

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Amy Barry (UK), +44 1865 472498, +44 (0) 7980 664397
Small farmers in
developing countries have not benefited from higher food prices, thanks
in part to flawed trade and agricultural policies that have made them
vulnerable and weakened their positions in markets, said international
agency Oxfam in a new report released today, World Food Day.
In Double Edged Prices,
Oxfam says that all governments, donors, and agencies, must learn the
lessons from the crisis. These include the importance of investing in
agriculture, having trade policies that ensure food security, and
designing social protection systems that protect the poorest.
Teresa
Cavero, author of the report and head of research at Oxfam in Spain,
said: "The trend in agriculture, as in international finance, has been
towards deregulation and a reduced role for the State. This has had
devastating effects and innocent lives have been blighted by exposure
to market volatility. It is time the world woke up to the need for
developing country governments to support their poor farmers, and the
obligation of developed countries to help them to do so."
"In
countries where governments have invested in agriculture, and put
policies in place to target vulnerable or marginalized groups, the
impacts of food price inflation have been less severe. In contrast,
where there has been unmanaged trade liberalization, underinvestment in
agriculture, and little support from government, the effects have been
devastating," she added.
The sharp rise in global food prices has
pushed 119m more people into hunger, taking the global total to 967m.
Higher food prices mean people are eating less and lower quality food,
children are being taken out of school and farmers are being forced to
migrate to cities to live in slums (see case studies below). Women are
especially vulnerable because they rarely own land and have limited
access to credit and other services, but they bear much of the
responsibility for feeding and caring for families.
Meanwhile,
some of the biggest international food companies have made windfall
profits. Commodity-trader, Bunge, saw its profits in the second fiscal
quarter of 2008 increase by $583m, or quadruple, compared with the same
period last year. Nestle's global sales grew nearly 9% in the first
half of 2008, and UK supermarket Tesco, has reported profits up 10%
from last year. Seed company, Monsanto, reported a 26% increase in
revenue to a record $3.6bn in the fiscal quarter that ended May 31,
2008.
"Misguided or inadequate national agricultural policies,
coupled with unfair trade rules and poor economic advice, has created a
situation where big traders and supermarkets are gaining from price
rises, and small farmers and consumers are losing out," said Cavero.
Oxfam
criticizes the international community's inadequate response - both in
terms of money and coordination. At an emergency meeting in Rome
earlier this year, $12.3bn was pledged for the food crisis, but little
more than $1bn has been disbursed so far. This is in stark contrast
with the response to the current financial crisis, where huge financial
resources have been mobilized by the international community in a
matter of days.
Cavero: "It is shocking that the international
community has failed to organize itself to respond adequately to this.
The UN taskforce produced a good plan - the Comprehensive Framework for
Action - but there is still not clear leadership to implement it.
Developing countries are being bombarded with different initiatives and
asked to produce multiple plans for different donors. We need to see
one coordinated international response, led by the UN, which channels
funds urgently to those in need, and leads on implementation of the
longer-term reforms."
Download the report: Double-Edged Prices - Lessons from the food price crisis: 10 actions developing countries should take
Oxfam International is a global movement of people who are fighting inequality to end poverty and injustice. We are working across regions in about 70 countries, with thousands of partners, and allies, supporting communities to build better lives for themselves, grow resilience and protect lives and livelihoods also in times of crisis.
"The sweeping language and broad authority in these directives pose serious constitutional, statutory, and civil liberties risks, especially if used to target political dissent, protest, or ideological speech."
Over 30 Democrats in the US House of Representatives wrote to President Donald Trump on Thursday to condemn his designation of antifa as a domestic terrorist organization and a related memorandum targeting the Republican's opponents.
Democratic Reps. Mark Pocan (Wis.), Jared Huffman (Calif.), and Pramila Jayapal (Wash.) led the letter, which builds on criticism that has mounted since late last month, when Trump issued the executive order against antifa—even though the nationwide anti-fascist movement has no central organizational structure or leaders.
