04 December 21
Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News
DeSantis pitched the idea Thursday as a way to further support the Florida National Guard during emergencies, like hurricanes. The Florida National Guard has also played a vital role during the pandemic in administering Covid-19 tests and distributing vaccines.
But in a nod to the growing tension between Republican states and the Biden administration over the National Guard, DeSantis also said this unit, called the Florida State Guard, would be "not encumbered by the federal government." He said this force would give him "the flexibility and the ability needed to respond to events in our state in the most effective way possible." DeSantis is proposing bringing it back with a volunteer force of 200 civilians, and he is seeking $3.5 million from the state legislature in startup costs to train and equip them.
States have the power to create defense forces separate from the national guard, though not all of them use it. If Florida moves ahead with DeSantis' plan to reestablish the civilian force, it would become the 23rd active state guard in the country, DeSantis' office said in a press release, joining California, Texas and New York. These guards are little-known auxiliary forces with origins dating back to the advent of state militias in the 18th century. While states and the Department of Defense share control of the National Guard, state guards are solely in the power of a governor.
The proposal from DeSantis comes on the heels of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin's directive warning that National Guard members who refuse to get vaccinated against the coronavirus will have their pay withheld and barred from training. Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican, had requested an exemption for guard members in his state, which Austin denied.
Democrats in Florida immediately expressed alarm at DeSantis' announcement. US Rep. Charlie Crist, who is running as a Democrat to challenge the governor in 2022, tweeted, "No Governor should have his own handpicked secret police."
State Sen. Annette Taddeo, another gubernatorial candidate, wrote on Twitter that DeSantis was a "wannabe dictator trying to make his move for his own vigilante militia like we've seen in Cuba."
The Florida State Guard was created in 1941 during World War II as a temporary force to fill the void left behind when the Florida National Guard was deployed to assist in the US combat efforts. It was disbanded after the war ended, but the authority for a governor to establish a state defense force remained.
"Reestablishing the Florida State Guard will allow civilians from all over the state to be trained in the best emergency response techniques and have the ability to mobilize very, very quickly," DeSantis said during a visit to Pensacola on Thursday.
State guards are typically deployed to respond during a disaster, though governors have found other reasons to call them into action.
In 2015, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott used the Texas state guard to monitor federal military exercises in his state, responding to what was at the time a fast-growing conspiracy theory that the federal government was using Walmart parking lots to prepare for a future state of martial law. Abbott said the guards were just collecting information to keep Texans safe during the multi-week exercises.
Florida law authorizes the governor to maintain a defense force as "necessary to assist the civil authorities in maintaining law and order," meaning DeSantis would have another force to respond to unrest that may erupt in the future. DeSantis swiftly deployed the Florida National Guard to major cities after protests and violence broke out in response to the murder of George Floyd in Minnesota.
DeSantis has also stationed Florida National Guard troops at the Texas-Mexico border and sent them to Washington, DC, to help protect the US Capitol during the inauguration of President Joe Biden.
The announcement on Thursday came during a broader rollout of DeSantis' plan to bolster Florida's National Guard, which included $100 million in funding proposals to establish three new armories, build a new headquarters for the National Guard Counter Drug Program and provide support for Florida National Guardsmen seeking higher-education degrees.
This week marks the beginning of former cop Kim Potter's trial for murdering Daunte Wright. (photo: Left Voice)
Nine of the first 12 jurors seated for Kim Potter's trial are white — roughly in line with the demographics of surrounding Hennepin County, but notably less diverse than the jury that convicted former Minneapolis Officer Derek Chauvin this spring in the death of George Floyd.
Potter, 49, is charged with first- and second-degree manslaughter in the April 11 shooting in the suburb of Brooklyn Center. Opening statements are scheduled for Wednesday.
Diverse juries are key to minimizing bias, legal experts say
Legal experts have said juries that are diverse by race, gender and economic background are necessary to minimize bias in the legal system.
The Chauvin jury that was split 50-50 between whites and people of color was "mostly just luck of the draw," said Ted Sampsell-Jones, a professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law in St. Paul.
He said racial and ethnic diversity matters in terms of the perceived legitimacy of the jury, but attitudes about police and policing are much more important for the case outcome.
"It might be true in general that Black people are more distrustful of police than white people, but it isn't true as to every individual," Sampsell-Jones said. "Lots of young white people in Hennepin County are far more progressive and anti-cop than some older Black people, for example."
