April, 14 2009, 08:40am EDT
Russia/Georgia: Cluster Bombs' Harm Shows Need to Join Ban
GENEVA
The loss of lives and livelihoods from cluster munitions used by Russia and Georgia during the August 2008 armed conflict reinforces the importance of the new treaty banning the weapon, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. The United States, China, Russia, Georgia, and other countries opposed to the ban treaty are meeting in Geneva this week in a last-ditch attempt to conclude a separate, far weaker treaty.
The 80-page report, "A Dying Practice: Use of Cluster Munitions by Russia and Georgia in August 2008," is the first comprehensive report on cluster munition use by Russia and Georgia in their week-long conflict over the separatist enclave of South Ossetia. Human Rights Watch field investigations in August, September, and October 2008 documented dozens of civilian deaths and injuries from the use of cluster munitions, including casualties after the fighting ended. Unexploded submunitions continue to threaten civilians. Despite considerable material evidence of Russian cluster munition use, Russia has denied using them.
"Cluster munitions always kill and maim civilians, during the fighting and long afterward," said Bonnie Docherty, researcher in the Arms Division of Human Rights Watch and author of the report. "A comprehensive prohibition is the only real solution. So-called responsible use of cluster munitions is a myth, and nations should resist efforts to weaken the ban."
The new Convention on Cluster Munitions, which opened for signature in December 2008, categorically bans cluster munitions. It also requires nations to clear contaminated areas and to aid affected individuals and communities. To date, 96 states have signed the treaty, and six states have ratified it. It will enter into force and become legally binding six months after the 30th ratification.
At a four-day conference that started in Geneva today, states that have opposed the convention are seeking to reach a consensus on an alternative legal instrument that would regulate, not ban, cluster munitions. These states support a draft protocol to the Convention on Conventional Weapons, which would allow future use of the same cluster munitions used by both sides in Georgia.
During their August 2008 conflict over the breakaway region of South Ossetia, Russia and Georgia used cluster munitions in a way that exemplified the humanitarian problems caused by any use of the weapons. Human Rights Watch found evidence of cluster munitions from both sides in populated areas. It confirmed that at least 16 civilians died from cluster munitions and at least 54 more were wounded in Georgia, south of the South Ossetian administrative border. Unexploded submunitions also littered farms, interfering with harvests.
"States should make the Russia-Georgia conflict the last in which cluster munitions kill and maim civilians," said Docherty. "Prompt ratification of the Convention on Cluster Munitions is the way to achieve that goal."
At the time of the conflict, 107 states had already adopted the final text of the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Yet Russia and Georgia ignored the emerging international consensus that cluster munitions should be prohibited. Human Rights Watch urged all countries to sign and ratify the Convention on Cluster Munitions as soon as possible to strengthen stigmatization of the weapons and help the treaty become legally binding.
Cluster munitions are large weapons that release dozens or hundreds of smaller submunitions. Air-dropped or ground-launched, they cause two major humanitarian problems. First, their wide area effect virtually guarantees civilian casualties when they are used in populated areas. Second, many of the submunitions do not explode on impact as designed, causing civilian casualties for months or years to come.
Human Rights Watch found that Russia violated international humanitarian law with indiscriminate and disproportionate cluster munition attacks on populated areas in Georgia. It blanketed the town of Variani, for example, with cluster munitions on two days, causing 19 civilian casualties. Human Rights Watch identified Russian cluster munition remnants in or near seven towns and villages. In March, Norwegian People's Aid, an international demining organization, reported finding additional cluster munition remnants in two other villages.
Human Rights Watch also documented casualties from Georgian cluster munitions in or near nine populated areas of Georgia south of the South Ossetian administrative border. The Georgian government acknowledged using cluster munitions, but it claimed that it was aiming at invading Russian military forces and equipment in South Ossetia, in an otherwise unpopulated area. The cluster munitions left an unusually high number of unexploded submunitions and fell short of minimum range. This evidence suggests that a massive failure of the weapon may have caused Georgian submunitions not to reach their intended targets in South Ossetia. Regardless of whether the weapons functioned or failed, their use illustrates that cluster munitions are always highly dangerous.