Days later, Trump signed National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), which, as the letter details, "directs federal officials to crack down on organized political violence, which you define to include 'anti-Christianity,' 'anti-capitalism,' and 'hostility toward those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.'"
The lawmakers wrote that "while protecting public safety and countering genuine threats are essential responsibilities of government, the sweeping language and broad authority in these directives pose serious constitutional, statutory, and civil liberties risks, especially if used to target political dissent, protest, or ideological speech."
"Regardless of whether the president agrees with someone's political views, the Constitution guarantees their right to speak and assemble peacefully," they stressed. They also noted that "neither the memo nor the executive order clearly defines 'antifa' as a specific entity. Instead, the executive order conflates nonviolent protest and activism with doxing and violent behavior."
"While the threat of political violence demands vigilance, your administration must not use this moment to undermine the very constitutional and democratic principles we are sworn to uphold," they concluded. "These actions are illegal, and we demand you immediately rescind both the memorandum and the executive order. We stand ready to take legislative action should you fail to do so."
The letter, which its organizers began circulating earlier this month, was sent to Trump ahead of a second round of "No Kings" protests planned for Saturday. Demonstrators intend to take to the streets in over 2,500 US communities to denounce the president's unprecedented and accelerating attacks on democracy. A key ally of Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), on Wednesday called for passing his bill to "prosecute" funders of the rallies.
In addition to dozens of House Democrats—including lawmakers from Illinois and Oregon, where Trump has deployed immigration agents and tried to federalize the National Guard, sparking court battles—the letter is endorsed by American Atheists, American Humanist Association, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Amnesty International, Council for Global Equality, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, Immigration Equality, MPact Global Action, National Women's Law Center, and Secular Coalition for America.
The order and memo are just part of the Trump administration's broad crackdown on dissent, which has also included trying to deport foreign students who criticize Israel's US-backed genocide in the Gaza Strip, cutting reporters off from the Pentagon for refusing to sign a "flatly unconstitutional" press policy, and bullying Disney-owned ABC into temporarily suspending late-night host Jimmy Kimmel.
Brown University, the University of Southern California, and the University of Pennsylvania—the president's alma mater—all rejected the proposal.
Three more leading US universities have joined the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in rejecting President Donald Trump's compact that critics have condemned as an "extortion agreement" and "loyalty oath" for federal funding.
Brown University's Wednesday decision and Thursday announcements from the University of Southern California and the University of Pennsylvania came ahead of the Trump administration's October 20 deadline for the nine initially invited schools to respond to the "Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education."
Although the University of Texas said it was "honored" to receive the offer, it has not officially signed on to the compact to receive priority access to federal funding and other "benefits." Neither has any of the other institutions: the University of Arizona, Dartmouth College, Vanderbilt University, and the University of Virginia.
Bloomberg reported Monday that "a few days after MIT rebuffed the proposal, the administration extended the offering to all higher education institutions," citing an unnamed person familiar with the matter.
Brown's president, Christina Paxson, released her full letter to Education Secretary Linda McMahon and other Trump officials on Wednesday. She pointed out that "on July 30, Brown signed a voluntary resolution agreement with the government that advances a number of the high-level principles articulated in the compact, while maintaining core tenets of academic freedom and self-governance that have sustained the excellence of American higher education across generations."
"While a number of provisions in the compact reflect similar principles as the July agreement—as well as our own commitments to affordability and the free exchange of ideas—I am concerned that the compact by its nature and by various provisions would restrict academic freedom and undermine the autonomy of Brown's governance, critically compromising our ability to fulfill our mission," Paxson wrote. "While we value our long-held and well-regarded partnership with the federal government, Brown is respectfully declining to join the compact."
Penn, also part of the Ivy League, rejected the compact on Thursday. In a statement, its president, Dr. J. Larry Jameson, said that "for 285 years, Penn has been anchored and guided by continuous self-improvement, using education as a ladder for opportunity, and advancing discoveries that serve our community, our nation, and the world."