Alan Tuerkheimer, a Chicago-based jury consultant, said even a single juror of color can be enough to change the dynamics of deliberations by bringing more depth and another viewpoint to the process.
Potter has said she meant to use her Taser on Wright after he tried to drive away from officers while they were trying to arrest him, but that she grabbed her handgun instead. Her body camera recorded the shooting.
Of the first 12 jurors seated — the ones who will deliberate if no alternates are needed — one juror identifies as Black and two as Asian. The panel is evenly split between men and women. The two alternates are also white.
The jury roughly matches the demographics of Hennepin County, which is about 74% white.
Potential jurors were asked about their views of protests against police
Attorneys and the judge spent considerable time probing potential jurors for their views of protests against police brutality, which were frequent in Minneapolis even before George Floyd's death.
Questionnaires asked about attitudes toward police, including whether officers should be second-guessed, whether they get the respect they deserve and whether jurors personally trust them.
Juror No. 11, for example, said she "somewhat agreed" that officers should not be second-guessed.
"I think sometimes you just react, and sometimes it might be a wrong reaction, but, you know, mistakes happen," she said. "People make mistakes."
She was seated after saying she could set that view aside and consider evidence.
Several jurors strongly disagreed that it's unreasonable to question officers' actions. Juror No. 19, the only Black person on the jury, wondered how Potter could show such a "lapse in judgment" with her experience.
"This is a servitude job, and when you get into this position, you need to understand that it's a tough job and so you have to maintain that level of professionalism when you get into that position," she said of police officers in general.
Potter has said she will testify at her trial
Potter, who resigned two days after Wright's death, has told the court she will testify. Body-camera video recorded the shooting, with Potter heard saying, "Taser, Taser, Taser" before she fired, followed by, "I grabbed the wrong (expletive) gun."
Wright, 20, was shot as Chauvin was standing trial 10 miles (16 kilometers) away for killing Floyd. Wright's death sparked several nights of intense protests in the suburb.
The most serious charge against Potter requires prosecutors to prove recklessness; the lesser only requires them to prove culpable negligence. Minnesota's sentencing guidelines call for a sentence of just over seven years on the first-degree manslaughter count and four years on the second-degree one. Prosecutors have said they would seek a longer sentence.
Pro-choice protesters march outside the Texas State Capitol in Austin. (photo: Sergio Flores/Getty Images)
Twenty-one states are poised to immediately ban or acutely curtail access to abortions if the Supreme Court chooses to overturn or weaken Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that for nearly 50 years has guaranteed women's right to seek an abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group in favor of abortion rights.
At the crux of the legal argument made by the state of Mississippi, which is seeking to overturn Roe, is that the U.S. Constitution is neutral on the matter of abortion — meaning the power to regulate it should rest in the hands of individual states.
"When an issue affects everyone and when the Constitution does not take sides on it, it belongs to the people," said Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart during Wednesday's oral arguments over the case, which is known as Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.
If the court's conservative majority agrees — its ruling is expected this summer — so-called "trigger laws" would take effect and automatically ban or curtail abortion in 12 states. In another nine states, pre-Roe abortion bans could once again become enforceable or more recent bans that had been blocked by courts could take effect.
A wave of states enacted trigger laws during the Trump administration
Details of trigger laws vary by state, but all of them would become automatic upon the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Most would ban abortion outright with limited exceptions — like medical emergencies or in cases of rape and incest. They are currently in place in Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Utah.
Most were enacted during the Trump administration, after conservatives Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh were confirmed to the Supreme Court.
Those appointments emboldened Republican-led state legislatures to pass abortion bans with the hopes of prompting a more conservative Supreme Court to gut Roe v. Wade. This includes the Mississippi bill at issue before the court, which would ban abortion after 15 weeks, some nine weeks before the point of fetal viability that Roe and later decisions hinge upon.
"Whether you're for abortion or against abortion, set that aside for a moment. There is no right within the Constitution to take away from the states their authority in the democratic process to prohibit abortion," said former Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant, who signed the law in 2018, speaking this week in an interview with NPR.
In addition to the trigger laws, nine states still have abortion bans on the books that were enacted before Roe was decided in 1973. Those states — four trigger law states along with Alabama, Arizona, Michigan, West Virginia and Wisconsin — could choose to immediately begin enforcement.
