

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.

Serious human rights violations in Azerbaijan, China, Cuba, Russia,
and Saudi Arabia undermine their candidacies for the May 12, 2009
election to the United Nations Human Rights Council, a global coalition of international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) said in a letter released today.
In a letter to UN member states, the NGO Coalition for an Effective
Human Rights Council expressed concern that the human rights records of
Azerbaijan, China, Cuba, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, all of which are
running for re-election, fall far short of the required "highest"
standards of human rights. The coalition urged UN member states not to
vote for these countries as they have not made real progress to address
human rights violations and to cooperate fully with the council ahead
of the election.
"These five countries stood out as rights violators in 2006 and
sadly still do today," said Steve Crawshaw, UN advocacy director at
Human Rights Watch. "They have made many promises but taken few steps
to make them convincing candidates for a human rights body."
Member nations of the UN General Assembly in New York will elect 18
new members to the 47-member Human Rights Council in Geneva, the UN's
leading human rights body. Council members are required to "uphold the
highest standards" of human rights and "fully cooperate" with the
council.
The make-up of the Human Rights Council reflects the UN's geographic
composition, and seats are allotted by regional group. In four out of
five regions, the number of candidates is expected to equal the number
of seats allotted to the region, thus eliminating any meaningful
competition and comparative scrutiny of candidates. Even so, each
candidate must secure an absolute majority of the General Assembly - 97
votes - in order to obtain a seat.
"The old practice of regional endorsements and rubber-stamping was
supposed to go out with the Human Rights Commission," said Yap Swee
Seng, executive director of Asian Forum for Human Rights and
Development (FORUM-ASIA), referring to the Human Rights Council's
predecessor. "But the lack of real choice in so many regions suggests
that many countries have gone back to putting politics and vote trading
ahead of human rights and an effective Human Rights Council."
In the African region, Cameroon, Djibouti, Kenya, Mauritius,
Nigeria, and Senegal have declared their candidacies for the five
available seats, but delegates from the African region say that one of
the candidates will withdraw before the election and the region plans
to again present a non-competitive slate. In the Western European and
Other group, Belgium, Norway, and the United States are running for the
region's three open seats. Although New Zealand was running, it
withdrew from the election after the United States declared its
candidacy.
"It is especially disappointing that for the first time the
longstanding democracies in the Western group have chosen to run a
non-competitive election for the Human Rights Council," said Dokhi
Fassihian, executive director of Democracy Coalition Project. "We fear
this poor decision will undermine efforts to improve the membership of
the council through competitive slates."
Only in the Eastern Europe slate are member states sure to have a
choice of candidates, with Hungary, Russia, and Azerbaijan vying for
two seats. The coalition noted that Azerbaijan harasses and intimidates
human rights defenders, continues to hold political prisoners, and uses
criminal charges to silence independent media. The human rights
situation in the country has deteriorated during its three years on the
council. Similarly, Russia has tightened control over civil society,
restricted freedom of expression and the media, and allowed harassment
and violence against journalists and activists to go unpunished.
"Among Eastern European candidates, the choice is clear," said Igor
Blazevic, head of the Human Rights and Democracy Department of the
People in Need. "Russia and Azerbaijan simply do not uphold the highest
standards of human rights."
China, Saudi Arabia, and Cuba are running in non-competitive
elections. Although Cuba remains the one country in the Western
Hemisphere that represses nearly all forms of political dissent, it
faces no competition for its seat, with only three countries (Cuba,
Mexico, and Uruguay) running for the three open Latin American seats.
Countries in the Asian regional group have gone so far as to endorse
unconditionally all five candidates running for the Asian region's five
open seats, including China and Saudi Arabia, two countries well known
for their human rights violations. Bangladesh, Kyrgyzstan, and Jordan
are also running.
"We had hoped that the election of Azerbaijan, Cuba, China, Russia,
and Saudi Arabia to the new council in 2006 would lead to much needed
reforms to improve their rights records, but have only seen empty
promises of change," said Bahey el-din Hassan, director of the Cairo
Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS). "Saudi Arabia is a prime
example of failure to reform. Grave human rights abuses occur regularly
there. Saudi citizens cannot form political parties or associations or
peacefully assemble, religious minorities still suffer obvious
discrimination, and women - for no other reason than being female - are
denied basic rights."
