnson have traveled to the blockade to show their support. “Game of Thrones” actor Jason Momoa has been a proud supporter of the movement for years, coining the term “We Are Mauna Kea.” Even scientists are beginning to speak out under the hashtag #ScientistsforMaunaKea.

There has been a worldwide movement of indigenous peoples over the past several decades challenging the occupations of their lands at the United Nations and joining with one another in solidarity to assert their stewardship of the land, air and water. The 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) was adopted by the majority of member nations at the General Assembly, with the exception of the United States and several other nations. Pisciotta and other indigenous Hawaiians participated in the U.N. talks that led to the declaration and helped to draft the language of UNDRIP. She explained that the broader framework to understand the battle over Mauna Kea is “our right to self-determination as defined by international law.”

Despite Ige’s revocation of the proclamation to allow construction of the TMT to start immediately, the battle is not over. He extended the time frame for the TMT construction to begin by two years, indicating he may be hoping to wait out the activists. But the fight has now moved out of the courts and into the streets, where Hawaiians enjoy broad support for their opposition to the project. The state of Hawaii, the corporations and governments that are invested in the project, and the astronomy community all have to contend with being on the wrong side of a moral struggle as they decide whether to trample on the rights of indigenous peoples.

 

Watch Sonali Kolhatkar’s interview with Kealoha Pisciotta on “Rising Up With Sonali”:

Puerto Rico Tries to Pick New Governor Amid Crisis

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — Puerto Rico’s governing party was in full-blown crisis Thursday as the nominee to succeed departing Gov. Ricardo Rosselló headed to a disputed and uncertain confirmation vote in the U.S. territory’s legislature.

Rosselló is leaving Friday in the face of massive public protest and has nominated veteran politician and attorney Pedro Pierluisi to succeed him. Pierluisi is a former representative to the U.S. Congress seen by most ordinary Puerto Ricans as a conciliatory, relatively uncontroversial figure, unlikely to be met by continued street demonstrations over poor governance and corruption.

Pierluisi would succeed Rosselló if he’s confirmed by the territorial House and Senate as secretary of state, the next in line to become governor under the Puerto Rican constitution. The post is currently vacant and Rosselló’s New Progressive Party holds majorities in both chambers of the legislature, meaning a united party could easily name the next governor.

Related Articles











Puerto Ricans Demonstrate How to Oust a Corrupt Leader  



by Sonali Kolhatkar

















Trump's Disdain for Puerto Rico Should Be His Undoing



by Sonali Kolhatkar

Pierluisi’s main obstacle appeared to be Senate President Thomas Rivera Schatz, who has said he won’t vote for Rosselló’s nominee and wants to be governor himself. Rivera Schatz is a powerful figure deeply associated with Puerto Rico’s political and business elite, and his elevation to governorship could re-ignite popular outrage.

House and Senate sessions on Pierluisi were set to begin at 11 a.m. Thursday. Puerto Rican legislators were predicting that Pierluisi did not have the votes to be confirmed. It wasn’t clear if the final votes would occur Thursday.

Several lawmakers have already proposed Rivera Schatz, a declared candidate for the 2020 governor’s election, as their choice to replace Rosselló.

After jubilation at the success of their uprising against Rosselló, Puerto Rican protesters have been frustrated at the political infighting and paralysis that’s followed.

If a secretary of state is not named by Friday, Justice Secretary Wanda Vázquez would be next in line. She has said she doesn’t want the job and those further down the line of succession are either too young for the job or are barely known bureaucrats seen as unqualified for the position.

Some lawmakers complained about Pierluisi’s work for a law firm that represents the federal control board that was created to oversee Puerto Rico’s finances before the territory, saddled with more than $70 billion in public debt, declared a sort of bankruptcy. Pierluisi’s brother-in-law also heads the board, which has clashed repeatedly with Rosselló and other elected officials over demands for austerity measures.

“That’s a serious conflict of interest,” Rep. José Enrique Meléndez told The Associated Press.

House of Representatives President Johnny Méndez, a member of the governing party, has said Pierluisi does not have the votes needed in the house.

“The situation could not be more complicated,” said Sen. José Antonio Vargas Vidot, who ran for Senate as an independent. “This is absurd, what we’re going through. We never thought something like this could happen. In an extraordinary crisis, we have to take extraordinary measures.”

Sen. Eduardo Bhatia of the opposition Popular Democratic Party, accused Rivera Schatz of trying to maneuver himself into the top job.

“This attitude of (Rivera Schatz) taking the island hostage is very dangerous,” Bhatia tweeted. “‘It’s him or no one’ is in keeping with what has been a life silencing and destroying democracy.”

Puerto Rico’s 3 million people are U.S. citizens who can’t vote for president and don’t have a voting representative in Congress. While politicians are members of the Democratic or Republican parties, the island’s main political dividing line is between the NPP, which favors statehood, and the PDP, which favors a looser association with the federal government. Those parties’ memberships both contain a mix of Democrats and Republicans.

Rosselló is leaving after two weeks of massive street protests by Puerto Ricans outraged at corruption, mismanagement and an obscenity-laced chat that was leaked in which Rosselló and 11 other men made fun of women, gay people and victims of Hurricane Maria.