And four other states — Georgia, Iowa, Ohio and South Carolina — passed so-called "heartbeat" laws in recent years that ban abortion after cardiac activity is detectable, which can be as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. All four laws are currently blocked by courts, but injunctions could be lifted if the Supreme Court overturns Roe.
A dramatically different landscape
In effect, abortions could soon be illegal or next to impossible to access in these 21 states, with a combined population of more than 135 million people — a major change from today's environment, where all 50 states have at least one operating abortion clinic.
The result would be "incredible chaos and devastation," said Hillary Schneller of the Center for Reproductive Rights, one of the lead attorneys representing Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Mississippi abortion clinic at the center of the case.
"In states across the South and Midwest, it would force people who have the means to travel to a place where abortion remains legal. But many people on low incomes [and] communities of color who are already challenged in getting access to abortion won't be able to actually make that happen," Schneller said.
Opponents of abortion rights point out that abortion would remain legal in much of the rest of the nation, including 15 states, mostly in the West and Northeast, that have laws explicitly permitting abortion.
Two states — Oregon and Vermont, along with the District of Columbia — expressly allow abortion after the point of fetal viability.
"The reversal of Roe will not make abortion illegal," said Mario Díaz, who serves as general counsel for the Concerned Women for America, an organization that opposes abortion rights.
"We're asking them to recognize that the Constitution doesn't speak about it and return the power to the people. And then that will give us laws around the states that reflect what the people believe," he said.
If the court overturns Roe, other Republican-led states that do not currently have a more restrictive abortion ban on the books — like Florida, Indiana, Montana and Nebraska — may move swiftly to enact one. Residents of battleground states like Pennsylvania may be thrown into a state of uncertainty as state legislators battle over whether to enact restrictions.
"Whether or not you have access to safe, essential, medically necessary care is going to depend wholly on where you live in the country and what kind of resources you have access to," said Dr. Jamila Perritt, president and CEO of Physicians for Reproductive Health, a pro-abortion rights organization.
And the efforts to ban abortion nationwide are not likely to end with the court's decision in Dobbs, said Mary Ziegler, a Florida State University professor who studies abortion law.
"Even if the Supreme Court isn't going to be open to that argument immediately, we should expect to see anti-abortion groups pressing it in the years to come," Ziegler said, speaking to NPR ahead of the court's fall term.
A group of Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribal descendants walk through Thacker Pass protesting development of a lithium mine. (photo: Daranda Hinkey)
Thacker Pass is rich in lithium deposits but is also a place of historical and cultural significance to the Paiute people
The area is known as Peehee Mu’huh – or Thacker Pass – and while it could be a lucrative resource for companies hoping to cash in on the electric vehicle revolution (lithium can be used to power rechargeable batteries), Hinkey and her peers say large-scale mining operations could irreversibly damage one of her community’s most sacred sites.
“It’s like putting a lithium mine on Arlington cemetery. It’s just not fair,” she said.
In 1865, a massacre took place at Thacker Pass, killing at least 31 members of the Paiute tribe. Hinkey’s great-great-great grandfather, Ox Sam, was one of three survivors.
In addition to its historical significance, Thacker Pass also plays an important role in the everyday lives of local Indigenous communities; it’s the region where they harvest traditional foods, medicines and supplies for sacred ceremonies.
Today, in order to guard the site, Hinkey and dozens of other local tribal members and descendants are camping near the proposed lithium mine, as a form of protest against extraction in the area. Some members of her coalition have gone so far as to quit their jobs to spend more time on-site. And while the number of campers varies from day to day, Hinkey said they plan to stay until the mine is halted.
While she and her peers are also exploring legal options, the group remains unsure of what comes next – whether their protest can make a difference in Nevada, in an area poised to be extremely important to the transition away from fossil fuels. But they aren’t giving up.
“I still think people think we’re ‘savages’ in some way. We still use the land, we still care for it. They see that as weak, but we see that as strength.”
The global lithium-ion battery market is expected to grow by a factor of five to 10 in the next decade, according to the Department of Energy, in part because of the soaring demand for electric vehicles, as well as its use in personal electronics and renewable energy storage.
But despite having one of the largest lithium reserves in the world, the United States is not a major player in the extraction of the mineral. The Biden administration has called for an investment in “safe, equitable and sustainable domestic mining ventures”, as part of an effort to secure a larger share of the lithium-battery supply chain.
Lithium Nevada, the company proposing the lithium mine, estimates that the project at Thacker Pass will produce roughly 60,000 metric tons of lithium carbonate a year once operational, increasing US production of the material roughly tenfold.
“It’s a gamechanger,” says Tim Crowley, the vice-president of government affairs and community relations at Lithium Nevada. “It’s absolutely essential if we’re going to make America competitive and minimize the geopolitical challenges that we face in relying on other sources [of lithium].”
Hinkey, a graduate of Southern Oregon University’s environmental science, policy and sustainability program, says she understands the need to move away from fossil fuels. But she questions whether lithium mining is the best path to get there.
“A lot of environmentalists will argue that we do need that lithium, we do need that electric car. But I don’t think they’ve thought about the outcome of all of that [mining],” Hinkey says. “What ancestral homelands, what Indigenous lands are they taking from?”
According to the investor analyst firm MSCI, 79% of lithium reserves in the United States are within 35 miles of Native American reservations.
Payal Sampat, mining director at Earthworks, an environmental advocacy group, says Indigenous communities have often “already been pushed out of their homelands, affected by genocide”. For these groups to “have to pay the price for the transition to a low carbon economy – that perhaps those same communities are not even going to benefit from – is completely unacceptable”, he adds.
Recently, opponents of the project have also turned to the courts. Over the summer, several Indigenous groups – including the People of the Red Mountain, the group camping outside the proposed mine – joined an existing suit brought by environmentalists and a local rancher to stop the mine from going forward. A decision is still pending.
But activists have also faced legal setbacks; in November, a federal judge ruled that evidence provided by the Indigenous groups regarding the historical significance of Thacker Pass “does not definitely establish that a massacre occurred within the project area”.
Crowley said that the company is “going to great lengths to make sure that the environment is protected and that we’re being responsible”, in response to Indigenous concerns. “And we’re also going to great lengths to make sure that any historic artifacts are preserved and treated appropriately.”
Mine opponents are acutely aware the legal system may ultimately side against them. They are considering direct action tactics, the kind used by activists in the Dakota Access pipeline protest at Standing Rock.
“It’s really easy to think that if we just say the right things, if we just argue the right things, if we just have the best lawyers, we’re going to win these things, and this is going to go away,” said Will Falk, a lawyer for the People of Red Mountain and one of the first campers at Thacker Pass.
“That’s wishful thinking,” he said. “Eventually we’re going to have to be ready to physically block construction equipment. I think that one of the ways to wake up people in the United States [is seeing] people getting dragged away by the police for trying to protect their land. And I think that’s where this is going.”
A U.S. Border Patrol agent instructs asylum-seeking migrants as they line up along the border wall after crossing the Rio Grande river into the United States from Mexico on a raft, in Penitas, Texas. (photo: Adrees Latif/Reuters)
The Biden administration says it’s still committed to ending “Remain in Mexico.”
In a seemingly contradictory move, Biden is first reinstating and expanding it. The program’s return was ordered by the courts. The policy’s expansion, however, was a choice made by the Biden administration.
On Thursday, the US reached an agreement with the Mexican government to revive the Migration Protection Protocols (MPP), also known as the “Remain in Mexico” policy. Under Trump, the policy allowed 70,000 migrants seeking entry into the US to be sent to Mexican border towns where many lived in squalid encampments or in overcrowded shelters and were targeted by criminal gangs.
Biden halted MPP shortly after taking office, fulfilling a campaign promise. But his administration has argued that it has no choice but to reinstate the program starting on Monday. A federal court in Texas ordered the administration to continue forcing migrants to wait in Mexico until it expands its capacity to detain migrants in the US. The ruling came as part of a lawsuit brought by Texas and Missouri; the Supreme Court has refused to block that lower court ruling.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas nevertheless has maintained that the administration is committed to ending the program eventually.
“MPP had endemic flaws, imposed unjustifiable human costs, pulled resources and personnel away from other priority efforts, and did not address the root causes of irregular migration,” he wrote in an October memo. “MPP not only undercuts the Administration’s ability to implement critically needed and foundational changes to the immigration system, it fails to provide the fair process and humanitarian protections that individuals deserve under the law.”