The NGO Coalition for an Effective Human Rights Council urged UN
member states to cast their votes only for those countries with records
of human rights protection and cooperation that meet membership
standards.
"Widespread, serious human rights abuses by China, Cuba, and Saudi
Arabia should carry a cost, even in the absence of competition," said
Paula Schriefer, director of advocacy at Freedom House. "Members of the
international community should not reward failure to promote and
protect human rights with their votes."
Read the letter from the NGO Coalition for an Effective Human Rights Council to UN member states >>
View profiles of human rights conditions in countries running for the Human Rights Council >>
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.
“Trump is getting Americans coming and going. He’s forcing higher power bills on them by blocking clean energy, then he’s fattening the wallets of his cronies," said former Democratic Washington Gov. Jay Inslee.
President Donald Trump's obsession with canceling clean energy projects is bad not just for the climate, but for the US economy as a whole.
An analysis released Thursday by nonprofit green energy advocate E2 and conducted by consulting firm BW Research estimates that clean energy projects that have been shut down or downsized during Trump's second term would have added $55 billion to the annual gross domestic product (GDP).
The analysis finds that, in addition to delivering a hit to GDP, scrapping the projects lead to 470,000 fewer jobs, including 42,000 construction jobs related to battery storage, 33,000 construction jobs related to solar projects, and 28,000 construction jobs related to electric vehicle projects.
The cancelations will also hit governments' coffers, as they are projected to deliver a $12 billion annual reduction in tax revenues.
The report points to two big components in Trump White House's attack on clean energy: the Republican Party's 2025 budget law, which rolled back tax credits for clean energy programs, and the administration's own policies, including payoffs to companies to halt project development and a permitting ban on new solar and wind projects.
Bob Keefe, executive director of E2, said the numbers outlined in the analysis show that "making it harder to build clean energy projects means lost jobs, lost investments, lost electricity supplies, and lost local tax revenues."
"Add it all up and it’s clear," Keefe added, "that federal actions to stop clean energy are costing all of us—consumers, businesses and our national economy—big time."
Michael Timberlake, director of research and publications at E2, commented that Trump's policies are "hitting exactly the kinds of projects America needs most: domestic manufacturing, battery storage, solar, wind, and electric vehicles."
“The losses go far beyond the direct jobs announced by companies," Timberlake said. "Every cancelled factory or power project means fewer construction workers on site, fewer suppliers filling orders, fewer dollars flowing through local economies, and fewer tax revenues for schools, fire departments, roads, and public services."
A Friday report in The Guardian similarly highlighted the economic damage being done by Trump's war on clean energy, with a particular focus on the Trump administration's unprecedented policy of paying energy companies to relinquish leases for offshore wind projects they had already purchased.
Jenny Rowland-Shea, senior director for conservation policy at the Center for American Progress, told The Guardian that the administration is "trying to snuff out an entire form of energy," which she said was a particularly irrational thing to do when Americans' utility bills are spiking.
"It’s at a time when the United States needs more energy," said Rowland-Shea. "As people’s rates are going up for electricity, as we see data centers gobbling up more energy."
Former Democratic Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, whose 2020 presidential campaign focused heavily on combating the climate crisis, accused Trump and his administration of "mugging" the American public by forcing them to needlessly pay more for energy.
“Trump is getting Americans coming and going,” said Inslee. “He’s forcing higher power bills on them by blocking clean energy, then he’s fattening the wallets of his cronies—all with billions of our tax dollars.”
"Every dollar withdrawn from women's organizations is a dollar withdrawn from survivors of conflict-related sexual violence, displaced mothers, girls forced from school, and communities struggling to survive."
At least 1 million women and girls in conflict and disaster zones around the world have lost access to humanitarian aid as a result of massive funding cuts by the US under the Trump administration and other developed nations.
A report out on Friday from the United Nations Women's Program surveyed over 800 women's organizations across 52 countries, which provide emergency supplies, shelter to women fleeing violence, financial assistance to those in need, healthcare, mental health services, childcare, and treatment for sexual violence, among other support.