"Whoever the user, and whatever the type used, cluster munitions pose unacceptable risks to civilians and need to be eliminated," said Docherty.
In its report, Human Rights Watch calls on Russia and Georgia to conduct independent and impartial investigations into cluster munition use and to make the results public. They should hold accountable anyone found responsible for using cluster munitions in violation of international humanitarian law. To facilitate clearance, Russia and Georgia should provide deminers with information on the location, types, and numbers of cluster munitions used.
On August 15, 2008, Human Rights Watch was the first organization to document the use of cluster munitions in Georgia. The new report is based on multiple follow-up missions; interviews with more than 100 witnesses, deminers, and government officials; and analysis of physical evidence.
"A Dying Practice" is the latest in a series of Human Rights Watch reports documenting the use of cluster munitions around the world. Human Rights Watch has issued other comprehensive reports on the use of cluster munitions in Kosovo in 1999, in Afghanistan in 2001-2002, in Iraq in 2003, and in Lebanon and Israel in 2006.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
Huge Administrative Waste Makes Clear For-Profit Insurance Is 'Actually Very Bad': Analysis
"It is totally fair for people to identify private insurers as the key bad actor in our current system," writes Matt Bruenig of the People's Policy Project. "The quicker we nationalize health insurance, the better."
Dec 10, 2024
Last week's murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson brought to the surface a seething hatred of the nation's for-profit insurance system—anger rooted in the industry's profiteering, high costs, and mass care denials.
But that response has led some pundits to defend private insurance companies and claim that, in fact, healthcare providers such as hospitals and doctors are the real drivers of outlandish U.S. healthcare costs.
In an analysis published Tuesday, Matt Bruenig of the People's Policy Project argued that defenders of private insurers are relying on "factual misunderstandings and very questionable analysis" and that it is reasonable to conclude that the for-profit insurance system is "actually very bad."
"From a design perspective, the main problem with our private health insurance system is that it is extremely wasteful," Bruenig wrote, estimating based on existing research that excess administrative expenses amount to $528 billion per year—or 1.8% of U.S. gross domestic product.
"All healthcare systems require administration, which costs money, but a private multi-payer system requires massively more than other approaches, especially the single-payer system favored by the American left," Bruenig observed, emphasizing that excess administrative expenses of both the insurance companies and healthcare providers stem from "the multi-payer private health insurance system that we have."
He continued:
To get your head around why this is, think for a second about what happens to every $100 you give to a private insurance company. According to the most exhaustive study on this question in the U.S.—the CBO single-payer study from 2020—the first thing that happens is that $16 of those dollars are taken by the insurance company. From there, the insurer gives the remaining $84 to a hospital to reimburse them for services. That hospital then takesanother $15.96 (19% of its revenue) for administration, meaning that only $68.04 of the original $100 actually goes to providing care.
In a single-payer system, the path of that $100 looks a lot different. Rather than take $16 for insurance administration, the public insurer would only take $1.60. And rather than take $15.96 of the remaining money for hospital administration, the hospital would only take $11.80 (12% of its revenue), meaning that $86.60 of the original $100 actually goes to providing care.
High provider payments, which some analysts have suggested are the key culprit in exorbitant healthcare costs, are also attributable to the nation's for-profit insurance system, Bruenig argued.
"Medicaid and Medicare are able to negotiate much lower rates than private insurance, just as the public health insurer under a single-payer system would be able to. It is only within the private insurance segment of the system that providers have been able to jack up rates to such an extreme extent," he wrote. "Given all of this, I think it is totally fair for people to identify private insurers as the key bad actor in our current system. They are directly responsible for over half a trillion dollars of administrative waste and (at the very least) indirectly responsible for the provider rents that are bleeding Americans dry."
"The quicker we nationalize health insurance," he concluded, "the better."
Bruenig's analysis comports with research showing that a single-payer system such as the Medicare for All program proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), and other progressives in Congress could produce massive savings by eliminating bureaucratic costs associated with the private insurance system.
One study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in January 2020 estimated that Medicare for All could save the U.S. more than $600 billion per year in healthcare-related administrative costs.
"The average American is paying more than $2,000 a year for useless bureaucracy," said Dr. David Himmelstein, lead author of the study, said at the time. "That money could be spent for care if we had a Medicare for All program."