"I have sought input from faculty, alumni, trustees, students, staff, and others who care deeply about Penn," with the goal of ensuring that "our response reflected our values and the perspectives of our broad community," Jameson detailed. "Penn respectfully declines to sign the proposed compact," and provided the US Department of Education with "focused feedback highlighting areas of existing alignment as well as substantive concerns."
"At Penn, we are committed to merit-based achievement and accountability," he added. "The long-standing partnership between American higher education and the federal government has greatly benefited society and our nation. Shared goals and investment in talent and ideas will turn possibility into progress."
As The Daily Pennsylvanian, the campus newspaper, noted:
At a Wednesday meeting, Penn's Faculty Senate overwhelmingly passed a resolution urging the University to reject the agreement.
"The 'compact’ erodes the foundation on which higher education in the United States is built," the October 15 resolution read. "The University of Pennsylvania Faculty Senate urges President Jameson and the Board of Trustees to reject it and any other proposal that similarly threatens our mission and values."
Penn is the alma mater of Trump and Marc Rowan, a billionaire private equity financier who helped craft the compact.
The Trump White House told the student newspaper that "any higher education institution unwilling to assume accountability and confront these overdue and necessary reforms will find itself without future government and taxpayers' support."
Despite the risk of funding loss, the University of Southern California also rejected the proposal on Thursday. In a statement to the campus paper, the Daily Trojan, interim president Beong-Soo Kim said that "although USC has declined to join the proposed compact, we look forward to contributing our perspectives, insights, and Trojan values to an important national conversation about the future of higher education."
Critics of the compact have called on educational leaders to oppose it. In a joint statement earlier this month, American Association of University Professors president Todd Wolfson and American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten urged "all college and university governing boards, campus administrations, academic disciplinary organizations, and higher education trade groups to reject such collusion with the Trump administration and to stand firmly on the side of free expression and higher education as the anchor of opportunity for all."
Acquiescing, they argued, "would be a profound betrayal of your students, staff, faculty, the public, higher education, and our shared democracy—one that would irretrievably tarnish your personal reputation and compromise your institution's legacy. We urge you not to capitulate and not to negotiate but to unite now in defense of democracy and higher education."
"AIPAC's brand is increasingly, perhaps irredeemably toxic," wrote one observer.
A centrist Democratic lawmaker on Thursday surprised many political observers when he announced he would be returning donations he'd received from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), who is running a primary challenge against Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), said that he was rejecting donations from AIPAC because it had aligned itself too closely with the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who last year was accused of committing crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court.
"I'm a friend of Israel, but not of its current government, and AIPAC's mission is to back that government," Moulton said in a social media post. "I don't support that direction."
As flagged by New York Times reporter Annie Karni, Moulton is now the fourth Democratic lawmaker who once received heavy support from AIPAC to reject their donations, following Reps. Morgan McGarvey (D-Ky.), Deborah Ross (D-NC), and Valerie Foushee (D-NC).
Hamid Bendaas, communications director for the Institute for Middle East Understanding Policy Project, observed in a post on X that Moulton appeared to be ignoring advice given by a prominent Democratic consultant over the summer to not focus on the Israel-Palestine conflict because polls showed it wasn't important to voters.
Dylan Williams, the vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, argued that Moulton's rejection of AIPAC cash showed how far the organization's reputation with the electorate has fallen over the past several years.
"AIPAC is now so toxic to Democratic voters that support from it is widely seen as a political liability," he wrote. "The NRA-ization of AIPAC is nearly complete."
Ishaan Tharoor, a Washington Post global affairs columnist, also reflected on how much AIPAC's brand has been damaged over the last two years of war in Gaza, which has resulted in the deaths of at least 68,000 Palestinians.
"There was a time when people would refer to AIPAC as the gold standard in lobbying," he wrote. "So many in India and the Indian diaspora have talked about a future 'Indian AIPAC' one day influencing US politics in similar fashion. But AIPAC's brand is increasingly, perhaps irredeemably toxic."
Journalist Ryan Grim had a one-word reaction to Moulton's rejection of AIPAC cash: "Wow."