Sofia Calltorp, chief of humanitarian action for UN Women, described these organizations as "the muscle and lifeblood of the humanitarian response" in some of the world's most vulnerable war zones and disaster areas, including Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, and Yemen.
But according to the report, since January 2025, 90% of these groups say they cannot meet current needs, and 60% say they are reaching fewer women and girls than before.
Three-quarters of the groups say that as a result of the cuts they have been forced to reduce staff, and four in ten expect to close in the next 12 months.
At the beginning of his second term, President Donald Trump conducted a sweeping and abrupt purge of US humanitarian aid, which fell from $14.1 billion in 2024 to just $3.4 billion in 2025.
Immediately after taking office, he froze all foreign assistance. And under the leadership of the world's first trillionaire, Elon Musk, and his so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), his administration suddenly canceled most funding from the US Agency for International Development (USAID), cutting development assistance by more than $40 billion, including over $10 billion in humanitarian assistance.
The US had previously provided 40% of all global humanitarian aid, and its stripping of funds was by far the most devastating. It was made worse when other nations, including France, Germany, and the UK, also cut billions as part of what is predicted to be a collective 28% reduction in aid from Group of 7 nations by the end of 2026, according to the Women's Refugee Commission.
As a report from Refugees International found, the Trump administration's cuts were especially targeted at programs that served women and girls around the world. They canceled 88% of maternal and child health funding, 94% of sexual and reproductive health funding, and 80% of gender-based violence prevention funding.
"Every dollar withdrawn from women's organizations is a dollar withdrawn from survivors of conflict-related sexual violence, displaced mothers, girls forced from school, and communities struggling to survive," Calltorp said.
The effects on the women who benefit from these programs have been swift and brutal, especially as global conflicts become more widespread and deadly.
While cases of conflict-related sexual violence doubled in 2025, nearly two-thirds of the women's groups surveyed said that the number of safe spaces and gender-based violence services has been significantly reduced or completely eliminated in their communities.
"Behind these numbers are devastating consequences," the UN said in a statement. "A woman seeking refuge from violence might show up at the door of a shelter that has shut down; a pregnant woman may have to walk for hours to reach a health clinic; or a mother may be denied food for her children."
“If I had funding, I would have supported her… helped her heal and rebuild her life."
The report contains testimony from leaders of some of the organizations bearing the burden of the cuts. To protect them from harm, the report did not include their names or the organizations they worked for.
A representative from one women-led organization in Sudan told UN Women that the cuts have forced them to scale back their services and resources.
As a result, one 17-year-old survivor of sexual violence went untreated for four days. She became pregnant before later attempting suicide and died after six months.
“If I had funding, I would have supported her… helped her heal and rebuild her life," said a representative from the organization.
Nine out of 10 organizations said they'd seen increases in poverty among women they serve, 8 in 10 have seen increases in girls dropping out of school, and 7 in 10 have seen an increase in forced marriage.
“Due to a lack of outreach workers in one neighborhood, within a few months we observed a sharp rise in adolescent pregnancies," said the representative of one organization in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Another group in the DRC said that they were forced to put more than 1,500 women-led households on waiting lists for aid.
"The most affected groups are single mothers and their children, for whom postponing support has worsened food insecurity and malnutrition," the group said.
"The cuts to women’s organizations are happening at the same time we are seeing women’s rights being eroded—and these two things are so deeply connected," Calltorp said.
Nearly two-thirds of the organizations also said that their staff was working without pay so they could continue providing support to the women and girls who needed them despite the cuts.
"These sacrifices are a testament to their commitment, but the expectation cannot be that women absorb these costs," Calltorp said.
She called for "immediate action from donors and the humanitarian community to prioritize funding for women’s organizations," adding, "We will not and cannot allow them to become another casualty of war."
"Andy Burnham knows that war crimes are being committed in Gaza, but has he got the courage to do anything about it?" asked the Greens' deputy leader.
Labour MP Andy Burnham, who is on track to become Britain's next prime minister following Keir Starmer's resignation last month, apologized Thursday for his party's initial response to Israel's genocidal war on Gaza—but critics said his circumspect atonement fell short of the mark.