More than a dozen officials have resigned in the wake of the chat, including former Secretary of State Luis Rivera Marín. Rivera Schatz, whose spokeswoman said he was not granting interviews, said in a Facebook post on Wednesday that all problems have solutions and that Puerto Rico should be focused on finding them.

“We should promote unity, not discord,” he wrote.

Pierluisi, who took a leave of absence from the law firm, said in a statement Wednesday that much work remains to be done to recover the trust of federal authorities, U.S. Congress and the people of Puerto Rico as it also struggles to recover from Hurricane Maria.

“My goal is now to transform the energy shown by our people in constructive actions that help Puerto Rico go forward,” he said. “Puerto Rico is facing times never before seen and we all have to be part of the path to progress.”

Pierluisi represented Puerto Rico in Congress from 2009-2017 and then ran against Rosselló in the 2016 primaries and lost. He also previously served as justice secretary under Rosselló’s father, Pedro Rosselló, when he was governor.

Democrats’ Divisions Test Biden’s Front-Runner Strength

DETROIT—The ideological divisions gripping the Democratic Party intensified on Wednesday as presidential candidates waged an acrimonious battle over health care, immigration and race that tested the strength of early front-runner Joe Biden’s candidacy.

The former vice president was repeatedly forced to defend his decades-old political record against pointed attacks from his younger, diverse rivals, who charged that Biden’s eight-year relationship with President Barack Obama was not reason enough to earn the Democratic nomination.

The attacks on Biden in the second presidential debate were most vivid coming from California Sen. Kamala Harris, who declared that his willingness to work with segregationists in the U.S. Senate during the 1970s could have had dramatic consequences on the surge of minority candidates in political office. And, she said, it could have prevented her and fellow presidential candidate Cory Booker, both of whom are black, from becoming senators.

“Had those segregationists had their way, I would not be a member of the United States Senate, Cory Booker would not be a member of the United States Senate, and Barack Obama would not have been in a position to nominate” Biden to become vice president, she said.

When pressed, Biden repeatedly leaned on his relationship with Obama.

“We’re talking about things that occurred a long, long time ago,” Biden said. “Everybody’s talking about how terrible I am on these issues. Barack Obama knew who I was.”

The dynamic showcased the challenges ahead for Biden and his party as Democrats seek to rebuild the young and multiracial coalition that helped Obama win two presidential elections. Those differences were debated on a broad menu of issues including health care, immigration and women’s reproductive rights.

But it was the discussion of race that marked an escalating rift shaping the Democratic primary. At the same time, polls show that Biden has far more support from minority voters than his challengers, especially in the crucial early voting state of South Carolina.

Booker, who at times adopted the position of peacemaker, also took Biden to task over criminal justice issues and his role in passing a crime bill while a Delaware senator in the 1990s. When Biden fought back by criticizing Booker’s tenure as mayor of Newark, New Jersey, before becoming a New Jersey senator, Booker shot back: “You’re dipping into the Kool-Aid and you don’t even know the flavor.”

In Detroit, a city where Democrats desperately need strong minority turnout to beat President Donald Trump next year, Biden, 76, repeatedly clashed with the two black candidates in the race, as well as the only candidate of Mexican heritage, all of whom are more than two decades his junior. Biden emphasized his work as vice president to help the auto industry and the city repair its bankrupt finances.

For Democrats, the internal fight, while common to almost every primary cycle, is one many would rather avoid, favoring instead a focus on defeating Trump. Several candidates said they thought Trump should be impeached and others called him a racist.

“The first thing I am going to do is Clorox the Oval Office,” New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand said.

Biden’s struggling 2020 competitors see no better way to undermine his candidacy than raising questions about his commitment to black voters and women.

Anticipating a rough night, Biden greeted Harris onstage by quipping, “Go easy on me, kid.”

She did not — and he often responded in kind.

Biden charged that Harris’ health care plan would cost taxpayers $3 trillion even after two terms in office and would force middle-class taxes to go up, not down. He said that would put Democrats at a disadvantage against Trump.

“You can’t beat President Trump with double talk on this plan,” he said.

Harris slapped back that Biden was inaccurate.

“The cost of doing nothing is far too expensive,” Harris said. She added: “Your plan does not cover everyone in America.”

For the first time in the months-old Democratic contest, Harris faced pointed attacks on her plan to provide universal health care. Harris faced criticism from all sides this week after releasing a competing plan that envisions a role for private insurance with strict government rules, but she wants to transition to a single-payer government-backed system within 10 years.

And she was also challenged for her record as a prosecutor and California’s attorney general, notably by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii.

“Sen. Harris says she’s proud of her record as a prosecutor and that she’ll be a prosecutor president, but I’m deeply concerned about this record,” Gabbard said. “Too many examples to cite, but she put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana.”

There were also tense exchanges on immigration that pitted Biden against former Obama housing secretary Julián Castro, the only Latino candidate in the race.

Biden suggested that some of his rivals favor immigration laws that are far too forgiving. Castro, for example, would decriminalize illegal border crossings.

“People should have to get in line. That’s the problem,” Biden said.

Castro shot back: “It looks like one of us has learned the lessons of the past and one has not.”

Biden did have a defender of sorts in Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado, who derided the cost and impact of “Medicare for All” on middle-class families and those with private health insurance.

While the first primary votes won’t come for six more months, there is a sense of urgency for the lower-tier candidates to break out. More than half the field could be blocked from the next round of debates altogether — and possibly pushed out of the race — if they fail to reach new polling and fundraising thresholds implemented by the Democratic National Committee.

The dire stakes have forced many Democrats to turn against one another in recent weeks. But their common focus was how they characterized Trump’s impact on American life.

One of them, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, was particularly blunt.

“We can no longer allow a white nationalist to be in the White House,” he said.

___

Peoples reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Thomas Beaumont in Detroit and Colleen Long in Washington contributed to this report.

Senate Confirms Kelly Craft as U.S. Ambassador to United Nations

WASHINGTON—The Senate has confirmed Kelly Craft to become the next U.S. envoy to the United Nations despite Democratic concerns about her inexperience and potential conflicts of interest.

Craft, a longtime GOP activist from Kentucky, is currently U.S. ambassador to Canada. She was confirmed 56-34, ending a more than seven-month vacancy in the key diplomatic position.

She and her husband, Joe Craft, have donated millions of dollars to Republican political candidates, and she will be the first major political donor to occupy the top U.N. post for any administration. Joe Craft is the chief executive of Alliance Resource Partners, one of the largest coal producers in the country.

In her confirmation hearing, Craft vowed to continue the efforts of Trump’s first ambassador to the U.N., Nikki Haley, to push for reform at the world body and to fight against anti-Israel resolutions and actions by the United Nations and its affiliated agencies. During Haley’s tenure, the administration withdrew from the U.N. Human Rights Council and the U.N. educational and scientific agency for adopting positions it deemed to be hostile to Israel.

Trump nominated Craft to replace Haley after his first choice for the job, former State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert, withdrew from consideration. Haley stepped down from the post in December.

Democrats criticized Craft at the hearing for previous remarks she had made doubting the causes and severity of climate change and suggesting that climate change skeptics have valid arguments. They were also concerned about possible conflicts of interest as she holds extensive investments in fossil fuels.

Craft said at the hearing that she acknowledges the “vast amount of science” regarding climate change and the role humans have played.

“If confirmed, I will be an advocate for addressing climate change,” she said.

The Democrats have also expressed concerns about her time away from Canada during her tenure as ambassador. Craft testified that all of her travel had been approved in advance by the State Department, that much of it was work-related and that she and her husband had paid for all personal trips.

A report issued by the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez, just before the vote called Craft “inexperienced,” ”unknowledgeable” and “outmatched.” The report said Craft’s “lack of diplomatic or substantive policy experience” could threaten her ability to forcefully represent and defend U.S. national interests against other powerful nations.

“Never in our nation’s history have we nominated such an underqualified person to this critical post,” said Menendez.

Republicans, including her home-state senator, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, came to her defense.

“During her tenure as ambassador to Canada, America’s relationship with our northern neighbor was tested,” McConnell said in a floor speech before the vote. “A number of challenging policy hurdles threatened to trip up progress on several important issues, including trade negotiations. But by all accounts, Ambassador Craft’s involvement led to greater cooperation.”

As ambassador, Craft played a role in facilitating the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, Trump’s long-sought revamp of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

It was also a low point in relations between the two counties. Last year, Trump called Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau weak and dishonest, words that shocked Canadians.

DNC Won’t Create Oversight Panel to Review the Millions It Spends

This article was produced by Voting Booth , a project of the Independent Media Institute.

A proposal to bring unprecedented oversight to the way that the Democratic National Committee spends the billion dollars it raises between presidential elections was rejected by the DNC Rules and Bylaw Committee Tuesday, after a spirited debate highlighting that there is no independent oversight reporting back to the DNC’s 450 members.

The decision did not come without some Rules Committee members saying that the oversight issue was legitimate. But they did not feel that creating a new elected committee to review the DNC’s spending decisions was the best approach. The oversight proposal was the last piece of business from the DNC’s post-2016 Unity Reform Commission recommendations, which sought to heal the party’s internal divides after that cycle.

“I am disappointed,” said Jim Zogby, a longtime DNC member and Arab-American human rights leader, who noted that Tuesday’s proposal was the latest in a series of efforts to introduce greater transparency and oversight before 2020’s election.

“We are clearly out of time on it,” he said. “But what I don’t think we are out of time on is empowering the membership and becoming a more accountable and transparent organization. And I don’t think that can be done unless it’s done in a democratic way through election of an independent group of members. I will be back, if I’m on the DNC, to raise it again.”

Zogby, who has been a DNC member for nearly three decades and has served on its top national party committees for half that time, reminded the Rules Committee that very few people in the DNC have any real impact on how the party spends its money.

“Look, I’ve been a DNC member—this is my 27th year. I was an executive committee member for 16 years. The issue of never seeing the budget, never being able as a member to evaluate the budget, sticks in my craw. I think it should stick in the craw of every member of the body,” he said. “At the end of the day, the ability to know how money is spent, and have some say in it, or, at least, as the [DNC] bylaws call for, to evaluate it, is essential for the governing body of any organization.”

“We shouldn’t have to wait for an exposé article to be written or a book to come out to tell us that there was a problem,” he continued. “We have to govern ourselves. We have to be able to, say, among ourselves, ‘I don’t like the way this loan got taken out.’ ‘I don’t like who got that contract.’ And it’s not a question of micromanaging.”

Some Rules Committee members were sympathetic to the concerns raised by Zogby on behalf of the Unity Reform Commission, but said that creating another committee to independently review spending decisions by the DNC Budget and Finance Committee was not the best way to achieve that goal.

“I strongly share the view that the DNC should be more transparent in terms of its budget and financial activity,” said Frank Leone, a Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) member from Virginia. “I don’t think this is the way to do it, though. It seems that creating a new committee and, basically, to second-guess the work of the DNC, I’m not quite sure is the best approach… And I think things have changed a lot in the last two years and that has to be recognized.”

Leone’s last point was referring to the current DNC leadership, under Chair Tom Perez, saying that the party’s spending has been much more transparent and accountable than in previous years. Another objection came from David McDonald, an RBC member from Washington, who said looking retrospectively could distract from current campaigns.

“If you just look at the cycle we are in right now, instead of focusing on the presidential election in 2020, it [the proposed oversight panel] would be in the process of gathering information about what we did in 2018, and discussing it, and trying to evaluate in the context of all of the other entities that were spending money in 2018,” he said. “It’s basically a proposal to have an independent entity do what the Budget Committee is already supposed to do.”

Zogby countered that retrospective oversight was a compromise intended to not interfere with the DNC’s current efforts. But he kept returning to his main point: that there was no substitute for independent oversight of the DNC’s overall spending decisions.

“The [DNC] chair simply cannot appoint the committee that oversees the finances of the chair and the expenditures that are determined by the chair. That simply makes no sense,” he said. “We would not get into trouble—and we have had trouble—if the Finance Committee… [had had] an oversight committee that can do the due diligence and report back to us, ‘This happened. That happened. This didn’t happen. That didn’t happen. We make these recommendations for the future.’”

Don Fowler, an RBC member from South Carolina and a former DNC chair (1995-1997), said the issue was that DNC members tended to be afraid of confronting their national party chair.

“The lack of appropriate supervision, if one wants to make that charge, of the chair and the administration in every DNC since [former chair] Bob Strauss [1972-1977], has been a reluctance to confront the chair—period. That’s the holdup,” he said. “If you create this new committee, the same thing will happen. The DNC has never confronted the chair about the matter of spending, and even the suggestions as to what should go into the budget have been almost non-existent.”

Zogby countered that wasn’t always true. In his prior efforts organizing ethnic caucuses inside the DNC, he said that he has repeatedly been able to get neither support nor answers about withholding financial support. But Donna Brazile, an RBC member from Washington who has been interim party chair, twice agreed that the real issue was strengthening the DNC’s top committees to challenge the chair—and possible White House pressures.

“I understand the frustration as well as the goals of the Unity Reform Committee in terms of trying to ascertain how the DNC can become a more transparent body, especially during an election year when we have the White House,” Brazile said. “And the White House, in many ways, is also dictating and controlling how decisions are being made—strategic decisions as well as how day-to-day operations of the party are being made.”

“We don’t need an oversight committee,” she said. “We need to strengthen the executive committee and the current budget committee to do their job—to provide accountability; to provide transparency. I don’t know about many of you, but when I was on the executive committee, I challenged the chair. I didn’t always win. And when I was [DNC] chair, both times, they challenged me.”

“But, Jim, you’re right, there are decisions that I made as chair from that interim period of 2016-2017, as well as 2011-2012, that the only institution that I had to reply to was the White House, and then, of course, the nominee,” she continued. “I would hope that we would find ways to take some of this [oversight proposal] language and strengthen existing apparatus that we have, because I do believe we are on that path that you’d like to see us on.”

But Zogby, in response, said that accountability, “no matter how cumbersome,” was the hallmark of democratic institutions. Friendly and unfriendly party chairs can come and go, he said, but that wasn’t the same as formally instituted oversight.

“The fact that the existing [Budget and Finance] Committee has improved their work is something that all Democrats should feel good about,” he said. “But none of that is the same as oversight. And that is the fundamental distinction. They [the Finance Committee] make the decisions and do all that stuff. At the end of the day, the empowered body of DNC members ought to have the opportunity to, in a structured way—not a meeting of 450 people [members]—to ask questions and come up with some recommendations independently of that committee.”

Steven Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute. He has reported for National Public Radio, Marketplace, and Christian Science Monitor Radio, as well as a wide range of progressive publications including Salon, AlterNet, the American Prospect, and many others.

 

Fed Cuts Its Key Rate for First Time in More Than a Decade

WASHINGTON—The Federal Reserve cut its key interest rate Wednesday for the first time in a decade to try to counter threats ranging from uncertainties caused by President Donald Trump’s trade wars to chronically low inflation and a dim global outlook.

The Fed also repeated a pledge to “act as appropriate to sustain the expansion” — wording that the financial markets have interpreted as a signal for possible future rate cuts.

The central bank reduced its benchmark rate — which affects many loans for households and businesses — by a quarter-point to a range of 2% to 2.25%. It’s the first rate cut since December 2008 during the depths of the Great Recession, when the Fed slashed its rate to a record low near zero and kept it there until 2015.

The economy is far healthier now despite risks to what’s become the longest expansion on record.

The initial reaction in the financial markets Wednesday was muted. Stocks fell slightly after the Fed issued its statement at 2 p.m. Eastern time.

Compared with when the Fed previously cut rates more than a decade ago, the economy is now solid by most measures, if not spectacular. Consumers are spending. Unemployment is close to a half-century low. A recession hardly seems imminent.

Yet the Fed under Chairman Jerome Powell has signaled that rising economic pressures, notably from Trump’s trade wars and from weakness in Europe, Asia and elsewhere, have become cause for concern. So has an inflation rate that remains stubbornly below the Fed’s 2 percent target level.

So the Fed has decided that a rate cut now — and possibly one or more additional cuts to follow — could provide a kind of insurance policy against an economic downturn. The idea is that lowering its key short-term rate could encourage borrowing and spending and energize growth. Wall Street has welcomed that prospect with a stock market rally since the start of the year.

A key concern expressed by the Powell Fed is that Trump’s pursuit of trade conflicts, with his punishing tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars in Chinese and European goods, have escalated uncertainties for American companies. Some companies have put off plans to expand and invest.

Powell has also expressed concern about undesirably low inflation. In delivering the Fed’s semiannual monetary report to Congress this month, he noted that the central bank needs to prevent the economy from sinking into a low-inflation trap like the one that has bedeviled Japan’s economy for more than two decades. Ultra-low inflation can slow growth by causing consumers to postpone purchases, which, in turn, slows consumer spending, the economy’s main fuel.

Another source of pressure for the Fed has been a relentless series of public attacks by Trump over its rate policy under Powell. Trump has blamed the Fed’s four rate hikes in 2018 as a key reason why the U.S. economy is slowing.

This week, the president said he wanted to see a “large cut” in rates as well as an immediate halt in the reduction of the Fed’s bond holdings, to avoid putting upward pressure on long-term rates.

Powell has asserted that Trump’s pressure has had no effect on the rate policies of the Fed, which is considered an independent agency. But the president’s incessant criticism raises the question of whether the attacks could eventually undermine confidence that the Fed will remain politically independent and not try to boost the economy before next year’s presidential election.

Recent government reports— on economic growth, consumer spending and orders for durable manufactured goods — have confirmed that the economy remains on firm footing even with pressures at home and abroad. As a result, some analysts believe the Fed may pause after Wednesday’s rate cut to see if the economic outlook further brightens before deciding on any further easing.

And skeptics wonder whether Fed rate cuts at this point would really do much to bolster an economy whose borrowing rates are already low. Some even worry that the central bank will be taking a needless risk: By cutting rates now, the Fed is disarming itself of some ammunition it would need in case the economy did slide toward a recession. Some also suggest that by driving rates ever lower, the Fed might be helping to fuel dangerous bubbles in stocks or other risky assets.

Yet many market traders foresee two or even three rate cuts this year as the Fed tries to counter global threats that risk spreading to the United States.

The Fed’s current rate policy marks the continuation of a policy shift made early this year. In December, the Fed had raised its benchmark rate for the fourth time in 2018 and projected two additional rate increases in 2019. At the time, Powell also suggested that the Fed would keep reducing its bond portfolio indefinitely — a step that would further contribute to higher rates. Stock prices tumbled for days afterward.

But in January, Powell and the Fed shifted, indicating that they would be “patient” about any changes in rates and implying that rate hikes were off the table. After U.S.-China trade talks initially collapsed in May, the Fed went further and began considering acting to sustain the economic expansion.

U.S. Troops Are Back in Saudia Arabia—This Will End Badly

It was big news. U.S. military forces streamed into Saudi Arabia in response to a supposedly serious threat to the kingdom’s eastern region. The American troops were invited by nervous Saudi royals; it wasn’t an American invasion per se. Everything unfolded smoothly at first; still, the consequences would be severe for the United States. Pick up the latest Military Times, or any other news source, and the story will seem recent, if not worthy of any special attention or alarm. Indeed, U.S. troops are headed into Saudi Arabia right now, but that’s not the situation described above.

No, that happened in August 1990, in response to the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq—a nation, few remembered, that the U.S. had previously backed in its aggressive war with Iran (1980-88). The kingdom then served as a launch point for the U.S.-led Persian Gulf War (1991) which drove the Iraqis from tiny Kuwait. American soldiers pulled out of Saudi Arabia just over a decade later, in 2003. Now they’re rolling back in. History, as it’s said to do, seems to be repeating itself.

This time, however, the ostensible threat to Saudi Arabia comes from naughty Iran, the American national security state’s current favorite exaggerated villain. And, of course, Iran—unlike our onetime “partners” in Iraq—hasn’t invaded anybody. Thus, the U.S. troop infusion is more preemptive than reactive. It’s no matter; few Americans (or even most media/political elites) seem to notice.

Besides, what could go wrong? After all, the U.S. stations its military personnel all over the Middle East, so why not in “friendly” Saudi Arabia too? After all, Jared Kushner, the son-in-law in chief, maintains a well-known bromance with his pen pal, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), and President Trump revels in the profits from massive arms sales to the kingdom. Still, the answer to the question is a stark one: Quite a lot can go wrong, actually. It has before.

Sadly, given the apathy, short memory span and ignorance of much of the American populace, a brief (if dark) recent history lesson is in order. The year was, again, 1990. The Cold War was winding down; the U.S. confidently glowed in its new, powerful status as a unipolar hegemonic power. Except, Washington had set a few time bombs for itself—and boy would they explode.

First, the U.S. government backed a megalomaniacal dictator in Iraq during his eight-year invasion of Iran. After that war ended in a draw, Saddam Hussein thought perhaps he’d test his American support and gobble up small, but oil-rich, Kuwait. When Riyadh panicked, feared for its own bordering oil fields and invited in the U.S. military, the Saudi royals angered and alienated the other significant American time bomb: Osama bin Laden—the wealthy Islamist Saudi jihadi that Washington had backed (during the 1980s) in his fight with the Soviets in Afghanistan.

See, bin Laden believed his own legend: That his fellow foreign volunteers, known as “Afghan Arabs,” had turned the tide and driven the Soviets from Afghanistan. In reality, it was mostly native Afghan rebels, buoyed by generous American and Gulf States military aid, that had won the war—but that mattered little to bin Laden, the dogmatic, privileged son of a Saudi construction magnate. When Iraq swallowed Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia in 1990, the prodigal son offered to return, raise a new army of jihadis and defend the kingdom against Hussein’s forces. Rebuked by the Saudi king and overshadowed by the massive U.S. military, bin Laden developed a lifelong animus toward both the kingdom and America. The vendetta would prove extremely pivotal, a history-altering event.

After their swift victory in the Persian Gulf War, U.S. service members stuck around in Saudi Arabia for quite some time. It’s what the American empire does. Trouble was that not only Bin Laden, but an entire generation of Arab regional jihadis resented the U.S. military presence in the kingdom—especially in the vicinity of the Islamic holy sites of Mecca and Medina.

Nineteen American troops were killed in the 1996 terrorist bombing of the Air Force’s Khobar towers barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. Not long after, in February 1998, America’s former “freedom fighter” bin Laden went so far as to declare war on the United States. The first of three justifications he listed involved the American military presence in Saudi Arabia. Specifically, he wrote:

For over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

Bin Laden was a veritable monster, but, well, he had a point.

The rest, as they say, was history. The bombing of two American embassies in Africa (1998), the bombing of the USS Cole at the port of Aden, in Yemen (2000), and, most tragically, the events of Sept. 11, 2001. Thousands of Americans died in the combined attacks; President Bush the Younger started a war that’s yet to end and can’t be won. It’s been going for nearly 18 years. The total cost (so far): 7,000 American troops dead, at least 244,000 foreign civilians killed and a cool $5.9 trillion in U.S. tax dollars wasted.

Perhaps American policymakers, pundits and the people at large ought to remember this tragic course of events, what the great author Chalmers Johnson referred to as “blowback.” If they did, it’d be clear that today’s fresh infusion of U.S. troops back into the vicinity of the Islamic holy places is a major event with potentially devastating consequences for the U.S. military—and perhaps even the American homeland.

It seems this latest move into Saudi Arabia is all risk and no reward. What can the U.S. possibly achieve in the kingdom: protecting a venal Saudi theocracy that can defend itself quite easily from the inflated threat of sanctions-laden Iran? The risks, on the other hand, are many, and bear striking resemblance to what did unfold the last time Washington thought it prudent to garrison Saudi Arabia.

Maybe the U.S. will get lucky and suffer only a few terror attacks on its troops in the kingdom. Then again, Washington might just blunder into an unnecessary, unwinnable, unethical war with the Islamic Republic of Iran, a nation of 80 million, and further destabilize an already precarious region. The nightmare, but totally possible, scenario would be the radicalization of new Saudi and transnational jihadis who then take the fight to New York or Los Angeles.

It’s happened before, back when America was far less unpopular in the Mideast and the Muslim world than it is today. Don’t count it out.

—

Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army major and regular contributor to Truthdig. His work has also appeared in Harper’s, The L.A. Times, The Nation, Tom Dispatch, The Huffington Post, and The Hill. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, “Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge.” He co-hosts the progressive veterans’ podcast “Fortress on a Hill.” Follow him on Twitter at @SkepticalVet.

Copyright 2019 Danny Sjursen

Mauna Kea Protectors Get Assist From the Weather Gods

The protectors of Hawaii’s Mauna Kea are getting a timely assist from Mother Nature.

Hawaii Gov. David Ige on Tuesday lifted the July 17 emergency order that supercharged protests against construction of a giant telescope at the 13,803-foot  summit of Mauna Kea, which native Hawaiians consider sacred ground. Ige said the approach of a pair of hurricanes helped convince him to cancel the order.

In the coming week, hurricanes Erick and Flossie are expected to pass close to the Big Island, home to Mauna Kea. Their approach will tax emergency personnel and may put demonstrators in jeopardy.

Related Articles











Hawaii's Mauna Kea Protectors Fight for 'Our Right to Exist'



by Gregory Glover

Ige’s decision is also an acknowledgment of the strength of the protest—as many as 2,000 people have been rallying at the base of the mountain—and the indigenous people’s determination. He visited the protest site last week and found it “instructive … to be able to speak with and talk with protesters face to face. It gave me an appreciation for their passion and commitment.”

The battle to defeat construction of what would be the world’s largest visible-light telescope has been waged for 10 years, led by the group Pu’uhonua o Pu’uhuluhulu, who see themselves as the protectors of Mauna Kea. In a statement, they claimed “a victory that reaffirms our resolve. Governor Ige has admitted that he underestimated our strength, unity, and broad public support. Our numbers continue to grow and his ability to oppose his own people is becoming less and less justifiable.”

On Wednesday, Erick was a Category 3 storm, tracking south of the Big Island and expected to bring heavy rain and possible flash floods by Friday or Saturday. Flossie, following a similar path, may hit the state early next week. So for now, there will be no more arrests, the Hawaiian National Guard will return to barracks and there will be no new attempts to build the telescope.

Nothing like a hurricane to lower the pressure.

The Inconvenient Truth About Migration the Media Brush Off

Washington Post (4/16/19)

Journalists routinely dehumanize human beings crossing the southern border by comparing them to natural disasters like a “flood” or “deluge.” But while migration has always been a natural phenomenon, the increasingly forced migration of people escaping deteriorating conditions is an unnatural disaster driven, in part, by climate disruption.

The New Yorker (4/3/19) reported on how droughts, floods and changes to weather patterns have contributed to crop susceptibility to diseases and pests, degraded soil quality and shortened growing seasons. Reuters (5/2/19) covered UN estimates that 2.2 million people Central Americans have been affected by poor harvests as a result of climate change, with up to four in every five families having to sell animals and farm equipment to buy food in the past year.

It would be easy for even a diligent news consumer to not know that climate change is one of the central factors driving refugees to cross the border, since it’s usually not mentioned at all in most alarmist reports about the so-called “border crisis” (New York Times, 4/10/19; Wall Street Journal, 5/8/19). In fact, although a few good articles have been dedicated to making the connection (e.g., New York Times, 4/13/19; Washington Post, 4/16/19), it’s usually absent even among reports purporting to explain why people are making the dangerous journey.

Politico (3/28/19)

Politico’s “Here’s What’s Driving the ‘Crisis’ at the Border” (3/28/19) and Vox’s “The Border Is in Crisis. Here’s How It Got This Bad” (4/11/19) both correctly note that the Trump administration’s claims about “unprecedented numbers of undocumented immigrants” crossing the border from Central American countries like Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador are “untrue,” because, as Vox put it, the

total number of people coming into the US without papers is still lower than it was for most of the 20th century, and substantially lower its turn-of-the-century peak.

However, the strained resources from more families and children crossing the border, as well as the complications of the asylum process, figure heavily into their explanation for how the crisis “got so bad”—rather than the five-year drought ruining the crops of maize, coffee, bananas and beans depended on by mostly subsistence farmers, also known as campesinos, in Central America. The drought is also disrupting the traditional seasonal migration to harvest coffee in Honduras that Central American families have used to ease poverty, forcing them to flee to the US instead (Al-Jazeera, 5/13/19).

Politico’s report explained the border crisis with statements from Republican and Border Patrol officials noting how the “rise in families” and the “greater volume of children among the new Central American migrants” are creating a “capacity crisis,” unlike the less-needy single adult males from Mexico who “constituted most border migrants” a decade earlier, with increased asylum applications creating a longer immigration process.

Vox’s report observed that “we don’t have apples-to-apples data,” because there’s “substantial evidence that the raw number of children and families entering the US is higher than it’s ever been,” while also noting that “crushing poverty” and “gang violence” are factors, in addition to many migrants themselves not knowing “what asylum is,” or why they “might not qualify for it.”

Atlantic (6/26/18)

The Atlantic’s account, “Today’s Migrant Flow Is Different” (6/26/18), likewise explained that “the crux of the recent crisis at the border” is that there are

fewer male migrants in their 20s or 30s making the crossing, and many more families, newborns, children and pregnant women escaping life-or-death situations as much as poverty.

That’s how the outlet differentiated today’s “migrant flow” from previous decades, where Central Americans were fleeing “economic misery in their war-torn states.” The Atlantic actually mentioned that “previous US policies contributed to the extreme insecurity in their home countries,” but only discussed the US policy of deporting “tens of thousands of convicted criminals to Central America in the early 2000s,” and nothing else regarding why “thousands of Central American families” are “stuck between a rock and a hard place.”

Time’s “‘There Is No Way We Can Turn Back’: Why Thousands of Refugees Will Keep Coming to America Despite Trump’s Crackdown” (6/21/18) and NBC’s “Why Are So Many Migrants Crossing the US border? It Often Starts With an Escape From Violence in Central America” (6/20/18) described, not inaccurately but incompletely, migrants escaping “high levels of violence” from organized crime groups like “street gangs” and “drug cartels,” in addition to citing “corruption, weak and unstable government institutions,” and the “unrelenting turmoil of the region.”

NBC’s report mentions that “the conditions” in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras came to “Americans’ attention in full force” in 2014, when “tens of thousands of children arrived on their own” at the US border, without discussing that year’s climate change–related drought. A year later, NBC (7/9/19) would note 2014 as the year the drought began, as it cited immigration analysts and UN reports finding that “roughly half” of all adults apprehended at the border worked “in agriculture,” with a “lack of food” being the primary reason people leave.

Bloomberg (7/5/19)

Bloomberg (7/5/19) offered the victim-blaming headline “Why Roots of US Border Crisis Lie South of Mexico,” and noted that Honduras and El Salvador have among the “highest murder rates in the world.” It depicted Central American migrants as seeking economic opportunity, noting that 60 percent of the population in Honduras and Guatemala lives below the national poverty line, and characterizing those countries as “a hotbed of poverty, corruption, gang violence and extortion.”

In all these reports, the US’s contributions to the violence and corruption in Central America during the Cold War, and more recent US support for a 2009 military coup in Honduras deposing the democratically elected left-wing President Manuel Zelaya, and its funding for death squads in the country, are completely obscured. This despite the evidence (Migration Policy Institute, 4/1/06) that US-backed violence in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador during the Cold War “institutionalized” a migration pattern to North America that had been “very minor” beforehand.

But if these reports shrouded the connection between US foreign policy and the “violence” and “unrelenting turmoil” in the region, they more deeply buried the connection between increasing violence and climate change.

In fact, the Pentagon has long viewed climate change as a “threat multiplier,” and an indirect factor that could prompt outbreaks of violence in countries already staggering under the weight of other problems (Guardian, 3/31/14). Military planners point to the Syrian civil war—which has killed hundreds of thousands—as an example of how climate change contributes to violent conflict, with the worst drought there in 500 years creating massive internal displacement that led to government repression and sectarian violence (Inside Climate News, 6/13/19).

Guardian (10/30/18)

And while poverty is often featured along with “violence” among the list of things Central American refugees are fleeing, corporate media rarely discuss why so many people there are impoverished, and the connection to the ongoing climate catastrophe. In contrast, the Guardian (10/30/18) informed readers:

“The focus on violence is eclipsing the big picture—which is that people are saying they are moving because of some version of food insecurity,” said Robert Albro, a researcher at the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies at American University.

“The main reason people are moving is because they don’t have anything to eat. This has a strong link to climate change—we are seeing tremendous climate instability that is radically changing food security in the region.”

Migrants don’t often specifically mention “climate change” as a motivating factor for leaving, because the concept is so abstract and long-term, Albro said. But people in the region who depend on small farms are painfully aware of changes to weather patterns that can ruin crops and decimate incomes.

Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador are part of the Dry Corridor, a region where droughts, tropical storms and flash floods are common, but climate change is influencing the severity and frequency of these disasters, and consecutive droughts can devastate the livelihoods of campesinos completely dependent on what they grow for survival. Unlike in the US and Europe, there are no crop insurance or aid programs, and often no irrigation systems either, to assist people in difficult times (Public Radio International, 2/6/19).

Climate scientist Noah Diffenbaugh (Grist, 4/23/19)—lead author of a Stanford University study finding that the economic gap between the richest and poorest countries is about 25 percent greater than it would’ve been without anthropogenic climate change—stated that “most of the poorest countries on Earth are considerably poorer than they would’ve been without global warming.”

Climate change is also a major—yet often omitted—reason for the record number of African migrants crossing the US/Mexican border fleeing violence and poverty. The EU has exacerbated this, mirroring the Trump administration’s policy of making it as painful as possible for refugees to apply for asylum by making civil war–torn Libya the main processing center for applications (Foreign Policy, 6/26/19).

The UN’s 2019 Sustainable Development Goals Report found that “extreme poverty today is concentrated and overwhelmingly affects rural populations,” and that it’s increasingly being “exacerbated by violent conflicts and climate change.” It also found that 413 million out of the estimated 736 million people still living in extreme poverty are in Sub-Saharan Africa, where most of the new migrants are coming from, and the region with “the highest prevalence of hunger,” as the number of undernourished people increased from 195 million in 2014 to 237 million in 2017.

CNN (4/1/19)

The UN’s Food and Agricultural Organization found that the 2015–16 El Niño phenomenon afflicting Central America—a warming of the Pacific Ocean surface that causes hotter and drier conditions there—was the strongest it’s been in 50 years, and was also affecting Sub-Saharan Africa’s food security, with 32 million people in the region unable to acquire food in 2016 due to dry weather conditions. The FAO (CNN, 4/1/19) noted that “evolving climatic patterns characterized by cyclic droughts, floods and cyclones have become more frequent in Southern Africa.”

Corporate media downplaying the ongoing climate catastrophe’s creation of large numbers of climate refugees encourages fatal inaction. The UN is warning of more than 120 million people pushed into poverty by 2030, and a “climate apartheid” scenario where the wealthy countries most responsible for carbon emissions are leaving the rest of the world with a stark “choice” between starvation and migration.

This is not one story, fit for the occasional Sunday piece, but many everyday stories, of which human movement across national borders is only one. Media have a responsibility to not only tell these stories, but to link them to climate disruption, if they intend to be part not of the problem but of the solution.