But by reimplementing the program in the meantime with relatively few changes, the Biden administration has disappointed some Democrats, migrant advocates and even asylum officers tasked with screening people subject to the program. They have argued that the program is itself illegal and shirks the US’s obligation under federal and international law not to return migrants to danger.
Immigration advocates are also angered by the fact that Biden isn’t just reinstating MPP; he’s broadening its scale. Now, all other citizens of countries in the Western Hemisphere can be sent back under the program, which previously only covered Spanish speakers.
The administration isn’t doing so because the court ordered it to — that wasn’t part of the court’s instructions — and it hasn’t explained why it’s expanding the program, and did not respond to a request for comment on Friday. That leaves room for doubt about its commitment to ensuring the safety of migrants who will suffer from keeping MPP in place.
“We categorically reject the Biden administration’s claims that it can administer the Remain in Mexico program in a more humane manner,” Jorge Loweree, policy director at the American Immigration Council, said in a statement. “The longer the administration delays terminating this unlawful and cruel policy, the more people will suffer.”
Biden’s changes to the program aren’t enough
The dangers associated with sending migrants back to Mexico are well documented. As of February 2021, a report by Human Rights First identified more than 1,500 murders, kidnappings, rapes, torture and other attacks on migrants returned to Mexico under MPP. And a survey of 20,000 asylum seekers trapped at the US-Mexico border conducted by the legal aid group Al Otro Lado found that 83 percent had been subject to threats or physical violence, including 89 percent of LGBTQ asylum seekers.
Despite that, and despite having permission from the lower court to do things differently, Biden isn’t changing much about the way MPP has been run. And his administration’s policy still leaves determinations about exemptions to the discretion of individual border agents.
The administration says it will complete all cases in the program within six months of a migrant’s return to Mexico. The Trump administration promised to clear cases in the same time frame, but largely failed to meet it in practice due to a lack of prioritization and backlogs in the immigration courts, limitations the Biden administration still faces.
Biden has also outlined exemptions to the program similar to those the Trump administration used, including for people with disabilities and the elderly. Given that border agents will be tasked with identifying those people, some may fall through the cracks.
The US has said it will also work with the Mexican government to provide “safe and secure” shelters for those enrolled in the program. However, shelter directors along the border say they’re already overwhelmed, and local officials in Mexico have yet to be approached by the Biden administration about funding to expand capacity. The two countries have also promised to provide safe transport to and from US ports of entry, and work permits, health care, and other services in Mexico.
Perhaps most importantly, border agents will now proactively interview migrants to determine whether they have a “reasonable possibility” of facing danger in Mexico before returning them under the program. It will be up to those agents to refer migrants who express any fear of harm if returned to Mexico to an asylum officer for further screening.
Migrants will be able to consult a lawyer before those interviews, though few will benefit from that part of the deal. Previously, only about 18 percent of people subject to MPP who showed up for their hearings were able to pay for a lawyer or had access to free legal counsel, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, which collects and analyzes data on US immigration courts.
But even with those changes, the administration’s own asylum officers say there is no way to ensure migrants’ safety under the “irredeemably flawed” program.
“While the administration has taken measures intended to mitigate some of the most egregious elements of MPP’s prior iteration, a program that requires asylum seekers to remain in one of the most dangerous parts of the world while their cases are pending in US immigration courts cannot guarantee their protection from persecution and torture, as required by US law,” the union for asylum officers tasked with screening people subject to MPP wrote in a letter on Thursday.
Biden wasn’t forced to expand MPP
The Biden administration argued that its hands are tied by the courts when it comes to MPP. Immigrant advocates, however, say that the administration should have acted more quickly to build its case against the program, and that it is under no legal obligation to expand it.
The Biden administration first issued a memo terminating MPP in June. The Texas court found that memo didn’t provide sufficient justification for the decision on August 13. Still, it wasn’t until October 29 that Mayorkas finally issued another memo elaborating on the administration’s reasoning in a manner that might have boosted its case had it been released in July.
Karen Tumlin, an immigration litigator and director and founder of the Justice Action Center, said the Biden administration bears responsibility for dragging their feet on issuing the second memo — what she says is the “thing that was most likely to ultimately end the court order.”
“That delay is what caused the situation we are in today,” she said.