"Let me start by saying the unbearable suffering in Gaza is a scar on our collective conscience," Burnham, the erstwhile Manchester mayor who won last month's Makerfield by-election, said in a three-minute video. "It's completely unacceptable that innocent Palestinians, including children, continue to be killed, that there's still a humanitarian crisis with too little aid getting in, and that the Israeli military continues to expand the area it controls in Gaza."
"We've got to do more to put pressure on the Israeli government," he asserted. "The response has too often not been good enough. We need to do better. Yes, we have taken some important steps. These include recognizing the Palestinian state, placing sanctions on Israeli ministers, and imposing waves of sanctions on violent settlers and the organizations that support them."
"But let's be honest, the UK was too slow to call for a ceasefire, and we must now do more to strengthen our approach," Burnham continued. "Israel continues to violate the ceasefire agreement, killing innocent Palestinians. We're seeing a surge in settler violence in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and the continued expansion of illegal settlements, displacing Palestinian communities."
The lawmaker accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's far-right government of "clearly attempting to make a two-state solution impossible."
"That's why we need to do more, which includes looking at further sanctions, both on those involved in the violence in Gaza, but also looking at measures to ban trading goods with illegal settlements," he said.
"There's increasing evidence that war crimes appear to have been committed," Burnham added. "There must be accountability for the depth of the suffering the people of Gaza have experienced. Ultimately, however, it must be for the international courts to determine, rather than politicians."
The International Criminal Court has already issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, his former defense minister, for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza, where more than 250,000 Palestinians have been killed or wounded, most of them civilians, since the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023. The International Court of Justice is currently weighing a genocide case against Israel filed by South Africa and formally supported by nearly 20 nations.
While some Zionist UK MPs denounced Burnham's comments as anti-Israel, Burnham's pledge of a "fair and balanced approach" to Israel and Palestine, his placing of the onus on courts and not elected officials, and the fact that he did not say the word "genocide" in his apology drew criticism from Palestine defenders.
"Gaza has now endured more than 1,000 days of genocide," Green Party Leader Zack Polanski said in response to the video. "Andy Burnham must answer: As prime minister, will he end Britain's participation in genocide or continue it?"
Deputy Green Leader Mothin Ali told The Guardian that Burnham is hiding behind international courts “because admitting that the British government knows war crimes are being committed would trigger a legal duty to immediately halt arms sales."
Andy Burnham knows that war crimes are being committed in Gaza, but has he got the courage to do anything about it?Britain must halt arms sales to Israel immediately
[image or embed]
— Mothin Ali (@mothinali.bsky.social) July 9, 2026 at 2:58 PM
Adnan Hmidan, chair of the Palestinian Forum in Britain, said that Burnham's "recognition that far stronger action is needed to confront the grave violations committed against the Palestinian people" is an important step.
"But the scale of devastation, killing, starvation, and forced displacement inflicted upon Gaza demands far more than acknowledgement," he continued. "It requires courageous political action."
"As an increasing number of legal experts and international human rights organizations have concluded, we hope more British political leaders will recognize that the atrocities committed in Gaza constitute genocide under international law, and will support the measures necessary to ensure accountability, end impunity, and uphold international law without exception or double standards," Hmidan added.
British political commentator Saul Staniforth said on social media that "it was clear from the very start that what Israel was doing in Gaza was genocide... and yet over two-and-a-half years later, Burnham still refuses to call it genocide. Why? Because if he did, he'd have to take action as PM."
"Burnham only made his statement yesterday on Gaza because of pressure, and meaningful action by a government led by him will only happen because of pressure," Staniforth added.
Queen Mary University of London politics professor Tim Bale told Al Jazeera that Burnham is “trying to repair damage, but his remarks are probably more symbolic than substantive."
Noting that Labour has “only just recovered from the accusations of antisemitism that were swirling around it during the [Jeremy] Corbyn era," Bale asserted that “the UK is already at the edge of what it’s likely to do and say on Israel.”
“It also has to worry about maintaining relations with a profoundly pro-Israel US administration,” the professor added.