Deep-seated anger at the systemic and harmful flaws of the for-profit U.S. insurance system could help explain why the percentage of the public that believes it's the federal government's responsibility to ensure all Americans have healthcare coverage is at its highest level in more than a decade, according to Gallup polling released Monday.
"There's a day of reckoning that is happening right now," former insurance industry executive Wendell Potter, president of the Center for Health and Democracy, said in an MSNBCappearance on Monday. "Whether we're talking about employers, patients, doctors—just about everybody despises health insurance companies in ways that I've never seen before."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Extreme Weather Fueled by Climate Crisis Cost Insurers $600 Billion
"Unless we cut emissions sharply this decade, climate damages will grow exponentially and could overwhelm both insurers and economies," one expert warned.
Dec 10, 2024
A report out Tuesday shows that the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency accounts for an estimated $600 billion of global insured weather losses over a recent two-decade period, which a campaign targeting the insurance industry called "an immense climate price tag that insurers have long been passing on to policyholders."
Insure Our Future, the international campaign behind the eighth annual scorecard, is supported by advocacy groups including Ekō, Greenpeace, Mazaska Talks, Public Citizen, Rainforest Action Network, Reclaim Finance, the Sunrise Project, and Waterkeeper Alliance.
The report—titled, Within Our Power: Cut Emissions Today To Insure Tomorrow—"examines what 20 years of climate attribution science reveals about today's insurance crisis, explores the status of gross direct premiums from insuring fossil fuels and renewable energy activities, and analyzes the coal, oil, and gas policies of 30 leading primary insurers and reinsurers."
While climate-attributed losses from 2002 to 2022 worked out to around $30 billion annually, the financial burden was not evenly spread out over those 20 years. Instead, the report says, such losses "have recently accounted for a growing share of insured weather losses, showing how decarbonization is crucial to contain soaring insurance costs."
"The climate-attributed share of insured weather losses rose from 31% to 38% over the last decade on average, and their annual growth (6.5%) significantly outpaced thegrowth of the insured losses (4.9%)," the publication explains. "In 2022, $52 billion out of $132 billion was climate-attributed."
The other key findings are:
- Estimated climate-attributed losses for 28 top property and casualty insurers ($10.6 billion) approached the fossil fuel premiums they collected ($11.3 billion) in 2023—and for more than half the companies, they exceeded them;
- The renewable energy insurance market is still under 30% of the size of the fossil fuel insurance market in 2023, threatening to be a bottleneck for investments in the climate transition; and
- At the brink of 1.5°C, insurers are abandoning at-risk communities worldwide while enabling fossil fuel expansion that drives these risks higher—requiring immediate policy and regulatory action.
The report acknowledges that its findings arrive amid scientists' warnings that 2024 is on track to be the first full year to breach 1.5°C—the Paris agreement's target for temperature rise this century. The latest meeting for countries signed on to that treaty, held in Azerbaijan last month, concluded with what critics called a "big F U to climate justice."
Like activists and experts outraged by the conclusion of COP29, Ilan Noy, a professor focused on the economics of disasters and climate change at New Zealand's Victoria University of Wellington, stressed the importance of bolder global action in response to the Insure Our Future report.
"Insurers are fundamentally misunderstanding climate risk by failing to recognize how greenhouse gas emissions have driven up losses throughout this century," Noy said in a statement. "Unless we cut emissions sharply this decade, climate damages will grow exponentially and could overwhelm both insurers and economies."
🔎 The scandal: Fossil fuel underwriting is less than 2% of insurers’ premium income - pocket change. Yet this small slice enables massive fossil fuel expansion, pushing our planet toward irreversible tipping points. [3/8]
— Insure Our Future Global (@insureourfuture.bsky.social) December 10, 2024 at 4:13 AM
Laurie Laybourn, director of the U.K.-based Strategic Climate Risks Initiative, similarly suggested that the climate emergency poses an existential threat to the insurance industry while discussing Insure Our Future's report with Forbes' David Vetter.
"Because insurance impacts are mounting and because we don't have an insurance system built for the way that climate change is evolving, this dynamic is only going to get much worse," Laybourn said. "As we're already seeing, governments are having to step in to effectively ensure that insurance can still exist in certain places."