There is also nothing in the court’s order that suggests the Biden administration had to expand MPP. With the exception of Brazilians, non-Spanish speakers were not previously subject to the program, in part because they would have difficulty finding work in Mexico and would have no realistic means of sustaining themselves while pursuing their asylum claims in the US.
Now, all citizens of Western Hemisphere countries are subject to MPP unless they qualify for an exemption. That includes Haitians, who have faced racial discrimination and been targets of violent crimes in Mexico — and not just at the hands of gangs. According to the Al Otro Lado survey, 20 percent of Haitian asylum seekers had been subject to physical violence or extortion by Mexican law enforcement.
The Biden administration noted in its plan for reimplementation that the Mexican government may narrow the categories of migrants subject to MPP, or limit the number of non-Spanish speakers in the program going forward. As it stands, however, the program could cover more migrants than it did under Trump.
“The Biden administration was not ordered by the court to expand Remain in Mexico to new populations,” Ursela Ojeda, senior policy adviser for migrant rights and justice at the Women’s Refugee Commission, said in a press call. “They are going well above and beyond good faith compliance that’s required of them [by the court] to make this policy more cruel and more deadly.”
American and Colombian soldiers stand during multinational military exercises at the Tolemaida Air Base in Tolemaida, Colombia, Jan. 26, 2020. (photo: Ivan Valencia/Getty Images)
When will the Biden administration change its pattern of ignoring blatant human rights violations and the deterioration of democracy in Latin America?
In the face of elections, anti-government protests, and human rights abuses, the U.S. government recognizes and condemns authoritarian trends in countries that resist U.S. hegemony, like Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Cuba, imposing pressures and sanctions in the name of promoting democracy. Meanwhile, in allied countries, like Brazil and Colombia, the administration is hesitant to recognize human rights violations and the deterioration of democracy.
The Biden administration has reclaimed a liberal-internationalist approach to foreign policy, with a renewed emphasis on protecting democracy, human rights, and minority rights. In his Interim National Security Strategy Guidance document, Biden has affirmed the need to overcome threats to democracy—both internal and external—and fortify democracy at home. He promises to “join with like-minded allies and partners to revitalize democracy the world over” and to convene a summit for democracy. Commenting on his vision for U.S.-Latin American relations, Biden said last year that the United States should promote democracy, “but not be in the business of regime change” and committed to conduct the “most transparent administration in history.”
But the administration has shown little will to effectively implement this vision in Latin America. As the United States seeks to contain China’s regional expansion, it is important that the government avoid the mistakes of the past and begin prioritizing human rights over geopolitical clout. However, Colombia and Brazil, which both have presidential elections in 2022, offer two case studies of how the Biden administration has continued to support right-wing leaders in allied countries despite their troubling words and actions.
Colombia and the Repression of Protests
Colombia claims to be Latin America’s longest democracy. Yet the targeting and assassinations of social leaders, blatant human rights violations, and high levels of violence caused human rights nonprofit Freedom House to characterize Colombia as “partly free.” Despite reaching a peace deal in 2016 that ended over 60 years of conflict with the former Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) guerrilla group, the country still struggles to end its civil war, and approximately 15 percent of demobilized FARC have re-armed. President Iván Duque suspended negotiations with the National Liberation Army (ELN), which continues committing violent acts such as “killings, forced displacement, and child recruitment.” The government has also modified the peace accords with FARC, imposing limits to the Special Jurisdiction for Peace, which addresses justice for victims.
Colombia has been a staunch ally of the United States for years—possibly the country’s main ally in Latin America. In recent decades, the United States has implicitly supported police violence and military abuse by providing funds for Colombian forces. As a senator, Biden was personally involved in the negotiations of Plan Colombia in 2001 that assigned billions of dollars to the country to combat drug-traffickers and left-wing guerrillas. One outcome of the Colombian government’s U.S.-aided efforts to combat insurgents was the false positives scandals, in which military and police officers killed innocent civilians to allege they were insurgents. Decades of U.S. aid has solidified Colombia as one of the major U.S. allies in Latin America and the only North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) partner in Latin America. Since taking office, Biden has reaffirmed the bilateral relationship, describing Colombia as the keystone of U.S. policy to Latin America.
Widespread unrest broke out in Colombia in April when protesters rejected a controversial tax bill. Duque withdrew the package, but violent police repression against activists had already amplified dissatisfaction. In Cali, the epicenter of manifestations, 14 people died and 98 were wounded in late May. In addition to the crackdown at the hands of state forces, armed civilian groups attacked activists with impunity.
Amnesty International reported restrictions to the right to peaceful protest, violent repression, paramilitarism, illegal detention, and torture, but the U.S. Department of State was hesitant to condemn its ally. Although Spokesperson Ned Price called for police restraint and to respect human rights, he also partially blamed the protesters, who he described as abusing the right of protest through violence and vandalism. Some of the weapons used to repress the demonstrators were provided by the United States, and Amnesty International called on the U.S. to stop providing arms to Colombia. Nonetheless, in a call with Colombia’s vice president in June, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken “reaffirmed the enduring partnership,” not mentioning the possibility of suspending the transfer of police and military equipment to Colombia.
The U.S. administration’s priorities can be seen in its emphasis on the importance of security cooperation and the joint commitment “to promoting a peaceful and negotiated outcome to the humanitarian and political crisis in Venezuela.” In other words, despite its internal issues, Colombia is seen as a partner when it comes to exporting democracy to its troublesome neighbor. The alliance is perceived as paramount to the United States because Colombia’s geographic location makes it a strategic counterweight to Nicolás Maduro’s government in Venezuela and its relationship with external powers, especially China.
Brazil and 5G as a Priority
In recent years, Brazil’s relatively young democracy has deteriorated. In 2016, then-president, Dilma Rousseff, was removed from power in a contested process that many called unconstitutional. In his speech on the impeachment vote, Jair Bolsonaro, then a member of Congress, praised the well-known dictatorship-era torturer Carlos Alberto Brilhante Ustra. Since the pro-impeachment movements, some politicians and organizations began describing the 1964 military coup as a revolution and denying the gravity of human rights violations, effectively diminishing support for democracy. Despite those warning signs, the U.S. government endorsed Brazilian institutions as functioning in a free and democratic way at the time. Then Vice President Biden described the impeachment as significant but constitutional.
Two years later, Brazilians went to the polls while one of the main presidential candidates, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, was imprisoned on corruption charges that have since been annulled due to the judge’s bias in the case. Lula's imprisonment and consequent inability to run contributed to Bolsonaro’s ascent to power. The elections were also marked by episodes of political violence.
Currently, Freedom House considers Brazil “free,” but its score is declining. Economic inequality is increasing, and transparency is decreasing while the government openly spreads misinformation. Democracy is clearly weakening. Brazilian media have discussed the threat of a military coup, while the president has railed against Supreme Court justices and detained critics. Following recent polls showing a decrease in his popularity, Bolsonaro began a campaign—partly echoing Donald Trump's tactics—to discredit the electronic ballot system, based on no reliable evidence
U.S. national security advisor Jake Sullivan visited Brazil when the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies voted on a bill regarding the electronic ballot system. Sullivan discussed the theme at the bilateral meetings and reaffirmed that the United States considers the Brazilian electoral system free and reliable. Following this, the Brazilian Congress rejected the bill, but Bolsonaro persists with attempts to reform the system.
Although Sullivan did not support the bill, he also did not fully condemn Bolsonaro’s actions, offering cooperation on other fronts. When Sullivan met with Bolsonaro, they addressed Brazil's aspiration to join the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the possible inclusion of the country in NATO’s global partnership. Sullivan made clear that the United States intends to keep working with Brazil and intensifying the bilateral relationship in security issues, which Brazil’s current government perceives as a win. They also discussed the implementation of the 5G telecom infrastructure in the country, and Sullivan reiterated U.S. pressures regarding the exclusion of Huawei's possible role in Brazil. The United States opposes the use of Chinese 5G technology on security grounds, claiming that there is a risk of espionage. Reporting on the visit, Brazilian newspaper Folha de São Paulo pointed out that U.S. support for the country to join NATO’s program was contingent on vetoing Huawei.
Afterward, in a press briefing, National Security Council Senior Director for the Western Hemisphere Juan Gonzalez was asked about this apparent quid pro quo exchange and how he reconciles that with the threats to democracy. Gonzalez denied that the veto to Huawei was in exchange for support in NATO. He said that it is possible to broaden bilateral relations through military partnership and, at the same time, support free and fair elections. Even if that is the case, this approach is inconsistent with the one that the United States employs in Cuba and Venezuela. Brazil’s 5G spectrum auction started on November 4 and is expected to levy 8 billion dollars. The county has not excluded the Chinese company from the 5G telecom market, but the government has decided to build a separate infrastructure for itself, in which Huawei’s equipment will be excluded.
Double Standards
Biden’s policy in Latin America continues the U.S. tradition of prioritizing geopolitical alignments over all else. Despite blatant violations of human rights and the deterioration of democracy in allied countries, the administration reiterates promises of partnership and U.S. support. On the other hand, the narrative on human rights and democracy continues to be instrumentalized when it comes to countries that resist U.S. hegemony and search for partnerships with other global powers that the United States consider a threat.
With the growth of Chinese trade and investments in the region, Latin America has become the site of competition between global powers. The Trump administration described China’s inroads as predatory and reaffirmed the Monroe Doctrine, while Biden promised to restore U.S. leadership. During the Cold War, this type of great power competition and rhetoric of promoting a “free world” led the United States to prioritize geopolitics over democracy and support anti-communist dictatorships despite their gross human rights violations.
With presidential elections in Colombia and Brazil next year, it is important for the progressive parties to place defending democracy first and for the United States to support the results of the ballot box in face of likely unrest and possible political change. As the rivalry between great powers intensifies and China expands its trade and investments in the continent, it remains to be seen: will the United States put human rights first and avoid past mistakes? So far, all signs point to a repeat of the past.
A sea turtle swims near a plastic bag. (photo: Rich Carey/Shutterstock)
The first recommendation of the committee of academic experts who wrote the report is that the U.S. stop producing so much plastic, especially non-reusable materials or plastics that are not “practically recyclable,” Inside Climate News reported. The report also proposed a national cap on the production of virgin plastics.
“The developing plastic waste crisis has been building for decades,” the study said, as reported by The Washington Post. “The success of the 20th century miracle invention of plastics has also produced a global scale deluge of plastic waste seemingly everywhere we look.”
“[T]he committee was able to conclude that while only 4.3 percent of the world’s population lives in the United States, the nation was the top generator of plastic waste, producing 42 million metric tons in 2016, with per person plastic waste generation at 287 pounds,” reported James Bruggers of Inside Climate News.
“The fundamental problem here is that plastics are accumulating in the natural environment, including in the ocean,” said Margaret Spring, Monterey Bay Aquarium’s chief conservation officer and chair of the report committee, said in a telephone interview, Inside Climate News reported. Plastics are “pervasive and persistent environmental contaminants,” Spring said, and the problem is “going to continue unless we change — we have to change. And that’s just the truth.”
“A lot of U.S. focus to date has been on the cleaning it up part. There needs to be more attention to the creation of plastic,” Spring said, as reported by The Washington Post.
“We suggest that one way to reduce plastic waste would be to make less plastic,” oceanographer and report co-author Kara Lavender Law said, as reported by The Associated Press. “Recycling cannot manage the vast majority of the plastic waste that we generate.”
“The panel provided a menu of potential ways to fix the plastics problem, starting with ‘national goals and strategies to cap or reduce virgin plastic production,” as Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press reported.
“Virgin plastic is plastic that starts from feedstock that hasn’t been used — namely, non-recycled material. The problem, the report said, is that ‘virgin plastic prices are artificially low due to fossil fuel subsidies, therefore virgin plastics are more profitable to produce’ — and U.S. manufacturing of them continues to increase,” Borenstein reported.
In Congress’ recently passed $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill, there was division concerning plastics reform, with industry-friendly lawmakers supporting “advanced recycling,” as Inside Climate News reported.
“Environmental advocates find the industry’s touting of ‘advanced recycling’ a form of greenwashing — making an official stance seem more environmentally friendly than it actually is — and say it is continuing the nation’s reliance on fossil fuels,” reported James Bruggers of Inside Climate News.
“When you reduce plastics production, there are less air toxins and greenhouse gases,” which are often a problem in or near low income communities or communities of color, said former Environmental Protection Agency regional administrator and president of environmental group Beyond Plastic, Judith Enck, as reported by Inside Climate News. Enck added that low recycling rates add to landfills and incinerators and that these are likely to be located in these communities.
Follow us on facebook and twitter!
PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611
No comments:
Post a Comment