"In Florida, you have a situation where flood insurance is increasingly receding and the government is having to make decisions about how and what to cover," he noted. "It's the case as well in the U.K., where major flooding events led to the creation of Flood Re, a government-backed reinsurance agency to cover places that are effectively uninsurable through private markets."
Warning of a potential "doom loop" in which climate impacts cause instability that impedes adequately ambitious action, Laybourn added that "we need systems that are more resilient so that we can continue to remain focused on decarbonization, even as things get more unstable."
⏰ Time’s up for ‘voluntary’ action. While Generali overtook Allianz in our #Scorecard with stronger oil & gas restrictions, the industry is stalling on fossil fuels while accelerating its retreat from communities. [7/8]
— Insure Our Future Global (@insureourfuture.bsky.social) December 10, 2024 at 4:13 AM
The new report offers a roadmap to a more resilient insurance system. As the document points out, this is the first time Insure Our Future has included policy recommendations for lawmakers and regulators.
The publication urges insurance firms to immediately stop insuring new fossil fuel projects or any customers from the industry that have not published a transition plan for the 1.5°C goal. It also calls on insurers to set their own binding Paris-aligned targets and to divest from coal, gas, and oil companies.
The report further pushes insurers to align stewardship activities, trade associations membership, and public positions with a credible 1.5°C pathway; establish mechanisms to ensure clients fully respect human rights; and explore bringing fossil fuel companies to court "to make polluters rather than insurance customers pay."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Top Progressives Urge DNC to Reject Super PACs, Uplift Working-Class Base
Congressional Progressive Caucus leaders are pressing the Democratic Party to offer "a clear alternative and inclusive vision for how we will make life better for the 90% who are struggling in this economy."
Dec 10, 2024
In the wake of U.S. federal elections resulting in Republican control of the White House and both chambers of Congress—in no small part due to Democrats' failure to win working-class votes—leading congressional progressives are pushing a plan to rebuild the Democratic Party by rejecting corporate cash and uplifting low- and middle-income Americans.
In a memo first shared with Punchbowl News, outgoing Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), incoming Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas), and CPC members Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) and Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.) urge the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to "rebuild our party from the ground up."
The lawmakers call on DNC leadership to "create an authentic Democratic brand that offers a clear alternative and inclusive vision for how we will make life better for the 90% who are struggling in this economy, take on the biggest corporations and wealthiest individuals who have rigged the system," and expose GOP President-elect Donald Trump's "corporate favoritism" to "create a clear contrast with Republicans."
Jayapal outlined what she called "four core principles" for the next DNC chair, who hasn't yet been elected:
- Reform, restructure, and rebrand the Democratic Party from the ground up and commit to a 50-state strategy that builds power through state parties;
- Embrace grassroots donors and reject special interest and dark money, including by reinstating the DNC's 2008 ban on corporate political action committee donations, and pushing to prohibit super PAC spending in state primaries;
- Rebuild Democrats' multiracial, working-class base by uplifting poor, low-, and middle-income voices and concerns; and
- Highlight recent electoral successes while working to build broad coalitions to win elections.
The progressives' memo urges the DNC to "invest in showing our commitment to real populism versus Trump's faux populism
through lifting up working-class voices and issue-based campaigns that take on corporate concentration and monopoly power at the expense of working people."
The principles enumerated in the memo resonated beyond the CPC. Responding to the proposed agenda in a social media post, U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) concurred: "The next DNC chair should absolutely refuse to take corporate PAC money. If we are the party of the working class—and we are—then let's raise $ like we mean it."
Casar, who before running for elected office worked as policy director for the Workers Defense Project—whose victories included rest and water breaks for outdoor laborers, anti-wage theft legislation, and living wage requirements—has repeatedly stressed the imperative "to re-emphasize core economic issues" that matter most to American workers.
"The core of the Republican Party is about helping Wall Street and billionaires. And I think we have to call out the game," Casar said last week during an interview with NBC News.
"The Democratic Party, at its best, can hold people or can have inside of its tent people across geography, across race, and across ideology," he added. "Because we're all in the same boat when it comes to making sure that you can retire with dignity, that your kids can go to school, that you can buy a house."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular